Derek Welsman and Dean Blundell Show Disrespect Judicial Process

Derek Welsman and Dean Blundell Show Disrespect My Cause MistrialWe've been talking a lot about the Dean Blundell Show on 102.1 The Edge lately. Last week Dean Blundell attacked Humble and Fred and just Friday Todd Shapiro chimed in on the controvery.

Now Derek Welsman, a.k.a. Blind Derek, is in some hot water for a discussion he had on the air with Dean Blundell and Billie Holiday.

On a recent Monday morning inside the studio of the Dean Blundell shock-jock radio show, giggles and guffaws filled the airwaves as the host and his sidekicks ridiculed several gay men involved in a criminal trial.

A jury had just convicted a man for sexually assaulting three men he met in a Carlton St. bathhouse. The show’s producer and on-air personality, Derek Welsman, was the foreman.

The radio personalities chortled as they mocked gay men who visit bathhouses and the intelligence of the sex assault victims. They snickered as they imagined the perpetrator’s excitement for prison showers.

This, as you can imagine, suggests prejudice and could should result in a mistrial.

Three years ago, I was too was the foreman of a jury. My trial was a murder trial and we found the accused guilty. I wrote about this experience here. I respected the process, took it extremely seriously, and chose not to reveal a single detail about what happened in the jury room.

This disrespect and homophobic discussion on this popular Toronto morning show is extremely disappointing. I suspect it will be Fearless Fred in the mornings on 102.1 The Edge before you know it.

Share this entry

Comments (24 - click here to join in!)


I should hope so.

I don't like how Fearless Fred treated you after the vitriol directed at him and his family from this site (you provided the platform, not the hate, and I respect not censoring), but he's basically the only decent/salvageable personality on that station nowadays. He deserves a shot.

I can't believe Blundell still has a job... He's been a one-trick pony for a long time. Yet, I don't think he's a stupid man at all, he's just been lazy with his public personality. Or the Corus overlords believe this is what gets ratings and keep pushing him to behave that way. (And cover his ass when he does get in trouble.)

December 8, 2013 @ 2:57 PM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

For the unaware, Fearless Fred hates me. But he shouldn't. I think we'd be good friends if he'd judge me by what I wrote and stop blaming me for comments left by others.

That story, including Fearless Fred audio in which he goes off on me, is here:

December 8, 2013 @ 3:00 PM


Fearless Fred would be a good morning show, aside from the fact that I never listen to morning shows. His on-air personality is better suited to short bits, anyway.

December 8, 2013 @ 3:24 PM


^^^^Fearless Fred is the stolen persona of Christian Slater from "Pump Up The Volume". Sorry not a fan :(

December 8, 2013 @ 6:27 PM


I prefer Greg Beharrel's ambiguously mentally ill but harmless creep shtick. It works on a certain level of absurdity.

December 8, 2013 @ 8:34 PM


Blundell can and should go. He's worn out, his schtick (and that's the best that it is), is tired. I cannot remember the last time I heard him on air. Nothing missed, especially since having a real "alternative" on local radio since July. At the moment, I am enjoying listening to AltNation and some other channels on SiriusXM in the rental car I have. When I'm at work, I take a look at my choices for decent alternative radio stations to listen to, from Australia to the UK. Why bother listening to something local?

December 8, 2013 @ 10:10 PM


I've lost interest in the DBS show since Todd left. I really couldn't find anything to listen to on the drive to work. I switched over to the AM dial and listen to funny820. There's no music, but all I want to do is laugh before I put in another 10 hours, and this serves it's purpose.

Now that I know Humble and Fred are back on, I'll probably listen to their podcasts.

December 9, 2013 @ 1:16 AM


Mark said it all, Dean trick pony.

I stopped listening a couple of years ago.

December 9, 2013 @ 9:21 AM


Bathhouses still exist? Really? You never heard it mention by the media - ever anymore. Shouldn't they be illegal?

So many questions that need to be answered.

December 9, 2013 @ 9:31 AM


Wow. You know what I found alarming after reading this? The fact that the article states that 9000 patrons per month pass through that one bathhouse's doors. I read an article in Slate earlier this month that said unprotected sex among gay men had risen by 20% over the past few years now that there are drugs available to effectively treat HIV. Does it make me a homophobe if I wonder, based on the numbers from this one single establishment, how many thousands of Ontario guys are out there putting themselves at risk, knowing that OHIP will be there to pick up the tab for their reckless decisions? That's potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.

December 9, 2013 @ 9:42 AM


No Corey, it doesn't make you a homophobe. But where is your outrage about heterosexual prostitution and heterosexual promiscuity?

December 9, 2013 @ 11:22 AM


Are there bathhouses for hetros? That sounds disgusting as well.

December 9, 2013 @ 11:26 AM


@McNulty - ok, I'm outraged at anyone who willingly engages in high risk activities that ends up costing public health care money.
In this case, I found the numbers (9000 a month) eye opening, and frankly staggering. 2/3 of HIV infections are gay and bisexual men. 60% of them (the 20% increase I mentioned) admit to having unprotected sex., and that trend is on the upswing. There is no other demographic that compares to this, and when you consider HIV meds are for life, it bugs me. Because there is effective treatment available, we now are subsidizing a risky activity, despite hearing how maxed out OHIP is.

December 9, 2013 @ 11:56 AM



There are swingers and sex clubs for heteros. There are a bunch in Toronto.

December 9, 2013 @ 12:30 PM



1) Your stats are off. 9000 a month doesn't mean 9000 unique visitors a month. If you take into account unique and repeat visitors, that number will be much, much lower.

2) Where is your 2/3 stat coming from? Would like to see the source.

3) 20% increase of-- need you to be more specific with your numbers there. It used to be 40% and is now 60%? It used to be 50%, got a 20% increase, and is now 60%? Over what period of time? How does that compare to the long-term trends from when these stats were first collected?

4) You say "potentially" hundreds of millions. Where does that number come from? And for that matter, what is the cost of NOT treating those public health cases? It's an infectious disease. Treating them reduce the exposure risk to non-infected (sex partners who don't know of HIV status, paramedics responding to any health event, etc).

5) Plus the more those meds are used and researched, the better and cheaper they become to the population in general. What would a general HIV vaccine be worth? To Ontario? To the 3rd world? What "potential" savings are there?

6) What else should OHIP discriminate against? Smokers shouldn't get lung cancer treatment, obviously. Anyone with a speeding ticket shouldn't be admitted to a trauma centre after a car crash. Anyone who works at the Pickering nuke plant shouldn't receive ANY exposure treatment should there be a leak. How long until only healthy people can get health care?

December 9, 2013 @ 1:04 PM


"Your stats are off. 9000 a month doesn't mean 9000 unique visitors a month. If you take into account unique and repeat visitors, that number will be much, much lower. "

Can someone tell Lorne that's an idiotic statement? I laughed at the at one.

December 9, 2013 @ 1:34 PM


Lorne, the 2/3 stat is from the Centres for Disease Control. You can find that and much more info there:
The more worrisome thing, which supports my point but wasn't made clear is that it's 2/3 of all new infections.
From 2005 to 2011 there has been a 20% increase (in this particular demographic) of engaging in unprotected sex. The trend is continuing to rise from 40% in 2000 to approx. 60% today.
The hundreds of millions of dollars isn't based on anything - I'm figuring if OHIP is spending $60 million on AIDS prevention programs, providing healthcare to actual sufferers must cost a hell of a lot more.
Your assertion seems to be that more consumers of HIV medication gives us an opportunity to improve treatments is like saying we should encourage smoking so that we can improve cancer treatments.

December 9, 2013 @ 2:47 PM


@Corey: I'll read that more carefully, but a quick glance-- it's not as bad as it seems. There's a larger concentration of new cases in MSM (Men who have sex with men) because, well, they're doing a good job preventing new cases in all the other risk factors.

Also of note is the CDC basically saying this stat is questionable at best, because they don't have a consistent and reliable method of putting people into that category, since it's all based on self-reporting. People lie, people omit, people don't come back for follow ups. They normalize the data a bit, but-- meh.

Now, personally, I don't understand how ANYBODY of any gender has unprotected sex with an untrusted stranger. It's "seatbelt" level safety at this point. But it happens. People are dumb.

Maybe some prevention effort has to be refocused back into education.

So your dollars are made up. Okay. Hard to argue with imaginary numbers.

My assertion isn't "give people AIDS to study it". That's stupid and you're stupid for suggestion it. HIV/AIDS is still an infectious disease running rampart through large parts of the world. The mechanics of the virus is still partially a mystery. We don't have a rock-solid vaccine or cure.

I'm saying it's cold-heartedly stupid to say to an infected person "well, you put yourself at risk. We're not spending public money on you. Go die in the street". Even if you don't think treating them is "worth" the money, there is still tons of research to be done that WILL NOT be done without patients to study. And those who are cured (or who are dying!) also work towards prevention. What, you didn't have a school assembly where someone with HIV came around to tell you about how it destroyed their life, made them suffer, and they'll be dead in a couple years?

Hell, enough study of HIV might actually cure cancer. No, seriously-- okay, so there's lots of pretty horrible things that can happen inside the human body that we can't target with a broad-spectrum medicine. Cancer. Leukemia. Other auto-immune disorders. But we do have some highly targeted cures-- but no way of spreading them through the body. Unless we have a way of delivering it that could be highly targeted, extremely hardy, knows its way around the human immune system, can adapt itself to the point of being insidious, and can deliver its payload while doing all that-- in other words, HIV with the bad stuff scraped out and its payload replaced.

December 9, 2013 @ 4:48 PM


@Lorne -I can't recall ever arguing something with you, but it's starting to seem similar to arguing with Irvine. His tactics relied on introducing something his opponent didn't actually say, and then turning the argument into that.

I didn't once say we shouldn't send public money on people infected with HIV, no matter how they got it.

I estimated an amount that treating HIV-infections over the life time of patients could conceivably cost. Instead of just dismissing them as "imaginary" you might have come back with something of your own. I've looked it up for you. The Canadian AIDS Society pegs health care costs at $250,000 per person. There were 3,070 new infections in 2009. It's safe to assume a large percentage of those came from Ontario. I'm sure you can do the math and determine my estimated range is reasonable.

I'm going to go back to basics here and clarify my point:
"Gay and bisexual men are the highest at-risk group for contracting HIV. Studies indicate this group is also engaging in increased amounts of high risk sexual activity, namely unprotected anal sex. Studies indicate this trend has continued to grow, and point to the effectiveness of current HIV treatments as a probable reason as to why this trend is increasing. As this trend increases the amount of new HIV infections will increase. There is no cure for HIV. Treatment currently is for life, and is incredibly expensive. I personally feel that it is selfish and irresponsible to knowingly engage in completely discretionary activities that needlessly add a huge strain on an already over-burdened health care system."

If you can counter that opinion, without adding anything else into the mix like, "you think they're not worth treatment you heartless..." I'd be interested in reading it. Otherwise, I think we're done.

December 9, 2013 @ 7:00 PM

Pal Al

I liked Fred, until I just heard that interview. What a baby. He wants to be a radio celebrity but doesn't want the baggage that goes with it? Most of these guys would sell their mother for their B-fame and look how they cry when they get it.

December 10, 2013 @ 6:40 AM


Lorne is Irvine, without the entertainment factor.

December 10, 2013 @ 8:54 AM


Now "Suspended"

Statement from Corus Entertainment

Effective immediately, we are suspending The Dean Blundell Show. This will allow us to review our internal practices to ensure that our programming is compliant with our station’s policies, as well as community and broadcast standards.

December 12, 2013 @ 8:48 PM

Leave a comment

Only 24 comments? C'mon, we can do better... Leave a comment above and let's keep this conversation going!

« 2013 Etobicoke Lakeshore Santa Claus Parade Where's Your Messiah Now, John Salmons? »