Rob Ford Transgressions Thread

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

What good does it do him to give a non-denial denial? If it turns out the video is real he can say "oh but I never said I didn't use to do crack" and keep being mayor because hey at least he was honest about it. Doesn't make any sense at all to me to be tearing apart his wording for individual meanings of words.

The good it does him is that those who are in his corner will treat it as a denial, even if it isn't. Meanwhile, he avoids lieing about it. Crazy as it may be, there are segments of the population to whom that matters greatly.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by SebC

The good it does him is that those who are in his corner will treat it as a denial, even if it isn't. Meanwhile, he avoids lieing about it. Crazy as it may be, there are segments of the population to whom that matters greatly.

So he lies about the DUI and marijuana stuff, but oh no he cannot lie about crack because it would be against his morals?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

So he lies about the DUI and marijuana stuff, but oh no he cannot lie about crack because it would be against his morals?

Maybe he's figured out that his past lies haven't worked in his favour?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

So he lies about the DUI and marijuana stuff, but oh no he cannot lie about crack because it would be against his morals?

Of course he can lie about it (and I suspect he would if it meant him staying in power)....but we have no tangible evidence that he has or did at this point....none.

That's how it works in a free society....innocent until proven guilty.

Fortunately for the people of Toronto there is a public court of opinion where that doesn't matter however, and they have a very easy course of action to punish him with when the next election comes. Until that time though, or until the alleged video is secured and declared as real, accusations are just that...accusations.

No one should be forced to resign there elected position on pure supposition though. If that was the case we would see politicians getting accused of any number of things at every level of government with the conclusion of them leaving their post....all without tangible proof of wrongdoing. A very slippery slope that no one should want to see in any democracy.

[JonDuke]

17k in 27 hours....and then they find out the video is no longer for sale.

I haven't been following this as much as some of you clearly are, but I did read soemwhere that the guy with the video is no longer available. Is that true?
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rob-ford-crackstarter

[jayswin]

Looks more and more like there won't be any video surfacing.

[MelBridgeman]

wheres the video?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

wheres the video?

Probably at the bottom of the Humber River by now.

[killer_carlson]

What?

Crack dealers are unreliable?

Say it aint so!

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Huh, this makes entirely no sense, your saying that some of us are stupid for not performing the proper due diligence and wanting to see the actual proof of the act instead of believing the journalists? that makes zero sense.

I was on scotch #4 and you want reason??

(I have today off)

[worth]

We will never see the video. Whether it existed or not will never be known. Rob Ford will serve out his term and run again in the next election. I don't see how he can win unless some serious funny business takes place.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No one should be forced to resign there elected position on pure supposition though. If that was the case we would see politicians getting accused of any number of things at every level of government with the conclusion of them leaving their post....all without tangible proof of wrongdoing. A very slippery slope that no one should want to see in any democracy.

I do not think it is unusual for politicians to resign in the face of a loss of pubic confidence centered around a controversial and personal issue, proven or unproven.

It's more a decision about damage control and survivability . . . . . will the controversy grow or will it die a natural death?

Does the public want a likely crackhead as a mayor, with a probable drug-dealing brother as a senior advisor, proven or not?

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by worth

We will never see the video. Whether it existed or not will never be known. Rob Ford will serve out his term and run again in the next election. I don't see how he can win unless some serious funny business takes place.

Don't underestimate the corruption in Toronto civic politics and the willingness for people to accept it. It's the kind off thing you would expect more in places like Italy or Southeastern Europe.

[killer_carlson]

I bet Ford wins the next election. Calling it now.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I bet Ford wins the next election. Calling it now.

A new poll of nearly 1,400 Torontonians shows that a week filled with drug allegations and vehement denials hasn’t changed Mayor Rob Ford’s election prospects — he’d still lose to Olivia Chow.


In a one-on-one match-up between NDP MP Olivia Chow and the mayor, Chow wins with more than half the vote, 56 per cent, to about a third for the mayor (36 per cent), according to a poll released Sunday by Forum Research Inc.

That result is nearly unchanged from the result of a poll conducted May 10.


In a three-way contest between the mayor, Chow, and radio host John Tory, Chow wins with 42 per cent of the vote to about 27 per cent for Ford and 24 per cent for Tory.


http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013...oll_finds.html


Rosie DiManno in the Star with a pretty funny cut-up on the Ford bullies.


http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013...e_dimanno.html


Cowperson

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Nobody has to believe Ford's denials if they dont want too...but...they should also absolutely want both the Star and the Globe to prove what they allege with the same veracity. Instead, I get a very definitive feeling that those folks who are all over this thing as done and complete....are not holding the actual accusers to anywhere near the same level of accountability. Guilty til proven innocent, and that is mostly by people who would consider themselves among the "tolerant and compassionate" side of the political spectrum. Its quite telling.

I mean if I was to contact some US based website and tell them I have a video of Calgarys mayor smoking crack with me and my dope selling gangster friends, but offered zero actual proof other than the words from 2 calgary sun reporters....those same people would be up one side of me and down another, calling for libel suits and defamation decrees all the while.

It doesnt matter what Fords previous buffonery contains (and its extensive no doubt) because this is a very seperate and highly volatile accusation. I dont get why people cant seperate those things, but its the way both the law and reality work.

If all journalists were held to the standard you're setting, Watergate never would have been uncovered. Sometimes the simple fact is where there's smoke there's fire.

I mean look at all the Counsellors encouraging him to get his act together, his own Chief of Staff even.

I'd be more inclined to believe that whatever his actual problem is, it's more or less an open secret. Those around him know but would rather he seek help than humiliate him (and the city).

I'd compare it to the open secrets about many NHLers. Journalists know but don't publish all the gory details.

Did the Star have an agenda by publishing the story? Yes. They probably did. But look the National Post, a natural ally is also on record as thinking Ford should seek help. I don't think the G&M is considered a rag in many circles either.

Something is up IMO.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Until I see it, I have doubts. Produce of end the story.



You said it right there, I am allowed to mistrust that source especially when the editor says that he basically didn't know Rob Ford from Henry Ford.



A news paper with falling subscription rates and revenues that has had an ongoing war in the past, and also accused Ford of beating a one of his players up which turned out to be a lie later. You question Fords integrity fine, but there is a lot of integrity questions with the Star. Plus again no video, and an advertisement in a online classified looking for a Rob Ford look alike to star in a independent movie where he would smoke a cigar and chuckle into the camera that was placed last year.




with the above credibility issues and questions. Who apparently raced to publish and go after the mayor before securing the video.




Good for you, and maybe being far away from Toronto and removed from the Rob Ford circus there is a lack of impartiality that you don't have.




Huh, this makes entirely no sense, your saying that some of us are stupid for not performing the proper due diligence and wanting to see the actual proof of the act instead of believing the journalists? that makes zero sense.

Your not performing due diligence by not being suspicious of shoddy work by the Star which I think is an insult to rational thought.

Since you continue to make an issue of the credibility of the Star's reporters, what have you got to say about Rob Ford's credibility?

What makes the denials of a proven liar more credible than the story written by the 2 Star reporters?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Of course he can lie about it (and I suspect he would if it meant him staying in power)....but we have no tangible evidence that he has or did at this point....none.

That's how it works in a free society....innocent until proven guilty.

Why does evidence have to be tangible in order to have probative value?

Imagine this scenario: three reporters, one from Gawker.com, and two from the Toronto Star (both very familiar with Mr. Ford), are invited to a party where they observe, from about ten feet away, for about thirty minutes, Mr. Ford smoking something in a crack pipe. They report these observations in their respective newspapers. Obviously, in these circumstances, there would be no "tangible evidence" such as a video recording. Would that evidence have any value?

True, it is not evidence given under oath at trial, subject to cross-examination and all of the other safeguards that have developed in our law of evidence and criminal law to test the reliability/credibility of evidence. However, testing evidence in such a way takes weeks and weeks of work by police officers, lawyers and judges. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to establish the guilt of a shoplifter beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are left to make up our minds on most matters without the benefit of a trial. We rely on common sense indicators of reliability and credibility. We make reasonable inferences from the evidence that we do have. It is not foolproof, but it is the best that we can do in the circumstances.

That said, am I 99.99% certain that Rob Ford has recently smoked crack-cocaine? No, of course not. I am however, based on the evidence so far, about 90% certain of it.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Fortunately for the people of Toronto there is a public court of opinion where that doesn't matter however, and they have a very easy course of action to punish him with when the next election comes. Until that time though, or until the alleged video is secured and declared as real, accusations are just that...accusations.

No one should be forced to resign there elected position on pure supposition though. If that was the case we would see politicians getting accused of any number of things at every level of government with the conclusion of them leaving their post....all without tangible proof of wrongdoing. A very slippery slope that no one should want to see in any democracy.

Isn't this forum a "court of public opinion"? Why do you keep holding this forum to an unreasonably high standard of proof?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why does evidence have to be tangible in order to have probative value?

Imagine this scenario: three reporters, one from Gawker.com, and two from the Toronto Star (both very familiar with Mr. Ford), are invited to a party where they observe, from about ten feet away, for about thirty minutes, Mr. Ford smoking something in a crack pipe. They report these observations in their respective newspapers. Obviously, in these circumstances, there would be no "tangible evidence" such as a video recording. Would that evidence have any value?

Entirely different set of circumstances does not equate to the same thing.

"I was there and saw" is a mile from "saw a video, had a chance to secure it but didnt".

True, it is not evidence given under oath at trial, subject to cross-examination and all of the other safeguards that have developed in our law of evidence and criminal law to test the reliability/credibility of evidence. However, testing evidence in such a way takes weeks and weeks of work by police officers, lawyers and judges. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to establish the guilt of a shoplifter beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are left to make up our minds on most matters without the benefit of a trial. We rely on common sense indicators of reliability and credibility. We make reasonable inferences from the evidence that we do have. It is not foolproof, but it is the best that we can do in the circumstances.

There is no evidence....that is the point. There is nothing but claims of a video supposedly containing a person who looks like Ford seen by 2 reporters and some anonymous internet sensationalist. The proof would be "i was there and saw it", or "i HAVE this video that shows" (still confused as to why the Star didnt buy this thig outright).....or even "i have a person who was there and here he is and his story"....but none of those things exist to this point. Period.

That said, am I 99.99% certain that Rob Ford has recently smoked crack-cocaine? No, of course not. I am however, based on the evidence so far, about 90% certain of it.

Doesnt matter what you or I are certain of or not at this point and what % of certainty you or I attach to it. Right now all we have are accusations and innuendo.

Put it this way...I am 100% sure that Justin Trudeau has no ability to run this country based on his well documented attitude towards the West, but does that mean he should resign his position as leader?



I

sn't this forum a "court of public opinion"? Why do you keep holding this forum to an unreasonably high standard of proof?

What? Im not holding anyone on this forum to any standard....you can believe whatever the hell you like. I am holding the Star a to a reasonable standard however as it hasn't been able to substantiate what they put in print....yet again.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

If all journalists were held to the standard you're setting, Watergate never would have been uncovered. Sometimes the simple fact is where there's smoke there's fire.

I mean look at all the Counsellors encouraging him to get his act together, his own Chief of Staff even.

I'd be more inclined to believe that whatever his actual problem is, it's more or less an open secret. Those around him know but would rather he seek help than humiliate him (and the city).

I'd compare it to the open secrets about many NHLers. Journalists know but don't publish all the gory details.

Did the Star have an agenda by publishing the story? Yes. They probably did. But look the National Post, a natural ally is also on record as thinking Ford should seek help. I don't think the G&M is considered a rag in many circles either.

Something is up IMO.

What are you talking about?

There was a paper trail that led Woodward and Bernstein to where they eventually ended up...and they didnt make any accusations along the way they could not corroborate. I might add that there source wasnt a crack dealing gangster on top of that.

Im not going to say that Ford didnt do what he is accused of....and i cant say he did...because i dont have any evidence either way that says "there it is". Him being a buffoon in the past, using government letterhead to raise funds for a football team, being a drunk etc....are all a LONG way from smoking crack cocaine while sitting in the mayoral seat in the largest city in Canada.