The Shotgun Blog
« "Bureaucrats afraid to take action for fear of breaking new rules, think-tank says..." | Main | Jihadist Welfare Queen »
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Blair Wilson exposed
Faithful Western Standard readers will remember my March 2006 story about the many financial questions hanging over the head of telegenic Liberal MP Blair Wilson of West Vancouver. I noted in my story that the msm had given Wilson a pass, even though there was ample evidence of big problems.
Well, the Vancouver Province has ended the msm's blackout with a four-page expose today, and promise of more tomorrow. In fact, today's story covers ground I did not know about, including allegations of spending irregularities in his campaign and his taking advantage of a rich mother-in-law. It's a great read, and should spell big trouble for the shifty Grit MP.
UPDATES: Stephane Dion has now stripped Wilson of his critic responsibilities and kicked him out of caucus. I can understand that the Grit brass didn't know of the allegations of Wilson's campaign-spending irregularities until now, but I can't fathom how they could have overlooked or excused his long and open record of business ineptitude and outright chicanery in giving him the position of national revenue critic. Dazzled by his smile and good looks, no doubt.
Meantime, here's today's second part of the Province's investigation into Wilson's affairs. Today's piece elaborates on ground I covered in my March 2006 story, and even includes an interview with former NHL player Tony Tanti, who I tracked down and interviewed for my piece, to drive home the moral of the story: that Wilson can't be trusted.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 28, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54effd7cc8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blair Wilson exposed:
Comments
Now, when will the Lame Stream Media explore the shady dealings of Jean the Creton?
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 10:31:12 AM
And then there are the shady "dealings" of a member of the Royal family. The gyessing game is now on as to who this might be:
"British royal ensnared in blackmail plot: report"
Buckingham Palace has refused to comment on a British newspaper report that claims a low-level member of the Royal Family was targeted in a "sex and drugs" blackmail plot.
According to the Sunday Times, two men approached the unnamed royal and demanded 50,000 pounds, about CDN$99,000 not to publicize a video allegedly showing the royal engaged in a sex act.
The pair also claimed they had evidence the family member supplied an aide with an envelope full of cocaine, the newspaper said.
The duo allegedly said they had a videotape of the aide snorting the drug.
The newspaper reports a caller first phoned the royal's office on Aug. 2 claiming to have incriminating evidence against the family member.
The target contacted authorities, according to the newspaper, and Scotland Yard detectives set up an undercover operation last month that netted two suspects.
I SUSPECT THE SEXUAL ACT was a homosexual one,judging by the fudging of the report. My guess as to the identity of this Royal? Prince Edward - the Duke of Gloucester. You may submit your own as you see fit - not that anyone in that emotionally stunted family would surprise me.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 10:38:37 AM
I submit that anyone with reasonable intelligence wouldn't be guessing at who may or not be involed in some supposed sex scandal.
So far as Mr. Wilson is concerned, it should be interesting to see how this will play out.
Posted by: Paul | 2007-10-28 11:29:27 AM
The guy's step-father-in-law is unhappy that his dead wife gave lots of money to her daughter - unrelated to him - and his wife lied to him about it. Sounds like you have a winner here, Terry. He sounds like a very credible source.
Now what about the Conservative violation of election financing laws? If you really care about the issue, you would cover that part as well. As it stands, you have no credibility either.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-10-28 12:11:53 PM
"I submit"
I accept your submission.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 1:04:13 PM
And then there are the shady "dealings" of a member of the Royal family. The gyessing game is now on as to who this might be:
"British royal ensnared in blackmail plot:
report"
I SUSPECT THE SEXUAL ACT was a homosexual one,judging by the fudging of the report. My guess as to the identity of this Royal? Prince Edward - the Duke of Gloucester. You may submit your own as you see fit - not that anyone in that emotionally stunted family would surprise me.
The above post is off topic though it does demand a response. Prince Edward is the Earl of Wessex. The Duke of Gloucester is Prince Richard. Do you ever get your facts correct?
The BBC has already debunked what The Times has reported, as the person involved is a very low level royal. The Times like its sister publication, The Sun, make frequent use of the word "allegedly", which gives a good indication of how credible their story is.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-10-28 1:20:46 PM
This is a revelation???
He is a LIBERAL member ... so this is not unexpected.
Posted by: John | 2007-10-28 1:27:54 PM
"The Times like its sister publication, The Sun"
A comma is required after the word "Times". Can't you even get your punctuation right?
That makes as much sense as your criticism. His title may be wrong, but that has nothing to do with what was stated about him.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 1:33:03 PM
His title may be wrong, but that has nothing to do with what was stated about him.
You're the person making the allegation, where are your facts to back it up? The Times never stated that it was the current Prince Edward. The Times reference to Prince Edward ,who died in 1910, was about an incident that occurred in 1891.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-10-28 1:56:56 PM
"On 6 January 1999 the Prince announced his engagement to Sophie Rhys-Jones, a public relations manager with her own firm. Their wedding took place on 19 June 1999 at St. George's Chapel, Windsor. This was a break with the recent tradition of holding large formal royal weddings at Westminster Abbey. The marriage quieted, but did not entirely eliminate, rumours that the Prince was homosexual."
Source: Wikipedia
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 1:58:53 PM
C'mon, is this thread about tabloid type speculation on a "member" of Britain's royal family?
That's disgusting tripe at best. Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, would be the last person to be pillaging, the guy is married and they're expecting a second child.
Surprised at you obc, surely you've got better things to concern yourself with.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-10-28 2:04:19 PM
obc - The marriage quieted, but did not entirely eliminate, rumours that the Prince was homosexual."
Source: Wikipedia
Here's something from The Times you may find interesting regarding the reliability of information from Wikipedia.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article730025.ece
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-10-28 2:04:40 PM
The Prince Eddie of 1910 (Albert Victor Christian Edward) was a homosexual. Likely offed by the Royal Family so that he would not become King - or Queen. :) His cause of death has still not been confirmed.
He was known as the Earnest Prince, a la Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest".
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 2:05:24 PM
Wikipedia was an easy source but dissing Wik. does not dismiss his effeminate side. Those rumours have been around for years. His choosing acting and dressing up in flamers' costumes did nothing to ease them.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 2:09:28 PM
BTW, LizJ, these stories are not just tabloid, but are on EVERY online news site - even the "holy" CTV. Maybe CBC too - but I never look at a Communist news source, so I can't confirm that.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 2:12:07 PM
. . . and 7th in Line to the Throne makes this Prince a low-level Royal.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 2:18:50 PM
BTW, Prince Eddie of 1910 was "engaged" to Mary. Upon his untimely death, his brother George (the future King George V) married her - hence, Queen Mary - mother of King Edward VIII and King George VI.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 2:21:58 PM
. . . and Prince Eddie of 1910 was strongly suspected of being Jack The Ripper.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 2:26:23 PM
obc - . . . and 7th in Line to the Throne makes this Prince a low-level Royal.
Would you post a link where it states that Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex is the person at the center of the scandal.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-10-28 2:28:53 PM
Never said he was. It's a closely guarded "secret" for now. As I DID say earlier, that's MY guess. But I suppose you'll have to actually read my post to see that.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 2:30:33 PM
obc: Read your post. This is not something I'd be speculating on, leave that to the tabloids and let them get sued and put the hell out of business.
Any rag that makes a living on gossip isn't worth reading let alone quoting.
Have you got a line on closely guarded secrets of the Royal Family circle? This is hurtful stuff and as a conservative as well as Conservative I do not appreciate reading it here. It's totally off topic and outrageous speculation.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-10-28 2:54:50 PM
LizJ ~
Fair enough. But you can be sure if such a rumour was spread about PM Harper, the harpies above would have no problem speaking up about it.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-28 2:59:43 PM
This revelation re: Wilson, does not surprise me at all. He is one of the '99 bright white teeth' crowd that appeals to the boomer yuppie/post hippy crowd that live on the Sunshine coast. Many of the 'establishment' there became 'establishment' through the proceeds of grow ops. The term 'birds of a feather flock together' would be appropriate here.
People involved in working for a living supported Mr. John Reynolds until he stepped down. Most of the people I know on the Sunshine coast liked and supported the Conservative candidate that ran there in the last election. It was a very close election.
The honorable thing to do would be for this member to step down and ask the Prime Minister to run a by election in that district. If he will not leave voluntarily Deyawn should ship him out; he should NOT be in the HOC, IMO.
I am on the same page as you obc - on to the Cretian - and getting taxpayers money back!! Sell the golf courses in kebek.
Posted by: jema54j | 2007-10-28 3:03:09 PM
Hopefully that is exactly what comes about in this situation, jema54, a timely bi-election.
We of sound mind and ability to reason know Harper is doing a great job obc, Liberals are on edge and can't get past the fact they lost and are in danger of being out to pasture for the long haul.
Anything we read or hear from the "harpies" is nothing but desperation at play.
What we should be concerned about is the fact that partisan politics trumps good governance. According to the media, the Liberals should be in power forever, when they're not, it's all about how they're going to get back to power.
File under brainless.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-10-28 4:21:47 PM
What, another liberal exposed? Not a pretty sight.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-28 7:09:53 PM
I'm sorry jema54j, I have to disagree with you. Not about the revelation. That doesn't surprise me at all. It's your comment about the Sunshine Coast. I'm a 40 year resident and we have been complaining for years about being lumped in with West Vancouver and now, the Sea to Sky. The Sunshine Coast has nothing in common with those two areas and for years our votes have counted for nothing. West Van cancels us out every time.
I take offense to your comments: "He is one of the '99 bright white teeth' crowd that appeals to the boomer yuppie/post hippy crowd that live on the Sunshine coast. Many of the 'establishment' there became 'establishment' through the proceeds of grow ops. The term 'birds of a feather flock together' would be appropriate here."
I have also been heavily involved in campaigns on the Sunshine Coast and if you look at the breakdown of the vote you would find that "people involved in working for a living" here don't vote either Liberal or Conservative. We're mostly New Democrats. It was only close last time because of strategic voting because the Coasters wanted "anyone but a Tory!"
I do agree that the honorable thing for this MP to do would be to step down, but after watching him posturing up here for the last couple of years I don't see that happening any time soon.
Posted by: cherylincanada | 2007-10-29 8:21:56 AM
With apologies to Liz, I find the Royal Scandal too delicious to pass up!
The blackmailers are rank amateurs to ask only for 100,000.
The tabloids would have paid millions for a tape like that and certainly would have protected their sources rather than turn them over to the cops.
But the tabloids now have caught the scent. You know they will on to Edward's bum****ers ready and willing to pay millions for the story.
I for one am eargerly awaiting the fall of this monstrous family with unabated anticipation.
And Liz, the fall of the Royal Family would be the story of the Century, bigger than Diana and bigger than that last homo-prince Edward and Mrs. Simpson.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-29 8:39:12 AM
Epsilon - The tabloids would have paid millions for a tape like that and certainly would have protected their sources rather than turn them over to the cops.
Makes you wonder why if the blackmailers could have sold it to a tabloid for a couple of million they tried to blackmail someone for £50,000.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-29 9:08:49 AM
This is what I think:
The blackmailers knew that a tape existed of Prince Edward getting his jollies making homo-porno.
All the blackmailers had to do was make Edward think that they had a copy of the tape even if they didn't.
The blackmailers knew that the tabloids would see that their tape was not the real thing and the tabloids would not publish such damning evidence unless they were 100% positive.
So the only option for the blackmailers was a smaller value extortion play on Lucky Eddie.
So the bottom line is that there is a tape floating around out there that the cops are trying to recover. But this one ain't it!
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-29 9:40:40 AM
That piece of crap Wilson resigned!
Bwaaaahahaha
Posted by: John | 2007-10-29 9:51:00 AM
Epsilon - All the blackmailers had to do was make Edward think that they had a copy of the tape even if they didn't.
Which goes against the facts as the blackmailers agreed to show the video to someone that they thought was a member of the royal staff before getting the £50,000.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-29 10:12:14 AM
I guess we know different people Cherylincanada.
Posted by: jema54j | 2007-10-29 11:00:02 AM
Yes, O'R we agree on that.
But I'm saying that these guys for whatever reason either deliberately did not go to the tabloids (because they knew it was fake and they would be turned down) or they did go to the tabloids and the tabloids refused, for whatever reason, not to run it.
Who's to say the tabloids didn't cooperate on this operation with the Royals after receiving a copy of this tape in return for some sort of consideration as well as hard to believe as that may seem.
This deal smells so bad, you know there is a bigger picture that is not being told.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-29 11:26:36 AM
This thread is to discuss the corruption of Blair Wilson...not the fucking royal parasites. Pity that Dion moved so quickly on him, I was hoping he would dither thus msximizing the damage.
Posted by: badbeta | 2007-10-29 11:51:11 AM
Go to Hell badbeta.
Obc, O'REILLY and I are discussing the Royals. If you don't like that then don't read it.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-29 12:20:06 PM
badbeta's right. This post is not about the royal family, it's about the misdeeds of the miscreant, Blair Wilson.
Want to talk about the royals? Take it somehwere else...
Posted by: Ad | 2007-10-29 1:05:55 PM
What a laugh. You and badbeta never post your opinion using these names before until now and only to make pointless howls about procedure on a thread that is dead towards yet another corrupt liberal but is live about corrupt Royals.
Why don't you state an opinion about the ongoing discussions on this thread instead of yapping. This is about lively discussion and yes, subject matter on threads can evolve.
Get with it or keep your prim and proper piehole shut.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-29 1:10:56 PM
Here is why they could only get a paltry 100k. It's Princess Margaret's brat.
He's outed now. Let's watch all the righteous indignation rain down upon these taxpayer paid professional partiers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/29/viscount-linley-son-of-p_n_70287.html
If only we could catch a Liberal senator in the same situation.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-29 2:24:47 PM
Epsilon - Here is why they could only get a paltry 100k. It's Princess Margaret's brat.
You did come up with an interesting conspiracy theory, and obc was wrong yet again.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-10-29 3:01:40 PM
Apparently Mr. Wilson did step down from the Liberal caucus, Mr. Dion did not not ask him to.
A put out ex step father in law who thought he was going to get lots more money. I've heard that one before.
And like cherylincanada, for over 10 years I voted NDP. Never for Mr. Reynolds. Never saw him around except for his signs on the highway anyway.
And yes, I worked for a living, not at a grow-op. Kids graduated from school there and we left when things got tight and we came back to the big smoke for round two after the kids moved out.
Now about the Con's election in and out payments. About $1mill isn't it? Oh, and I'm so glad I'm not a royal.
Geo
Posted by: Geo Tee | 2007-10-29 3:12:38 PM
Hello Terry
I believe that I was your initial source of info about Blair Wilson during his run for an MP job. You were the only one in the country to research my links....and publish your story about Wilson's boasting exagerrative and fraudulent stock dealings. Thanks Terry, at least you tried. Now the dreaded MSM actually did something. Thanks to the Vancouver Province newspaper.
Posted by: rastas | 2007-10-29 3:19:16 PM
O'REILLY - poor obc! But seeing as how deep down he is such a marshmallow inside, I can't rub it in!
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-29 3:42:29 PM
Rastas,
Thanks for the kudos. Yes, my original story laid out some of Wilson's misdeeds, thanks to the help of a very good informant who provided some important documents regarding lawsuits against Wilson. As I've suggested in my original post, the Province went further by also delving into his family affairs (an area into which I had no access) and campaign spending. Good work by the Province. But, yes, I'll take credit for being the first to publish a fairly comprehensive story about his affairs.
Also deserving a pat on the back is Trevor Lautens, the great columnist for the North Shore News, who followed up my story by delving into Wilson's junket to Afghanistan on the taxpayers' tab--an area I had decided to gloss over.
Anyway, I've always believed that the truth will out, and it certainly did here.
Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2007-10-29 4:06:54 PM
I posited a guess, and invited others to posit theirs. No exactly being wrong, eh?
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-29 5:22:57 PM
Poor Blair Wilson -- exposed, humiliated, and ruined. Just the way I like my Liberals!
He's had a bad smell following him around for some time now. For me, his campaign financing infractions are more than a misdemeanor because he clearly put some of the money in his own pocket. Nastier still is his obvious fleecing of his in-laws. A house or a few hundred thou is one thing, but this guy lit them up for four million dollars. Spending lavishly on his Polish girlfriend is a particularly egregious touch (enjoyed the photo provided by The Province). Then there's all the unpaid creditors, stiffed contractors, and ripped-off partners from his business ventures.
It's too obvious that some posters here haven't read the carefully-documented stories. When they need a two-part series to lay out the dirt they've got on you, you've got a problem. His appointment as shadow cabinet revenue critic, when he's had so much tax trouble, is a howler even by Liberal standards. Of course I may be looking at things the wrong way; maybe he should be viewed as a highly qualified Liberal with mad skillz, sort of the Sidney Crosby of Grit prospects.
One more thing ... you can bet your boots he isn't going to resign from Parliament. He needs the fracking money too badly! He's $4 million in the hole. He doesn't want an election either. In fact he may wind up voting to prolong the Harper minority government just so he can keep collecting a paycheque. You gotta love it.
Here's what else you gotta love. He's being taken down by other Liberals -- Mark Marissen to be specific. That's why this is all coming out now. They want him out of there so somebody else can run in West Van, which is now a Liberal-leaning seat because of immigration. The Libs are fighting like weasels in a bag. Get some popcorn and enjoy.
Posted by: CJ | 2007-10-29 9:58:51 PM
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/10/meet-the-royal-embroiled-in-sex-coke-scandal.php
bet most have not even heard of this one :)
Posted by: The Royal Perp | 2007-10-30 10:56:17 AM
Schadenfreude for certain! I'm quite enjoying the Blair Wilson Implosion (a sequel to the Blair Witch Project?). I remember meeting him in Whistler after the election and coming away feeling greasy. This guy represents everything I hate about over-entitled-suv-driving-boomers-sipping-coffee-at-delaneys. John Westin may be dull. He may be socially uncomfortable. He may be an evangelical. And he sure has bad teeth! But he most certainly will be an honest parlementarian who will stand up for his constituents. Mr. Weston, you've just been given the riding on a platter.
Posted by: db | 2007-10-30 5:24:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.