Layton found nude in massage parlour!

cybercoma · May 2, 2011

The parlor operated for 5 years with out a single bust. Just thought I would point that out.

I can appreciate that your sarcasm meter is broken, given the rabid partisanship on display here recently, but I was being sarcastic.

punked · May 2, 2011

You know a lot about this particular parlour. Why isn't it in business today?

The city would not renew its licence.

punked · May 2, 2011

Actully it closed down after the raid. The authorities found it to be TOO legitimate.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/30/mammoliti-had-suspicions-about-velvet-touch

No it did not. You are a liar. It's licence was never revoked and no one was ever busted there.

punked · May 2, 2011

I can appreciate that your sarcasm meter is broken, given the rabid partisanship on display here recently, but I was being sarcastic.

Sorry didn't catch it.

lukin · May 2, 2011

The city would not renew its licence.

Why not?

punked · May 2, 2011

Why not?

I don't know all I know is that when someone is caught in an act like you suggest they REVOKE the licence of the establishment. That NEVER happened. Sorry.

lukin · May 2, 2011

I don't know all I know is that when someone is caught in an act like you suggest they REVOKE the licence of the establishment. That NEVER happened. Sorry.

So you admit it was a yank n' tug. Thanks for clarifying that.

Edited May 2, 2011 by lukin

punked · May 2, 2011

So you admit it was a yank n' tug. Thanks for clarifying that.

Nope I am pointing out that the police NEVER caught ANYONE in 5 years doing what you describe. Maybe they are terrible police who just break the law, would explain why they are under investigation right now. All I know is I wouldn't take the word of an officer under investigation who couldn't in 5 years bust such a place. You would though.

lukin · May 2, 2011

Nope I am pointing out that the police NEVER caught ANYONE in 5 years doing what you describe. Maybe they are terrible police who just break the law, would explain why they are under investigation right now. All I know is I wouldn't take the word of an officer under investigation who couldn't in 5 years bust such a place. You would though.

You said it's likely the license was revoked because of illegal activity. Establishments don't lose licenses for handing out gumballs to every 10th customer.

Evening Star · May 2, 2011

I think he meant that the licence was NOT revoked but was simply not renewed.

punked · May 2, 2011

You said it's likely the license was revoked because of illegal activity. Establishments don't lose licenses for handing out gumballs to every 10th customer.

NO I DID NOT. I said if there is illegal activity a license is revoked by the court right away. HOWEVER this place NEVER HAD there License REVOKED, their License was actually never RENEWED. MEANING the place was NEVER BUSTED.

Maybe if you could read you would understand.

So again in 5 years this place was NEVER caught for illegal activity.

Edited May 2, 2011 by punked

lukin · May 2, 2011

NO I DID NOT. I said if there is illegal activity a license is revoked by the court right away. HOWEVER this place NEVER HAD there License REVOKED, their License was actually never RENEWED. MEANING the place was NEVER BUSTED.

Maybe if you could read you would understand.

So again in 5 years this place was NEVER caught for illegal activity.

Where can i read that it was simply not "renewed"?

CANADIEN · May 2, 2011

You said it's likely the license was revoked because of illegal activity. Establishments don't lose licenses for handing out gumballs to every 10th customer.

Nope. He didn't.

CANADIEN · May 2, 2011

Where can i read that it was simply not "renewed"?

In the Toronto Sun story YOU posted.

punked · May 2, 2011

If Lukin is wrong about so many things in this thread we can trust almost everything he says is wrong.

cybercoma · May 2, 2011

...and he's going to be voting tomorrow.

lukin · May 2, 2011

In the Toronto Sun story YOU posted.

The word "renewed is not in the article.

The massage parlour at 787 Dundas St. W., which ceased operations shortly after the police came calling, opened in 1994 and was among 26 suspected bawdy houses Toronto Police cracked down on with more than 300 charges. Courtesy of Toronto Sun.

lukin · May 2, 2011

NO I DID NOT. I said if there is illegal activity a license is revoked by the court right away. HOWEVER this place NEVER HAD there License REVOKED, their License was actually never RENEWED. MEANING the place was NEVER BUSTED.

Maybe if you could read you would understand.

So again in 5 years this place was NEVER caught for illegal activity.

it opened in 1994. It was closed shortly after the raid in 1996. How is that 5 years? work on your math skills. Don't rely on CUPE to do all your thinking for you.

CANADIEN · May 2, 2011

The word "renewed is not in the article.

The massage parlour at 787 Dundas St. W., which ceased operations shortly after the police came calling, opened in 1994 and was among 26 suspected bawdy houses Toronto Police cracked down on with more than 300 charges. Courtesy of Toronto Sun.

I stand corrected as to what article you saw..and which one I saw. With my apologies.

That being said, the article you saw was posted yesterday night. The article I saw, from the same journalist, was posted tonight, 24 hours later.

And I quote:

The Velvet Touch Massage parlour operated for three years after cops raided the business in 1996, when Jack Layton was found in one of its rooms.
In fact, the alleged rub and tug at 787 Dundas St. W. opened its doors in 1994 to clients for five years in total before its licence renewal was denied by the city

Sounds to me like the journalist found facts that were different from what she had originally written.

link

lukin · May 2, 2011

I stand corrected as to what article you saw..and which one I saw. With my apologies.

That being said, the article you saw was posted yesterday night. The article I saw, from the same journalist, was posted tonight, 24 hours later.

And I quote:

Sounds to me like the journalist found facts that were different from what she had originally written.

link

Fair enough. You, cybercoma, and punked are a ruthless tri-fecta.

Canadien, let me ask you a question; if you were FORCED TO Bet $10,000 on the Velvet touch, which option would you seriously choose?

1. Rub n; tug.

2. Legitimate, licensed, clean massage therapy clinic.

Edited May 2, 2011 by lukin

CANADIEN · May 2, 2011

Fair enough. You, cybercoma, and punked are a ruthless tri-fecta.

Canadien, let me ask you a question; if you were FORCED TO Bet $10,000 on the Velvet touch, which option would you seriously choose?

1. Rub n; tug.

2. Legitimate, licensed, clean massage therapy clinic.

Seriously, I wouldn't waste my time on that kind of bet.

lukin · May 2, 2011

Seriously, I wouldn't waste my time on that kind of bet.

Awww...come on. No one respects fence-sitters.

How about you cybercoma....which option would you choose?

punked · May 2, 2011

I would bet if we had a trail that the jury would rule that there was no crime committed and that is good enough for me.

lukin · May 2, 2011

I would bet if we had a trail that the jury would rule that there was no crime committed and that is good enough for me.

So you are sure this wasn't a rub n tug?

Ottawavalleyboy · May 2, 2011

I would bet if we had a trail that the jury would rule that there was no crime committed and that is good enough for me.

Anyone know which parlour it was, I have training in Toronto in a month and if Layton was going there it must be good. . In all seriousness who cares. Truthfully if this was Harper the press would be tearing him in two because he would be a complete hypocrite. In Jacks case its almost funny, I can just see him peddling down the street wiping sweat from his face trying to figure out how to spin this to his wife.