Rob Ford Transgressions Thread

[Minnie]

Even him being criminally charged is apparently not even grounds for removal, according to Macleans - he'd have to be in jail before he could be removed.

Link

Q: So you can’t think of a case where a city council or executive committee has looked into options in terms of governing without a mayor?

A: There have been instances of other municipal politicians in Ontario who have been charged with various things, and even convicted. But whether that then requires them to give up their elected office position, the case practice on that appears to be—no. The only provision in the law is if a municipal elected official goes to jail, then that person can be removed from their position because they’re not physically available to hold their seat. That’s the legality of it.

Then there’s another dimension to this: what can you get away with, what kind of heat can a municipal politician withstand before they decide that the pressures are too great, the public scorn and scrutiny is too acute, and they are going to resign? This is where a municipal council can censure another member, it can call on a member of council to be forthright and give full disclosure of their behaviour, as Toronto is doing. But there is no recall mechanism.

[smoothpops]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Even him being criminally charged is apparently not even grounds for removal, according to Macleans - he'd have to be in jail before he could be removed.

Link

I figured he'd have initiate and suspend himself if he wants any chance of being re-elected, (he said he is planning on running again. I don't think he has a chance in hell, but this would atleast give him that snowball's chance in hell). without doing that, no one would vote for him, other than people seeking the pure entertainment factor.

[chemgear]

Looks like the Ford family "took care" of the video/individuals.

Just kidding . . . ?



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ideo-gone.html

Gawker, the U.S. gossip website that has led efforts to purchase and bring to light a purported video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, now says their main contact fears the footage is "gone."

"At the end of last week, after a long silence, the video's owner reached out to the intermediary we have been dealing with. [The owner] told [the intermediary] the video is 'gone,'" wrote Gawker editor John Cook in an update posted Tuesday.

[CaptainCrunch]

Interesting.

Even Gawker looked like they were backing off on the story in the way they wrote their article.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

The end game of this is starting to play out



http://gawker.com/rob-ford-crackstar...date-509596078

end of "story"

[Vulcan]

I think this is another case of "the truth is stranger than fiction". You'd have to be one of the best fiction writers in the world ensconced in an opium den, to make up this "story".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Looks like the Ford family "took care" of the video/individuals.

Just kidding . . . ?



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ideo-gone.html

Gawker, the U.S. gossip website that has led efforts to purchase and bring to light a purported video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, now says their main contact fears the footage is "gone."

"At the end of last week, after a long silence, the video's owner reached out to the intermediary we have been dealing with. [The owner] told [the intermediary] the video is 'gone,'" wrote Gawker editor John Cook in an update posted Tuesday.

So strange. When I suggested pages ago that if I were Ford I would have this video gone right away people couldn't wait to jump on me to say how stupid that idea was!

[CaptainCrunch]

I wonder if Ford had a clever pun as he tightened the garrotte over the video owners neck before the sweet release of dath.

Ford - "Lets get cracken"

Gasp death

[oilyfan]

What is interesting is the Somalian drug lords are actually protecting the Fords. This has to be a first.

[transplant99]

So "multiple" copies of this alleged video are all "gone" now? How does this happen with digital video?

LOL...yeah im not surprised.

I still go back to the very beginning of this whole ordeal...if the Star had actually had it in possesion with an opportunity to purchase it outright, it would have happened in a nanosecond IMO.

It would have been the 'scoop' of the decade in Canadian journalism and increased paper sales to the point where the money spent was no more than an investment with a very healthy return. That's the one thing that stinks about this as much as anything else.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So "multiple" copies of this alleged video are all "gone" now? How does this happen with digital video?

I doubt you really need this explained to you, but here goes.

In order of likelihood,

Option 1)
Someone paid off the drug dealers, they agree not to sell video.

Option 2)
Someone threatens/hurts drug dealer, they agree not to sell video.

Option 3)
Video was a hoax, so obviously no video to sell.

Whichever option it was, if the video ever existed, I am sure it still does, likely as some sort of insurance policy.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think this is another case of "the truth is stranger than fiction". You'd have to be one of the best fiction writers in the world ensconced in an opium den, to make up this "story".

It's like an Oliver Stone movie in the making. One part JFK, one part Wall Street, one part Scarface, and one part Natural Born Killers.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I doubt you really need this explained to you, but here goes.

In order of likelihood,

Option 1)
Someone paid off the drug dealers, they agree not to sell video.

Option 2)
Someone threatens/hurts drug dealer, they agree not to sell video.

Option 3)
Video was a hoax, so obviously no video to sell.

Whichever option it was, if the video ever existed, I am sure it still does, likely as some sort of insurance policy.

Option 1 - that's a possibility, however if hypothetically I as Rob Ford paid for the video all that does is open the door to future blackmail, this isn't like the 80's where you can burn the negative.

Option 2 - In my dark mind if Ford was directly dealing with this, then the drug dealer wouldn't have called Gawker to say the video is gone, he'd just up and be vanished which would lead people to believe that its a monumental hoax.

Option 3 - Maybe the video under further scrutiny doesn't pass the smell test. Or maybe its the "independent film" that we saw the casting ad for in Canadaonline. From my understanding this video was viewed on a smartphone screen, but how much of the video did the reporters see? would it pass tougher scrutiny in terms of an expert of movie manipulation? We don't know and might never know. We are being assured that there is a video, but the fact that the Star didn't outright pay the $200,000 for the video which would be the story of the century (for now) raises my eyebrows.

I doubt we'll ever find out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's like an Oliver Stone movie in the making. One part JFK, one part Wall Street, one part Scarface, and one part Natural Born Killers.

One part Platoon (come on there was an opium den in that one)

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

One part Platoon (come on there was an opium den in that one)

The man has simply made too many movies lol and I thought I had drugs covered with Wall Street and Natural Born Killers.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The man has simply made too many movies lol and I thought I had drugs covered with Wall Street and Natural Born Killers.

Yeah, but there were black guys in the drug hut with Charlie Sheen in Platoon, kinda matches the theme.

And remember Sheen eventually went on to play a mayors aid in Spin City.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I still go back to the very beginning of this whole ordeal...if the Star had actually had it in possesion with an opportunity to purchase it outright, it would have happened in a nanosecond IMO.

No newspaper in Canada was going to buy it for anything more than a token, if that.

Seriously.

It would have been the 'scoop' of the decade in Canadian journalism

What?

and increased paper sales to the point where the money spent was no more than an investment with a very healthy return.

What?

I love you man, but that's bat poop crazy.

Circulation, selling a copy of the newspaper, makes up only 25% of revenue, the rest from advertising. A single story hanging for a few days is a blip and not a trend.

Just your unlucky day I'm sitting in a library armed with an I-pad staging an open house that no one is attending!!!! (Knew in advance that would happen but its an obligation)

Cowperson

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

How long would something remain an exclusive to the Star for? 5 seconds before it is on youtube and every other form of media is carrying the story as well. The Toronto Star may want to purchase the video, but they are in no position to be spending a large amount of money on the video, there is no financial gain to be had. Even if they did have more people purchase a single days worth of the paper that ran the story, how much would that net them? A couple thousand dollars would of papers and maybe a couple hundred in ad revenue for people who want to see the video online or read the story on the Stars website... in other words a minimal amount of money would come to the Star if they purchased the video.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

How long would something remain an exclusive to the Star for? 5 seconds before it is on youtube and every other form of media is carrying the story as well. The Toronto Star may want to purchase the video, but they are in no position to be spending a large amount of money on the video, there is no financial gain to be had. Even if they did have more people purchase a single days worth of the paper that ran the story, how much would that net them? A couple thousand dollars would of papers and maybe a couple hundred in ad revenue for people who want to see the video online or read the story on the Stars website... in other words a minimal amount of money would come to the Star if they purchased the video.

There is reasonable reason to think the Toronto Star was offered an opportunity to buy a tape.

There is no reason at all to think the Toronto Star at any time considered buying a tape.

Big difference.

I guess you should never ask a question if you don't know the answer beforehand but, being lazy right now and watching the sun go lower while lounging on my countryside deck, I'll let you do all the work in seeing if you can find any instance where the Toronto Star has forked out any kind of substantial money for any story in the past.

Or if that can be applied to any major media outlet in Canada.

Cowperson

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I did a little bit of legwork and I agree with you whole heartedly, there isn't any financial advantage for the Star, plus I am sure that they don't want to be lumped into the same category as the National Enquirer and other pay for news organizations. I think that there is a certain stigma to paying for news as it decreases the validity of the news itself if it is known to have been paid for. They had nothing to gain by purchasing the video.

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=461

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/su...anted=all&_r=0