Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

guyser · March 12, 2013

This about summarizes your knowledge of law I take it.The picture shows nothing other than Ford's eyes closed and him looking fat.

You forgot sweaty, uncomfortable and stupid.

Your laughing at someone elses knowledge of law is pretty hysterical considering, in your mind (as in mine) the photo is largely irrelevant yet you go off on this tangent which is really funny.....

The telling evidence came later which I note you have not commented on. A man standing right next to Ford who did not know him nor is he a politician stated he stood right next to Ford and Ford's hand never went on her butt and in fact he never made the comment she claimed about him wishing she was in Florida with him since his wife was not there. He in fact contradicted her statement and said Ford said it was too bad she did not go with THEM.

One knowing a bit about law would certainlky know that the man you reference didnt focus his entire time on Fords hands , didnt look behind him to see , without diverting away from said hands the entire time?

Yea.....right.

How am I attacking this woman tell me.

She is all bad and lying, alll the others are paragons of truth and respectability.

Come on Rue, its Rob F'ing Ford , aint an ounce of respectability in the whole family.

Pretty blatantly so !.

Edited March 12, 2013 by guyser

Rue · March 13, 2013

Guy stated:

"One knowing a bit about law would certainlky know that the man you reference didnt focus his entire time on Fords hands , didnt look behind him to see , without diverting away from said hands the entire time?

Come on Rue, its Rob F'ing Ford , aint an ounce of respectability in the whole family.

Pretty blatantly so !."

Actually I should not laugh at anyone. If you think I was laughing at you personally uh no. With the exception of one individual on this forum who has pronounced himself as royalty when it comes to morality and determining its standards, I take what people say seriously and if anything challenge their words not them as a person so if you think I am ridiculing you personallu-no-your quick pronouncements and misapplication of the rules of evidence yes and I will explain why on a serious note.

There are three sets of evidentiary issues;

1 -alleged words Thompson claims Ford said to her;

2-allegations from Thompson he touched her without consent in a sexual way (either assault and battery or sexual assault);

3-allegations he was on drugs or drunk.

The standard of evidence will depend on whether its a criminal or civil proceeding. In a criminal proceeding there must be beyond any reasonable doubt proof of a crime having been committed and the intent to commit that crime.

In a civil proceeding there must be on a balance of probabilities a reasonable basis for a Judge to believe an assault and battery occurred.

Issues 1 and 2 by themselves do not stand on their own as proof but they might be used to support 2.

In regards to 1, there was a man standing next to Ford at all material times of the alleged offence who is neutral-he is not a politician or someone who knew Ford just a by-stander and he has contradicted the statement of words Thompson claims she heard come out of Ford's mouth-that is serious-it provides a neutral person who directly contradicts what she said and that is probably sufficient to take away any balance of probabilities arguement she might have otherwise had in a civil proceeding.

In regards to the actual physical touching accusation, this man states at all material times he stood next to Ford while she posed for the picture and then left and said at all times he only saw his hand on her shoulder.

Do not as you have confuse his evidence as to his words, which is one issue I discussed with the next issue, the physical touching. Your arguement now is its possible Ford snuck a quick grab when this person was not looking. To believe that Ford who Thompson claims was out of it, would have been with it enough to time his grope for this man and everyone else not to notice. He would not have done it in a clumsy manner and made no comment.

Interestingly she did not react at the moment it happened and recoil, or scream or push him way. No reaction at all.

Right she was paralyzed with fear.

we already have someone claiming she lied about what he said. Then you would have us believe a quick grope happened, she never reacted and walked away but then we hear from two councilors she made statements that she was setting him up and only after that came out she then and only then admitted she was "going back" to set him up once it came out they overheard her. Now its a claim she was going back a second time to set him up with the words" it will be good for a campaign". Does that sound like a victim stunned by the silence of paralysis caused by fear who could say nothing until she went back downstairs? Really? You want to talk blatant? Really?

A credible person does not set someone up and say its good for a political campaign or is that not blatant enough for you? They immediately complain to someone in authority, i.e., his media hander and then demand an apology or go to the police. They don't walk back downstairs have another scotch and scheme about setting the fat boy up. Give it a rest. The facts and the time line are right there for you to digest and how do you think a Judge will react to a woman admitting she was planning to set him up? Do you not understand two wrongs can not make a legal right? If he did assault her, her setting him up is not justified. She is not the police. She is not some investigative agency. No a reasonable person let alone a politically astute one who understands how the law and media work does not try this kind of stunt.

She stated she had one beer but now witnesses stated she was drinking scotch. Small detail but it goes to a pattern of mistatements. She stated she immediately spoke to one of his political entourage-turns out that was not true, in fact she never did and when caught on that mistatement back-pedalled and stated well the person was a conservative.

This is a woman who also after the fact went back to the press a second time and now has made allegations he was stoned or drunk or in the alternatvie has diabetes. She is no doctor and a reasonable person knows that before you make such a statement you get proof. A reasonable person knows without proof their subjective speculation about someone being drunk is defamatory. That is the standard of law we are all deemed to know.

I do not make up these rules of law or evidence I can only restate them and tell you in the absence of medical evidence, in light of a pattern of contradicted statements and no independent evidence he touched her there is insufficient proof in either a civil court of law with the lower burdern of proof or criminal court.

What I also find disturbing is she said she told a police officer right after the incident now has back pedalled on that one.

Here is the bottom line. You condemn Ford and now his entire family but the law does not work that way. The law does not provide you a forum to

attack someone personally and his family because you do not like him either as a person or politician.

Read back your comments witht he exclamation marks. You shout. You want blood or what? You don't talk of his political record but you are willing to insult his entire family and not just him.

That is b.s. Now you attack his family? You now blame his wife, his children, his father and mother? Right.

Nonsense.

Now let's get serious. Sexual offences and even assaults and batteries are serious matters. I am not lecturing you but I am telling you candidly, I have seen many a victim not believed in court or let down by the courts. I know what it was like for women before the sex assault laws were changed to be grilled on their sex life as a tactic to get someone off a rape charge.

I spent a year on a rape case of someone repeatedly raped and beaten by her husband only to watch him walk.

Please do not tell me I laugh at the law. Your version of it maybe. The law has to be above witch hunts and he said she said to preserve the evidence and keep it credible so that it can't be manipulated for the wrong reasons.

The law can not and will not convict someone based on he said she said. It needs more then that and this is why it is crucial if a woman feels she has been assaulted she does not run to the press and start making inconsistent statements.

Sarah Thompson was media knowledgeable. She knew she would get her day in the sun with such a story. If she really believed there was an assault she should have immediately reported it to his media representative and head right to the police station and then make no other comment. This is not someone who does not understand how the law works.

She has undermined the whole rule of law by continuing to fling unsubstantiated allegations about. The latest drug allegation is inexusable for someone who understands how the media works. If nothing else its irresponsible and each and every time she says something inconsistent its not only damning her credibility but making someone genuine victim out there think twice.

Let's not confuse the issues. You are not dealing with someone who does not understand the law, the media, or what is required to properly report a crime. This woman has flaunted the law and has put her own ego on display in a look at me campaign.

As for Ford, I doubt on an individual level he's the kind of person I would hang with. His views on social issues, gays, women, are in my personal opinion ignorant and insensitive. That said, I do not hang the man because he as a fat right winger. I might hang him on a bad political record. That is fair game, but no I don't accuse him of groping or fondling if I am not 100% clear on what has happened.

The little I have seen is someone who flings along a story ad libbing and then when she gets caught back pedalling and the press grew aware of her back pedalling, exposed it then backed right off when it became clear she was going to continue to make allegations she can't prove.

The lie detector test is a ridiculous stunt. The police do not use them for assault and batteries and they are highly suspect at the best of times and a media save Sarah Thompson knows this. She is trying to turn this into the Maury Povich show.

If you want I can call Steve Wilkos and have him do his lie detector test on Bob. They are both bald white men. I am sure they would bond.

This is a sordid event. If you can't find a political record to criticize move on. Go find another Frankenstein to burn in the night.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Rue

Boges · March 13, 2013

The one thing that makes me not believe her was what she said in an interview on Friday.

Apparently this story broke from a post on Facebook where she posted the picture and mentioned some crude thing Ford said about them having fun in Florida while his wife wasn't there. (His wife was apparently there)

When people inquired further she said "You should see where his hand is".

She buried the lead! She justified it by saying, "as a wordsmith" she was far more offended by what he said than what he did.

I think she just threw that out there and it blew up in her face and she had to go with it.

guyser · March 13, 2013

Read back your comments witht he exclamation marks. You shout. You want blood or what? You don't talk of his political record but you are willing to insult his entire family and not just him.

That is b.s. Now you attack his family? You now blame his wife, his children, his father and mother? Right.

I looked, there were no exclamation marks. Nor any shouting.

Since Ford grew up in my neighbourhood and I went tot school with the Ford kids (one was always in my class) I kind of know what they are about. As for the dad,he was effective , no saint of course, but he didnt get himself in hot water like his famous son does. So no, I dont want blood , Id prefer they just go back to making lots of money selling decals instead of embarassing themselves daily.

As for the legal lesson, thanks, not sure why you took the time to post that, pretty common knowledge all of it .

And for the record, none of the Thompson issues will go anywhere , never did think much of it beyond "Ford's Daily Goof" .

guyser · March 13, 2013

I think she just threw that out there and it blew up in her face and she had to go with it.

Chances are you are correct.

PIK · March 13, 2013

Of all the women that were there, and I bet there was lots that were alot better looking then her, and he picks the one that hates him, has a agenda and calls him every name in the book. Ya right. She screwed up. Hatred is a funny thing , it can make you crazy, crazy enough to do stupid things.

August1991 · March 14, 2013

The worst thing about the ongoing Ford circus....

"... ongoing Ford circus..."? WTF? Ford had nothing to do with this, or any other circus.

It seems to me that this is a Leftist circus. It's a story - genre:

Toronto Star: "I heard that you were involved in a theft ring?"

Ford: "Yes. My watch was stolen."

-----

To be partisan, the Left will use any means to defeat its opponents. In response, as Kate McMillan states, "Not showing up to riot" is a failed policy.

Well, I'm a conservative because I believe in civilisation, and I prefer slow State change. I don't like mobs; I don't demonstrate in streets. Democracy is not a mob.

Toronto's progressive/crazy/revolutionary Left apparently steals watches - to make a victim look guilty.

Edited March 14, 2013 by August1991

Rue · March 14, 2013

I looked, there were no exclamation marks. Nor any shouting.

As for the legal lesson, thanks, not sure why you took the time to post that, pretty common knowledge all of it ."

1. You stated: " Pretty blatantly so !."

2. I responded to your comments on my alleged misrepresentation of the law of evidence.

Rue · March 14, 2013

Of all the women that were there, and I bet there was lots that were alot better looking then her, and he picks the one that hates him, has a agenda and calls him every name in the book. Ya right. She screwed up. Hatred is a funny thing , it can make you crazy, crazy enough to do stupid things.

Her looks or appearance are not the issue-her credibility in what she has said and the credibility of his responses and evidence available are what is in debate. Insulting her looks is as pointless as insulting his.

PIK · March 14, 2013

Her looks or appearance are not the issue-her credibility in what she has said and the credibility of his responses and evidence available are what is in debate. Insulting her looks is as pointless as insulting his.

And where did I insult her looks???? All I said there was better pickings if he was into grabbing ass. And why would he grab hers of all people? Do you get it now? And now it seem she was lying about her drinking that night. Just imagine if she had become mayor of toronto. LMFAO

Black Dog · March 14, 2013

"... ongoing Ford circus..."? WTF? Ford had nothing to do with this, or any other circus.

You're wrong here. As always.

To be partisan, the Left will use any means to defeat its opponents. In response, as Kate McMillan states, "Not showing up to riot" is a failed policy.

Well, I'm a conservative because I believe in civilisation, and I prefer slow State change. I don't like mobs; I don't demonstrate in streets. Democracy is not a mob.

Toronto's progressive/crazy/revolutionary Left apparently steals watches - to make a victim look guilty.

I do love these aimless meanderings of yours.

This is the only scandal involving Ford where he wasn't complicit in some way. Of course, that assumes he did not do what Thomson said he did. The mere fact that a drunk mayor grabbing her ass and making rude remarks is considered within the realm of possibility says everything about Ford, not his opponents.

Black Dog · March 14, 2013

And where did I insult her looks???? All I said there was better pickings if he was into grabbing ass. And why would he grab hers of all people? Do you get it now? And now it seem she was lying about her drinking that night. Just imagine if she had become mayor of toronto. LMFAO

Yeah, geez we might be bogged down with constant controversies and distractions that keep the city from moving forward...oh shit nevermind, that's what we have now.

Boges · March 14, 2013

You're wrong here. As always.I do love these aimless meanderings of yours.This is the only scandal involving Ford where he wasn't complicit in some way. Of course, that assumes he did not do what Thomson said he did. The mere fact that a drunk mayor grabbing her ass and making rude remarks is considered within the realm of possibility says everything about Ford, not his opponents.

Actually, even Thompson said he was acting differently than he normally does.

He doesn't have a reputation of being a womanizing creep as far as I know.

Black Dog · March 14, 2013

Actually, even Thompson said he was acting differently than he normally does.

He doesn't have a reputation of being a womanizing creep as far as I know.

Just a creep. Ask the couple he verbally abused at that Leafs game.

PIK · March 14, 2013

Yeah, geez we might be bogged down with constant controversies and distractions that keep the city from moving forward...oh shit nevermind, that's what we have now.

She would be right up there with marios. lol

August1991 · March 16, 2013

You're wrong here. As always.I do love these aimless meanderings of yours.

This is the only scandal involving Ford where he wasn't complicit in some way. Of course, that assumes he did not do what Thomson said he did. The mere fact that a drunk mayor grabbing her ass and making rude remarks is considered within the realm of possibility says everything about Ford, not his opponents.

The "only" scandal? Toronto Leftists have implicated Rob Ford in numerous "scandals".

I reckon that the American Right started this political strategy with Bill Clinton.

Strategy?

1. Keep the opponent and his lawyers busy, preoccupied.

2. Most voters (largely unattentive) will simply see the politician as "bad news". (Rob Ford? Bill Clinton? There's always a scandal. Someone stole a watch. Likely Clinton or Ford.)

Edited March 16, 2013 by August1991

Rue · March 17, 2013

Better pickings? I take that to mean a better ass. The choice of ass is not the issue. Proof of grabbing any ass is.

Rue · March 17, 2013

Yeah, geez we might be bogged down with constant controversies and distractions that keep the city from moving forward...oh shit nevermind, that's what we have now.

Yes I mean just look at how much time that gay pride day parade issue took. We need to get back to real issues where we can march and protest Israel's existence and hey maybe even pinch some Zionist butt while we are at it.

Black Dog · March 18, 2013

Yes I mean just look at how much time that gay pride day parade issue took. We need to get back to real issues where we can march and protest Israel's existence and hey maybe even pinch some Zionist butt while we are at it.

Yawn.

Black Dog · March 18, 2013

The "only" scandal? Toronto Leftists have implicated Rob Ford in numerous "scandals".

Ford has been involved in numerous scandals, it's true. except this stuff for the most part isn't being made up.

I reckon that the American Right started this political strategy with Bill Clinton.

Strategy?

1. Keep the opponent and his lawyers busy, preoccupied.

2. Most voters (largely unattentive) will simply see the politician as "bad news". (Rob Ford? Bill Clinton? There's always a scandal. Someone stole a watch. Likely Clinton or Ford.)

As someone who doesn't live in Toronto (or indeed, Planet Earth), you probably don't have much of a grasp of what's happening. These scandals aren't distracting Ford from his agenda because he has no agenda or any interest in governing. When you have someone only interested in the retail side of politics (the networking, flesh-pressing and boozing) and not actual governance, this is the kind of shit you get. It's not the fault of "the left" that Ford keeping feeding them ammunition.

WWWTT · March 18, 2013

Yes very true,Ford is only interested in the retail side of politics!

Also he is trying to create a climate where only wealthy people are able to be in municipal(Toronto) politics,and that is very wrong!

WWWTT

Shady · March 21, 2013

I have to agree with a previous premise. This whole thing is part of the leftwing circus that started the second Ford decided to run for office. And has intensified when he won. It's a massive witch hunt the likes of which I have never seen for somebody other than a Premier and PM. It's an embarrassment for so-called journalism.

WWWTT · March 21, 2013

Boo hoo hoo,my name is Rob Ford and everybody is picking on me,it's not fair,these people are not playing fair,boo hoo hoo,I'm Rob Ford,I'm Rob Ford!I'm Rob _____' Ford!!!!

That's what Rob Ford and his defenders sound like.

The Ford brothers are using their own money to pay for all expences related to their job(council and mayor),which in my opinion should be illegal,if not a criminal offence.

This act creates a false sence of ability granted to the perpetrator.

The voters fall into the false belief that everyone should spend their own money to pay for their employers expences.

As far as I'm concerned,this act should be made illegal,then the Ford brothers can be charged and locked up for good!

WWWTT

Black Dog · March 22, 2013

I have to agree with a previous premise. This whole thing is part of the leftwing circus that started the second Ford decided to run for office. And has intensified when he won. It's a massive witch hunt the likes of which I have never seen for somebody other than a Premier and PM. It's an embarrassment for so-called journalism.

Ford's problem is that he's carrying on just as he did when he was the bumblefuck councillor. The big difference is he's under the microscope now. A smart person would change their behaviour and look at minimizing the distractions and scandals. But Ford is anything but.

Boges · March 22, 2013

Boo hoo hoo,my name is Rob Ford and everybody is picking on me,it's not fair,these people are not playing fair,boo hoo hoo,I'm Rob Ford,I'm Rob Ford!I'm Rob _____' Ford!!!!

That's what Rob Ford and his defenders sound like.

The Ford brothers are using their own money to pay for all expences related to their job(council and mayor),which in my opinion should be illegal,if not a criminal offence.

This act creates a false sence of ability granted to the perpetrator.

The voters fall into the false belief that everyone should spend their own money to pay for their employers expences.

As far as I'm concerned,this act should be made illegal,then the Ford brothers can be charged and locked up for good!

WWWTT

So you want paying for your own expenses deemed a criminal offense punishable by jail time?

Good luck with that policy. Should Olivia Chow agree, perhaps she should run on that platform.

I think people using their office budgets for parties present the exact opposite impression the Ford's are trying to present by spending nothing.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Boges