News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 758     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.3K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 3.4K     8 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
from http://lettertree.blogspot.ca/2013/08/lets-just-stop-talking-about-it-please.html...
Let's Just Stop Talking About It, Please
There's just too much to say,
It's so very tiring,
Trying to keep straight Ford's drug connections,
Instead of just firing.

Lisi, Price, Kordas, Kasim, Smith and Basso,
Need anymore arise?
It's not that he knows people of this ilk,
It's that Rob is smoking crack with these guys.

There is a point when circumstantial facts,
Tip the scales to one side,
And there's no amount of weaving this stuff,
To show he hasn't lied.

I want fairness,
And benefit of doubt,
But with no attempt at showing he's true,
It's probably time to show Rob Ford out.
Click to expand...
 
evvabeing said:
detectives visited ford's office around the beginning of may? what would they have said at that point? does that show ford did know about the project traveller investigation more than a month before the raids?

and the los pollos reference... is that just saying the fords were in a family drug business back in the day? or does it imply deco was, or is, involved?
Click to expand...

This is a very crucial question. We know that long before news of the video broke - Toronto Police were aware of it's existence as a result of hearing it being discussed in a wiretap. At the moment that Toronto Police learned that Rob Ford - a man who coached young boys in Football was involved with drugs and gangs they should have launched covert surveillance of his activities including wiretaps.

If in fact police detectives went to Ford's house to discuss existence of the video that would be the last thing that they should have done. If indeed this happened the police in essence tipped off Ford so he could cover his tracks. Not only do we need to know why he was visited by police in May but by whom? Was he visited by close Ford family friend Supt. Ron Taverner ?

I do not think that we can trust the Toronto Police service to take the lead on any investigation involving Rob Ford. I think an outside force should be brought in to verify that TPS has been conducting a proper investigation. If a senior officer visited Ford at home in May to inform him that they have learned about the existence of the video that would be obstruction of justice and the officer(s) involved must be criminally charged!

Yesterday someone asked if the "Wm Blair" on Rob Ford's street (Edenbridge) was Chief Blair. I don't think we got an answer to this question. I wonder if Metroman would know or if any of his contacts would know? Looking at the house on Google street view it is a very large home - one of the nicest on the street - so I could see Bill Blair living at this address although would be surprised that he had a listed number.
 
It's not a government body or anything, it's a voluntary "self regulation" group that creates the perception that media in Ontario have high standards to meet. It's no different than a "Toronto Used Car Dealers Council" or something similar,
Click to expand...

...or the Ontario Architects Association, Canadian Cable Television Association or the Better Business Bureau.

It's not like the CRTC or some other arms-length ruling body and your "amateur hour" comment is probably accurate.
Click to expand...

The CRTC is stacked with former Rogers and Bell executives.

There are no impartial regulation bodies anywhere.
 
Bebop17 said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never been assaulted, sexually or otherwise. :p

Also, saying the Crown is considering laying charges says nothing about how eager (or not) an alleged victim may be to see charges laid.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're getting at. My point was - if the Crown is "considering laying charges", then they are most likely building a case. If a person is assaulted, they either press charges or they don't... My understanding is that the Crown wouldn't, say, press charges if someone was allegedly assaulted by somebody - it's up to the victim to do that. In a case of laws being broken by drugs being dealt or what have you (where there isn't a victim in the traditional sense, but laws are being broken), the Crown builds a case and then lays charges.

Now maybe I'm completely wrong about this - someone with a better understanding of the law can clarify.
 
Last edited:
Marko said:
If it were filled with center-right media companies, how long do you think the Star would needlessly subject itself to being fined for violations that other members of the media were given a pass on? You don't have to like the Sun to understand it made no sense for them to be part of a voluntary organization that was stacked with competitors that were prone too strategic behaviors and using the public as a tool to inflict negative publicity for them.
Click to expand...

With Ezra Levant and Sue-Ann Levy, is it any wonder why NP and Sun isn't party to a body like this?

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
With Ezra Levant and Sue-Ann Levy, is it any wonder why NP and Sun isn't party to a body like this?

AoD
Click to expand...

Aren't they mostly opinions/editorials though? Come on, Rosie Dimanno isn't exactly a gifted investigative journalist - she's just a little bit less insane than SAL. I think any of the papers get a pass so long as it's labelled "opinion" and/or "editorial" don't they?
 
believe me - I'm not on their side, nor a fan of their work... I had to stop reading SAL (which i did purely to see what the "other side" was saying) because I would actually get really angry when I'd read her shit, and even went so low as to add a comment in the comment section one time when I was especially pissed. No, I'm not proud of that.

However - the newspapers are free to give a voice to whoever they choose, and they can't be brought in front of their peers every time they voice their opinion. Which is why I think opinion pieces are never upheld to the same journalistic standards of investigative pieces, no matter the paper. Correct me if I'm wrong...
 
guitarchitect said:
Not sure what you're getting at. My point was - if the Crown is "considering laying charges", then they are most likely building a case. If a person is assaulted, they either press charges or they don't... My understanding is that the Crown wouldn't, say, press charges if someone was allegedly assaulted by somebody - it's up to the victim to do that. In a case of laws being broken by drugs being dealt or what have you (where there isn't a victim in the traditional sense, but laws are being broken), the Crown builds a case and then lays charges.

Now maybe I'm completely wrong about this - someone with a better understanding of the law can clarify.
Click to expand...

The only prerequisite for laying a charge is that the police have sufficient evidence to conclude that a crime has been committed. Whether a victim demands or declines to press charges is ultimately irrelevant. In practice the police will usually try to accomodate the victim, but public interest trumps.
 
guitarchitect said:
Yeah, we've kinda heard that already :(

One thing I did add to that fire earlier this week (which seems to have gone unnoticed) was that there's a barbershop in town which is a money laundering front for the owner, who is a drug dealer. One of his sellers has openly bragged about being Rob Ford's drug supplier.
Click to expand...

looking at barbershops in etobicoke, there is one that seems to be a front runner (ha!) for the one you are talking about.

edit: ok... maybe not just one... might be a few
 
Last edited:
animatronic said:
The only prerequisite for laying a charge is that the police have sufficient evidence to conclude that a crime has been committed. Whether a victim demands or declines to press charges is ultimately irrelevant. In practice the police will usually try to accomodate the victim, but public interest trumps.
Click to expand...

true, but in the case of assault that is not witnessed by the police and that leaves no physical or circumstantial evidence (sexual or otherwise) they need evidence that the physical contact was non-consensual, which would almost always require the victim to file a complaint, or otherwise bear witness to that fact.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top