Rob Ford's Toronto

[nfitz]

If anyone went off the deep end it was Perks. He made a complete ass of himself running after Mammo and getting in his face. Mammo displayed a great deal of restraint by not using physical force to fend off Gord Perks (which he would be entitled to do).

Perks was certainly out of line - but how would Mammolooney be entitled to use physical force to ward off an agressive verbal attack?

At least Perks did the right thing and quickly apologized.

 

[Joe R.]

“Torontonians rely on them for household pet and organic waste, 85 per cent of the bags are re-used, very few go to landfill and the balance are recycled in the blue box system into useful products.”

So if they are re-used for household pet and organic waste then don't they end up in a landfill?

Sorry but I'm just glad Ford lost this one, I'm bitter after yesterday's Jarvis bike lane defeat (sorry, that's childish, I know) plus everything plastic is bad for the environment. Now it's up to Council to dream up a green alternative to plastic bags. I'd like to see the Province or the Feds ban plastic bottles and all that plastic wrap on practically everything we buy. Glass bottles worked just fine, the product tastes better and can be recycled.

Although I prefer the look of glass bottles, at least plastic bottles don't shatter when thrown on the ground.

 

[Peepers]

Perks was certainly out of line - but how would Mammolooney be entitled to use physical force to ward off an agressive verbal attack?

At least Perks did the right thing and quickly apologized.

This was much more than just a verbal attack. Perks was trying to use physical intimidation by being within inches of Mammo's face. He crossed a line that should never be crossed and Mammo would have been well within his right to use physical force to repel Perks (after issuing verbal warnings).

As for Perks doing "the right thing" he had no choice. He had to apologize quickly or face ejection from the council chambers. Also, had Mammo been inclined, he could have had criminal assault charges pressed against Perks.

From the Criminal code:. A person commits assault when:

"(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or..."

 

[ShonTron]

Really? I just saw Perks being over the top. He did not threaten any physical violence, as if he'd sucker punch Mammoliti in front of a media assembly. You're reaching.

 

[nfitz]

This was much more than just a verbal attack. Perks was trying to use physical intimidation by being within inches of Mammo's face. He crossed a line that should never be crossed and Mammo would have been well within his right to use physical force to repel Perks (after issuing verbal warnings).

You can't hit someone because they are standing too close to you. What kind of thinking is that? There's never an excuse for turning a verbal argument, physical.

As for Perks doing "the right thing" he had no choice. He had to apologize quickly or face ejection from the council chambers.

What for? Council wasn't in session when it occurred. As such, if he didn't apologize, it would have gone to the integrity commissioner, and then through months and years of discussion before a report went to council. Apologizing was the right thing to do, but a quick ejection from council wasn't a possible outcome.

Also, had Mammo been inclined, he could have had criminal assault charges pressed against Perks.

From the Criminal code:. A person commits assault when:

"(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or..."

He didn't threaten to apply force. Standing a little close and screaming at someone isn't applying force, or threatening to apply force. I think your trumping up the charge on this - and I'm curious as to your motive.

 

[CanadianNational]

I think there should be an immediate ban on politicians using the word political referring to within-government processes and behaviour, in the manner of "this is politically motivated", or "this is playing politics".
Of course it's politics!

It's like a person eating saying "this is food motivated".

 

[neubilder]

This was much more than just a verbal attack. Perks was trying to use physical intimidation by being within inches of Mammo's face. He crossed a line that should never be crossed and Mammo would have been well within his right to use physical force to repel Perks (after issuing verbal warnings).

As for Perks doing "the right thing" he had no choice. He had to apologize quickly or face ejection from the council chambers. Also, had Mammo been inclined, he could have had criminal assault charges pressed against Perks.

From the Criminal code:. A person commits assault when:

"(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or..."

Are you kidding me? If you haven't already seen Mammo (and Ford) in action look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EpSdyB0zY&feature=related

And he talks of anger management issues.....

 

[malvern2]

The lefties on the council are a joke and so is anyone on this board who defends that scumbag Perks. Please let this election come so we can sort this out once and for all.

 

[ShonTron]

I wish, I really wish, that there were more thoughtful, insightful conservatives out there to debate with, rather than those that can't get past name calling and shallow, dumb comments. (Not that "lefties" are entirely innocent of that either.)

 

[Peepers]

I think there should be an immediate ban on politicians using the word political referring to within-government processes and behaviour, in the manner of "this is politically motivated", or "this is playing politics".
Of course it's politics!

It's like a person eating saying "this is food motivated".

The Ombudsman's office is strictly prohibited from getting involved in any kind of politics. They are suppose to be completely neutral that is why Fiona Crean and the nameless city employees who made the unsubstantiated allegations against elected officials are being called out for being politically motivated.

This is from the Ombudsman's official website: http://ombudstoronto.ca/type-complaints-we-look

QUOTE:

"The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about:

"Councillors’ conduct"
"Appointments of staff, pay/discipline or other personnel matters"

UNQUOTE:

Considering the above mandate, why was Crean investigating and reporting on the conduct of a Councillor? Even though she does not mention Mammoliti by name in the report, the fact is she had no business investigating the conduct of an elected official. Likewise the appointments process is outside of her purview.

Ombudsman must play by a set of rules also and in this instance it appears that Crean exceeded the boundaries and should probably should be removed from office (however that is accomplished?).

 

[nfitz]

Considering the above mandate why was Crean investigating and reporting on the conduct of a Councillor?

Presumably it was integral to the appointment she was investigating.

Likewise the appointments process is outside of her purview.

Why do you say that? Appointments of staff are outside her review. This wasn't about the appointments of staff, it was about the appointments of non-staff members to boards. This is within her purview.

Ombudsman must play by a set of rules also and in this instance it appears that Crean exceeded the boundaries and should probably should be removed from office (however that is accomplished?).

There is no indication that she exceeded her boundaries.

 

[Peepers]

Here is another example of Fiona Crean playing politics.

On the homepage of her official website there are links to media coverage of her report, with headlines such as:

"Rob Ford Administration 'compromised' recruitment for city boards, ombudsman says"

"Rob Ford under fire for involvement in city appointments"

"Ombudsman report rips Toronto's public appointments policy"

"Rob Ford denies Ombudsman findings that his office meddled with civic appointments"

"Mayor Rob Ford's directions to 'speed up' selection process for city agencies compromises staff: ombudsman"

Why are the above headlines on the Ombudsman's official website? There was no need for Crean to put this inflammatory information on her website. She should have let her report speak for itself.

This isn't just my opinion. This morning Councillor Berardinetti asked Crean why these inflammatory quotes were on her website.

Here is the link http://ombudstoronto.ca/

 

[Peepers]

Presumably it was integral to the appointment she was investigating.

Why do you say that? Appointments of staff are outside her review. This wasn't about the appointments of staff, it was about the appointments of non-staff members to boards. This is within her purview.

There is no indication that she exceeded her boundaries.

Since the Ombudsman is not allowed to review regular staff appointments I cannot see why she would be allowed to look at appointments to boards which I would think would come under the heading "other personnel" mentioned in her mandate.

Appointments to boards is a political process. This is just a fact of life. I am sure that the Ford administration appointed many of their allies to boards just as David Miller and every other Mayor before him has done (this happens at every level of government).

 

[nfitz]

Since the Ombudsman is not allowed to review regular staff appointments I cannot see why she would be allowed to look at appointments to boards which I would think would come under the heading "other personnel" mentioned in her mandate.

If this was actually the case, I'd have thought that pro-Ford councillors (other than Mammolooney) would have raised it at council. I've seen no indication that the city's Public Appointments Policy is outside her purview.

I am sure that the Ford administration appointed many of their allies to boards just as David Miller and every other Mayor before him has done (this happens at every level of government).

I believe it's the process that's the issue of the report; not the actual selection. So I don't see how your comment relates to the issue at hand.

Why are the above headlines on the Ombudsman's official website?

Because these are the headlines that the media used when referencing her report. What has she done with previous reports? If she's doing different than previous, then that's an issue. Otherwise, I'm not sure what your motive is in trying to change the subject from what appears to be a very corrupt aand intellectually-deficient politician.

This morning Councillor Berardinetti asked Crean why these inflammatory quotes were on her website.

And what was the answer to the question?

 

[Peepers]

If this was actually the case, I'd have thought that pro-Ford councillors (other than Mammolooney) would have raised it at council. I've seen no indication that the city's Public Appointments Policy is outside her purview.

I believe it's the process that's the issue of the report; not the actual selection. So I don't see how your comment relates to the issue at hand.

Actually Mammoliti just raised this very issue. You can watch the live proceedings online

http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=237&rid=16&sid=1030&lve=36717

Lots of fireworks this afternoon.