Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Montreal board may appeal teacher rehire order

Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 2:37 AM EDT 17/08/07

Teacher didn't mention on job application that he had spent seven years in prison for killing his wife ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. chris jenkins from Free the West, Canada writes: This sounds very much like the stranglehold the teacher's unions have on the education system out West here as well. The public system has virtually collapsed under the union mentality of supporting the poor teachers and villifying the quality teachers. The classrooms are almost crowded with social workers and teacher's aides and counsellors, while every second Friday has become a paid teacher's holiday. There are dozens of ski trips, field trips to nowhere, movie days and "non-instructional" days but a dearth of serious instructional times. As a parent I have to educate my own son because there are no non-religious private schools in this area.
    The school board and the principals are pulling their hair out over all this, as are the quality instructors, but the union now rules.
  2. T T from Halifax, Canada writes: I fail to see how murdering someone's spouse in a fit of rage could not be considered relevant to a position where one is teaching children. Clearly this man should not be in a classroom
  3. Whodat Singer from St. Catharines, Canada writes: It may be that his crime was not related to teaching but he was asked "do you have a criminal record". The answer was no. Obviously he lied. That is reason enough for termination.
  4. J T from Canada writes: whodat - way to zero in on the issue. He lied. Plain and simple. that should be grounds for dismissal.
  5. C H from Toronto, Canada writes: Hey, blame the school board for not doing their homework in the first place. I am a teacher, and when I have applied for jobs, I have had to go through extensive criminal and background checks. The fact is that the employer made this mistake because they didn't hold up their end of the bargain. If this guy didn't tell them about this crime, the standard background and criminal records checks would have found a murder. As for union-bashing on this, the board is at fault here, and while I agree that a murderer should not be teaching, once he gets hired, he has his workplace rights too. The board should have done it's due dilligence at the start, and if they did, he never would have been hired.
  6. Carl C. from Montreal, Canada writes: This guy should be fired, and the school board should appeal, even to the supreme court if required. How can you trust someone who lied on their job application?
  7. asm oak bay from Canada writes: Everyone can be fired. The only issue is notice and pay in lieu of notice. Fire him. If need be, pay him 2 years salary and be done with it. The legal feess otherwise will quickly outrun the cost of simply paying him to fire him. A lie of this magnitude should be cause for immediate dismissal without severance. Only in Canada would it be other wise. Brings to mind a case I heard about today...a carjacker who rendered the car owner parapelegic got...are you ready for this...3 years in prison. In my mind, it should have been 10-15 at a minuimum. Only in Canada....
  8. R W from Canada writes: Hey - this is Canada. Obviously the guy killed his wife because he was the victim of some thingymajingy that someone else did - it's not his fault! And if he lied, well, it was only because he was further victimized by the system after he killed his wife. This man should definitely be immediately reinstated to a position of authority, trust and compassion. Don't forget - if you committed a crime, in Canada, it's someone else's fault and the courts will let you run wild and free among the daisies.
  9. L White from Canada writes: This is horrifying!! The parents in this school district should be outraged! Imagine -- the courts allowing a convicted murderer to teach children? This is a perfect example of a dangerous trend in jurisprudence whereby the "rights" of one individual are deemed to be more important that our collective rights. I think it's the obligation of the school board to fight this, if only to have this specious decision erased from the books!!

    p.s. And besides the obvious ethical problem, Whodat IS correct. The teacher lied on his application and that should be grounds for immediate termination.
  10. Rick in Redneckland from Canada writes:
    Jenkins - as usual - is grossly exaggerating.

    If classrooms are "crowded with social workers, etc..." - which is blatantly false, by the way - maybe it's because schools are cramming 40 kids into a class, many of whom either have a learning disability, can't speak english, or just have the normal quirky learning needs that teens have.

    My wife says the "union" is not perfect - but is the only thing keeping governments from cheaping out on public education even more than they already do.
  11. Pete H from Canada writes: Seems to me the real story is this guy killed his wife in 1990, and was applying for a job in 1998. Huh. I can't get my head around this timeline.
  12. Rick in Redneckland from Canada writes:
    No question this guy should be fired. He lied, and that's about all there is to it.

    Convicted murderers don't get to teach kids.

    Period.
  13. Anonymous Coward from Guelph, Canada writes: No one who has a history of violence and aggression should be teaching! Teaching is a difficult job; any parent who spends time with their child (and their friends) would know that a classroom full of children/teenagers can be very aggrivating. Now, add a violent, past offender into the mix (who lied on his application - which is the another very valid reason he should be fired) and there is nothing good that can come of this!
  14. J M from Canada writes: I think the main issue in this article is the fact that this clown only got 7 years in prison for MURDER!! Who cares that he lied and the board didn't catch it, why the heck is this guy even out on the streets. I have a few people in my bad books and some of them are well worth 7 years!! lol. It's about time to step up our punishments on serious acts of crime.
  15. Hugh G Rexyon from Canada writes: "Pete H from Canada writes: Seems to me the real story is this guy killed his wife in 1990, and was applying for a job in 1998. Huh. I can't get my head around this timeline. "

    If I thought that I would only serve 8 years for killing my spouse ..... Hmmmmmmmmm .....You get the picture.

    With my luck I would get that sentence for double parking
  16. D K from Canada writes: Wow! Cheaper then divorce!
  17. harry carnie from Northern, B.C., Canada writes: Just think everyone...is this situation acceptable?

    We, as a society in general ,are ALSO victimized by those who commit crimes .. along with the victims and their families.

    We should be reversing this trend..to a GOAL that our so called justice system
    PROTECTS AND MAINTAIN THE RIGHTS OF US ALL.. to live free, and safe from criminal action against us.
    NOT JUST THE RIGHTS of the criminals involved.
  18. Violet Eichorn from Honcouver, Canada writes: Only in Canada(or maybe sweden) could something this stupid be happening. What kind of parent would allow thier children to be taught by someone convicted of killing his wife? Even if he were allowed to continue teaching, he would be teaching to an empty class.
  19. Canadian Patriot from Canada writes: 7 years for Murder, huh? That's it? That's all?

    It's funny that isn't the issue at focus here. Forget the fact that this guy applied for a job and lied about having a criminal record...he was convicted of murder and walked in 7 years!!!
  20. James P from Toronto, Canada writes: Our country is pathetic. Not sure this crap is what my grandfather fought for. When did common sense you out the window.
  21. TheWorld IsNuts from Southern Ontario, Canada writes: If I was a parent with a child in this individual's class, my child would not be attending in September. Murderers do not belong in a school - in any capacity - and certainly NOT in a teaching role, even if they have done their "time" - scant that it obviously was. Teachers are supposed to be role models for students, someone they can look up to. A man who killed his wife in a fit of rage or through an "accident" - typical excuses in a manslaughter case - should have no role to play in a young person's education. Add to this the fact this individual LIED on a job application, it seems insane that he still has a teaching position. What kind of craziness is this? What has happened to common sense? I wonder how the union leaders defending this individual would feel if their children were in his classroom?
  22. Let me tell You How It Is-THE EXPERT from Seattle, Washington, United States writes: How about that Vancouver teacher who molested and manipulated schoolgirls for 15 years and then gets house arrest. The School Board was too timid to do anything about it.
    Got to get rid of the semi-autonomous Teacher licencing authorities and turn licencing over to the Govermment like in the US.
    Lying on an application is considered perjury and fraud and is usually prosecuted. Ironically he would get more jail time for perjury or fraud than murdering his wife.
    I wonder if the Canadian Charter of rights is like Quebec charter of rights and a simple conviction for antisocial/destructive behaviour like Murder or Mass Murder or Torture and Murder shouldn't prevent anyone from getting a job.
    I guess this is why that freaky wife of Paul Bernardo went to Montreal because in Quebec murderers get full rights.
  23. dave ross from Canada writes: Details are missing here. What did the application actually ask for? Did he list a lesser crime (e.g. drunk driving) and omit the murder (1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter?) which the board confirmed but did not dig further?

    Normally I would be wary of having such a person in charge of a classroom but unless we know the details - how and why this occurred - should we not accept that he served his time and is worthy of being accepted in society?
  24. Sue W from Canada writes: It appears that school boards don’t believe in something called criminal background checks. Instead it appears they’re expecting murderers, pedophiles, rapists and other similar shady characters to be upfront and honest about their past. And under what section of their resume would someone include Murdered Spouse, under Hobbies or Past Experience?

    Not at all surprised by the unions actions. These losers will defend anyone or any action, as long as it means lining their pockets with overtime, because they’ve sat in grievance meetings all day defending their lowest scum, I mean members.
  25. Mike Mike from writes: Does anybody else find it troubling that he is out of the prison after 7 years only? Nevermind hire/fire issue. 7 years for murder?! Is that it?!?!?! The judges or whoever let him out should be the ones sent to prison for this kind of cr@p.
  26. L White from Canada writes: Ummm.....Dave - perhaps he's done his time and he's welcome to rejoin society. But NOT AS A TEACHER! Heck, make him a policeman, then. I think that our children, the future of our society, deserve better than convicted murderers as their teachers, regardless of how the murder took place. The article states that he killed his wife during a violent argument. This implies that it wasn't a matter of vehicular manslaughter or some "lesser" offense. Regardless, convicted felons have no place in the classroom as the shapers of young minds.
  27. Keith Woolgar from Canada writes: In the private sector if you lie on the resume, application, or interview you are fired - why is it different in the public sector. Also, why would the union want someone who was convicted of this type of crime to teach in the first place?
  28. Political Junkie from Canada writes: Reminds me of a great country music song..... "If I had killed you the first time I met you, I'd be a free man today."
  29. Ottawa Mens Centre.com from Ottawa, Canada writes: Sure he lied and that WAS legal grounds to fire him however, what was the psych report? Was was his prognosis? Was he ever a danger to children? No one mentions how or why he killed his wife or the circumstances around his guilty plea. If Karla Holmoka can have a child in her care after her mass murders and lying to police about her role and have her conditions lifted then why isn't society taking Karla's child off her and putting it in care? There are just too many people in society ready and programed to have a knee jerk reaction to form opinions and conclusions, and, to dispense penalties without any consideration to those facts or their effects on society.
    Karla killed, she suffers an obvious serious personality disorder but apparently because she is female, she is AOK to be around children.
    The guy pleaded guilty to killing his wife and served his time. If he has been teaching since release then his conduct since then is important. Obviously some people have gone to bat for him and before everyone rushes to judgement with political correctness it might be a little wiser to hear wait to hear the rest of the story. It has the makings of a doozy. www.OttawaMensCentre.com 613-797-3237
  30. Spitfire A from Ottawa, Canada writes: ATTENTION GLOBE AND MAIL AND ALL POSTERS: This guy IS NOT teaching children. This is an attempt at sensationalist media. If you read the article on the C.B.C. website he was to teach teach electronics to ADULTS at a construction trade school.

    Please be a critical thinker and don't just accept what the media tells you at face-value and do a little more research before freaking out on an online forum.
  31. Lowen Wrainger from Canada writes: This shows just how bad our justice system has become
  32. C M from Canada writes: Don`t get me wrong this guy probably shouldn't be teaching children, but he obviously taught children incident free from 1998-2004 for when they found the discrepancy.

    Some people never forgive.
  33. L White from Canada writes: Ottawa Mens Centre -- there's a very big difference between forbidding someone to work with children and forbidding them to have children. I think that Karla Holmolka's case is a very extreme one and easily used to go off topic. All I know is that I don't want my children being taught by a murderer or other convicted felon, whether they be this guy, Karla Holmolka or any other individual. Period. I don't care what psych evaluations have said or any other educated guesses. The stakes are too high. And that does not make me politically correct. In fact, what you're supporting (giving murderers the right to wipe the slate clean so that we disregard the fact that they've committed felonies, as if they never happened) falls directly in the PC camp. But maybe your agenda is to support "mens' rights" over "children's rights"? BTW - two wrongs don't make a right.
  34. Sue W from Canada writes: Spitfire A from Ottawa, Canada: His wife was an adult too.
  35. John Martin from Toronto, Canada writes: This is exactly why employers (rightfully) fight so hard against unionization. It is preposterous that an employer employing people to teach children can't fire someone after learning they've been jailed for MURDER! I'm all for collective negotiation for wages, vacations, etc. but the degree to which employers' good judgment is second guessed by arbitrators in unionized workplaces is appalling.
  36. Mail Man from Toronto, Canada writes: If he killed his wife in 1990 how is it that he is out looking for a job back in 2004. Isn't life-in-prison 25 years in Canada? What is wrong with the justice system in this country. What do you have to do to actually serve 25 years?
  37. Monique Hines from Canada writes: I think its a little hypocritical of the school boards to say they enforce "Zero Tolerance" on violence when they have murderers as teachers?
  38. L White from Canada writes: Even if he is teaching adults, who cares? I would hope that our educators aren't convicted murderers. I think that's the least we can expect from our school boards. AND -- back to the original point -- he LIED on his application, which means that his contract should be null and void. Period. If he has skills in electronics, let him work in his field, but NOT as a teacher. Sorry.
  39. asm oak bay from Canada writes: Not only is this man a convicted killer, he killed his wife. This carries with it an additional and profound breach of trust given the intimacy of the relationship. Secondly, he is a liar, either by way of omission or comission. He is obviously of bad character given the murder and the lying about it or failing tor eveal it when explicitly asked. Should good character be a requirement for a teacher? I would say yes, and that answer holds whether the teacher is working with children or with adults. He is in a position of trust and only people of good character should be so entrusted. Fire him.
  40. Sue W from Canada writes: Mail Man from Toronto, Canada writes: What do you have to do to actually serve 25 years?

    Commit the crime in any country except Canada.
  41. Robyn Tidd from Canada writes: The article doesn't say anything about him teaching children. I think most people just assumed when he was called a teacher instead of a professor.
    It does state in the article that he was teaching a trade. When I think of someone teaching a trade I usually think of a teacher at a college. So he wasn't teaching young children. That definitely makes me feel better. If he was teaching in a high school or elementary school I would be outraged. The lying on his application was not right and should give certain rights to the school board to fire him, but I can see how this is a more difficult issue to resolve than if he was teaching children.
  42. Political Junkie from Canada writes: In my experience union reps have no problem justifying their defence of any and all "brothers" and "sisters" regardless of the merits of the case.

    They cite obscure case law where a union was successfully sued for failing to support a grievance. This lets them off the ethical hook: "We have to go to bat for this member even though we don't like it."
  43. Richard Daystrom from Toronto, Canada writes: Pete H from Canada writes: Seems to me the real story is this guy killed his wife in 1990, and was applying for a job in 1998. Huh. I can't get my head around this timeline.

    Bingo. But then again he wasn't hugged enough as a child and thus all of society is to blame. I think he should sue the govt to be made the head of family studies for Quebec schools.
  44. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: Right on, John Martin. Too bad CH and other union sympathisers don't realise that the hypocrisy and idiocy of it all bring the unions into disrepute. Too often the unions prove that they are worse than any soulless, bloodsucking corporate exec.
    A union might win you a contract with great survivor benefits, but your family also might need to call on them if this guy reacts to an argument at work in the same manner as he did to an argument he had in 1990.
    Why doesn't the union protect the rights of their non-convicted workers to work in an environment free of lying murderous convicts?
  45. L White from Canada writes: Political junkie -- you're right, but regardless of what you think about unions, it was the arbitrator who decided in favour of the murderer. The union only represented him. So,...it's kind of like with criminal law. You can't blame lawyers for taking on cases -- ultimately it's the judge or jury who make the decision.
  46. Paul, Bytown, from Canada writes: Is anyone surprised that our Liberal judges would allow a lying murderer more rights and protection then the general populous.
  47. Rick in Redneckland from Canada writes:
    The legal principles of this case are certainly unpleasant - but the union-bashers conveniently use this to make it seem like unions condone certain behaviours and actions, when in fact, they are compelled to represent their members properly. It's not up to them to pick and choose who gets legal protection and who doesn't.

    Every person is entitled to due process in legal matters.

    Period.
  48. Paul, Bytown, from Canada writes: And is anyone surprised that the lying murderer would be supported by a Union. Union's have been known to mingle and use biker members to create disturbances on picket lines. Unions are known for their involvements with shady characters.
  49. Rick in Redneckland from Canada writes:
    Paul:

    Please specify how the person in this case is getting "MORE" rights than the general population.
  50. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: I'm shocked. Not.
  51. Political Junkie from Canada writes: L White, agree with your reasoning. However, I found it really sad that the workplace was automatically and perpetually an adversarial situation once you had a union.

    It disturbs me that the vast majority of private sector Canadians who don't want any part of unions have their kids taught by folks who don't share their values (even the non-murderers!).
  52. Common Sense Unnamed Anonymous Fabricated Source from Canada writes: Fire the idiot that hired this Guy in the first place without the proper referance check and due diligence.

    Even little Johnny's Hockey League requires that a volunteer Assistant Coach get a criminal record check from the RCMP before they'll let him anywhere near the kids.

    This seems to suggest that in Quebec a criminals suitability to be a teacher and associate with children is only a matter of degree, and dependant on the type of offense committed.

    Murders Yes, Pedophiles No, Arsonists Maybe, Drug Addicts Ummmm.

    As for the Union's role my guess is they are scum.......if not, then they must be something other then a union and it's been lost in translation!
  53. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: L White and Paul Bytown, the union may allow this person due process but they shouldn't have to go to bat for them. Let the killer take advantage of the union's access to lawyers but let them do so under their own name. When the union, and/or their lawyer, defends someone under the union banner, the union is effectively embracing this person as one of their own. Due process doesn't have to mean taking responsibility for someone.
    If, on the other hand, Paul's correct and the union is required to do so, it's their own fault for putting that in the contract and it would be in the union's best interest to cut it out. They made this bed, they can lie in it. Since they fought for this "right" or "privilege", we can bash them all we want for being so stupid.
  54. L White from Canada writes: Brett - I understand your point and believe me -- as a union member I have serious questions as to where my dues are going and whether or not I'm well-served by my collective agreement. However, in this process, the union provided a service that the defendant was entitled to, as a member. If this were the criminal justice system, he could have been supported by a public defender or legal aid. What bothers me the most about this case is not that the process was wrong, it's that the DECISION was wrong.
  55. Red Ensign is our glory! Real Canadian pride! from Canada writes: well who can blame the guy? no one displays their skeletons on a resume when theyre trying to get work. this guys paid his price, leave him be. otherwise, he will have to find another way to make a living. and if he's already killed, do you think condemning him to useless poverty will inspire happy thoughts and love for his fellow citizens? if his crime was truly heinous, then it is the fault of the liberal devients out there that have ruined our justice system and abolished capital punishment. he should have either been turned over to the family of his victim for punishment, or hung for his crime. as it is, he made his mistake, and paid the price prescribed by our 'justice' system. now let him be.
  56. interested observer from victoria, Canada writes: Ok, so here's the deal. If this is how it is going to be, then the school board needs to blatantly post far and wide, and inform every student and parent that this guy is a convicted murder. Surely not a sane person would enter his classroom.

    This is ludicrous in the extreme. Almost all job applications and contracts stipulate lying in the application process as reason for dismissal. Hells bells, people lose jobs for far less in terms of resume embellishment. Our justice system is looking more and more pathetic.
  57. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: Seven years for murdering his wife ! I'm not going to let my husband see this. Only in Canada eh ?
  58. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: L White, I don't disagree about the role of lawyers, the mistake by the arbitrator or this guy's right to defend himself but the article clearly states "his union contested the dismissal and took it to arbitration".
    The union shouldn't have to contest it. All they need to do is be assured that their member gets due process, i.e. the chance to defend himself. The union should be permitted to distance themselves from someone even when supplying them with a service. That's what lawyers do but that's not what the union did. So, the lawyer is blameless, the arbitrator is reckless, the killer's assured job security and the union has egg on its face.
    If unions are supposedly smart enough to negotiate great collective agreements, why can't they write one that doesn't make them responsible for defending every creep's bad acts? Maybe they're not so smart and only their bully tactics give them power.
  59. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: I thought all school boards were already doing their own criminal checks to avoid claims of negligence for failing to properly screen and select their employees. Shame on the school board for obviously failing to do a cirminal records check. Parent should be up in arms about its negligence.
  60. F Rioux from Canada writes: Not wise of them. I would change school. Result, 3 teachers fired because of lack of students, lol.
  61. Sydney R from Canada writes: It doesn't seem to matter what the board did anyway. The legal decision was that his crime of murder WASN'T LINKED TO HIS JOB and so he can't be fired. Can you beat that!
  62. Sydney R from Canada writes: Typical of unions that a wife batterer and murderer is supported in a position that involves interaction with and teaching of female students. Women's groups should address this situation. I'll bet that a racist murderer wouldn't have been supported--they wouldn't dare.
  63. Sydney R from Canada writes: Diane Schweik--He actually spent only 23 months behind bars-- of the 7 year sentence.
  64. interested observer from victoria, Canada writes: Perhaps what we really need is a new piece of legislation that will stipulate that a person convicted of violent or sexual crimes forfeit their rights to work in certain areas of employment, such as teaching and child care. Of course the Charter will not likely permit such a thing, and enforcement would be a tough thing to do. But when is the Charter going to protect the rights of society? As far as I am concerned when you commit a serious crime certain rights should be forfeited. Isn't that part of the point of having a criminal record? It seems his record did not mean a whole lot in this instance. (And whoever did his reference checks should surely be out of a job). Why should a guy who killed his wife be entitled to such a position in society? What about the concept of teachers being role models and shapers of behaviour? Some role model. I shudder at the thought.
  65. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: What we need is competent school boards who properly check their applicants and do proper criminal checks for all persons who are to work around children.
  66. Ottawa Mens Centre.com from Ottawa, Canada writes: L White wrote -- "there's a very big difference between forbidding someone to work with children and forbidding them to have children." I agree that the Karla Holmolka's case is a very extreme one however I don't agree that it's off topic, its right on topic, a murder caring for a child, yes one child but even while she had conditions she was breaking conditions and somehow that was OK apparently because of gender. " L White from Canada writes: Ottawa Mens Centre -- there's a very big difference between forbidding someone to work with children and forbidding them to have children. I think that Karla Holmolka's case is a very extreme one and easily used to go off topic. A "convicted felon" is an American term, with American attitudes that have little in common with the principles of restorative justice even if they are politically unpopular with the relatively unqualified uneducated masses who seek severe retribution not to look realistically on how society needs to fix the problem not create more problems which is what is increasingly resulting from American ideas of retribution and mass incarceration. The world is full of imperfect people and some are so imperfect that they should be locked away permanently because of the risk they post. Similarly, others should not, others should be allowed to return to society and what work they do, who they have contact with is the subject for professionals in that area and as I'm not, I'd like to hear what the professionals have to say not the opinion of some red necked uneducated unqualified politically correct moron wishing to "jail em all indefinitely". Society needs expert psych evaluations to take away the guess work and that has no substantive connection to the subject of "father's rights" (L White's Post) but rather a realistic practical approach to the long term problems that will result from extreme anger, mental health problems and extreme personality disorders. http://www.OttawaMensCentre.com 613-797-3237
  67. Frank Black from Syrian Arab Republic writes: From the short blurb presented by the G&M, I see the following issues:

    1. The person has been convicted for murder.
    2. The person has "paid his dues" according to the Canadian system of law and order.
    3. The person has lied during the hiring process.
    4. A convicted murderer will be teaching children.
    5. There was no mention of wrongdoing while working as a teacher.

    My thoughts are that while it is wrong to lie, many people do that and are not fired after the fact if their performance is satisfactory. The main issue seems to be the fact that he has murdered another person, and that legitimately causes fear among other teachers and parents. However, there is no mention that he has brought about that anger during class time, nor is there mention that he is not a competent teacher. Finally, according to the theory of penance, he has performed the penance required under Canadian law.

    Therefore, because he has served his time and because he appears to be performing his required duties, I don't see any reason to terminate his contract. Out of respect to the fear this would rightfully cause many parents, I also think that he should be monitored carefully for a reasonable period of time. Terminating his contract would essentially be imposing a life sentence to his crime, which was not mandate by the Canadian system of law. If you don't like that system, then talk to your local MP.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top