Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Rue]

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.

Careful. You clearly don't so go to the Criminal Code and read the sections on aiding and abetting a crime, and being an accomplice after the fact.

You might also want to go find out the name of the act that deals with the prohibition of the possession or sales of drugs listed on its schedules.

Now I will be glad to explain further and also explain the criminal laws that prohibit profiting from engaging in a crime such as selling or giving someone an illegal drug to use and then film it but I will first insist if you want to take up my time and legal expertise you first to donate money to an Israeli charity that funds bomb shelters for its citizens.

[Rue]

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

Say now what a surprise. Golly gee wiz. Now what. That fat by just keeps squirming out of these messes.Gall dern it how is someone that porky that slippery do yah mind telling me. Clearly Fat boy Ford ate the video.

[BubberMiley]

Clearly Fat boy Ford ate the video.

All you can do is attack his weight? There are so many other legitimate reasons to complain about him. His obesity is the least of his faults.

[Rue]

As far as I know,we live in an free democracy and have the right to freedom of speech and to earn a living!

Selling this video is fair game!

Are you saying that these people selling the video DO NOT have constitutional rights????

Why do these people selling the video do not have the same rights as you and I?

WWWTT

May I need to print this in BIG BOLD LETTERS.

Listen the point you keep missing is that a video showing people giving a fat white man what appears to be a drug to smoke by itself is not evidence-and I never said by itself it was. However here is what you and Black Dog seem to be choking over. If other evidence then comes out in conjunction (that means in connection with) with that same tape that can corroborate that the people in the video sold or even gave an illegal substance to that fat white man to smoke that is evidence they committed the crime of possessing then selling or transferring an illegal substance and it is evidence the person smoking the substance is engaging in an illegal act. Therefore the selling of a tape depicting said crimes, for money would profit from engaging in those crimes and that is what would be illegal.

You 2 are failing to grasp is that the issue is not whether you can sell a tape, which no one is arguing in itself is illegal. What some of us have tried to explain to you however is that if the tape becomes part of a body of inter-connected evidence that proves the people in that tape and the people selling the tape are the same, and the people in the tape in fact sold or provided illegal drugs to the person smoking it in the film, then yes they would be profiting from a crime by selling the tape and that is what would make that they did illegal. Whether the person in the tape is then proven to be Ford smoking an illegal substance, is a second criminal issue and what we are saying is your double standard of assuming Ford is guilty of a crime but the media paying people who aided and abetted Ford's crime shows you are selective as to who you criticize.

Its not a profound concept.

None of us can profit from crime.

If the crime is wrong as you have suggested since you claim Ford has engaged in crime, then trying to make money out of showing a tape of his crime made by the people who aided and abetted his crime necessarily is also wrong and that is why for example, when serial killer Robert Olson tried to charge money to disclose where dead bodies were the police could not give him money since it would have been his dead bodies he was revealing. Informants to be paid, can't be paid to disclose their own crimes, only the crimes of others.

Again you two need to take the time to understand what aiding and abetting is, what being an accomplice after the fact is and why those sections were placed in the Criminal code as well as other sections that prohibit making profit from the commission of a crime.

Also to Black dog, please do not try misrepresent my challenging the Star's ethics as a conspiracy theory.

I think its blatantly obvious the Star is anti Ford and has it out for him but that is not germaine to the ethics argument I have presented.

Plenty of media are bias. Bias in itself is not what causes media to become unethical. The CBC Radio is blatantly anti Ford and CFRB is blatantly pro Ford. Their biases in my opinion weaken their objectivity and therefore credibility but that has nothing to do with the ethics criticism I advanced and I never said it did.

What makes the Star toilet paper in my opinion is not that they are anti Ford but that they run and present uncorroborated allegations as facts. That is a blatant violation of basic journalistic ethics and integrity. I would challenge the ethics issues as to what they did no matter who the target of their wrath was.

What they did was trash tabloid crap. If it was not directed at someone you dislike but someone you liked, you would be the first to criticize it.

Your selective criticism of Ford's behaviour but not the Star's speaks for itself.

If anything I find them both at this point equally repugnant but for different reasons.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Rue

[WWWTT]

Careful. You clearly don't so go to the Criminal Code and read the sections on aiding and abetting a crime, and being an accomplice after the fact.

You might also want to go find out the name of the act that deals with the prohibition of the possession or sales of drugs listed on its schedules.

Now I will be glad to explain further and also explain the criminal laws that prohibit profiting from engaging in a crime such as selling or giving someone an illegal drug to use and then film it but I will first insist if you want to take up my time and legal expertise you first to donate money to an Israeli charity that funds bomb shelters for its citizens.

Do you know of any similar cases where footage alone was used in proceeding with such a case in Canada???

And if so,can you provide a link?

And once again,you seem to think that these people selling the video have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

For someone who claims to be a lawyer,you are completely oblivious to the Charter!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

May I need to print this in BIG BOLD LETTERS.

Listen the point you keep missing is that a video showing people giving a fat white man what appears to be a drug to smoke by itself is not evidence-and I never said by itself it was. However here is what you and Black Dog seem to be choking over. If other evidence then comes out in conjunction (that means in connection with) with that same tape that can corroborate that the people in the video sold or even gave an illegal substance to that fat white man to smoke that is evidence they committed the crime of possessing then selling or transferring an illegal substance and it is evidence the person smoking the substance is engaging in an illegal act. Therefore the selling of a tape depicting said crimes, for money would profit from engaging in those crimes and that is what would be illegal.

You 2 are failing to grasp is that the issue is not whether you can sell a tape, which no one is arguing in itself is illegal. What some of us have tried to explain to you however is that if the tape becomes part of a body of inter-connected evidence that proves the people in that tape and the people selling the tape are the same, and the people in the tape in fact sold or provided illegal drugs to the person smoking it in the film, then yes they would be profiting from a crime by selling the tape and that is what would make that they did illegal. Whether the person in the tape is then proven to be Ford smoking an illegal substance, is a second criminal issue and what we are saying is your double standard of assuming Ford is guilty of a crime but the media paying people who aided and abetted Ford's crime shows you are selective as to who you criticize.

Its not a profound concept.

None of us can profit from crime.

If the crime is wrong as you have suggested since you claim Ford has engaged in crime, then trying to make money out of showing a tape of his crime made by the people who aided and abetted his crime necessarily is also wrong and that is why for example, when serial killer Robert Olson tried to charge money to disclose where dead bodies were the police could not give him money since it would have been his dead bodies he was revealing. Informants to be paid, can't be paid to disclose their own crimes, only the crimes of others.

Again you two need to take the time to understand what aiding and abetting is, what being an accomplice after the fact is and why those sections were placed in the Criminal code as well as other sections that prohibit making profit from the commission of a crime.

Also to Black dog, please do not try misrepresent my challenging the Star's ethics as a conspiracy theory.

I think its blatantly obvious the Star is anti Ford and has it out for him but that is not germaine to the ethics argument I have presented.

Plenty of media are bias. Bias in itself is not what causes media to become unethical. The CBC Radio is blatantly anti Ford and CFRB is blatantly pro Ford. Their biases in my opinion weaken their objectivity and therefore credibility but that has nothing to do with the ethics criticism I advanced and I never said it did.

What makes the Star toilet paper in my opinion is not that they are anti Ford but that they run and present uncorroborated allegations as facts. That is a blatant violation of basic journalistic ethics and integrity. I would challenge the ethics issues as to what they did no matter who the target of their wrath was.

What they did was trash tabloid crap. If it was not directed at someone you dislike but someone you liked, you would be the first to criticize it.

Your selective criticism of Ford's behaviour but not the Star's speaks for itself.

If anything I find them both at this point equally repugnant but for different reasons.

No need to thank me for correcting you.

You sound like a supporter of the conspiracy theory that the media is out to get Ford.

What other conspiracy theories do you believe in?

WWWTT

[scribblet]

I think Gawker and the Star have been had.

What is disturbing is how many other journalists jumped on the bandwagon demanding more answers from Ford. Now that it appears the video doesn't exist they are all looking like fools.

As bad as the media can get, this is a new low in the Rob Ford affair. A completely fabricated scandal designed by the media to discredit the mayor. The Star (and Gawker) should’ve been able to smell a set up

[BubberMiley]

I think Gawker and the Star have been had.

What is disturbing is how many other journalists jumped on the bandwagon demanding more answers from Ford. Now that it appears the video doesn't exist they are all looking like fools.

So to sum up, the video existed, and Rob Ford know who had it, where it was, and had his toadies discussing a plan to go get it. The guy in the office who wanted to call police instead was fired, and then suddenly the video was "gone" and Rob Ford was confident of that (and freshly shaved to ensure no hair samples).

Nevertheless, crackheads will be crackheads.

Thirteen-percenters may believe otherwise, but they always will. They'll even take Stephen Harper at His word.

Edited June 5, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Keepitsimple]

Oh - one more little thing....after weeks of breathless front-page articles on Rob Ford and the video, The Star published a brief article at the bottom of page two with regards to the video being "gone". Now that's The Star's idea of balanced, responsible journalism.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[scribblet]

And of course, no apology for trying destroy someone's life based on unsubstantiated evidence, anonymous drug dealers and no hard evidence at all. The media should be ashamed of themselves for making the British tabloids look good.

Those who clamoured for Ford's head should also be ashamed of themselves for being judge, jury and executioner based on unsubstantiated allegations and not a shred of actual proof. The Star is getting what they deserve for running with a story based on rumours, innuendo and sleazy drug dealers. Those two reporters should be dusting off their resumes.

[Boges]

Regardless of if the video ever existed or not. Does this end this ridiculous, almost month long, story?

[scribblet]

It should, but the Star is continuing to investigate doncha know. Maybe the media mob will leave City Hall and let staff get on with business. It must be pretty intimidating and stressful for the staff to go through this fiasco. Maybe the Star should be charged with criminal mischief

However, let Ford be judged on his performance at the next election, not by mob rule rumour and innuendo.

BTW, when is the Star going to apologize to Ford for saying that he order emails erased which was untrue, or did I miss that one.

Edited June 5, 2013 by scribblet

[GostHacked]

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.

"

The criminals in our governments profit all the time from their 'careers'.

Edited June 5, 2013 by GostHacked

[Black Dog]

And of course, no apology for trying destroy someone's life based on unsubstantiated evidence, anonymous drug dealers and no hard evidence at all. The media should be ashamed of themselves for making the British tabloids look good.

Those who clamoured for Ford's head should also be ashamed of themselves for being judge, jury and executioner based on unsubstantiated allegations and not a shred of actual proof. The Star is getting what they deserve for running with a story based on rumours, innuendo and sleazy drug dealers. Those two reporters should be dusting off their resumes.

There was proof: two reporters saw the video with their own eyes. That's reporting. If they had not seen the video, but only heard such a video existed and went ahead and reported it, you might have a point. But you are actually suggesting three different individuals from two separate media outlets invented a story. That's a far greater stretch than anything else in this whole saga.

"

[scribblet]

There was proof: two reporters saw the video with their own eyes. That's reporting. If they had not seen the video, but only heard such a video existed and went ahead and reported it, you might have a point. But you are actually suggesting three different individuals from two separate media outlets invented a story. That's a far greater stretch than anything else in this whole saga.

"

They say they saw something which they could not substantiate but went ahead with a full scale smear job.

You know what isn't mentioned much? Anthony Smith was a visual arts student in college, which is what - hmmm interdisciplinary art using installation, video, photography and digital media.

IMO they were set up and have been had. Crack dealers wanted to make some money but didn't expect the blow back and publicity. (they should have).

[Boges]

They say they saw something which they could not substantiate but went ahead with a full scale smear job.

You know what isn't mentioned much? Anthony Smith was a visual arts student in college, which is what - hmmm interdisciplinary art using installation, video, photography and digital media.

IMO they were set up and have been had. Crack dealers wanted to make some money but didn't expect the blow back and publicity. (they should have).

But that's a conspiracy!

Without a video that the public can scrutinize people are going to believe, what they're going to believe. Whether it be that Ford bought the video, got this drug dealer killed, OR that the Star and Gawker made this story up.

Without a video, no one will know.

[scribblet]

True.. It's amazing how often videos get leaked and posted so I'm kind of surprise that this alleged video hasn't surfaced somewhere and been posted. When you want something leaked, it isn't.

[Black Dog]

They say they saw something which they could not substantiate but went ahead with a full scale smear job.

Again: they reported what they saw, as reporters do. And again, the Star sat on this precisely because they couldn't verify the video. Once teh story was out, though, they had no need to wait.

You know what isn't mentioned much? Anthony Smith was a visual arts student in college, which is what - hmmm interdisciplinary art using installation, video, photography and digital media.

IMO they were set up and have been had. Crack dealers wanted to make some money but didn't expect the blow back and publicity. (they should have).

Now this is full on tin foil hat stuff.

[scribblet]

What is, the fact that one of the drug dealers was a visual arts student so would know how to manufacture a video.

[WWWTT]

There was proof: two reporters saw the video with their own eyes. That's reporting. If they had not seen the video, but only heard such a video existed and went ahead and reported it, you might have a point. But you are actually suggesting three different individuals from two separate media outlets invented a story. That's a far greater stretch than anything else in this whole saga.

"

Yep,and there's a phrase for it.

It's called a "conspiracy theory"!

WWWTT

[Black Dog]

What is, the fact that one of the drug dealers was a visual arts student so would know how to manufacture a video.

He was a visual arts student. It does not follow that he would have the knowledge to make a fake video that would be able to fool three different people. (Indeed, he was transferring out of the visual arts program at the time of his depth). Talk about unsubstantiated allegations without a shred of actual proof.

[g_bambino]

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?

Selling videos isn't illegal (so long as they aren't intellectual property of or copyrighted by someone else).

[ed.: +]

Edited June 5, 2013 by g_bambino

[scribblet]

He was a visual arts student. It does not follow that he would have the knowledge to make a fake video that would be able to fool three different people. (Indeed, he was transferring out of the visual arts program at the time of his depth). Talk about unsubstantiated allegations without a shred of actual proof.

Why wouldn't it follow that he would know how to make a fake video. Well unless he was a poor student.

There you go, no proof of anything at all, poof - gone - it was fun while it lasted. Now maybe Ford can get on with running the city and more surpluses.

Wonder when the Star will apologize for the error in their reporting of Ford supposedly asking for emails to be deleted - maybe they should be charged with criminal mischief.

[g_bambino]

Not looking good for the drug dealers getting the money.

No; which is why I suspect they're no longer interested in the sale. They got greedy and attracted far too much attention to themselves.

[BubberMiley]

Why wouldn't it follow that he would know how to make a fake video. Well unless he was a poor student.

I'm still waiting for you to show me one example--even a Hollywood-produced one--of a person convincingly doing things he never did and saying things he never said. Your refusal to do so suggests that you know it's impossible but don't care because you like being able to make the argument. Edited June 5, 2013 by BubberMiley