Hold on a minute. as Leader of Opposition, did Mr. Minnis report to the police what he says he was made aware of, and did he speak to and formally request information/confirmation of both the Minister responsible as well as the Parliamentary Commissioner on this matter, as he has full authority to do in his position as Leader of Opposition?

If only these people put this much effort into the actual education of the nation's children...

They need to tell that story to persons who don't know any better and don't want to know any better - oops, they already did, they told it to the press.

This very well could be simply a case of a disgruntled person taking matters into their own hands and in the wrong way, but I am not ready to accept that simple explanation as just that, just yet.

As for that $120,000 so-called repair quote, what are they repairing the building with, paper mache?

Look Mr. Union man. If there is truth to be revealed, reveal it now, not when a court case that shall never happen, doesn't happen.

I would expect the media to get this information. They have not stated that they tried to but failed to.

If the insurer has reason to believe that the fire is an act of insurance fraud for example, the insurer may not pay anything at all. It is curious that the name of the supposed insurer has yet to be mentioned in any of the stories on this fire. If the contractor had insurance, who is it with, what is the value of the insurance, when was it put into effect and for how long a period was the risk insurance taken out?

Who is the insurer in this matter? It is interesting that Hanna already has a figure quoted, but there is no mention of the investigation by the insurer for the Contractors' All Risk Hanna is supposed to have for this project. As for the alleged cause of the fire, the Tribune is saying that V Alfred shot down claims that a disgruntled worker may have set the fire, but the Guardian is saying that V Alfred said a disgruntled worker admitted to police that he set the fire.

I do not seek the information. I know the information. I am speaking to the consistent trend of the lack of context when reporting on stories where context is essential for the reader to grasp the inner workings of the controversies being reported to them.

I know that the country's media doesn't actually do journalism for the most part, but it would have been necessary for the edification of readers, to explain to them the constituted hierarchy and procedures of the Union and its disciplinary rules respectively, so that readers can understand what is supposed to happen, who has final say on an appeal, how an appeals body is constituted, the powers of the appeals body with respect to the executive and vice versa, and how such things apply to this case. Otherwise, readers have no way of putting context to the back and forth they are seeing and objectively making sense of it all.