Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Personal Privilege

On a matter of personal privilege, I’d just like to point out the obvious. I did not create my web site and my blog to be an online forum for people to argue in support of organized crime. I created it to help raise public awareness about the driving force behind the gang war that is plaguing not only our city and province but our entire country.

The Hells Angels involvement in the national drug trade has become clear. The biker war in Quebec was, as we all know, a war over the drug trade. If anyone takes the time to read the book, The Road to Hell: How the Biker Gangs Are Conquering Canada, it will become clear that I’m not the only person who is concerned about the Hells Angels taking over organized crime in Canada.

No matter what I write about someone will complain. When I first started blogging people kept complaining that I talked about the Hells Angels all the time. Then when I started posting about a few political issues directly or indirectly tied to organized crime, others complained and said stick to blogging about the Hells Angels because that is what I do best. Obviously it’s a no win situation because no matter what I write about, people will complain regardless.

It reminds me of the Ricky Nelson song Garden Party. It was about a musician who went to a garden party with some old friends. He tried some new songs that he thought his friends might like but it ended up being awkward. They just wanted to hear the old songs he loved and was known for.

His conclusion was that he had learned his lesson well. You can’t please everyone, you have to please yourself. Not in a selfish way, in more of a Shakespearean to thine own self be true kind of way. I will continue to blog about what I feel is important. It’s just a blog. I’m just one person. There are millions of blogs out there about a million different subjects.

If someone wrote a book about the Hells Angels and someone who reads the book complains that every chapter is about the Hells Angels, let me break it to you. That’s what the freaking book is about. If you don’t want to read about the Hells Angels, don’t read the book. Likewise, let me break it to you. My blog is about the Hells Angels. If you don’t want to hear about it then don’t read it. It’s that simple.

And yes, I do have political opinions. Yes some people have a hard time with statements like Harper’s evil agenda. Yet to me, that’s the only way to describe it because I don’t believe he is misrepresenting himself accidentally. I believe it is a cold hard agenda tied to corporate greed. When I hear some of the ridiculous nonsense it makes me want to scream. Blogging about it is a healthy and peaceful way for me to vent without doing anything stupid.

Some people got all freaked out because of the title of one of my blog posts. Instead of saying the Hells Angels are connected to a man found shot I said they were connected to the shooting. Because they are. If someone shoots a member or associate of the Hells Angels, then they are involved. Especially when the shooting was drug related and the guy was a drug dealer for the Hells Angels. Whether the Hells Angels shot him or the Rock Machine shot him, it doesn’t change the fact that they are connected to the shooting. They are involved with a huge amount of gang violence right now. The last thing we need to do is to get swept away with rage and denial.

Recently there was a guy shot at the Sheraton in Vancouver. He was involved with the drug trade and was involved with a group that was selling drugs in opposition to the Hells Angels. The Vancouver Sun produced a graphic containing the victim’s picture and the Hells Angels logo in the coroner. The graphic was an illustration of the obvious. If the guy was involved with a group who were Hells Angel rivals and he was shot dead, then the Hells Angels are most likely connected to his murder. It really isn’t brain surgery.

I’m not sure if I’m going to just stop having comments for a while. I don’t mind feedback but endless criticism is pointless. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. It wasn’t my intent to create an online forum for people to argue. Kim Bolan’s blog is much more interactive and I most certainly don’t have the time to be a forum moderator.

Some people want to legalize marijuana. Others don’t. I shun extremism. Knowing there is a whole wack of people out there who want to legalize marijuana, going to the other extreme and imposing mandatory minimum sentences for growing pot is not only pointless but prevents us from addressing the current problems of prison over crowding, court backlogs and delays, and violent crime related to hard drugs.

I don’t agree with the legalization of all drugs. I think legalizing crack, crystal meth or date rape drug is socially irresponsible. Others who want to argue with me claim that because I disagree with the legalization of all drugs, I am stupid and I am a liar. I really don’t have the time of day for those people and won’t be perpetuating that argument any more. If they want to run a blog about the joys of crack then they are free to do so. Just not on my blog.

People will continue to send me links and tips and I will continue to post and blog about them. The reoccurring theme about who is involved in the gang violence from coast to coast is very relevant to all of us.


  1. Hey, you have to anticipate that you're going to meet some criticism whenever you put on the Tommy Lee Jones mask and hide behind your computer flinging stuff that's either speculation or cop rat info. It couldn't hurt to make sure your sources are who they say they are, especially if you're going to post every drip of crap from their bowels.

    Kim Bolan allows comments on her blog, but she's a little more judicious with her use of speculation, and no offense bud, she makes a lot more sense. She's operating as a reporter though, and actually has a code of ethics she adheres to. Plus she's probably keenly aware of the legal liabilities that libel can bring about.

    I don't mind your focus on the Angels, but they're not as omnipresent as you'd like us to believe. Just because there's some shit written in a book doesn't necessarily make it so, and likewise goes for the tips submitted to you.

    In previous posts, I've mentioned that I think you're a cop. It was maybe my optimism that made me think so... optimism because I was sure that no civilian could so effectively believe and disseminate so many blatant lies (ie; providing addicts with clean needles and location costs more tax dollars than not having it). With so much information available, it's hard for me to believe that folks would willingly look the other way, unless they're pushing an agenda.

    If you remove comments from your blog, you remove any possibility of learning more about your readership and the way they feel. Not just that, if you can't man up and be questioned about what you write, the whole thing seems dishonest.

    Maybe you're not a cop, and even if you are, that's just fine, but I'd like to hope that you'd have a little more bend in your branches
    rather than being so damned dogmatic. The dogma gives you distance which makes you forget that you're writing about people, and we all have our flaws.

    All the robotic, right wing mantra chanting in the world makes no sense if you don't provide an opportunity to be questioned about it. I guess that's the point though, huh? You don't need to learn any more because in your mind, everything is the way it is, and no amount of facts can change that.

    Removing the comments will be a move that makes any bit of credibility you have (with the segment of your readers that don't hungrily lap up every word as gospel) disappear. If you're only here to preach to the choir, I get it.

    There's also no law which states you have to respond to any comments.

    Just putting it out there.

  2. I don't read all the comments, but I don't recall seeing anyone call you stupid or a liar. I've seen you called a rat and a goof, and you have no issue with publishing those comments. I also don't see any reasonable comments which are in support of organised crime.

    Nobody is asking you to engage in a debate with them and personally, I don't comment expecting that you'll come around to my way of thinking. What readers expect and deserve is cohesive, well rounded reasoning behind your assertions. Simply saying that drugs should remain illegal but not giving any reason, while denying that it's on moral grounds lends no weight to your argument.

    I don't know if you've noticed, but the internet is a very public place, especially the forum which you've chosen to utilise to spread your completely unqualified opinion. When you decide to start posting stuff online, you're opening the door to criticism. Especially if it involves conjecture and information from sources unknown to you. If you just want a soap box, shut off the commentary entirely, because in the real world there's no filter that only lets in pats on the back.

    If you want to know what qualifies me to respond to your commentary, I can tell you: I'm known to police, currently under open investigation, and have known and done business with the majority of factions you write about. I'm no longer criminally active, but certain associations I've maintained draw police scrutiny. I am licensed to carry marijuana through Health Canada, but have a professional growing my quota, and have no club connections. I'm a recovering heroin addict, have done some time, and have managed to get old enough to develop a realistic outlook on the entire drug war.

    You claim to be an average citizen who doesn't have a law enforcement background, who hasn't been victimised by crime, yet you're somehow qualified to draw crazy crooked lines with the fattest pen between purse snatchings and the Angels. You have to expect that sometimes you'll be wrong, and that sometimes you're gonna catch flak for posting such stuff.

    The old adage 'write what you know' may be trite, but brother, you could sure use a dose of trite. I don't give two shits whether you choose to engage me or not when I comment, but when you choose to censor me or anyone who's not making threats, you're taking a good chunk out of your credibility. If you can't stand up to intelligent scrutiny without putting on the blinders, you're every bit as bad as the politicians we all love to hate.

    Chicken Little had zero credibility.

  3. Actually I can do whatever I want. Removing comments from the blog won’t stop me from getting reader feedback because I get a lot of feedback through e-mail. Stopping blog comments will just prevent one or two spammers from flooding the blog with their opinion.

    When I fist changed the format of the comments to moderated and made people register to post, people complained and said that would reduce my credibility. In reality, I think having a couple people spam the blog with a million comments saying rude nonsense or threats reduces the blog’s credibility.

    Likewise having a blog exposing the Hells Angels involvement in the drug trade is diminished when I let a couple people spam the comments with things like the Hells Angels are really nice guys who don’t sell drugs or about their obsession to legalize all drugs over and over which I simply disagree with. Having people repeatedly call me a stupid liar because I disagree with them gets monotonous after a while. Cheers.

  4. Well said Shaun! I agree 100%.

    You replied Agent K, but you did'nt have much to say??

    How's this for logic; there are active members of the HA in Winnipeg, so this assualt must be tied to them????

    No need to worry Agent K, I'm out!

  5. No worries. I don't think that article said those two were hells angel associates though. Tiny Mac was stabbed in Winnipeg. The Hells Angels are fighting with the Rock Machine in Winnipeg over the drug trade there after the Hells angels killed one of their own and created a huge rift in that chapter. We know that the Hells Angels in Winnipeg were collecting protection money from the Zig Zag crew who were selling crack for the Hells Angels in Winnipeg. I don't know about that particular assault but it would be interesting to find out if they were involved with the drug trade because that would involve the Hells Angels there.

    My position is very simple and very clear. The Hells angels aren't responsible for every crime but they are involved with a great deal of crime as an organization. When that organization hires a murder, that act makes it a criminal organization. We know that the Hells Angels have likewise been involved in the Halifax drug trade. When one of their associates is found dead, then that does involve that organization. The Surrey House of Horrors, the Prince George torture chambers, the Pickton Farm, the Hells Angels may not be responsible for global warming but they are involved in a huge amount of deranged criminal activity. Rage and denial will not change that fact.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.