Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Black Dog]

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.

then tell us, O Enlightened One: what did they do to "vent" (lolz) the video? What tests did they use, what experts did they employ?

[Black Dog]

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.

Look if I see someone who claims to have been both a journalist and a crown prosecutor continuously use the wrong terminology, why in God's name would I pass up the chance to point it out. It speaks to the credibility of your appeal to authority.

[guyser]

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.

I will quote the whole post.

1) He didnt vent (sic) them

2)He merely confirmed that what was said by the Christian Science Monitor is true

3)He didnt release to the courts......yet.

4) the fact that you claim employ in past in the courts is highly suspect for various reasons. I will not list those to save face.

[GostHacked]

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

Or use VENT as VET.

[Rue]

The personal baiting and typo error giggling does what exactly other than make it clear the two of you are carrying on with an attempt to bait me from another thread? Really you think I will bite? Lol.

The attempts to infer I am a liar, etc., it speaks to where you want to go on any debate with me. Once again though Black Dog shows he tries to focus on me rather than the issue.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/cornwall/en/hearings/exhibits/OPC/pdf/51_PS_LE-006_CI_Mgmt.pdf

Sections 12(l), 5(l)d, 14(l), of the Criminal Investigation Manual of Procedures, Policy Standards Manual, 2000 makes it clear exactly what I stated.

Logic alone would tell you a police officer let a lone his police chief are accountable for assuring that the evidence they pass on to the Crown or Media is vetted. Anyone in law enforcement or who practices criminal law or has been a Crown or teaches law knows this.

Unfortunately on this board, the best some can do is giggle at typos and make personal inferences and try bait because they don't have the integrity to simply type on the internet police operating procedures and find out for themselves before they begin with the baiting.

In fact the exercise Black Dog and Ghost tries to join in on is precisely what the police must avoid. No of course they can not throw out to the press or to the courts any evidence without first testing it. What an absurd thing to giggle at and try suggest the police just use evidence they do not test and expose themselves to passing on fake evidence.

Logic alone would have dictated what I said. Then again on this forum, its often about attacking the debater and not discussing the issues.

Each police force may differ in how it verifies video evidence but here is a general description of the practice:

http://expertpages.com/news/verifying_integrity.htm

Edited February 21, 2014 by Rue

[Black Dog]

The personal baiting and typo error giggling does what exactly other than make it clear the two of you are carrying on with an attempt to bait me from another thread? Really you think I will bite? Lol.

Does that mean you don't know the answer to the question I asked above?

[cybercoma]

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.

Physical possession of tapes, eh? When's the last time you recorded anything on video, Rue?

[cybercoma]

I do have an idea because I used to vent the information.

This sounds like an exhausting job. Edited February 21, 2014 by cybercoma

[Black Dog]

Physical possession of tapes, eh? When's the last time you recorded anything on video, Rue?

That's a nice catch.

[cybercoma]

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

It's practically heresy.

[cybercoma]

This thread is pun.

[Rue]

I have come to expect on this forum people will giggle at things they do not understand.

http://calgaryjournal.ca/pdf/EthicsCode09.pdf

The above is one example of the code of ethics in journalism I learned and have taught in courses. I chose this one because the Toronto Star does not follow parts of it but used to.

In particular the comments I made about only using second hand evidence as a last resort and needing to vertify first hand evidence can be found in the above guidelines. In section 8 and 15 you can see many of the points I made earlier which Black Dog now tries to infer I made up.

You will see in 15 it talks of obtaining a second source.

[Rue]

Interesting. The baiting where is it getting you. You denied there is a code of ethics of journalism and the standards I referred to for what I said. You deny standard police operations as to vetting evidence.

So now what you want to continue with this baiting? Lol. Please continue. Only don't couch your words. Just come right out and insult me and avoid the positions I stated and why. Lol.

[Rue]

Here is what students are still taught in journalism school but the Star no longer follows and Black Dog, cyber and Ghost want to ignoire:

http://carleton.ca/journalism/wp-content/uploads/EthicsPolicy.pdf

In particular look at guidelines 7 and 15.

I made it all up.

[Rue]

It's practically heresy.

Right and you think giggling at typo errors does what exactly? Does it make you feel good about yourself? really? Lol. Well I em glahd I can hep you feel good about yerself being aybel to edit. becuz you never made a typ in your lyf.

[Black Dog]

Interesting. The baiting where is it getting you. You denied there is a code of ethics of journalism and the standards I referred to for what I said. You deny standard police operations as to vetting evidence.

So now what you want to continue with this baiting? Lol. Please continue. Only don't couch your words. Just come right out and insult me and avoid the positions I stated and why. Lol.

The only one ducking the issue here is you. By all means, continue to make claims you can't prove and then cry when people point out "typos" (really errors taht anyone claiming to have the credentials you do would not make over and over again.)

I have come to expect on this forum people will giggle at things they do not understand.

http://calgaryjournal.ca/pdf/EthicsCode09.pdf

The above is one example of the code of ethics in journalism I learned and have taught in courses. I chose this one because the Toronto Star does not follow parts of it but used to.

In particular the comments I made about only using second hand evidence as a last resort and needing to vertify first hand evidence can be found in the above guidelines. In section 8 and 15 you can see many of the points I made earlier which Black Dog now tries to infer I made up.

You will see in 15 it talks of obtaining a second source.

LOL First, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say the bolded. Second, let's take a look at these things shall we?

7 That means that we do not blindly accept the word of sources – including public officials and bureaucrats – and we do not report “facts” when we are unsure of their origin.

So for example, rather than accepting the word of a source that they have a video of the mayor smoking crack, a reporter could demand to see the video for themselves and then report what they saw first hand.

If a potential source requests to speak “off the record” or “on background,” the reporter should first try to avoid such a request and get the source to speak on the record. If a source cannot be convinced to speak on the record, and the information is compelling and sensitive enough to warrant the use of an unnamed source, then the reporter must first ask the source what exactly is meant by the request

It’s not right what’s happening,” Farah told me. “I just really want the story out there. It has to get out there. People need to know about this.”

“If you really want the story out there, why not just give us the video?” I asked.

He told me he was acting on behalf of a dealer, a young man he’d met through his work in the community. (Occasionally he would refer to two people. Maybe there was another dealer — maybe a girlfriend. It was hard to know.) Farah told me that this dealer was a good kid but had gotten messed up in the drug culture. He wanted out. Anthony Smith’s recent murder had been a wake-up call. Smith had been a good friend. But the kid needed money to build a new life. The video was his ticket. -excerpt from "Crazy Town" by Star reporter Robyn Doolitlle

$100,000 is way too much,” I said.

“It’s worth a million. They wanted a million. I told them that was too much.”

“Mohamed, this sort of thing doesn’t happen in Canada. We buy videos and photos from freelancers, yes, but that’s like $500. Maybe $1,000. I don’t know if you follow this stuff, but it’s not exactly a great time financially for the newspaper industry.”

He finally wrote back: “I’m trying my best, I will reach out when I have something or when I’m done. All the best.” Shortly after, I approached senior editors at the paper. “They’re never going to let us see it if we don’t at least say we might buy it,” I said.

“The video will make you guys a lot of money. People would have to come to your site to see it. You could charge people to watch it.”

I tried to explain that it didn’t work like that. Someone would just make a copy and post it online.

“It’s not just the cost. There are ethical issues here,” I said. “Anyway, I’m at the bottom of the totem pole. It’s not going to be my call. I’m just warning you — I don’t think $100,000 is going to happen.”-ibid

Same again:

The Toronto Star does not pay for stories. It is explicitly stated in the newspaper’s code of conduct: “The Star does not pay for information.” But it does pay for commodities such as photos and video.

If Farah had come to the Star asking for $500, my guess is we would have paid him on the spot. The issue here was the size of the ransom and the people we would be giving it to.

Bottom line: the Star never paid for the video. The Star reported what its reporters saw first hand. When they eventually reported on what they saw, they explicitly stated they were not able to verify the veracity of the video, only what it appeared to show. All of this is legit. Bottom line: the Star's actions were completely consistent with standard journalistic practices.

[BubberMiley]

The giggling at typos and personal insults speak for themselves.

Know what else speaks for itself? Someone who cries about personal attacks that don't exist while calling other people names like "Blubber." If you base your argument on anonymous personal credentials, it's not a personal attack for someone to point out clear evidence those credentials are BS. Lawyers know what hearsay is and journalism teachers can write proper sentences.

But continue venting. You might let off some steam.

Edited February 21, 2014 by BubberMiley

[GostHacked]

Right and you think giggling at typo errors does what exactly? Does it make you feel good about yourself? really? Lol. Well I em glahd I can hep you feel good about yerself being aybel to edit. becuz you never made a typ in your lyf.

There is no reason to take what you say seriously when you cannot use a spell check. Sure you meant to say 'vet' but you typed VENT. AS a lawyer, you should be aware that specific, concise and precise language is key in properly delivering a message.

[Rue]

There is no reason to take what you say seriously when you cannot use a spell check. Sure you meant to say 'vet' but you typed VENT. AS a lawyer, you should be aware that specific, concise and precise language is key in properly delivering a message.

Is that it? You think you can avoid the very issues you denied and accused me of making up by again engaging in personal attacks that I can't spell and make things up? Lol. Keep going. Point out all the typing mistakes you want if you think that will avoid the issues you can't address.

Its interesting. The best the lot of you can do is justify what you are doing by claiming typing errors gives you the right to ignore the arguements? That's it? That is how you establish your credibility?

Well? Are you going to continue to deny the codes of ethics I presented or the manual I presented. You going to keep hiding from those facts by harping on typos? I spelled Bubber Blubber and this along with your latest gigglings on typos is your method of debating?

Lol. Got it.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Rue

[Rue]

There is no reason to take what you say seriously when you cannot use a spell check. Sure you meant to say 'vet' but you typed VENT. AS a lawyer, you should be aware that specific, concise and precise language is key in properly delivering a message.

The above statementy is illogical. My typing errors have nothing to do with whether standard police operations for vetting evidence exists or whether codes of journalist ethics I referred to exist. That is however the kind of response I have come to expect from you.

[Rue]

Bubber you clearly indicate that you have taken my spelling your name wrong as a personal attack. You then use that to justify yet another personal attack against me and deny it.

Here is the point. You have not made an effort to repudiate the police manual or the codes of ethics I presented. You can't. The fact is even if you feel my typing errors give you the right to giggle at me, it doesn't make the arguements I presented any less credible. That is illogical. The typing errors are an excuse to avoid and deflect from the fact that you Black dog, Cyber, Ghost, you all thought you had an opportunity to accuse me of making up the police operations manuals and codes of ethics. Its over. No amount of harping on spelling your name and feeling angry over that changes the positions I presented nor does it undo their credibility.

You and Ghost however now think you can use typing erros as an excuse to avoid the issues you claimed I made up.

I got it.

[Black Dog]

The typing errors are an excuse to avoid and deflect from the fact that you Black dog, Cyber, Ghost, you all thought you had an opportunity to accuse me of making up the police operations manuals and codes of ethics. Its over. No amount of harping on spelling your name and feeling angry over that changes the positions I presented nor does it undo their credibility.

-You've provided no evidence to support the idea that the police did anything more to the video than just watch it. None. Everyone knows the cops will look at evidence in an investigation to ensure its legit. The outstanding question here is: what specifically that means in this specific case. you claim the police "authenticated" the video. If so: how, exactly?

- As for the journalism stuff, I already dealt with that and your strawman b.s. about folks saying there's no such thing as newspaper codes of conduct (provide a cite please). According to those (student) codes of conduct you linked to, the Star was completely above board on this the whole time.

-The constant victim routine is pretty funny considering your track record of making false claims about other posters. But hey, if you keep crying about the poor people making fun of your "typos" (so many typos from an alleged journalist!) maybe folks won't know how completely full of crap you are (it's not working)

[Rue]

The only one ducking the issue here is you. By all means, continue to make claims you can't prove and then cry when people point out "typos" (really errors taht anyone claiming to have the credentials you do would not make over and over again.)

LOL First, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say the bolded. Second, let's take a look at these things shall we?

So for example, rather than accepting the word of a source that they have a video of the mayor smoking crack, a reporter could demand to see the video for themselves and then report what they saw first hand.

Same again:

Bottom line: the Star never paid for the video. The Star reported what its reporters saw first hand. When they eventually reported on what they saw, they explicitly stated they were not able to verify the veracity of the video, only what it appeared to show. All of this is legit. Bottom line: the Star's actions were completely consistent with standard journalistic practices.

The bottom line Black Dog is that you came on this board and tried to bait me personally and suggest I made up the standard operating procedures that police must follow before they can present evidence to the media and courts.

The bottom line Black dog is that you can not deny the above exists or the codes of ethics that I referred to which you claimed I made up.

The bottom line is the lot of you do not have the integrity to admit I did not make up the police procedures or codes of ethics.

The bottom line is you tried to attack typos and not discuss the issues.

The bottom line is you let your personal feelings for me cloud your responses.

The bottom line is when anyone sees a video but never authenticates it, that does not make it first hand evidence as much as you try spin that it does.

It does not become direct evidence until it comes into the physical possession of the reporter and is tested for authenticity, until then its second hand unverified evidence and yes there was a time a newspaper would never run such a story and I deliberately used the Calgary code of ethics because they were forced to rexamine their code of ethical procedures after being involved in a scandal that undermined their credibility.

The bottom line is you can accuse me of lying, pretending I am a lawter, law professor and have made a living as a journalist. I don't care. This was never about me. Never has been. Your attempt to try make it about me speaks for itself.

By the way one other bottom line. The issue is not just whether the Star paid for the video and again you missed that point in an attempt to try avoid once again the actual ethical issue. Its not the paying or not paying of the video that makes it questionable. That is but one ethical criteria. You completely missed the point. The codes I showed you and many others exist and state as I have shown, that when someone offers you any evidence that they try make money off of, a red flag goes off there is a conflict of interest that necessarily brings that person's reputation into question making it even more crucial not to run the story until the tape could be taken in and varified.

The bottom line is the police are obliged by law to vet evidence or as we say in slang and you people do not get vent it, i.e., give it the smell test, air it out.

You are so busy jumping on vent and vet you avoided the very issue as usual.

I was going to walk away from this one but this is the second time I note an attempt to gang up on me and make things personal and I am more than capable of resisting the bait and sticking to the issues which I am now doing but this issue is exhausted.

[Rue]

-You've provided no evidence to support the idea that the police did anything more to the video than just watch it. None. Everyone knows the cops will look at evidence in an investigation to ensure its legit. The outstanding question here is: what specifically that means in this specific case. you claim the police "authenticated" the video. If so: how, exactly?

- As for the journalism stuff, I already dealt with that and your strawman b.s. about folks saying there's no such thing as newspaper codes of conduct (provide a cite please). According to those (student) codes of conduct you linked to, the Star was completely above board on this the whole time.

-The constant victim routine is pretty funny considering your track record of making false claims about other posters. But hey, if you keep crying about the poor people making fun of your "typos" (so many typos from an alleged journalist!) maybe folks won't know how completely full of crap you are (it's not working)

I provided the very manual and laws that oblige the police to vent/vet the evidence before relasing it.

As for your absurd comment there is no code of ethics for newspapers, I provided one.

The fact that you now pretend I did not give you the very things you said did not exist repeat once again an m.o. by you with me to call me a liar or infer I make things up and then when you are provided the basis for these remarks, rather than have the decency to acknowledge them continue to deny them and state yet more personal accusations and attacks.

This latest name calling accusing me of making false accusations against other posters- that's par for the course. Its exactly what happens with you and I. When you cant' debate the issues I present, you try bait me and avoid the issues..

Its not working Black Dog. Have the grace now to walk away and stop baiting me.

The name calling speaks loudly. Calling me a liar, full of crap, all these names, they reflect on you not I.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Rue

[Rue]

This sounds like an exhausting job.

I wasn't going to respond but I am going to finish it. Venting evidence refers to the smell test. It has nothing to do with vetting although in this case they are tatamount to the same thing. The smell test or venting passing out the gas from the evidence to get to the substance is one expression. Testing it to make sure its authentic is another.

At this point the best your group has done is to bring up typing errors and completely ignore and avoid the fact that the police do indeed have legal obligations to vet evidence and that under codes of ethics for journalists they have many smell tests.

Now you go giggle away at that.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Rue