Queen of the North Divisional Report

[Low Light Mike]

Once again, "Thank You" Mr. Notmuchlonger for giving your unique (to this forum) perspective on the Union's and other-employees' stance on this issue.

I appreciate that.

[nolonger]

admin said:

I missed the BCTV vs. Mr. Lilgert story. Was it one of those things where they went knocking on the door and nobody opened up? I agree with you, notmuchlonger, that it's not the job of the media to act as private investigators, judge, and jury - at least not when due process is still not complete. Makes good tv I guess.

He was working in his field and they were yelling questions at him from either the edge of the property or on the property. Mr. Lilgert retreated into his home followed by another person. He told them he would talk off camera and they reprted that he had told them that he had co-operated with the TSB investigation and with the RCMP.
My point is this, why travel 350 miles and back twice to ask him why he won't tell what happened? Obviously he isn't going to talk to the media. They just wanted to tell the whole province here he is. His neighbours that were interviewed had no idea who he was, but were soon informed by the reporter. I'd like to see our pedophiles treated this badly!

[nolonger]

hornbyguy said:

Maybe I'm off the mark here, but there's something about this whole we-demand-answers furore that seems a bit incongruous to me.

For five years, Willie Pickton sat in jail while the Crown built a meticulous case against him. Not two, but dozens, of families of slain women have had no prospect of early answers as to their loved ones' fates as the wheels of justice slowly turned. During that time, I don't think anyone thought to demand that Willie make a statement, 'fess up, so that the public could be satisfied, and the concerned families could begin to get some 'closure'. It has always been understood that even monsters get their due process, and that, as painful as the wait may be for the rest of us, that's the price we pay for a fair and just legal system, and society.

On the other hand, you have a couple of crew members on the Queen of The North who may have been derelict in their duties, or perhaps careless, or perhaps improperly trained. They've been charged with nothing so far, although they may be, and they certainly are going to face civil action. The stakes are extremely high for them. Yet not even their worst detractors would call them murderers.

So why do we allow a monster his silence for more than five years, and recognize his right to an unprejudiced day in court, when we're so eager to bully a couple of sailors into possibly incriminating themselves before they've even been charged with anything?

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe anybody on this forum who asserts, that if they were in the same predicament, with the same legal advice, they would be any more forthcoming.

Thank you hornbyguy. I wish I could have said it that well.

[Low Light Mike]

I guess what keeps distracting me is the media and Hahn quotes that simply say "the employee refused to answer questions"....and then the story doesn't explain why.

I suppose this is the difference between "Headline News" and "In depth reporting".


The full story, which I seem to regularly fail to comprehend, is likley as follows:

- That the employee(s) refused to co-operate with the BCFS investigation, on advice of lawyers who likely know that such responses can lead to legal problems and could compromise the chance of fair-treatment resulting from the other inquiries.

- Furthermore, the employee(s) have co-operated with the TSB and RCMP inquiry.

- Likely the employee(s) lack of co-operation with BCFS isn't because the person doesn't care or doesn't have a sense of duty, or is unethical, but likely because he is in a tough situation, and needs to follow some specific legal advice....otherwise the situation might get worse than it needs to be.

- Perhaps that employee likely feels torn inside by not being able to respond to the employer, and by being portrayed as disloyal to his company.

- So, as much as this employee might want to have answered his employer's questions, he had little choice, as he needed to be very careful, from a legal point of view. Lawyers know the law much better than non-lawyers.

- Likely a very lonely and depressing position to be in.

There, I'll try to remember that.

[nolonger]

admin said:

What is the "union viewpoint" anyways? Are they sticking up for their "brothers" and "sister" no matter what they did, or are union members upset at the crew members who have tarnished their pride and reputation?

No doubt that our pride and reputation have been damaged. We take it personnally. It is difficult to listen to the comments of a few of our wonderful passengers usually just loud enough for the intended targets ears to hear. We all would just like it to go away. Of course, it won't. For a long long time. I know that most folks don't tar us all with the same brush, but it's a team game.