August1991 Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) Which makes one think there's nothing worse out there......otherwise why would they focus on this while giving a pass on something worse?Because until about two weeks ago, nobody thought that Layton would be anything other than a supporting actor.Well Layton has also been accused of being a fanatic commmunist bent on turning Canada into a Thrid-World country.Wait for those claims to become more shrill. And soon he'll also be accused of being friendly with separatists. Edited April 30, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Contrary examples have already been given. That Street View didn't even look that bad or dubious to me. Have you seen the massage parlours on Ouellette in Windsor? Yup. Neon lights in alleys. That's dubious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Somebody seeking (and keeping) a political office while crusiding against acts that he engages himself is an hypocrit. And that I would have a major problem with (more than the act itself) if that was the case. Since it's not what happens, the only thing I find interesting in the whole story is the lenght somee people will go to in order to make it something it is not. OK, that's fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) The "baggage" of having been in the wrong place at the wrong time engaging something totally legal? The horror! It's the optics! Well, that's up to the political party if they want to run with a leader who can be torpedoed during election! I'm assuming that political parties will be more discerning on who they choose to run as their leader. It's hard to campaign on the issues of trust, sound decision/judgement, ethics, women's rights, crime, fighting organized crime, rape....when your hands are tied. But of course we'll never know at this point since he's already the leader. 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 (edited) Jack Layton ... takes advantage of disadvantaged or newly arriving young womenYou care to prove any of that BS is true? Who did he take advantage of? How do you know the woman was "newly arrived"? How do you know she was disadvantaged? How did Layton take advantage of her? You should back up your claims, but since you can't because there isn't any information of this sort out there, you should probably just apologize and retract them. Even the Sun didn't go so far as to say these things. 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 Yes. I was just explaining that so far this information about Jack being in the massage parlor is not an allegation. It's already established fact! As is the fact that there's nothing wrong with it. What is "premature" allegation? What does that mean? You don't mean premature ejaculation? I can't help that....what with the wad of kleenex! Are you playing dumb here? Wording aside, I think it's obvious that what was meant, and you are engaging in it full force. But yes, of course, a wet Kleenex is synonymous with sex. Every time I see a co-worker throwing a wet kleenex away I think, 'omg! she just had sex!' Whether he's having sex or not, is not the point for me....that's what I mean by I don't care to know! That part of info is just the titilliating part of any sex scandal I guess - the sordid sleazy details - but as I said....it's not what concerns me about the whole thing. It should be the point. That it's not says a lot about where you are coming from. Without it, there is no "sex scandal." Look, if you're in political office, wouldn't you be more discreet....and cautious? I don't think I'd find going for a massage any more or less something to be "discreet about" if I were in political office. He's naive in the sense that he didn't realize how easily he could've been victimized in blackmail scheme? So anyone who goes for a massage could easily be victimized in a blackmail scheme? And you blame the innocent party? With a reputation and political ambition, how many young politicians would rather go to the police to report blackmail....or would just rather be coersced into doing "favors" just so not be exposed?That's one way how crime organizations get some politicians under their thumb! That's one way how politicians get corrupted! You've lost me. I don't understand what that has to do with going for a massage........ Furthermore, how humiliating can it be to LECTURED by cops about the possibility of that? Lectured? The cops told him that the establishment he was at was in question and advised him not to come back. I don't see that as a lecture, nor do I see it as humiliating. Did they advise him not to get massages? Lecture him on the evils of going for a massage? Did they lecture him on how easily he could be victimized by the opposing party members by going for a massage? If so, I missed that. Could you provide a link, please? Along with the "she was naked too" link that I'm still waiting for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 It's the optics! Well, that's up to the political party if they want to run with a leader who can be torpedoed during election! It's hard to campaign on the issues of trust, sound decision/judgement, ethics, women's rights, crime, fighting organized crime, rape....when your hands are tied. But of course we'll never know at this point since he's already the leader. The optics is... he went to the wrong place to get a massage. End of optics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 You care to prove any of that BS is true? Who did he take advantage of? How do you know the woman was "newly arrived"? How do you know she was disadvantaged? How did Layton take advantage of her? You should back up your claims, but since you can't because there isn't any information of this sort out there, you should probably just apologize and retract them. Because statistics tell us that the overwhelming majority of girls in those situations don't do it because they love the job. The fact that you're defending Jack "John" Layton is pretty disgusting too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 The optics is... he went to the wrong place to get a massage. End of optics. Yes, he went to the wrong place to get a massage. What a terrible conincidence. Nice try. Is that the usual line trotted out by Johns that get busted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Because statistics tell us that the overwhelming majority of girls in those situations don't do it because they love the job. The fact that you're defending Jack "John" Layton is pretty disgusting too. In what situation? What am I defending? What is your accusation here? Are you saying that Jack Layton had sex with an underage immigrant prostitute? Because even Sun News steered clear of that. Your posts are libel. Plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Lectured? The cops told him that the establishment he was at was in question and advised him not to come back. I don't see that as a lecture, nor do I see it as humiliating. Did they advise him not to get massages? Lecture him on the evils of going for a massage? Did they lecture him on how easily he could be victimized by the opposing party members by going for a massage? If so, I missed that. Could you provide a link, please? Along with the "she was naked too" link that I'm still waiting for? Humiliated is a strong word, butif I had been in Layton's shoes I would certainly have felt embarrased. Still nothing that would cause me to think worse (or better) of how he is as apolitician or how he would be as Opposition Leader or PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Nope. It,s because one case involves a lack of due carefulness in seeking a perfectly legal service of a private nature (a mssage). The other case involves lack of due carefulness in political dealings with a man who had a criminal past Please take note "criminal past." and may have been using illegal and/or unethical methods in his dealings with government. And please take note "may have been," it's still under investigations I assume? Therefore he is still deemed innocent -just like that bawdy house- until proven guilty! Bruce Carson is not working anymore with Harper, and it was the Conservative who forwarded this to the RCMP. However, we've yet to see how the NDP Party will handle this emerged scandal against Layton. Will they call for an inquiry just so to settle this issue once and for all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 In what situation? What am I defending? What is your accusation here? Are you saying that Jack Layton had sex with an underage immigrant prostitute? No, I'm not saying that. But we all know what kind of "massage" is in question. Don't be obtuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 And what does a crime committed by someone else have to do with Harper? It was guilt by association the entire time. Just like Layton is being smeared with guilt by association with bawdy houses. Nah - he was just conducting his own investigation into bawdy houses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Yes, he went to the wrong place to get a massage. What a terrible conincidence. Nice try. Is that the usual line trotted out by Johns that get busted? You have evidence that Layton was, at that time, or at any other time, engaged in sex with a prostitute, minor or adult? You know something that the cops who did the raid on the alleged bady house didn't know or see? You even have information that ANYONE was convicted or even stood trial for any crime as a result of that raid? And if you have evidence that Layton was doing something illegal, why didn't you report it 16 years ago? More importantly, if you had evidence, does that mean you were there? Don't worry, I am not claiming you did something illegal. Nor do I expected you to be able to do anything other than to engage in baseless accusions fuelled by your anger that Layton is not to the right of Pinochet. Thank you for not disappointing me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 No, I'm not saying that. But we all know what kind of "massage" is in question. Don't be obtuse. Apparently, the police officers who did NOT arrest him didn't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Even the Sun didn't go so far as to say these things. Ezra Levant did on Twitter. That's where he's taking his cue from, I think.. he's nothing but a mouth piece, as usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 However, we've yet to see how the NDP Party will handle this emerged scandal against Layton. Will they call for an inquiry just so to settle this issue once and for all? There was an inquiry. Or most exactly a raid. Byt the police. Who didn't see any reason to arrest Layton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 You have evidence that Layton was, at that time, or at any other time, engaged in sex with a prostitute, minor or adult? You know something that the cops who did the raid on the alleged bady house didn't know or see? You even have information that ANYONE was convicted or even stood trial for any crime as a result of that raid? And if you have evidence that Layton was doing something illegal, why didn't you report it 16 years ago? More importantly, if you had evidence, does that mean you were there? Don't worry, I am not claiming you did something illegal. Nor do I expected you to be able to do anything other than to engage in baseless accusions fuelled by your anger that Layton is not to the right of Pinochet. Thank you for not disappointing me. Continue being purposely obtuse. We all know what kind of massage he was at a bawdy house for. Read the police report for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 No, I'm not saying that. But we all know what kind of "massage" is in question. Don't be obtuse. Tell me. What kind of massage is in question, if you're not saying Layton was involved in sex with an underage Asian prostitute? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Tell me. What kind of massage is in question, if you're not saying Layton was involved in sex with an underage Asian prostitute? I believe the common term for Layton's massage is "rub n tug." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 True statements ARE NOT EXCULDED from Canadian defamation laws. This cop might get lucky because Jack is a nice guy but I would sue the pants off him and the sun. Excuse me, Councillor, but how can a true statement be actionable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 [Jack Layton] was at a bawdy houseAgain, proof? Operating a bawdy house is illegal. Where's the police report showing that this massage clinic was shut down for being a bawdy house? Take your libelous trash to another forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 I believe the common term for Layton's massage is "rub n tug." Prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 30, 2011 Report Share Posted April 30, 2011 Again, proof? Operating a bawdy house is illegal. Where's the police report showing that this massage clinic was shut down for being a bawdy house? Take your libelous trash to another forum. You're right, it was a suspected bawdy house. Rub n tug massages don't fall under the same category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.