Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Boges]

Going back to one of the previous Rob Ford "scandals".

The Councillor who told Ford to leave a Charity Ball a while back because he was drunk was recently charged with a DUI.

Hypocrite much?

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/05/23/paul_ainslie_roadside_check_leads_to_3day_licence_suspension_for_city_councillor.html

Well not a legal DUI but one of those stupid new Ontario laws that suspend your license and impound your car for blowing between 0.05-0.08.

Not that it means Ford wasn't drunk at the ball, but I just find it interesting that the source was this guy was the one that said he was embarrassingly drunk.

[Guest American Woman]

I pity your clients, stuck with a lawyer who doesn't understand what hearsay evidence is. In this case, we have direct first person accounts from the three reporters who viewed the video. That's not hearsay.

It's a direct first person account that they viewed a video, but the reporters don't have a first hand account regarding what is purportedly on the video.

So I'd say Rue's clients are safe.

Edited May 23, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Going back to one of the previous Rob Ford "scandals".

The Councillor who told Ford to leave a Charity Ball a while back because he was drunk was recently charged with a DUI.

Hypocrite much?

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/05/23/paul_ainslie_roadside_check_leads_to_3day_licence_suspension_for_city_councillor.html

Well not a legal DUI but one of those stupid new Ontario laws that suspend your license and impound your car for blowing between 0.05-0.08.

Not that it means Ford wasn't drunk at the ball, but I just find it interesting that the source was this guy was the one that said he was embarrassingly drunk.

Huh. Guy runs into trouble, comes right out with it, everyone moves on. That is how it's done.

Meanwhile, Ford has just canned his chief of staff Mark Towhey, a key part of his campaign and a true Ford Nation believer. IIRC, that's his third chief of staff out in as many years. He's also gone through a couple of comms directors, his long time EA, just to name a few senior staffers that have cycled through his office. This is crazy.

[Black Dog]

Since when has a politician defending himself actually made people change their minds? First of all, the accusations are still out there. They're out there forever. There are people who will always seize on that, and people who will believe it every time it's trotted out. He said it was a crock, enough said. If it's true, so be it. If it's not, I think not giving it the time of day beyond what he's already said isn't such a bad way of reacting to it. As I said, anything he says can, and will be, used against him - and there's always going to be enough people to believe whatever twist is put on his words. We see it all the time. I really believe that if people would ignore this kind of crap we'd see a lot less of it. But - it gets exactly the attention that's desired, and people are jumping on the bandwagon regardless of proof, or lack thereof.

Again: he hasn't denied it. he told his brother it was untrue (speaking of hearsay). And he called the allegations "ridiculous," which doesn't necessarily mean they are false. If it's all b.s., how hard is it to make a statement to that effect? He can't duck the issue forever.

And as for the "working on it" regarding coming up with $200,000 - it's not exactly a fortune. No one has been able to come up with $200,000?? I would be surprised if this video ever sees the light of day. As for journalistic integrity, there are plenty of media outlets that wouldn't think twice about integrity - and have paid for information/photos that they have published, and have paid a lot more than $200,000.

Legit papers won't touch that because we're already seeing the ethics of such a move being questioned. It gives them integrity. Meanwhile,Gawker's "crackstarter" campaign has about $70K and five days left. They'll get there and the other media outlets can get the story without spending a dime.

[Guest American Woman]

Again: he hasn't denied it. he told his brother it was untrue (speaking of hearsay). And he called the allegations "ridiculous," which doesn't necessarily mean they are false. If it's all b.s., how hard is it to make a statement to that effect? He can't duck the issue forever.

This sounds like a denial to me: "Absolutely not true," he said outside his Etobicoke home on Friday morning. And yes, his brother saying Ford told him it's not true is hearsay; has anyone here said differently? Ford's saying it's not true isn't hearsay. But any claims from the reporters about 'what Ford did' is hearsay, just as Rue said. They were not there. They cannot give a firsthand account; any account they could give would not hold up in a court of law.

Legit papers won't touch that because we're already seeing the ethics of such a move being questioned. It gives them integrity. Meanwhile,Gawker's "crackstarter" campaign has about $70K and five days left. They'll get there and the other media outlets can get the story without spending a dime.

That remains to be seen, doesn't it? If the video is released, it will have to be authenticated by experts in the field. Perhaps it is true. I don't claim to know one way or the other, which is why I haven't made any claims.

[AzzHat]

All he has to do is say a few words. "No, it's not true." But he doesn't.

Now, how hard is it to say that?

Not hard.

So, it's reasonable to believe he doesn't WANT to say anything about it at all. Probably because he thinks it's too ridiculous to directly address the issue.

[BubberMiley]

Probably because he thinks it's too ridiculous to directly address the issue.

Probably. It would be ridiculous for anyone to waive their right to remain silent if they knew they were guilty.

[scribblet]

Okay - who answered this ad dated Jan. - fess up.

http://toronto.canadianlisted.com/other-jobs/looking-for-rob-ford-look-alike-imposter-toronto_1662709.html

Do you look like Mayor Rob Ford? I need someone who looks like Rob Ford to play the mayor in my film. It's a short shot of the mayor smoking a cigar and chuckling into the camera - as part of a montage. It's a dark comedy set in Toronto. Please send a photo for consideration and more information.
Location: Toronto

[left_alberta]

Okay - who answered this ad dated Jan. - fess up.

http://toronto.canadianlisted.com/other-jobs/looking-for-rob-ford-look-alike-imposter-toronto_1662709.html

Do you look like Mayor Rob Ford? I need someone who looks like Rob Ford to play the mayor in my film. It's a short shot of the mayor smoking a cigar and chuckling into the camera - as part of a montage. It's a dark comedy set in Toronto. Please send a photo for consideration and more information.

Location: Toronto

According to the Star reporters, they watched the video several times to verify that the guy seen with the pipe really looked like Rob Ford.

So, if the man in the video really was the actor who answered that ad, he must look a HELLUVA lot like Rob Ford, not just a general resemblance. The film-maker really struck gold there.

Plus, you're an actor applying for what sounds like an indie-film gig playing Ford puffing on a cigar. You show up at a house, and someone hands you a CRACK PIPE and tells you to smoke from it? I think most actors would assume that they were involved in a blackmail video, and try to get the hell out of there.

Though I guess the actor might have felt afraid for his life at that point, and just did done whatever the film-makers wanted. Still kind of odd that people producing that kind of thing would recruit someone from the want-ads.

[Guest American Woman]

Depending on the lighting and the length of the video, a double isn't inconceivable. Usually people see what they are told to see. In other words, if told it's Ford, that's likely what they'll think they are seeing even if it's someone who just looks like him. After all, they aren't family and/or great friends with him. Someone who knows him well would be a lot more difficult to fool with a double. I can't tell the difference between these two pics, for example. If I were told that they were both Ford, I would believe it - and that's just one quick example off the internet. If someone were really trying to pass the look-alike off as Ford and worked at it, I'm just saying that it is possible. .

As for authenticity of the video:

David McKay, [is] the president of Blackstone Forensics Ltd. in Vancouver.

McKay spent six years with the RCMP and has testified in court as an expert witness on video forensic analysis. He is also the manager of the B.C. Institute of Technology's Forensic Video and Surveillance Technology lab.

Excerpt from an interview with him re: this video:

With the Toronto video, the people who have seen it have said they saw it on an iPhone only. How easy would it have been for them to tell if that's the real thing?

It's going to be difficult just to visually observe a piece of video and say 'that's authentic.'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/05/21/f-video-forensics-analysis.html

[BubberMiley]

Apparently Gawker has been unable to contact the guy with the video for the past week. My guess is somebody with deep pockets and a career to salvage already bought it. But crackheads will be crackheads.

[Guest American Woman]

Apparently Gawker has been unable to contact the guy with the video for the past week. My guess is somebody with deep pockets and a career to salvage already bought it. But crackheads will be crackheads.

My guess is that's what they are hoping people will guess.

[BubberMiley]

My guess is that's what they are hoping people will guess.

Who do you mean by "they?" Gawker? Edited May 24, 2013 by BubberMiley

[scribblet]

Talking about Gawker - have you seen the latest

Proceed with caution and as one comment said: This money ain’t gonna buy a kitty rescue shelter - 200K is gonna buy a lot of crack.

Anyone contributing to this, is contributing to putting more crack out on the street and destroying lives.

http://gawker.com/rob-ford-crackstarter-update-509596078

If you are considering contributing, you should be aware that our confidence that we can get a deal done has, on account of the foregoing, diminished since we came up with this idea. This doesn't mean that it won't happen, or that we won't get a call in ten minutes, or that the publication of this post won't spur the owner of the video to reach out and re-affirm his interest in selling it. But this is where we are at.

So: Proceed with caution. We will update you just as soon as we have any further information on how this might play out. Don't smoke crack.

[WWWTT]

The plot thickens!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/05/23/toronto-ford-towhey.html

WWWTT

[BubberMiley]

I feel bad for the people who are trying so hard to defend him. It's a tough job that appears to be getting harder every day.

[Spiderfish]

I feel bad for the people who are trying so hard to defend him. It's a tough job that appears to be getting harder every day.

I don't see people defending him so much as their defending the concept of innocence without proof. Without evidence, the Star allegations (and Gawker as well) is barely more than tabloid drivel. Many includng myself have said on this thread that if the evidence comes out and a conclusive video is produced Ford is in big trouble. But no evidence has been produced. I simply want to see something to substantiate and proove the allegations made (by an organization with an obvious agenda to destroy Ford) before making judgement.

[Boges]

Apparently the Executive Committee is drafting a statement that they can't go on like this without the mayor speaking out about these allegations.

Even if he denies it and a video does come out, it'll be better than this. Ford's acting like a baby right now.

People are giving that hypocrite Paul Ainsley a pass for telling bold face lies about his Drunk Driving incident.

Rumour has it that one of the reasons he fired his Chief of Staff was because he said having a party for the football players on the team he was just fired from was a bad idea. (Massive Facepalm)

[Spiderfish]

I don't think he can go much longer without addressing this. His refusal to make a statement is only compounding a bad situation.

[BubberMiley]

I don't think he can go much longer without addressing this.

He can go to the end of his term and beyond. That doesn't mean he won't be political kryptonite who is completely incapable of effectively leading the city, but he can go forever without addressing it (even if the tape comes out). I think his ego is more powerful than any feelings he may have of doing what's best for the city.

[Black Dog]

Apparently the Executive Committee is drafting a statement that they can't go on like this without the mayor speaking out about these allegations.

Even if he denies it and a video does come out, it'll be better than this. Ford's acting like a baby right now.

People are giving that hypocrite Paul Ainsley a pass for telling bold face lies about his Drunk Driving incident.

Rumour has it that one of the reasons he fired his Chief of Staff was because he said having a party for the football players on the team he was just fired from was a bad idea. (Massive Facepalm)

What did he lie about?

[Spiderfish]

He can go to the end of his term and beyond.

I don't think so, there's too much pressure. His allies and supporters are now starting to question his silence.

That doesn't mean he won't be political kryptonite who is completely incapable of effectively leading the city...

I agree.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spiderfish

[Black Dog]

I don't see people defending him so much as their defending the concept of innocence without proof. Without evidence, the Star allegations (and Gawker as well) is barely more than tabloid drivel. Many includng myself have said on this thread that if the evidence comes out and a conclusive video is produced Ford is in big trouble. But no evidence has been produced. I simply want to see something to substantiate and proove the allegations made (by an organization with an obvious agenda to destroy Ford) before making judgement.

A media conspiracy so far reaching it includes the Ford-friendly Sun:

They tried to make him go to rehab, he said no no no.

At this point the video is no longer relevant.

[Rue]

I don't think he can go much longer without addressing this. His refusal to make a statement is only compounding a bad situation.

Have to agree with you. I have come on this board numerous times defending the right to due process and not lynching people without sufficient proof.

That is one issue and I remain firm on it that there has not been any proper evidence shown yet.

However holding yourself accountable to the public is another issue. On an issue such as this you have to address it. Ignoring the press is just not right especially when your chief of staff walks out and now is being quoted as saying Ford needs help.

He has to stand up and speak. His silence is just not helping matters. He's accountable to the public. If people want to give him the benefit of the doubt he has to at least show he is worthy of that benefit.

I have come up with all kinds of valid legal arguements not to assume his guilt because I am a lawyer and believe in due process. However what you are talking about is not a legal issue but a p.r. issue and from a p.r. perspective he just can't remain silent. He has an obligation to speak.

[scribblet]

I don't see people defending him so much as their defending the concept of innocence without proof. Without evidence, the Star allegations (and Gawker as well) is barely more than tabloid drivel. Many includng myself have said on this thread that if the evidence comes out and a conclusive video is produced Ford is in big trouble. But no evidence has been produced. I simply want to see something to substantiate and proove the allegations made (by an organization with an obvious agenda to destroy Ford) before making judgement.

Exactly !! If the Star didn't have such a track record of trashing Ford at every opportunity they would have more credibility. In fact, IMO people are going over to Ford's side because they are fed up with this type of journalism and turning people off. I wouldn't defend this type of (alleged) behaviour but I'd vote for Ford just see the Star's heads explode.