Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Guest American Woman]

I'd be curious to know on what basis the law would be able to prevent such a transaction. The argument that it's evidence of a crime is pretty thin IMO.

Sure it is. While the evidence that Ford is in the video smoking crack is a given to you.

[Black Dog]

Sure it is. While the evidence that Ford is in the video smoking crack is a given to you.

I take that to mean you don't have a clue as to how the law would be able to intervene in such a transaction.

[Guest American Woman]

I take that to mean you don't have a clue as to how the law would be able to intervene in such a transaction.

I take that to mean you don't have a clue as to what I was saying.

[Black Dog]

I take that to mean you don't have a clue as to what I was saying.

Amazing how frequently that happens with you. If people are constantly missing your drift, I'd posit the fault lies not with them.

Indeed, it's not like

You don't think maybe the law should step in and prevent such a profit?

is all that open to interpretation and raises the very simple question of "how?" A question you apparently cannot answer.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

Amazing how frequently that happens with you. If people are constantly missing your drift, I'd posit the fault lies not with them.

Ummmm. It's not "people;" it's a very specific group of "people," and it speaks for said "people," not me.

[Black Dog]

Ummmm. It's not "people;" it's a very specific group of "people," and it speaks for said "people," not me.

And when cornered, you double down on the arch tone. Predictable. So, I'll ask again: how do you think "the law" should step in to prevent a transaction between citizens like the sale of a video?

[Guest American Woman]

And when cornered, you double down on the arch tone. Predictable. So, I'll ask again: how do you think "the law" should step in to prevent a transaction between citizens like the sale of a video?

I think the law should prevent such a sale by being in on it. Sorry that was difficult for you to understand.

[Black Dog]

I think the law should prevent such a sale by being in on it. Sorry that was difficult for you to understand.

On what basis?

[BubberMiley]

Zapruder was allowed to sell his film after providing copies for the investigation; there's no reason why the person who had it shouldn't be allowed to do the same, even if that person is an alleged crack dealer.

[cybercoma]

This is a really difficult question apparently. It has taken over half a dozen posts and still no answer.

[Guest American Woman]

Zapruder was allowed to sell his film after providing copies for the investigation; there's no reason why the person who had it shouldn't be allowed to do the same, even if that person is an alleged crack dealer.

Riiight. I think all criminals should be able to profit from their *ahem* 'careers' - as the law leaves them totally and completely alone to do so.

"

[WWWTT]

Sure they have rights. They also have responsibilities that go along with those rights. If they are involved in anything unlawful related to this video (or unrelated, such as selling drugs as is their alleged choice of profession), they will have to deal with the consequence. I'm quite sure the authorities would be very interested in investigating their involvement.

That's real funny?

Because only you and a couple other here are the only ones saying this.

Why is it that no one else is saying the same???

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

It seems several people here believe that the media(Star among others) is out to get the Ford brothers.

It's funny how a couple of these people are very quick to cry "conspiracy theory"!

But now,when it is them that are desperate searching for answers pointing the finger of blame,they are trying to convince everyone that we are witnessing a conspiracy in full tilt!

Looks good on you!

WWWTT

[BubberMiley]

Riiight. I think all criminals should be able to profit from their *ahem* 'careers' - as the law leaves them totally and completely alone to do so.

"

I agree. Criminals, real or alleged, should always be allowed to profit from legal activity. That's the first step to rehabilitation.

[Spiderfish]

That's real funny?

I don't know...not sure what you would find amusing, but to each their own.

Because only you and a couple other here are the only ones saying this.

Why is it that no one else is saying the same???

WWWTT

Saying what, that they have responsibilities to act within the law? That they may have a background that they may want to keep from authorities?

I don't know who these guys are, if they want to try and sell the video, all the power to them. I would love to see it.

[Spiderfish]

It seems several people here believe that the media(Star among others) is out to get the Ford brothers.

Do you seriously think that the Star is an unbiased, unjaded party just trying to remain neutral and get a story out? I looked on their website this morning and counted no less than 61 stories written in the last 7 days about Rob Ford alone, every one of them derogatory and negative in nature trying to fuel the fire they have created. They keep throwing shit just hoping something will stick. It's gutter journalism at the very least, and quite possibly defamatory at worst. I don't care what comes out of this in the end, as I am not from Toronto, and never will be. If a video comes out and Ford is guilty then he will pay the price, and I suspect his career would be finished, as it should be. Regardless of what happens, any shred of respect for the Star and their journalistic practices I held before this circus has most certainly dissolved, I wouldn't accept an issue of their rag to start my campfire for fear that someone might think I actually give credence to their schlock.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Spiderfish

[Guest American Woman]

I agree. Criminals, real or alleged, should always be allowed to profit from legal activity. That's the first step to rehabilitation.

[BubberMiley]

I'm not sure what to make of your smiley smile, but I assume it means you are happy to find someone in agreement with you.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure what to make of your smiley smile, but I assume it means you are happy to find someone in agreement with you.

It's not a smiley face - it's an lol face - and assume what you will, no matter how wrong you happen to be.

[BubberMiley]

It's not a smiley face - it's an lol face - and assume what you will, no matter how wrong you happen to be.

I'm sure you don't mean that people who have been criminals shouldn't be allowed to make a living by legal means. I bet what you really mean is hidden somewhere and you delight in people not quite knowing where it is.

[scribblet]

Really? You think a criminal, a drug dealer, selling a video for profit - for 200k profit - is "fair game?" You don't think maybe the law should step in and prevent such a profit?

I heard on the news a couple of days ago that they would step in and they are watching this issue closely. Gawker cannot legally wire that kind of money without declaring it. If they tried to take cash across the border they have to declare it, anyone working for Gawker will be watched as will known drug dealers. Heck they are evidently in hiding now. Oh, and they can Western Union the money in increment under $10,000. but no doubt W. U. and the police will be watching as the recipient must show ID and so on.

Anything above $10,000 has to be declared.

And as a recent NP article says “the purchase of the video itself isn’t illegal, but if the recipient — the details of which must be known for wire transfers and other electronic transactions — is a known criminal and shows up on a list of suspects or suspicious individuals, it will be reported to FINTRAC in Canada or FINCEN in the U.S.”

Not looking good for the drug dealers getting the money.

[BubberMiley]

It won't make a difference. Gawker was in contact with the original video holder and he now says the video is "gone."

[scribblet]

Just saw that... hmmm that leave the Star et al on the hook to corroborate their story.

http://gawker.com/the-rob-ford-crack-video-might-be-gone-511254183

[WWWTT]

Do you seriously think that the Star is an unbiased, unjaded party just trying to remain neutral and get a story out? I looked on their website this morning and counted no less than 61 stories written in the last 7 days about Rob Ford alone, every one of them derogatory and negative in nature trying to fuel the fire they have created. They keep throwing shit just hoping something will stick. It's gutter journalism at the very least, and quite possibly defamatory at worst. I don't care what comes out of this in the end, as I am not from Toronto, and never will be. If a video comes out and Ford is guilty then he will pay the price, and I suspect his career would be finished, as it should be. Regardless of what happens, any shred of respect for the Star and their journalistic practices I held before this circus has most certainly dissolved, I wouldn't accept an issue of their rag to start my campfire for fear that someone might think I actually give credence to their schlock.

The Star???

What about all the other news outlets?

Until proven,what you are claiming is only theory,hence a conspiracy theory.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

It won't make a difference. Gawker was in contact with the original video holder and he now says the video is "gone."

I wouldn't doubt it if the Ford brothers bought it..

I can't wait for people here to say that I am wearing a tinfoil hat!

Especially if those same people are those that think the media is out to get the Ford brothers (probably the biggest conspiracy theory in the past several months!)

WWWTT