Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[cybercoma]

Lol- you want short? Ford is fat.

You can do whatever you want. I just think you'll reach more people by being concise, as opposed to "short".

[Rue]

I take all the criticism from all of you with great respect, all kidding aside,especially Jacee and Cyber whose posts I read regularly. You are all quite correct. I do appreciate the criticism. I note it has all been done with respect. to me from many of you. I think that is a great thing to be able to criticize someone constructively. Now excuse me I have t go write on a bathroom wall somewhere.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Rue

[Rue]

Blubber please tell me why you think the Police Chief did not verify the video before he made the comments he did. I am curious to know why you woul suggest he is a liar because he made it clear his department did take the time to authenticate the video.

[BubberMiley]

He never said anything about "authenticating" a video. That was something you must have learned through "heresay."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/police-chief-bill-blair-on-the-rob-ford-video-1.2303505

[jacee]

I take all the criticism from all of you with great respect, all kidding aside,especially Jacee and Cyber whose posts I read regularly. You are all quite correct. I do appreciate the criticism. I note it has all been done with respect. to me from many of you. I think that is a great thing to be able to criticize someone constructively. Now excuse me I have t go write on a bathroom wall somewhere.

Appreciated Rue.

[jacee]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/robyn-doolittle-on-rob-ford-and-being-compared-to-zoe-barnes-212834296.html

What I was trying to say is that [2006] seems like the moment he went off the rails. I found evidence of hard drug use according to people in his life dating back to his twenties. Hes always had drugs and alcohol in his life. He was arrested for marijuana possession and drunk driving in 1999 in the States, but in 2006, when his father died, that seems to be the moment when his personal life started spiraling out of control. I had sources indicate to me that that was [when] they started talking about crack use.

[Rue]

Blubber your response to me was silly.

Here is the press conference:

http://gllobalnews.ca/video/937868/extended-toronto-police-confirm-toronto-video-of-mayor-rob-ford-recovered.

The Police Chief makes it clear they physically came into possession of the tape unlike the Toronto Star reporter who never came into physical possession of the tape in question.

The fact he did not use the word "authenticate" does not mean he did not verify its existence. What a ridiculous attempt to play semantics. People can see the interview for themselves.

If Blair thought the tape was fake he would not have entered it as evidence. Police don't lay charges based on evidence they don'tfirst examine. If you can't understand that basic procedure so be it.

You want to suggest Blair would clear a tape for evidence on such an important case without authenticating it go ahead,

As I stated, the Police Chief came into physical possession of the tape and that meant it was no longer heresay-it became first hand and not second hand and is now tangible and can be tested by Ford's lawyer if be believes it is fake. Interestingly once Blair said he had it, Ford suddenly then and only then remembered smoking crack cocaine and that was the point-he knew as long as no one could prove the tape existed first hand he could deny it. That was the point I made.

The other point I made was that journalists are not supposed to run second hand evidence for that very reason.

.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Rue

[BubberMiley]

Blubber your response to me was silly.

Know what else is silly? Calling people names.

The Police Chief makes it clear they physically came into possession of the tape unlike the Toronto Star reporter who never came into physical possession of the tape in question.

So?

The fact he did not use the word "authenticate" does not mean he did not verify its existence. What a ridiculous attempt to play semantics. People can see the interview for themselves.

He verified its existence by watching it, just like the Star reporters did.

If Blair thought the tape was fake he would not have entered it as evidence. Police don't lay charges based on evidence they don'tfirst examine. If you can't understand that basic procedure so be it.

He didn't think the tape was fake when he watched it. You're right. Neither did the Star reporters.

You want to suggest Blair would clear a tape for evidence on such an important case without authenticating it go ahead,

He authenticated it by watching it, just like the Star reporters.

As I stated, the Police Chief came into physical possession of the tape and that meant it was no longer heresay-it became first hand and not second hand and is now tangible and can be tested by Ford's lawyer if be believes it is fake.

I told you a long time ago to look up "hearsay" but you clearly haven't yet.

Interestingly once Blair said he had it, Ford suddenly then and only then remembered smoking crack cocaine and that was the point-he knew as long as no one could prove the tape existed first hand he could deny it.

And that was the point you stopped being so smug to people who believed the Star reporters weren't lying all along.

[Rue]

Blubber I will keep this brief. The police physically came into possession of the tape the reporter did not. If you can't see the difference yes the responses you are now making are silly especially the one where you accuse me of calling the Star Reporters liars for the second time which I never did.

No Blair did not authenticate it simply by watching it. He physically took possession of it and if you think his officers did not examine it once it was physically possessed before they released it as evidence yes your comments are silly.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Rue

[BubberMiley]

Blubber I will keep this brief. The police physically came into possession of the tape the reporter did not. If you can't see the difference yes the responses you are now making are silly especially the one where you accuse me of calling the Star Reporters liars for the second time which I never did.

No Blair did not authenticate it simply by watching it. He physically took possession of it and if you think his officers did not examine it once it was physically possessed before they released it as evidence yes your comments are silly.

I think they examined it just like the Star reporters examined it. You can keep calling me names if you like and saying it makes a big difference that the police apparently have possession of the video, but your only explanation why that makes a difference is based on some remedial concept of hearsay that has nothing to do with journalism. Talk about silly. Once again, the only way the Star reporters could have been incorrect in their reporting is if they were lying about what they saw in the video.

You can try and save face all you want now that you, for some reason, are believing that the police have the video (even though you haven't "authenticated" it yourself). But no one is buying it.

[Black Dog]

Mayoral candidate targets Ford's office records

Councillor Doug Ford’s frequent visits to Mayor Rob Ford’s office have raised suspicions that campaign activities may be taking place involving the mayor’s staff, says a rival candidate’s campaign manager.

To find out, the David Soknacki campaign on Tuesday filed a freedom of information request for documents relating to the mayor, his chief of staff, communications aide, protocol manager, scheduler and policy adviser.

The aim is to uncover whether any of the mayor’s office staff are doing work for the mayor’s re-election campaign, said Brian Kelcey, Soknacki’s campaign manager.

I dunno, I would think if Ford was running his campaign out of his City Hall office, he'd actually show up there on time and for more than a couple of hours a day?

Edited February 18, 2014 by Black Dog

[On Guard for Thee]

Speaking of videos, I ber "Crazytown" will be interesting.

[Rue]

Blubber you keep referring to yourself as we. If you become we and us, will that make your point any more valid? Of course not. You are now trying to argue that seeing a tape indirectly without physically taking possession of it and testing it and taking physical possession of it to and testing it to then authenticate it before releasing its contents as he police did are no different. That Blubber makes no sense and one is heresay indirect evidence , and the other is direct evidence.

Speaking about smug what do you call your argument now with me? Hmmm? You would have people believe watching a video from someone wanting money for it but never testing that video to see if it was authenticate it is the same as police physically possessing and testing the video?

What you now want to pretend the police did not test the video just ran it as evidence without testing it? Better still you want to make up sheer fabrication that the Star authenticated the video when they admitted they never did?

What's with this you "think" the Star authenticated the video. They admitted they never verified it to see whether it was made up or not. They watched it. Period. Then they ran it.

We, us, you want to call me smug with where you have come on this issue? Right.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Rue

[BubberMiley]

What you now want to pretend the police did not test the video just ran it as evidence without testing it?

What do you mean "test" the video? Where are you getting this from? They watched the video and said it appears that its the same one the Star reporters saw. I suppose if they were using it to charge Ford with a crime, they would have to have someone analyze it to make sure it wasn't doctored, but they aren't doing that. There has been no indication of such analysis and there is no reason for them to do it now, other than maybe to help you save face but I don't think they're worried about that.

You're still not quite understanding what hearsay is. Reporting on a video you saw, saying explicitly you haven't verified that it is not doctored, is firsthand evidence. Didn't you once say you were a lawyer? I would think you would know what that is if you were, or at least you would know how to spell it.

Edited February 19, 2014 by BubberMiley

[jacee]

Blubber you keep referring to yourself as we. If you become we and us, will that make your point any more valid? Of course not. You are now trying to argue that seeing a tape indirectly without physically taking possession of it and testing it and taking physical possession of it to and testing it to then authenticate it before releasing its contents as he police did are no different. That Blubber makes no sense and one is heresay indirect evidence , and the other is direct evidence.

Speaking about smug what do you call your argument now with me? Hmmm? You would have people believe watching a video from someone wanting money for it but never testing that video to see if it was authenticate it is the same as police physically possessing and testing the video?

Rue, when you try to create a debate by splitting a hair, you damage your creds. Attacking to try to hold onto your half of a split hair is a bit much.

The police 'physically possessed' a video file.

The chief viewed the file video.

I don't recall him ever providing any other information about police 'authenticating' the file in any other way.

You believe it when the Chief reported what he saw.

You didn't believe it when the Star reporter reported what she saw.

That's your right, your personal preference.

But it's really not a very interesting discussion.

Edited February 19, 2014 by jacee

[Rue]

Jacee I will repeat this one last time.

Scenario 1-a reporter views a video provided to them from someone who asks for money for that video and refuses to turn it over and they report what they saw.

Scenario 2-the police come into physical possession of evidence and present it as criminal evidence.

In scenario 1, the tape remains heresay and is not authenticated but is run. There is NO attempt to make sure the tape was not doctored before its reported.

In scenario 2 the police come into possession fo the tape/ and its handed over as criminal evidence.

I was a crown prosecutor so I will try explain this. There is a huge difference. Police can not provide criminal evidence unless its verified. If they did not and its not screened first, the Crown Prosecutor. attorney general's office and the police could all be charged with misleading the court if the tape turns out to be false or doctored. There could be contempt charges and even Law Society misconduct charged against the Prosecutor for advancing evidence he or she did not test first.

No its not splitting heirs. Police will not use evidence in criminal proceedings without first authenticating it. Its not how it works,. You and Blubber assume it works that way. You think police and crowns just lead evidence without testing it. No it does not work that way.

Its not splitting heirs. In Scenario 1 the evidence is second hand and never is verified and could very well have been doctored, in the second scenario its no longer second hand and no police don't just assume its good looking at it once.

Don't be absurd. The first thing they do is make sure it isn't doctored-what you think they are going to be set up and made to look like idiots without first checking the tape? What you don't think they are sophisticated enough to know the tape could be fake to try make them look bad?

You think a Crown would lead evidence they haven't first tested? don't be absurd.

No its not splitting heirs. Its about preserving the integrity of evidence. The journalist code never allowed leading stories without first authenticating evidence. What the Star did was trash tabloid reporting. In this case if the police had not been able to get their hands on that tape what do you think would have happened? I will tell you, Ford could keep claiming it was fake. He only admitted it once the police obtained it. Its precisely the physical authentication of it that caught him. Until then it was just inneuendo and in journalism and law you need more than innuendo otherwise nothing could have stopped Ford from suing the Star for defamation of character and he could have played the innocent victim even longer than he did.

The Star set him up as a victim by taking the short cut and not doing the right thing a point you will not admit.

Secondly what if that was you and some reporter watched a tape of you and never verified it and it turned out it was fake? How would you feel?

As a journalist or officer of the court we of course have standards to assure evidence is authentic. The integrity of our professions depends and legal system depend on it.

In fact to not test evidence lacks credibility.

The same holds true in journalism. If editors do not take the time to verify evidence first hand they run the risk of seriously damaging the credibility of the entire profession and no that is not splitting heirs its called situational ethics.

Now you find this topic boring don't respond and please don't try turn it personal like the other poster has and suggest I lack credibility simply because you disagree with me. Its not about me. Its not about me splitting heirs.

Its about the criminal rules of admissability and the code of ethics for journalists that used to be followed by the Star and is not now being followed by them.

Would you feel the same way if the Star did this to some politician you agreed with? Of course not. You would call them afascist right wing etc etc.

I may not like Ford but I do not mix up my issues as to his behaviour with criminal rules of admissability of evidence which the code of ethics of journalism once followed and many writers still follow.

I know plenty of journalists and editors who would never have run that story precisely because of the arguements I made no matter how tempting it would be for them.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Rue

[Black Dog]

Rue you have no idea if the police did anything at all to verify the authenticity of the video before they announced it.

[Rue]

Black Dog it is standard procedures to vent any evidence in criminal law before its used as evidence. I do have an idea because I used to vent the information. Don't try make this personal as you are now doing. I was trying to make a crucial point. Out of respect to Jacee I am not responding further on this issue.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Rue

[guyser]

Sooo much wrong in this ^ post Rue

Athentication wasnt done prior to the Blair presser

[BubberMiley]

How could someone get through law school and not learn how to spell "hearsay?"

[guyser]

I know plenty of journalists and editors who would never have run that story precisely because of the arguements I made no matter how tempting it would be for them.

None of them work as journos I assure you.

All of 'em......ran that story including the beloved Christian Science Monitor

[Rue]

The giggling at typos and personal insults speak for themselves.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog it is standard procedures to vent any evidence in criminal law before its used as evidence. I do have an idea because I used to vent the information.

I dunno what "vent" means (air it out?) but the fact remains: you have no idea whatsoever what police did or did not do to vet the video to ensure it was not a fake. You can pretend you do till the cows come home, but you don't.

[Rue]

Guyser you made a statement that Blair did not vent the tapes before releasing them to the press. That is absolutely wrong. He can't. Procedures won't allow him to release anything to the press let alone to the courts as criminal evidence without first venting them. The fact that you refuse to admit such standard operating procedures exist doesn't make them go away nor will trying to bait me like Blubber or Black Dog make them go away.

[Rue]

Why would I pretend? You never miss an opportunity to try personally insult in your responses and that speaks for itself.

You want to continue to bait? Go ahead.