Black Dog Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 That's kind of the irony of this on both sides. A Liberal might think that mandatory sentences in much more serious violent crimes are a bit heavy-handed. But in this instance a "mandatory minimum" was used without any discretion for the scope of the actual effect this had on how the city is run. Yeah maybe. I'm not really sure what this really changes anyway. We haven't had a mayor for most of the last two years now. Quote
Boges Posted November 26, 2012 Author Report Posted November 26, 2012 Yeah maybe. I'm not really sure what this really changes anyway. We haven't had a mayor for most of the last two years now. I guess, the prevailing opinion is that Doug Holliday will be named interim mayor. He's a conservative that is far less divisive. You could give him credit for making the labour deals last year. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 I guess, the prevailing opinion is that Doug Holliday will be named interim mayor. He's a conservative that is far less divisive. You could give him credit for making the labour deals last year. As Deputy Mayor, I think he gets the call, but I believe council can vote for someone to take the seat full time. Or they can have a byelection. The other question is: does he try running again if there's a byelection or in two years? Or is this just as big a relief to him as it is to his opponents? He never seemed to care for the job. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Seems pretty harsh to remove a democratically elected mayor over a matter of $3,000. I think the only appropriate response to this is from the Don Cherry Parody account on Twitter. @DonCherryParodyYKNOW ONLY IN TARANNA CAN SOME JUDGE TELL THE PEOPLE THAT THE GUY THEY VOTED FOR DOESNT GET TA BE THE MAYOR JUST CUZ HE BROKE SOME LAWS Quote
PIK Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Black eye for Toronto. This is a joke, can't believe a major city could have this happen. A private citizen and no doubt alot of help from the star, brings down a mayor for what, balancing the budget and trying to help out kids to play sports. Leave it to TO to ruin some good times, the argoes win the cup and the leafs are undefeated. Major black eye for the city. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Conservatives... the law and order party, until it comes to them. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Black eye for Toronto. This is a joke, can't believe a major city could have this happen. A private citizen and no doubt alot of help from the star, brings down a mayor for what, balancing the budget and trying to help out kids to play sports. Leave it to TO to ruin some good times, the argoes win the cup and the leafs are undefeated. Major black eye for the city. Just no. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 The irony in all this is that the judge had no leeway in the decision. It was a mandatory sentence. It wouldn't matter if it was $3000 or $300,000. I doubt conservatives will look at mandatory sentencing any differently though. Quote
Boges Posted November 26, 2012 Author Report Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) The irony in all this is that the judge had no leeway in the decision. It was a mandatory sentence. It wouldn't matter if it was $3000 or $300,000. I doubt conservatives will look at mandatory sentencing any differently though. Well I think a mandatory sentence regarding a violence crime like, say murder, and this is quite difference. There is irony on both sides though. I'm sure many people that normally would oppose mandatory minimum sentences when applied to criminal matters are applauding what's happened today. Edited November 26, 2012 by Boges Quote
guyser Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 No doubt our esteemed ( Ha!) Mayor is regretting his stance as a pompous ass not to mention being a moron, make that an entittled moron who thought he could get away with whatever he felt he needed to do. The issue here, as much as those who support him, be it talk radio or news or here deny it (take your pik should you wish) is not so much what he did since he had an easy out to rectify it , it was his arrogance on the stand in court, his denials as naseum that was his undoing. Serves him well and I sincerely hope he tucks tail between his legs and goes back to work for Deco and coach football. He is suited for that. Not for Mayor. Of course this is no black eye for the city, nor did the Star do anything to assist this hassle going forward. Good choice to pick an independant judge Quote
PIK Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 So George scandalmen would have been a better choice? lol You have got to be kidding me, right now the scandal would be how much debt Geo ran up. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Black Dog Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 So George scandalmen would have been a better choice? lol You have got to be kidding me, right now the scandal would be how much debt Geo ran up. Yup, Ford was scandal free until this came along. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Well I think a mandatory sentence regarding a violence crime like, say murder, and this is quite difference. There is irony on both sides though. I'm sure many people that normally would oppose mandatory minimum sentences when applied to criminal matters are applauding what's happened today. The way the law is written is terrible, but it's a fair decision, since the judge had no choice. He's even allowing Ford to run again. So how much of a punishment is it really? Quote
Boges Posted November 26, 2012 Author Report Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) The way the law is written is terrible, but it's a fair decision, since the judge had no choice. He's even allowing Ford to run again. So how much of a punishment is it really? Well there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Can he run in a byelection? While council force a byelection? Who's interim mayor?How will an appeal go, and how long will it take? If this gets dragged out for another year or so then there really is no point in having another election. Edited November 26, 2012 by Boges Quote
guyser Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 So George scandalmen would have been a better choice? lol You have got to be kidding me, right now the scandal would be how much debt Geo ran up. How many non-sequitors can you come up with? Since you asked tho, George wouldnt nor couldnt be as dumb as your guy. Quote
The_Squid Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 I don't think that there is anything wrong with deposing a mayor for fraud and abuse of office... I can't believe that someone is so stupid as to let this happen. The rules aren't new or difficult to follow. This comes down to personal and professional responsibility and integrity of the mayor.... he took no responsibility and has no integrity. Quote
guyser Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Well there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Can he run in a byelection? Yes. But lets hope he wont. As a Mayor, hes a good football coach. While council force a byelection? Who's interim mayor?How will an appeal go, and how long will it take? If this gets dragged out for another year or so then there really is no point in having another election. Council can elect a Mayor in house, 23 votes are up for grabs.He can appeal, but based on his own words said in court, he doesnt stand much of a chance. He also risks a worse verdict if he appeals. That worse would be a 7 year ban Quote
guyser Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 I don't think that there is anything wrong with deposing a mayor for fraud and abuse of office... I can't believe that someone is so stupid as to let this happen. The rules aren't new or difficult to follow. This comes down to personal and professional responsibility and integrity of the mayor.... he took no responsibility and has no integrity. BINGO !! Unless you are Sue Ann Levy or a talk radio host. Quote
Spiderfish Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 I don't think that there is anything wrong with deposing a mayor for fraud and abuse of office... I can't believe that someone is so stupid as to let this happen. The rules aren't new or difficult to follow. This comes down to personal and professional responsibility and integrity of the mayor.... he took no responsibility and has no integrity. Fraud and abuse of office? Was he not trying to raise money for a sports team? There's no doubt that he screwed up, but he did not stand to gain personally. I realize his removal from office was madndatory if he was found guilty, but it seems like a bit of a harsh outcome for a guy who was trying to raise money for a foundation to help a youth sports organization. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 He can appeal, but based on his own words said in court, he doesnt stand much of a chance. He also risks a worse verdict if he appeals. That worse would be a 7 year ban He already announced that he will appeal. Quote
The_Squid Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Fraud and abuse of office? Was he not trying to raise money for a sports team? There's no doubt that he screwed up, but he did not stand to gain personally. I realize his removal from office was madndatory if he was found guilty, but it seems like a bit of a harsh outcome for a guy who was trying to raise money for a foundation to help a youth sports organization. So the judge should have changed the law in this case just to suit Rob Ford? Talk about "activist judging"... Quote
Black Dog Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 Fraud and abuse of office? Was he not trying to raise money for a sports team? There's no doubt that he screwed up, but he did not stand to gain personally. I realize his removal from office was madndatory if he was found guilty, but it seems like a bit of a harsh outcome for a guy who was trying to raise money for a foundation to help a youth sports organization. *sigh* It's not about his bloody football foundation. It's about his not excusing himself from the vote to have him pay the money back since he improperly solicited the donations. Quote
Spiderfish Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 So the judge should have changed the law in this case just to suit Rob Ford? Talk about "activist judging"... I didn't say that. Quote
Spiderfish Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 *sigh* It's not about his bloody football foundation. It's about his not excusing himself from the vote to have him pay the money back since he improperly solicited the donations. I get it. I agree it was wrong, and I never said that the judge should have excuesd him. I just think the optics do not favor his opponents...that's all. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 26, 2012 Report Posted November 26, 2012 I get it. I agree it was wrong, and I never said that the judge should have excuesd him. I just think the optics do not favor his opponents...that's all. He broke the law to save himself a measly $3,000. Not sure how his opponents look bad here. Quote
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.