Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Topaz]

Well, you know why Ford wants the video out, there's an election coming up and he like Harper , want their problems gone by election time. Last time, Ford said that he didn't have to comment because there was no video, well, there's a video and he still won't comment but, mental health issue won't allow him too, the guy need rehab.

[ReeferMadness]

I don't get why the citizens of Toronto aren't marching on City Hall. Does this guy really look better up close than he does from a distance? From here, he looks like a major embarrassment.

[cybercoma]

, the guy need rehab.

ive been saying this for awhile. I'd rather see him get help than get punished.

[waldo]

a second video exists... speculation running wild, wild, I say!!! Sex tape?

[BubberMiley]

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the existence while not releasing it.

But then how are we to authenticate it to be sure it's not some cutting-edge, James Cameron-created digital Rob Ford?

[ReeferMadness]

Look at the picture. I don't think the laws of nature would allow 2 of those.

[DFCaper]

ive been saying this for awhile. I'd rather see him get help than get punished.

I agree completely. He obviously has a substance abuse issues. He is also not the first public official we have had with a substance abuse issue. How many prime ministers have we had that drank too much?

I am however someone who doesn't believe that drug use shouldn't be illegal. Just the sale of.

[ReeferMadness]

ive been saying this for awhile. I'd rather see him get help than get punished.

I guess that depends on what he's one. I don't advocate punishment for substance abuse, just help. But he'll have to want help or it's of no value.

On the basis of his obvious substance abuse problems coupled with past bad behaviour and comments, I don't think he's fit to be mayor. But that's up to the Torontonians.

But what else might he have done? He's been accused of assaulting his wife and kidnapping his kids. The guy purported to be pictured alongside of him in the video has turned up dead. And one of his best friends is accused of extortion relating to a video (possibly the same video?). Seems like a background more akin to Tony Soprano than a garden-variety drug addict.

[Guest American Woman]

But what else might he have done? He's been accused of assaulting his wife and kidnapping his kids.

Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Those are some pretty serious allegations. Have there been any charges? If not, I'd say they are baseless accusations. But out of curiosity, how does one "kidnap" their own kids?

Edited November 4, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

a second video exists... speculation running wild, wild, I say!!! Sex tape?

That's the rumour and that the female participant in it is on the, uh, young side. Improbable? Sure, but a year or two ago a mayor who smoked crack and consorted with small time hoods would have been considered out of the realm of possibility and look at us now, ma!

[Boges]

Member Nilyewmyix has upped the decorum around this debate.

[Rue]

Rue, the reporters at Gawker and The Star saw the video first hand. It wasn't second-hand speculation. They reported on what they witnessed themselves.

You missed my point. They saw it but you and I did not. Unless we see it directly, and we rely on them to tell us it exists, its second hand or heresay evidence. Unless you can see for yourself the tape and rely on someone else to tell you exists that is what makes it heresay.

Technically heresay is inadmissible in court because it can not be tested for authenticity. In common law and in criminal law and civil law it is a basic precept that for there to be a fair trial, the accused must have an opportunity to test the evidence for authenticity.

In journalism there used to be a strict code of ethics that said if you want to report something as an existing fact, you must be able to prove that fact with objective evidence. If on the other hand what you are expressing is a subjective opinion, then you must clearly indicate its not a fact but a subjective opinion or speculation.

There used to be a code of ethics that said any story that could destroy someone's career or reputation must be proven with first hand evidence because of the prejudicial impact of the consequence of releasing such a story.

That code of ethics was always made a mockery of by trash tabloids and the press in Britain with certain tabloids, but pretty much the American and Canadian media did not run second hand stories on front pages and presented them as facts until the Watergate era.

After Watergate all bets were off on what the papers and then electronic media would report and now we have no real code of ethics anymore.

Yes I criticize the Star for running the story second hand. I would have run a story saying their journalists viewed a tape that appeared to be Rob Ford smoking crack but I would not have run the photos. I agreed with the National Post's and Sun's approach.

That said Cyber its a moot point. There is sufficient evidence not withstanding hat video to indicate Rob Ford is an alcoholic in denial and lacking the capacity to serve as Mayor. Certainly his own behaviour yesterday on the radio made that clear.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Rue

[Guest American Woman]

I agree with your points re: the media, Rue, and that has always been my issue - along with the fact that the ability to recognize 'shoddy journalism' for lack of a better term is so often dependent on one's views. We have some who could see it re: Ford and we have some who could see it re: Layton. We have some who can see it re: Fox. We have some who can see it re: the Toronto Star. Yet so many will insist that the one supporting their view is 'fair and balanced' while loudly decrying the lack of validity of the other.

The Star apparently got it right this time, but that doesn't make the reporting ok - and it doesn't make all of the people prematurely jumping on the bandwagon ok. And of course because Fox sometimes gets it right too doesn't mean that it's "fair and balanced."

I think the way too many people jump to conclusions in this age of the internet based on such flimsy/unsubstantiated evidence all but wipes out the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty,' and unfortunately, lives have been forever changed/tarnished by such reporting/reactions.

[Rue]

That's the rumour and that the female participant in it is on the, uh, young side. Improbable? Sure, but a year or two ago a mayor who smoked crack and consorted with small time hoods would have been considered out of the realm of possibility and look at us now, ma!

Here we go again. What a gossip monger. You just can't resist the gossiping can you.

[Rue]

Agreed with you American W as usual. Two different issues. One is Ford on self destruct which none of us want to see for his sake and ours or his family's, the other is journalistic ethics and what should and should not be reported and when, etc.

Clearly Black Dog is enjoying the on-going lurid details.

I swear to you American W they are going to find him dead in a hotel one of these days like Chris Farley or John Belushi.

He's just another in a long list of self destructive people who make the news.

[BubberMiley]

The Star apparently got it right this time,

Why do you say that? You haven't seen the video and can't authenticate it. Why are you jumping to conclusions on the bandwagon based on someone's word, before the evidence has been released?

You should reread some of your own stern admonitions and rethink what you think.

And then maybe apologzie for questioning the credibility of the Star journalists.

[Rue]

Then why mention it in the first place?

The Chief didn't need to say anything. If you're going to acknowledge the video exists then make it public. Even to blur images of anyone else that may be facing charges.

If the Chief said nothing he would have been accused of a cover up. He was protecting his office from being associated or linked to Ford.

Stop slewing the messenger. If you don't like what is on the tape hold the person in the tape responsible stop trying to scapegoat the Chief for Ford's failures. This attempt to deflect blame on the Chief is BS. Pure b.s. He handed over the tapes to the Crown as he had to. He also had a duty to disclose to the public they exist.

As for his saying he was disappointed, you and many others trying to deflect the behaviour away from Ford being responsible for what's on the tape I would argue have removed the Chief's comment from its actual context. I heard him say he was disappointed.

I also heard him state he was disappointed for the public for having to deal with the issue. I did not hear him say he was disappointed in Ford's behaviour. You and others have read that into it. Why wouldn't he be disappointed? Its regrettable he has to say the tape exists because it fuels more upset with the people. That is what he was referring to. He did not suggest Ford was guilty of anything criminal.

On this one I think the Chief is getting a bum rap.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Rue

[Guest American Woman]

Agreed with you American W as usual. Two different issues. One is Ford on self destruct which none of us want to see for his sake and ours or his family's, the other is journalistic ethics and what should and should not be reported and when, etc.

Clearly Black Dog is enjoying the on-going lurid details.

I swear to you American W they are going to find him dead in a hotel one of these days like Chris Farley or John Belushi.

He's just another in a long list of self destructive people who make the news.

Can't find anything to disagree with here.

Again, I find it odd that Ford and his lawyer are calling for the police to release the video to the public.

Edited November 4, 2013 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

Again, I find it odd that Ford and his lawyer are calling for the police to release the video to the public.

Maybe because it's a fake.

[Boges]

It's possible, even after whatever criminal proceeding we're talking about here, the video never gets released.

So we're to stuck with the word of the Chief that the video exist. Ford asking for the video to be released can create doubt for his base. I'm seeing it on the internet and hearing it on the radio. Ford Nation's wrath is being heaped on Chief Blair.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Boges

[The_Squid]

If it is evidence in a trial then the video will be played in open court. If not released, it will still be available for viewing by many more people and there will be a transcript from court proceedings that describes the contents of the video.

There will also be questions about the video of witnesses. Perhaps Ford himself will be called to testify...

Edited November 4, 2013 by The_Squid

[Guest American Woman]

It's possible, even after whatever criminal proceeding we're talking about here, the video never gets released.

So we're to stuck with the word of the Chief that the video exist. Ford asking for the video to be released can create doubt for his base. I'm seeing it on the internet and hearing it on the radio. Ford Nation's wrath is being heaped on Chief Blair.

I'm not surprised that Blair is taking heat from some. That's the way of it. I would say, though, that Ford's apology et al coming hard on the heels of the Chief's verification that the video exists lends credibility to his claim.

[waldo]

.., though, that Ford's apology et al coming hard on the heels of the Chief's verification that the video exists lends credibility to his claim.

Ford apology??? You mean the non-apology apology... where Ford doesn't state what he's actually apologizing for? That one?

[Boges]

I'm not surprised that Blair is taking heat from some. That's the way of it. I would say, though, that Ford's apology et al coming hard on the heels of the Chief's verification that the video exists lends credibility to his claim.

Ford said on Toronto radio this morning that he "Does Not" use drugs.

Other revelations came out this past week that Ford was very drunk at a St. Patrick's Day party last year and was very abusive to other people. I suspect that's what he's apologizing for and he's public dealings with known criminals.

He also could be apologizing for all the drama his actions have created without actually apologizing for using drugs.

He wants to see the video because he wants to see what he's being accused of. Maybe there are several instances where he's been video taped doing something he shouldn't be and he's not sure which one the chief is talking about.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Boges

[BubberMiley]

The fact that two reporters took notes while independently viewing the video, and that a third person from Gawker independently saw the video, lent credibility to their claim too. Still, some felt inclined to question their professional integrity anyway and were enraged that others would even listen to them.