News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.4K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 616     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.2K     1 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
voxpopulicosmicum said:
Based only on the scant evidence we have, I have to say that, if I were Rob Ford's wife, I would probably disagree with you. Think long and hard about that while you make light of Ford's character flaws (although this may not mean anything if you've never experienced the pain of watching a loved one be on the receiving end of an abusive relationship).
Click to expand...

I certainly was not making light of domestic abuse. The public does not have enough information to say that Rob Ford is a domestic abuser -- and UT's lawyers if it had any would not let you say so. As a hypothetical matter, do I think a domestic abuser is unqualified for elected office? Absolutely. In general, is our judgement about a politician's personal life and life choices a good basis for deciding who is elected and who isn't? I really don't think so.
 
k10ery said:
The public does not have enough information to say that Rob Ford is a domestic abuser ...
Click to expand...
To say that he is, perhaps not. But to have deep suspicions, certainly. He's been charged with domestic abuse previously. He was stopped from coaching at the TDSB because of abusing players. He's apologised publicly for verbally abusing his employees. There's video floating around of over-the-top verbal abuse of reporters. He's sworn at citizens who have complained about his illegal driving activities. And then there's that bizarre report of him verbally abusing over fans at the ACC. Have you read the first-hand report of that ... it's way, way, beyond normal behaviour. There is a lot of evidence floating around that he has an abusive personality.

And then there are media reports that there have been many 9-1-1 calls from his house. While some have been Rob Ford calling the police because he was afraid of being interviewed ... most seem to have come from his wife or her family. That's a classic sign of spousal abuse.

Sure, it's not 100% proof. But how much evidence does one need for their to be suspicion that Rob Ford is a domestic abuser?

This is a serious situation, and it would appear that the police should have intervened a long time ago, before someone gets hurt.
 
k10ery said:
I certainly was not making light of domestic abuse. The public does not have enough information to say that Rob Ford is a domestic abuser -- and UT's lawyers if it had any would not let you say so. As a hypothetical matter, do I think a domestic abuser is unqualified for elected office? Absolutely. In general, is our judgement about a politician's personal life and life choices a good basis for deciding who is elected and who isn't? I really don't think so.
Click to expand...

Lots of people have lots to say about Rob Ford's history of violence and abuse, and yet he has never really sought to "clear his good name" (sic). Why do you suppose that is? If I were a rich person with a career in politics and were wrongly accused of a litany of physical and verbal abuse, I would certainly use my considerable financial resources to clear my name. Ford hasn't done so. It can't *just* be a function of his attempt to appeal to the wife-beater voting block, can it? How many of you "charming buffoons" are there?

IIRC, the one instance in which he did seek legal redress was against The Star for its story about him assaulting a child for whom he had legal responsibility. The fact is, Ford allowed his legal claim against The Star to lapse, which is, legally speaking, evidence that Ford admits to the conduct.
 
IIRC, the one instance in which he did seek legal redress was against The Star for its story about him assaulting a child for whom he had legal responsibility. The fact is, Ford allowed his legal claim against The Star to lapse, which is, legally speaking, evidence that Ford admits to the conduct.
Click to expand...

Or was advised that the Star has much deeper pockets than he does.
 
spider said:
Or was advised that the Star has much deeper pockets than he does.
Click to expand...

Once again, another argument about Rob Ford turns into one of two unpalatable choices: either (1) the mayor is a wife/child-abuser and won't go to court to defend his name against such allegations because the allegations could be proven true or (2) the mayor is too dumb to understand that one needs to actually follow through on legal actions form them to be effective.

Stay the course, Rob!
 
nfitz said:
If he actually is abusing his wife, as some suspect, perhaps staying the course isn't the best approach. If you think he is abusing his wife, then perhaps by encouraging him to stay the course you may have become an accomplice.
Click to expand...

I wasn't seriously exhorting Rob Ford to "stay the course" as either (1) a serial child/wife abuser or (2) an organism that is too stupid to recognize the rules of the legal system but who nonetheless chooses to participate in it. Instead, I was facetiously echoing the sentiments Rob Ford purports to hear from "everyone he talks to" in an attempt to juxtapose (a) his actual record of dismal, serial failures against (b) his perception of consistent and total success.
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
IIRC, the one instance in which he did seek legal redress was against The Star for its story about him assaulting a child for whom he had legal responsibility. The fact is, Ford allowed his legal claim against The Star to lapse, which is, legally speaking, evidence that Ford admits to the conduct.
Click to expand...

He SLAPPed them with a lawsuit and it worked. AFAIK the Star has never repeated the originally allegation of physical abuse. So he got what he wanted and let the suit lapse.

He's actually pretty good at the aggressive defence. In another incident, didn't he probably get John Barber fired from the city desk of the Globe?
 
k10ery said:
He SLAPPed them with a lawsuit and it worked. AFAIK the Star has never repeated the originally allegation of physical abuse. So he got what he wanted and let the suit lapse.
Click to expand...
The Star has said many times, as recently as last month, that it still stands by that story.

And still has the original article up as far as I know. The only edit I see is the note that "This material subject to legal complaint by Rob Ford."

Here's the original July 13, 2010 article:

Rob Ford told he was unwelcome as a football coach at Toronto high school
Mayoral candidate Rob Ford was quietly asked to stop coaching football at a Toronto high school following an incident with a student player, say officials with the Toronto District School Board. ...

The article goes on to detail witness reports that Rob Ford physically assaulted one of his own players. Even witnesses that didn't verify the assault said that Ford has been dismissed from his position, despite Rob Ford's claims otherwise.

How did Rob Ford get what he wanted? Article is still there, as is the proof that he was lied about the incident during the election campaign.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
While it was just as effective in getting Barber out of his hair, I believe Mr. Barber requested a different beat rather than the editors moving him.
Click to expand...
Given that Barber remained at the City Desk for half a decade after the incident in question, it hardly seems Ford had much influence in that!
 
Read the July 15 article. There is no mention of physical confrontation in it, just verbal. Hondrich's editorial last month explicitly declined to repeat the allegation.

In related news the CBC ombudsman report is out on Ford vs the Warrior Princess. Ford would not release the 911 tape even to the ombudsman. That makes no sense - unless he's guilty as charged.
 
nfitz said:
Given that Barber remained at the City Desk for half a decade after the incident in question, it hardly seems Ford had much influence in that!
Click to expand...

Fair point! It was a much shorter time between my learning about the "fat f" incident and his leaving which probably created the impression in my mind.
 
k10ery said:
Read the July 15 article. There is no mention of physical confrontation in it, just verbal.
Click to expand...
I don't have an URL for the July 15th article. Do you have it? The July 13th article clearly states that witnesses reported physical confrontation.

k10ery said:
Hondrich's editorial last month explicitly declined to repeat the allegation.
Click to expand...
Given how long that editorial was, and how much more they'd have had to have added to lawyer that to printability ... I'm not surprised they didn't repeat the allegation. Saying they stand by the story, and having the story remain on the website seems to be evidence enough of the Star's position.

k10ery said:
That makes no sense - unless he's guilty as charged.
Click to expand...
Given that Ford made a public apology about swearing at the 9-1-1 operators, I don't think there's much question of that ... even if he didn't use the B word, there seems to be plenty of evidence he used the F word and was very aggressive on the phone. I can't imagine Ford wants that sound-bite to be replayed for the next decade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top