W. K. Lis
Superstar
It must be frustrating for Rob Ford's former classmates that actually graduated, that an university dropout from political science became mayor of Toronto. Shows that he doesn't play well with others.
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).
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.The public does not have enough information to say that Rob Ford is a domestic abuser ...
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.
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.
Or was advised that the Star has much deeper pockets than he does.
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.Stay the course, Rob!
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.
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.
The Star has said many times, as recently as last month, that it still stands by that story.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.
In another incident, didn't he probably get John Barber fired from the city desk of the Globe?
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!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.
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!
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.Read the July 15 article. There is no mention of physical confrontation in it, just verbal.
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.Hondrich's editorial last month explicitly declined to repeat the allegation.
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.That makes no sense - unless he's guilty as charged.