Glen Canning

Now whip it – Into shape – Shape it up – Get straight
Go forward – Move ahead – Try to detect it – It’s not too late
To whip it – Whip it good

Over the last few months, I have been really fascinated  by the way that the Interweb works. It’s not so different from real life – most people just walking around seeing life in their own way, believing what they want to believe, not believing what they don’t want to believe. And there’s not too much wrong with that.

Until it goes bonkers and starts affecting other people.

I’ve watched how the Todd people have built up a myth – a myth so strong that even the videos that can be found so easily online ‘don’t exist’.  A myth so strong that it causes people to hate and spread malicious rumours over and over again – it’s a young kid in British Columbia to blame, it’s Amanda’s ex-boyfriend, it’s a girl in a playground, it’s a nutter in Holland. Note that it’s always people who cannot defend themselves. A myth that turns marijuana smoking into ‘self-medication’; going out to raves and getting drunk becomes a therapeutic part of recovery; rampant sex becomes ‘looking for love’; and overt and uncontrolled webcam exhibitionism becomes a harmless activity, a celebration of the human form.

Part of my interest was sparked by the Rehtaeh Parsons case. Similarities to a certain extent. So now I have encountered Glen Canning. What a man. What a guy. Too lazy to even take much of a part in those mundane things like getting married and providing a decent home – or for that matter, too lazy to even bother NOT to get married and provide a decent home. But of course, never too lazy to make the most of his daughter’s death to get as much self-publicity as he can. It’s amazing how tragedies can turn non-entities into heroes. And it’s always lucrative – where there’s sadness, there’s always a buck or two to be made from being in charge of the money that pours in from gullible people.

I left a comment on his blog. Same old rigmarole. Once tested to actually evaluate what was happening, once challenged, he caved in, resorting to the laughable accusations of ‘troll’ and ‘pedo’, editing comments from me to make it look different. That’s not wise. It’s just not wise to pick an online fight with me.

Let’s just look at a couple of things for now. He said that the Parsons case (errmm….not the ‘Canning’ case, unfortunately)  was not politically motivated, and that the lawyer for the prosecution was brought in to provide a fresh perspective. Oh dear. Quite the opposite in reality, I’m afraid.

‘Was there political interference in the laying of child pornography charges in the Rehtaeh Parsons case?’. You bet there was.

‘Last week, the defence subpoenaed a senior Crown attorney with the Public Prosecution Service to testify at the disclosure hearing in youth court. Lawyers for the provincial Justice Department are trying to get that subpoena quashed by a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge, sources say.’

So, then  – not a shred of evidence that this was a hastily concocted prosecution to appease the masses?

And the ‘fresh eyes’ of a new defence lawyer?

‘Alexander Smith was brought in from Ontario to prosecute the case because local Crown attorneys had advised police there was not enough evidence to lay charges of any kind.

Since when has not enough evidence ever stopped the judicial process in Canada?

Glen Canning has gone down that well-trodden path of falling for his own version of events, of building up a narrative that suits his own purposes. He has also fallen for the stupidity of allowing nutcases to comment on his blog, from which he mistakenly thinks I am banned. Dude, do you seriously think I have one computer and one ip address? Do you seriously think I would comment using a computer with traceable identity?

And who does Glen Canning trust? Those idiots who pretend to be well-informed cyberpoliz – Anonymous. Anonymous – who did so well in providing cast-iron proof in the Todd case. Basement-dwelling wankers.

Glen Canning called me a troll. It’s the go-to word for someone who disagrees and then offers substantiation of what they have to say. It’s the word people use when they begin to lose the debate. It’s regrettable that I don’t like being accused of certain things. It brings out the worst in me. So, Glen – bring it on, dude. LOL.

Latest: hearing delayed for yet another week.



6 thoughts on “Glen Canning

  1. “I left a comment on his blog. Same old rigmarole. Once tested to actually evaluate what was happening, once challenged, he caved in, resorting to the laughable accusations of ‘troll’ and ‘pedo’, editing comments from me to make it look different. That’s not wise. It’s just not wise to pick an online fight with me.”

    If you actually read his blog this isn’t what happened. Other people accused you of being a pedophile, not Glen Canning. He just asked if those accusations were true. BTW, they’ve been made by a lot of people. Your response if laughable.

    • Actually, I made several comments, and as soon as these got anywhere close to providing a decent debate, they were not allowed on the site. Glen Canning made a mistake, really. By allowing silly accusations to be left as comments, the whole debate starts to become one of name-calling. So many people have gone down that path – something is said online that is true, or simply an opinion based on observation, and as soon as it is in any way slightly contrary, the comment is labelled as being from a ‘troll’ or, in this case, a ‘pedo’. It’s just farcical. Mr Canning has made the very common mistake of interpreting things just the way he sees them – but without letting his opinions stand the test of open debate. We saw that when he said that the new lawyer was brought in as a fresh pair of eyes – not true, it was because no-one wants to touch it. He argues against the entire police and government authorities who say that evidence is almost non-existent and not enough to bring a case. He seems to think that a mix of 15 year old boys and girls, drink and drugs, is likely to result in a methodical discussion of Ayn Rand’s impact on post-modern American consumerism, and that young lads, when greeted by an inviting young lady, are likely to desist from sexual intercourse if the young lady has been drinking.

  2. Actually, if you read his site as well as news articles about the case, it’s quite a stretch to go with what you’re suggesting. The police admitted to a reporter at the Herlad they were surprised the Crown didn’t want to lay sexual assault charges. I’m curious where you get your information seeing as there is very little of it released publicly. It will come out in the review.

    No one ever said they didn’t want to touch – that statement is false and you have no proof it was ever made by the Crown.

    • Reading the news and getting the information, and then applying the correct filters to it, is a skill. You will see what you want to see, but if you take all the reports, collate what has been said more than once, eliminate hearsay, you can quite easily reach a more justified conclusion.
      It is also important to do the equivalent of being in the right places and having the right contacts. People come to me with information – I have hinted heavily that one of those people may be a cop – and I go undercover in various places to get to some sources. You would be surprised – I once stayed awake for nearly three days just to remain in the loop.
      It’s a bit surprising that you say the Crown didn’t want to touch it, as they went out of their way to avoid it all. It’s not false – videos and reports of genuine police conferences back me up. If you read this blog, at every point where people say ‘show me the evidence’ I’ve provided it in depth. You will also see that no-one else but me can find the reference to ‘jong meisje’; that some of the information on this blog is totally unique, and no-one else has it. It takes about five minutes to contact the likes of Cody Saltsmann or Latisha, or Chelsea and the crew in Surrey in Amanda’s case, another five minutes to work out who is involved. Half of them have sites, and the rest leave Facebook open for everyone to see. It’s a doddle. For instance, some dipshit calling himself codeparadox from Nova Scotia would be easily traceable. Except I would have sworn you were a woman. LOL.
      It’s quite odd that you say it’s quite a stretch to go with what I am saying, as it is what the defence is saying, and the Chronicle Herald.
      Canning doesn’t understand human nature. He’s let his emotions run away with him. But hey – it keeps him occupied, I guess.
      What neither Canning nor Todd understand is that the pursuit of some sort of ‘justice’ comes at a price. Todd never understood that the vast majority of interest in Amanda is because of the videos, and that these are far more widely known about and publicised than they would have been. She seems to be oblivious to the fact that her daughter is now mostly reduced to being an object of ridicule amongst young people. Same for Ms. Parsons – judging by a response on his blog that ‘I do not have the photos’, he will know that the main source of hits on his blog will be searches for ‘rape photos’.
      I could say a lot more, but I’ve said enough for now.
      I have a feeling you will return.

  3. “So now I have encountered Glen Canning. What a man. What a guy. Too lazy to even take much of a part in those mundane things like getting married and providing a decent home – or for that matter, too lazy to even bother NOT to get married and provide a decent home.”

    And you’re expecting him to engage you in a conversation? You got the reaction you deserved and most likely hoped for. Now it’s all his fault, right?

    • Look at the sub-header for my blog. The types of problems shown in the Todd and Parsons case are complex. Focusing on one element, and playing a blame game, doesn’t do it full justice.
      When I raised the problem of weed-smoking, Canning said it was ‘self-medication’. There is a ton of info online that states – over and over again with proven tests – that weed-smoking is not a good thing for younger people, especially those who are in a state of mental ill-health. The same goes for alcohol.
      When I raised the question of emotional instability caused by the boyfriend (something in common with the Todd story) this again was simply dismissed.
      When I raised the point that family unity has an impact on the welfare of children, that too was ignored. (and it does piss me off that he’s doing the ‘I’m a great father’ routine when any man knows that actually being there day in day out is what really makes a father).
      As far as the case goes, he ignores the fact that, in reality, there isn’t a case. And so on and so on and so on.
      Just take it from me – Canning and Todd get a buzz from doing all this. It works in two ways – they can be perceived as heroes, when in fact they are non-entities, and it uses up all their inner guilt problems by pointing fingers at everyone else. It’s strange – the world deifies failed parents, and sees them as sources of inspiration. Whilst decent hard-working parents who raise their kids successfully – well, who cares about what advice they might provide?
      btw – the online Canning-Rose debate began well. It was only when he gave credence to the lunatic who arrived that he showed himself up for what he is – a poorly educated Internet noob who favours Anonymous over the police and authorities.
      Laters! x

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.