The Democratic Reporter account, scoop news releaseMay 3/06.
Follow-up account and pictures of the details regarding first hand visits to Hazel McCallion's Car Crash site.
This web-page and all my reports about this event are the writers opinions based on what he sees and
what information he has to form his opinions with.
The effort is to be as factual as possible, while trying to understand events
with limited access to records being kept from the public or media.
Flower have been attached to the replacement signpost
that the Mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion, mowed down before hitting the pole in the background.
This marks the spot where the myth of the great and good Hazel McCallion who does no wrong,
that she shots from the hip while telling the truth,
L Exclusive Interview 7
with one of the emergency workers
who attended the Hazel McCallion Car Crash.
This emergency worker has over 25 years experience attending these kinds of calls.
When asked if Hazel McCallion's car hit the pole "OH Yeah" was the response, "had a pretty good ding in the front", after hitting the signpost. Asked to verify if she wrapped the front end of her car around the pole - "oh, yeah, she centered it." This worker also has given up on the media being accuracy.
From their experience in a single vehicle accident with property damage you do get a ticket, so again,
why did Hazel not get one at the scene?
The tow truck appeared not to be one of the usual ones.
Not "A horde of police, firefighters and paramedics rushed to the scene", as reported, just couple Fire trucks, one paramedic unit with its supervisor showing up later, just a single car accident, same for everyone.
Peel police say;
First of all, I had called them on May 1/06, and left a number of messages about finding out what their report of Hazel McCallion's Car Crash was but they did not return the calls. Next day, did get through to Peel Region police Superintendent Dave Hazelton. It started off in typical police fashion (pulling teeth), when asked if he could tell me about Hazel's crash, he responded, she had a crash (OK), ---- keeps asking me what I want and why. That the Peel police are only giving the media a verbal statement, no written news release or formal statement after "Chief Mike Metcalf ordered an investigation because of the high-profile nature of the case", a special investigation, I wonder why? That the Peel police are not saying what she has been charged with, if you want to know ask Hazel McCallion. The Peel police had earlier told me that they had not sized the car for the noted investigation, that the owner had been allowed to take it. The key piece of evidence, as far as I am concerned in a traffic accident, is the car and yet they just gave it up? What would happen if the Mayor later claimed that a mechanical problem caused her to lose control? Sounds like a sweet deal that lots of us wish they get, but clearly you must be "high-profile" enough. If you were to do a cover-up, this would be how it is done.
When asked what did she hit, it was "just a 4 X 4 yield sign"... "knocked it down and came to rest against a light standard, just minor damage done to it". It was noted that emergency workers said she hit the pole pretty good, he clarified by saying she did damage it "what I am saying is it never came down". Asked how fast does he think she was going and "no idea". This after a 5 day investigation by the Major Collision Bureau of a traffic accident that "Chief Mike Metcalf ordered an investigation because of the high-profile nature of the case" regarding the Mayor of the 6th largest city in Canada and the Peel police can't say or given an idea how fast the Mayor was going? What were they doing, rolling up the rims at Tim Hortons? He keeps saying "no indication of excessive speed involved" but not what speed would be excessive BUT more importantly, AND correct me if I am wrong, a person should not be driving their car into/over street signs and poles at ANY SPEED!
In regards to saying Hazel McCallion's car "came to rest against a light standard", what does that or can that mean? You can say that a airplane fell from 20,000 feet up and it came to rest on the ground - it sounds so harmless does it not? We are being told that the Major Collision Bureau investigated this accident for 5 days and it has no pictures to show us so that we can judge for ourselves how fast Hazel's car "came to rest against a light standard" and why would the person talking to the media not have even seen a picture before fielding questions?
By all accounts the road conditions were perfect, clear and played no role in the accident, that I have heard. People have been coming forward to say that old folks can have hard time seeing at night, was this looked into? By all accounts (so far), it is driver error that caused the accident.
When asked if he had seen the pole or any photograph of the accident - "no", very quickly. To me this is called controlled ignorance, get a Public Relationship person who knows nothing of the event but what they are told and use them. After all, if a person knew all the details and was to give out a story that was less than factual, people could sense that it had a passing acquaintance with the truth. No photographs are available either. How there are some cell-phone pictures out there, let me know, ready to buy!
Superintendent Dave Hazelton says the Toronto Star and Mississauga News have not accuracy reported Hazel McCallion's charge, "was not a illegal right-hand turn, maybe a unsafe right-hand turn. ... they may have it wrong. " Asked if a charge of careless driving could be apply to this and told no, the criteria was speeding or recklessness, he goes on to say the criteria came from the results of the investigation. It was then noted she admitted to not paying attention, ran over traffic sign, into pole, not careless? He states she can say whatever she wants after the accident or at the time "spontaneous utterances you know, are all well and good but no matter what they say, you still have to look at what the evidence is to determine what the proper charge is." Noted that Hazel was telling the media days afterward that her eyes and attention was not on the road, still he replied it was not based solely on what a person says. He not sure when the Mayor was interviewed about this. This all leaves me wondering if the Peel police cared at all about what Hazel McCallion said about her accident. "We've done our investigation, the charge was laid.", said as if done all they need to do, that no one in the media has the right to question the appropriateness of either the investigation or the charge, especially in a Democracy.
Will Hazel McCallion be billed for damages? That will be dealt with by the insurance company or her, not sure how that works.
Who will pay for damages and how much are they?
When I asked if any sobriety test was given, he became very defensive, wants to know what I am getting at, me thinks they protest too much.
Why was no sobriety test given for this kind of accident? A little goes a long way for an 85 year old, after all, more so if they have been a social drinker in the past. It was known to police that she had just come from a social event and what is to say she not have a nip after leaving or during it? He also has no idea if alcohol was served at the Peel Regional police Annual Board Award Ceremony that Hazel was coming from.
Other elements to consider;
Why did the police not state right after the accident that there were charges pending, which is common in these kinds of accidents, was it because they hoped to get away with not even charging the Mayor? Was it because of The Democratic Reporter coverage this news story in such detail, that they backed off from that?
Mayor's office and improper use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI),
to stop enquires by the media. A FOI request can take up to 30 days and the media needs a stories details in hours not a month. From the details seen in other news papers, it is clear the Mayor is talking direct to them. So it is unfair, bias and wrong for the Mayor and her office staff to state FOI requests have to made for details that a elected official should know right off the top of her head. Further more, the FOI Act is not for asking question, it is for getting access to specific records and an abuse of the FOI Act to use it as a barrier between the media and persons that an elected official has been elected to serve.
The City's FOI Coordinator was asked if she is the Mayor's media spokesperson and of course the answer was "no". It was than asked that she speak to the Mayor's staff to explain the situation and that her office is not the appropriate place to refer such simple media requests.
More on the Mayor, Hazel McCallion, as a LIABILITY to the City of Mississauga.
The little (and weak), 85 year old Mayor of Mississauga loves to drive around - alone -
in a car with license plates saying MAYOR 1 and everyone knows it is her.
In this day and age where politicians are targets of groups looking for easy marks,
Hazel McCallion is one of the easiest for an attack or kidnapping and this should be ended.
Hazel has also, made more than her share of enemies over the years as a result of her lust for power.
The fact is that she puts herself in these situations to try and keep up the appearance of the McCallion legend,
that she can do it all by her self, better then even 20 year-olds, is itself old.
This is an unnecessary risk for any mayor and more so for an 85 year old and any one who allows her to do so,
as she has, is putting her life at risk.
Remember she could die at any time from a heart attack or stroke from stress or even a small accident.
The Mayor needs to set a better example of being reasonable and respect for the office of Mayor, otherwise what will be next?
Toronto Star bias or sexist in its news coverage?
Toronto Councillor Ford has every details of his unruly conduct in pubic, the lies he used to try and cover it up with reported but when it is a little old woman escaping full scrutinize and accountability, things are different?
More on this later but give the coverage a read - both happening at the same time and detail the self-serving, misleading, falsehoods from Canadian politicians, all to common in this day & age.