News   Apr 23, 2024
Shimmy
 222     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
Ferris + Associates Merges with NAK Design Group, Reshaping the GTA Landscape
 974     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars: Building Sustainably — Industry and Individuals
 300     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Holy moly. Mention of the MMVA lends this serious credibility because someone in the arts community mentioned seeing the video to me.
 
ShonTron said:
Since Jarvis was a Metro road, I wonder if the bike lanes would survive in a two-tier system.
Click to expand...
Off-topic, but where can one get a list of which streets were once Metro? I can remember some, but not all.

adma said:
And yet--as I've suggested in the past--there's something about malvern2 that I'd almost deem "blinded by his bile" even re his own back yard; and maybe even frightened/suspicious of being "un-blinded". That is, a lot of us broadly-speakiing "urban geeks"--with a bow to matters of history, architecture, urbanism, etc--might even inherently "know" his part of Scarborough in an inherently "healthier" way than he does.
Click to expand...
Like me?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonparis/sets/72157631424894240/

tiffer24 said:
Okay, can you name one North American city that spends zero dollars on the arts/cultural events?
Click to expand...
Why stay North American, can you name one world city that does? Or can you name one comparable city that Toronto competes against that doesn't?

We all know the answer here and that's because anyone with half a brian knows about the economic multipliers associated with investment in arts and culture.
 
Somebody who is familiar with libel laws needs to get in touch with these people ASAP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that libel suits can cross international borders.

Then again, I've been burned so many times that I would not be surprised if they are trying to simply generate hits. That letter they received looks like a copy and paste of the one that Gawker was handed, and if someone had the video why did they not just give it to Gawker rather than wait for the international press to come to Toronto?

On a side note, I got my eBook from donating to the Crackstarter today.
 
JasonParis said:
Off-topic, but where can one get a list of which streets were once Metro? I can remember some, but not all.
Click to expand...

Some of the provincial 1:250,000 maps that were published in the 1970s and 1980s distinguish county roads (green) from lower-tier roads (brown). Unpaved county roads were dashed green/white, while unpaved lower-tier or unorganized roads were white. I looked it up and checked, because the MTO considered Metro Roads as county roads: the DVP was a green expressway (the Gardiner was yellow as it carried a locally-maintained provincial highway, 2). That's how I checked. I'll find that map again and post it.

Jarvis and Mount Pleasant (only as far as Lawrence) were Metro Roads. Most major roads were Metro's, (Bloor, Danforth, Kingston Road, Yonge, Avenue, Kipling, Islington, Wilson, Sheppard, Eglinton, Lawrence, Bathurst, Weston, and Lake Shore all were for example) but I don't have a complete list. I'm sure there were some oddities as well.

Metro also had control of all traffic lights, whether they were on their roads or not. In return, the local municipalites maintained street lighting, with the exception of Provincial highways and the Gardiner, Allen and DVP, which Metro looked after.
 
Electrify said:
Somebody who is familiar with libel laws needs to get in touch with these people ASAP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that libel suits can cross international borders.
Click to expand...
Sure they can. However, it's the libel laws in the place of publication that you have to follow. British libel laws are much stricter than ours. It could all be perfectly true, the video could exist and be public, and Rob Ford would still likely win there. No wonder such a letter would terrify them. US laws are much weaker than ours. There, the onus would be on Ford to prove that it's not true. This is why Gawker is able to make claims that the Canadian media can't.
 
The e-mail: From a man identified as Dennis Morris

'I have been contacted by the office of Mayor Rob Ford, referencing your implication that your paper may decide to run a photo of Ford smoking crack cocaine.'

Doesn't he mean a photo purporting to show Ford smoking crack or some other carefully worded denial? This sounds like he's acknowledging that such a photo exists but he will sue if it is published.

And if he's Ford's lawyer, shouldn't he show him the courtesy of referring to him as 'Mr Ford'?

Ford has denied the claims, and the existence of the photo, and any postings of any content of Mr. Ford are defamatory and slanderous.

Better, but Ford/Mr Ford? Make up your mind.

You will be held legally accountable. Ford has made it clear that no events of smoking any illegal drugs took place.

Well, no, he hasn't made it clear. He hasn't specifically denied that he smoked anything illegal in the past, just that he doesn't (currently) do so, and it's not about 'events' but about Ford's own actions.

Either 'Dennis Morris' is a lawyer who writes spectacularly awkward letters, or this is not a message from a real lawyer.
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Sure they can. However, it's the libel laws in the place of publication that you have to follow. British libel laws are much stricter than ours. It could all be perfectly true, the video could exist and be public, and Rob Ford would still likely win there. No wonder such a letter would terrify them. US laws are much weaker than ours. There, the onus would be on Ford to prove that it's not true. This is why Gawker is able to make claims that the Canadian media can't.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a libel suit need to reference specific claims? For example, if they simply published the video but made no claims as to what the video actually portrays, where is the libel?
 
I seriously doubt a bunch of teenagers (13 year olds, aren't they?) got their hands on the video. They likely have nothing and are garnering attention. Less likely but still a possibility, is that someone gave them a fake version of the video and charged them money for it.

Look up who these people are, they have zero credibility.
 
Ramako said:
We do know that Dennis Morris is a real lawyer: http://www1.lsuc.on.ca/LawyerParale...=0¤tPoint=0&iD=bai5QtFQ9JU=&iD=1371582494356
Click to expand...

And here is his Facebook photo:

Lionel_hutz_zpseb132106.jpg
 
Oh of course they have nothing - but likely at some point, someone is going to have it. Either it will mysteriously find its way on the internet, or some news/gossip site will want to break it. If the latter, there could be legal implications but they seem to be fairly easily avoided in my opinion. (IANAL :) )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top