Comment 49142

By jimharvie (registered) - website | Posted October 10, 2010 at 09:07:47

Sean Gibson: "If we were in such violation, why weren't we issued the restraining order then?" So if I am not charged right away I am not guilty?

Sean Gibson "…he requested the names, dates, and personal information of ALL the students and seminars we have ever had. To that I said no, hence the restraining order. The Government was asking me to divulge personal information with no explanation other than "because we said so." Maybe so they could contact students who paid for an illegal course, so they could seek refunds?

Sean Gibson "I recognized that through legislation, we were in violation of the Act." Oh, so Gibson is only guilty because there was legislation. How else does one become guilty? Gibson never bothered to inquire whether there were any rules about starting a college before doing so?

These responses seem to me to be more of a justification than an explanation. I have no doubt that Gibson is sincere in his wish to train barbers better. He ran into a few roadblocks in our big provincial system and did not have the patience to deal with it. He petulantly went forward with his plans with a hell with the consequences attitude, and now is surprised that there are consequences. His issues are with provincial legislation and authorities. Equating his problems with the Pearl Company fiasco is either disingenuous or politically opportunistic. He strikes me as a "true believer". His motives are pure so we should not question his tactics. This is harmless in an individual but dangerous in a political representative.

Comment edited by jimharvie on 2010-10-10 08:26:56

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools