Bob Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Since prostitution is legal in Canada, but bawdy houses are not, that part is not really off base....if the allegations are true, which they most likely aren't. I know, but you're getting into technicalities here. Please don't tell me we need to get into this. You're going over silly stuff when the point I was making should be easy to understand - that the politically-loaded language used in the title is silly and stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) I know, but you're getting into technicalities here. Yes, I am, but you were clearly implying that prostitution is never legal. You're right though, it wasn't important. Edited April 30, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) The thread title assumes that the allegations of true. This thread assumes there are allegations to begin with. Layton was never charged with a crime. Moreover, the parlour was a licensed establishment. The fact that Layton was "naked" is absolutely ludicrous. People strip down to a towel for massages most of the time, so that has no bearing whatsoever on anything. I'm sorry, but anyone could have been caught in the same situation. Just the fact that he wasn't charged should be enough to tell you that there wasn't a damn bit of illegal activity going on. If Layton was having sex with a prostitute he would have been charged. The article makes certain not to state definitively that Layton was engaged in illegal behaviours. It does, however, make allusion to it, which is why people are jumping to that conclusion.Here's what the article actually says: Layton was getting a mssage in a licensed clinic that the cops raided. There was no wrong-doing to be found on his part and he was released. Anything beyond that is slanderous speculation and assumption. Edited April 30, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Moreover, the parlour was a licensed establishment. This is exactly what I was just going to point out. Since it was "a massage clinic that is registered with the City of Toronto," then the "city of Toronto" is just as guilty of breaking the law as Layton is being accused of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 That's to say, not guilty at all? You know, since massage clinics are not illegal, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Every pro-athlete on any sports team better watch themselves for all that criminal behaviour that goes on in the locker-room with their paid trainers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 That's to say, not guilty at all? You know, since massage clinics are not illegal, right? Exactly what I was saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Ditto. Haven't read anything anywhere about the woman being naked. Seems as if the story grows seedier and seedier regardless of fact ..... as is all too often the case in such situations, and does a lot to diminish politics, imo. It was in one of the articles, but it was talked about on the news broadcast, they showed the copies of the cops notes, not all of it is being reported by the media, in fact I heard a news report on the radio this morning that simply said, he was caught in a seedy establishment (or something like that) no mention of the rest of the story. Also he was let go with being charged because of who he was. The larger issue is the hypocrisy. He was a crusading city councillor at a time when bawdy houses run by Asian gangs were being raided and shut down he would have known what they were. He wanted lap dancing banned and crusaded for women's rights - that's the issue, does it show good character and judgment - no, but he's not the first politician to be caught with his pants down. It does speak to his seemingly double standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) Really, listening to the news and reading some media they are deliberately leaving out the details about the naked woman and buck naked Jack, who was a councillor at the time they were raiding bawdy houses. Bad bad Toronto Sun for not saying anything about the naked woman. Since they work hand in hand with SunTV (normal, they're the same media outlet), I am sure they would have mentioned the fact she was naked. And bad bad SunTV for not mentioning on their Website the woman was naked. IOW, if Sun doesn't say that the police report indicated that the woman was naked, could it be that the report did not indicate the woman was naked? Edited April 30, 2011 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 I don't get the threats of libel here, the OP has linked to a an account of an incident in the public, mainstream media. Happens every day here, many times. Beaking off with outrageous commentary on the article or melodramatic headers is hardly fodder for a lawsuit. More likely is that the reputation of Saint Jack has been sullied. For shame. The best part of the article is that he arrived at and departed from his therapeutic session on a bicycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 If Jack becomes Prime Minister, this scandal will resonate all over the world. Berlusconi debauchery allegations (hving sex with a minor) will compare with this bawdy house that's been allegedly involved in sex trafficking of minor girls! What a disgustingly inappropriate comparison. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. For someone with supposedly Christian values, this is a disgrace to your faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 The best part of the article is that he arrived at and departed from his therapeutic session on a bicycle. Yep, typical of any man seeking illicit sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) Betsy, why not talk about something relevant? I find this very much relevant! After all, weren't the Opposition - and that very much include Jack - talking about TRUST when they brought down the government and thrusted us into another election? Isn't this election all about TRUST? Who can you trust? If Layton was stupid enough - and yes we can say it was stupid - to have placed himself in that awkward situation, being a councillor at the time, of course that's a question of his ability to exercise sound judgement especially if you are the leader of a nation....in a time of economic recovery? If Layton is - at the very least - naive about bawdy houses that pose as massage parlors...how can we trust he knows what he talks about when it comes to crime issues??? Who among the leaders was admonishing you gotta "walk the talk?" (I can't remember who....but that's a pie on Layton's face!) Why not go after Layton's ridiculous promise to deliver nationwide daycare, which is a service that families should pay for on their own? Why not attack Layton's idiocy to implement some sort of cap-and-trade system and/or comply with the "international community" and damage Canada industry? What about his fantasy promise that he will magically find the doctors we need to address the shortage of their supply in Canada? What, are you saying there aren't enough threads that address those issues??? There's no much REAL stuff that needs to be discussed about idiotic and dangerous leftist ideas that will hurt Canada if implemented, yet there is this stupid focus on these allegations that nobody should give a damn about. That's what makes it worrisome that nobody gives a damn about the deeper implications of Jack's past reckless decision. If the cops decided then to go public to hurt Jack....I don't think there would've been a Layton at all on the NDP helm. Edited April 30, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 we all know, had this been Harper or another conservative politician it would be all over the front pages, for days - maybe months. I highly doubt that. This story, if it isn't outright, skirts the line of libel. The media outlets are rightfully avoiding the story. However, playing it up as a smear campaign still puts the story out there for public consumption. "We're not reporting this story, but we're reporting ABOUT this story." It's a sneaky way of getting it out there anyway, even though it might not be true. They protect themselves from libel by saying, we're reporting that Sun has published a potentially libelous story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 The larger issue is the hypocrisy. No, the larger issue is how low the CPCers can get. I thought the NDP was splitting the vote nicely for the CPC, but this might change everything for them. Please continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 What a disgustingly inappropriate comparison. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. For someone with supposedly Christian values, this is a disgrace to your faith. People like betsy always proclaim how their Christian morals make them superior, until they demonstrate how few morals they actually have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 That is the level of thought displayed by many university students.That's about on par with the level of thought among all voting ages. Give it a rest about university students already. They're not a homogenous group for crying out loud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) Betsy, Layton's judgment can be easily decimated with his own words. We don't need to use allegations of sexual immorality to illustrate that. Want to criticize his naivety? Examine his absurd promises. Want to criticize his lack of understanding of basic economic? Continue examining his absurd promises. Want to criticize his approach to crime? I'm sure we can find examples of him harping on with rhetoric about "rehabilitation" and "compassion". The point is that Layton provides plenty of fodder against him with his own words. There are certainly very few threads in here that really scrutinize the stupidity of Layton and his supporters. Rather, there are many more thread discussing superficial soundbytes and premature allegations - this thread being an example of that. Edited April 30, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 It was in one of the articles, but it was talked about on the news broadcast, they showed the copies of the cops notes, not all of it is being reported by the media, in fact I heard a news report on the radio this morning that simply said, he was caught in a seedy establishment (or something like that) no mention of the rest of the story. Also he was let go with being charged because of who he was. He was let go without charges in spite of who he was, from what I've read. Furthermore, ONE article? It was reported in one article vs the countless articles circulating? What was the source of that one article? Can you provide even one link to support it? And what "news broadcast? How was it "talked about?" As for the news article that "simply said" what it did, that's not unusual, but to repeat claims that aren't being reported in the mainstream media is a completely different story. I have to say, but doing so, you have to give the same credence to similar sources regarding the candidates you support, and I doubt you're willing to do that. The larger issue is the hypocrisy. He was a crusading city councillor at a time when bawdy houses run by Asian gangs were being raided and shut down he would have known what they were. I'm sure he did know "what they were." That doesn't mean he knew where all of them were. If he did, I'm sure he'd be the most informed person in Toronto; more informed than the police investigating such establishments. He wanted lap dancing banned and crusaded for women's rights - that's the issue, does it show good character and judgment - no, but he's not the first politician to be caught with his pants down. It does speak to his seemingly double standards. Are you equating lap dancing with getting a massage? No, he did not 'get caught with his pants down;' he "got caught" getting a massage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 What a disgustingly inappropriate comparison. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. For someone with supposedly Christian values, this is a disgrace to your faith. Indeed. Layton was caught (not accused of any illegal act, not arrested) in a massage parlour which the police suspected of being a bawdy house. The facts at hand indicate that he was, at most, careless in is choice of a place where to get a massage. There are actually judicial inquiries into allegations that Berlusconi has retained the services a prostitutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 That's about on par with the level of thought among all voting ages. Give it a rest about university students already. They're not a homogenous group for crying out loud. University are very homogenous politically. Particularly with respect to their opposition to the CPC and what they view as conservatism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 What a disgustingly inappropriate comparison. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. For someone with supposedly Christian values, this is a disgrace to your faith. How is it inappropriate? Instead of just giving emotional outburst, you ought to explain! Never mind my Christian values or my faith....I don't think you're in a position to know much about that. Let me worry about that, after all it's me who'll answer to my God when the time comes, not you. Just stick to the discussion. We're on federal politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 How is it inappropriate? Instead of just giving emotional outburst, you ought to explain! Never mind my Christian values or my faith....I don't think you're in a position to know much about that. Let me worry about that, after all it's me who'll answer to my God when the time comes, not you. Just stick to the discussion. We're on federal politics. You can't be judged on what you say because you answer to God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Do you really think that if this were Stephen Harper there would not be a full blown smear campaign - really get a grip.No because there hasn't been a smear campaign the likes of what the political right has pulled out in this election. First the attacks on Ignatieff's wife, now this. What a damn trainwreck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) He was let go without charges in spite of who he was, from what I've read. Furthermore, ONE article? It was reported in one article vs the countless articles circulating? What was the source of that one article? Can you provide even one link to support it? And what "news broadcast? How was it "talked about?" As for the news article that "simply said" what it did, that's not unusual, but to repeat claims that aren't being reported in the mainstream media is a completely different story. I have to say, but doing so, you have to give the same credence to similar sources regarding the candidates you support, and I doubt you're willing to do that. Good question. I,ve checked the Websites of both SunTV and the Toronto Sun (that's where the story orginated from), and they do not say a thing about the police notes stating the woman was naked. If it was in there, I'd like to see a quote. I'm sure he did know "what they were." That doesn't mean he knew where all of them were. If he did, I'm sure he'd be the most informed person in Toronto; more informed than the police investigating such establishments. Knowing what they were, he should have chosen the place where he got that massage more carefully. But that's it. And unless the police met regarly with city council to inform them of where they've found bawdy house, I doubt very much that Layton knew as a fact which massage parlours were bawdy houses. Edited April 30, 2011 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.