Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Black Dog]

I would think the cost of suing well financed organizations would be prohibitive, I don`t think the Fords are that well heeled.

They are millionaires a few times over. Plus in a case so clearly cut and dried, they'd have the chance to recover their costs.

They`ve allready spent a million fighting the last cases, even though they won. A case like this would drag on for years during which time, the lawyers have to be paid. Not to mention the stress it would put the whole family under. Besides, we know the papers cover themselves in legaleeze and alleged this and that... Not only that it would just ensure more unwanted publicity keeping the issue alive. Unless I had zillions, I wouldn`t go through that.

According to you and others, it's a cut and dried case of defamation, perhaps even criminal defamatory libel. A slam dunk like that, a chance to end the so-called witch hunt by the Star and lay the groundwork for a triumphant comeback: Ford would be foolish not to take it on. Hmmm.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Black Dog

[scribblet]

I don't think anyone has said it's a cut and dried slam dunk so quit imputing words that were never said.

[Boges]

Is a defence of saying they saw a video that "appears" to show Rob Ford good enough? They never said it was Rob Ford. They also made it clear these videos were "unverified".

Of course this thread is evidence that people are going to take that information and do with it what they will. Ford's silence the first week didn't help the situation either.

Now that it appears the video isn't going to be seen by anyone, anytime soon. Perhaps now is the time to sue. But I doubt Ford wants anymore of that kind of publicity.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Boges

[Black Dog]

I don't think anyone has said it's a cut and dried slam dunk so quit imputing words that were never said.

So when you said the Star should be charged with criminal mischief, that was just a reflection of your desire to waste police and court resources?

Again: you and other pro-Ford posters have made claims about the media, the Star in particular, on the basis of far less evidence than the media had on Ford. But yeah, the media are the one's on the witch hunt.

[Black Dog]

That story in the Star this morning would be funny - if it wasn't such a sad indictment for Journalism at The Star. The story of the "gone" Video clearly signalled that this sad saga was now dormant. Not only did the Star put THAT story at the bottom of Page Two yesterday - but today they follow up with a story that could have been reported three weeks ago....looking for anything, ANYTHING to keep their precious anti-Ford tirade alive. What a shameless excuse for a newspaper.

I know you'd love this to go away, but the Star story actually fills in the picture quite a bit.

The story has four neighbours saying the house where the photo of Ford and Smith was apparently taken is, basically, a crack house. One of the residents of said house is a friend of Ford's from high school. The house is 10 minutes from Don Bosco high school and around the corner from the building on Dixon road where the tape was being held. According to the Globe, the house was the scene of a home invasion on May 21, two days before Gawker's source went dark and three days before Ford spoke up about the allegations.

I think this is just getting interesting.

[Keepitsimple]

I know you'd love this to go away, but the Star story actually fills in the picture quite a bit.

The story has four neighbours saying the house where the photo of Ford and Smith was apparently taken is, basically, a crack house. One of the residents of said house is a friend of Ford's from high school. The house is 10 minutes from Don Bosco high school and around the corner from the building on Dixon road where the tape was being held. According to the Globe, the house was the scene of a home invasion on May 21, two days before Gawker's source went dark and three days before Ford spoke up about the allegations.

I think this is just getting interesting.

Your tale is accurate - but all this was known back then - it's all history. The story went dormant when the video was "gone".....but as I said, The Star is trying to keep it going with information that's almost 3 weeks old. I don't "want it to go away". I think it's been beaten to death and we now have to wait for the video to surface or something of substance to further corroborate the story - other than unnamed drug-criminal sources.

Look - either he did, or he didn't. But beyond that, the guy is obviously not a crack-head. Crack is hugely addictive and would have physical and mental impacts that would be impossible to miss. That said, it's possible he tried it once or twice - I can't deny that's a possibility.

[BubberMiley]

Your tale is accurate - but all this was known back then - it's all history.

Wrong. We didn't know what house the picture was taken in until this article. This is verifiable information that Ford doesn't deny, too. He said he was there (apparently at night) dealing with "property standards issues."

But beyond that, the guy is obviously not a crack-head. Crack is hugely addictive and would have physical and mental impacts that would be impossible to miss.

I think he shows signs of all those impacts. Edited June 6, 2013 by BubberMiley

[g_bambino]

No?

No.

The Star reported on Wednesday that records of three former Ford staffers could be in danger after sources warned city employees were directed to delete them.

The Star has not verified the information but is continuing to try.

Letter from watchdog prompts Ford denial

The Star heard concerns at city hall Wednesday afternoon over the potential destruction or hiding of the records of three staffers who resigned or were fired during the ongoing crack cocaine scandal. Sources told the Star the records were in danger after city employees were directed to delete them.

Concerns raised over safety of email records

That is a far cry from The Star lying about the destruction of records by Ford, as you falsely claimed the paper had done.

[Black Dog]

Another piece of the puzzle clicks into place. Read all the way to the bottom.

[Fletch 27]

And on and on with hearsay... "A friend of mine, her mother"??? Why not just name the name? This will simply continue to be a hostile attack with no proof and the lefties just guzzling it up...

Hows this "click into place" BlackDog? Whats next? "A friend of mine is the drug dealer who sells Rob Ford 10- ounces of crack a day"..

Man, these drug-dealers have a lot of honor! Typical drug dealers and users huh...

"Here's the thing: Rob Ford DOES use crack cocaine. A friend of mine, her mother is a serious drug addict. Rob Ford regularly goes over to her house to smoke crack.

The problem is this: The daughter wants to expose Rob Ford's drug abuse, but her oldschool Italian grandmother won't allow her to "bring shame" upon the family, long story short. So basically the daughter has become complicit with the entire thing instead of doing the right thing. Shame on you Jasmin."

Another piece of the puzzle clicks into place. Read all the way to the bottom.

[BubberMiley]

And on and on with hearsay... "A friend of mine, her mother"??? Why not just name the name? This will simply continue to be a hostile attack with no proof and the lefties just guzzling it up...

Ignore all of Flelch's previous posts regarding Jack Layton's visit to a massage parlor unless you want your eyes burned out by pure hypocricy.

[Fletch 27]

That didn't add anything to this Topic other than trying to insult me on my position in a past post?? Please, lets be adults here..

To re-iterate my post above.. its is 100% hearsay in these latest attacks on Rob Ford.. And Its gobbled up and guzzled by the Left whom are apset that their money train has left the station... And THATS a shame.

Please, Lets keep future comments to the topic and avoid personal attacks... This is not kindergarten..

Ignore all of Flelch's previous posts regarding Jack Layton's visit to a massage parlor unless you want your eyes burned out by pure hypocricy.

[The_Squid]

Ignore all of Flelch's previous posts regarding Jack Layton's visit to a massage parlor unless you want your eyes burned out by pure hypocricy.

Yes, it is amazing the hypocrisy of folks like Fletch. Where is the Layton video? Anyone from Sun News view it? lol

Hypocrisy is right...

[BubberMiley]

Please, Lets keep future comments to the topic and avoid personal attacks... This is not kindergarten..

It's not a personal attack. It merely points out that the line of argument you are taking would be even more effective against arguments you've made in the past. There was less evidence of Jack Layton doing anything untoward in a massage parlor, and yet you posted incessently about it. There is lots of evidence against Ford: testimony from three professional journalists; mass resignations on his staff; home invasions and assaults in search of a video; and a photograph of Ford in front of that home with known crack dealers. It's obvious that the truth will come out and Ford will be exposed and you will look silly for your defence of him. Keep it up, as it's inevitably going to be hilarious. Edited June 6, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Black Dog]

And on and on with hearsay... "A friend of mine, her mother"??? Why not just name the name? This will simply continue to be a hostile attack with no proof and the lefties just guzzling it up...

Hows this "click into place" BlackDog? Whats next? "A friend of mine is the drug dealer who sells Rob Ford 10- ounces of crack a day"..

Man, these drug-dealers have a lot of honor! Typical drug dealers and users huh...

"Here's the thing: Rob Ford DOES use crack cocaine. A friend of mine, her mother is a serious drug addict. Rob Ford regularly goes over to her house to smoke crack.

The problem is this: The daughter wants to expose Rob Ford's drug abuse, but her oldschool Italian grandmother won't allow her to "bring shame" upon the family, long story short. So basically the daughter has become complicit with the entire thing instead of doing the right thing. Shame on you Jasmin."

He named a name. And it's the same name as the daughter of Ford's alleged crack smoking buddy. Also mentioned the ethnicity of the family (which matches that of the residents of the house where the photo of Ford was apparently taken and where the video was allegedly shot). This blog comment being made months before this scandal broke. Paints quite a picture.

[WWWTT]

Hi WWWTT - is your finger stuck this morning LOL

I didn't say there was a conspiracy theory. The Star and Gawker have been had... but never fear, the Star is still on the case, hounding the people who live the house where Ford had his pic. taken. (well, allegedly) -

Actually you have been implying this all the time.

Just calling a spade a spade

WWWTT

[Fletch 27]

Yes, quite a picture... If you desperately need to believe

Other than that, hearsay..

He named a name. And it's the same name as the daughter of Ford's alleged crack smoking buddy. Also mentioned the ethnicity of the family (which matches that of the residents of the house where the photo of Ford was apparently taken and where the video was allegedly shot). This blog comment being made months before this scandal broke. Paints quite a picture.

[Black Dog]

Yes, quite a picture... If you desperately need to believe

Other than that, hearsay..

So how do you explain the way the details line up, hmm?

[WWWTT]

I would think the cost of suing well financed organizations would be prohibitive, I don`t think the Fords are that well heeled. They`ve allready spent a million fighting the last cases, even though they won. A case like this would drag on for years during which time, the lawyers have to be paid. Not to mention the stress it would put the whole family under. Besides, we know the papers cover themselves in legaleeze and alleged this and that...

Not only that it would just ensure more unwanted publicity keeping the issue alive. Unless I had zillions, I wouldn`t go through that.

LOL!

You are aware that the Ford brothers use their OWN MONEY to pay for councilor/mayor city expenses?!?!?!?

Rob Ford's mayoral campaign budge came in at $1,040,000.00!!!

To claim that money would be an incumbent for litigation is way out there!!!

Suing is like going to war,you only try it if you think you can win.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

That didn't add anything to this Topic other than trying to insult me on my position in a past post?? Please, lets be adults here..

To re-iterate my post above.. its is 100% hearsay in these latest attacks on Rob Ford.. And Its gobbled up and guzzled by the Left whom are apset that their money train has left the station... And THATS a shame.

Please, Lets keep future comments to the topic and avoid personal attacks... This is not kindergarten..

There is a name for this type of comment.

It's called "playing the victim card"

When someone calls you out,you respond by trying to claim that you are a victim.

WWWTT

[Rue]

Well no. Newspapers can't simply make stuff up or claim to have sources when none exist.

That's funny! Hah! Again. Write something else.

[Rue]

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.

"

No there was no assertion of that at all. You mistated what was said. The person you responded to, myself and others have repeatedly stated that until the alleged video they saw is authenticated, i.e., tested for verification of accuracy, there is no proof it is legitimate. They could have seen or watched a tape but what they watched remains unproven. This attempt to twist words and play semantics is pointless.

[Rue]

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

[ed.: +]

That is not the issue. Of course selling videos are not illegal. If however they are sold for money, and the people who earn money from their sale can be shown to have engaged in crimes depicted on that video, then it might be criminal, i.e., profiting from crime.

No one has said selling the video in itself is a crime.

[Rue]

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.

Now this is full on tin foil hat stuff.

No its not. For those of us who have worked as journalists, we do not report things without verifying what we see. That is the point. Its easy to jump to conclusions. Responsible journalists verify what they see, not merely pass it on. That is the crucial point you deliberately choose to ignore and its central to how some of us postulate the lack of ethics with these journalists. We have contended its precisely they because they merely reported what they saw without taking the time to properly verify it they violated a basic code of journalist ethics and no its not the job of a journalist to to be a mindless parrot and print anything. This is why we have Editors and Editorial boards. Its not the black and white simplistic exercise you depict it as.

Hundreds of stories are never published precisely because there is insufficient evidence to back them up or their prejudicial value outweights their probative value.

Do me and other people who have worked as journalists a favour-don't speak for us and tell us what we do for a living. Man oh man, as a lawyer and journalist I love how some of you pose as legal and journalist experts and tell us what the law and our responsibilities are.

Come on let's get serious. Some papers will run stories with certain evidences that others will not choose to run because one paper will find the story questionable and the other will not. Editorial policy can be as subjective as it gets and the absolute crap that poses as reporting today has eroded if not permanently erased the line between sufficiently corroborating evidence before publishing it and just publishing it.

[WWWTT]

That is not the issue. Of course selling videos are not illegal. If however they are sold for money, and the people who earn money from their sale can be shown to have engaged in crimes depicted on that video, then it might be criminal, i.e., profiting from crime.

No one has said selling the video in itself is a crime.

This comment is a big departure from your previous position.

WWWTT