News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 695     4 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 596     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 926     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everybody I've heard on the subject thinks this will be over at the very latest in 10 months after appeals (if any). Most also agree that there will be no stay on the penalty given a guilty verdict -- with a caretaker Mayor appointed by Council while Ford appeals. I've spoken to councillors, to their assistants and City staff as well as a lawyer friend (he's in criminal justice but still I would think knowledgeable on the subject) and the consensus is that Ford will very likely be out as Mayor before the end of this year or at the latest by mid-2013 but that Judge Hackland will be searching for an exit that doesn't undermine voters. Ordering an election or at least strongly recommending one in his ruling seems to be the way out.

Whatever happens, Hackland's ruling will have Rob Ford red faced with an ear filling reality check and a full frontal no holds barred "Toronto your Mayor is an idiot and shouldn't be Mayor but here's an election so you can decide for yourselves" stern lecture.
 
Bruvyman said:
This is a really great read. A very thoughtful, comprehensive, and telling account of the case:
http://www.thegridto.com/city/politics/the-people-vs-robert-bruce-ford/?fb_action_ids=10152090492325697&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map={"10152090492325697":465647610135923}&action_type_map={"10152090492325697":"og.likes"}&action_ref_map=[]
Click to expand...

This is particularly incriminating:

At one point, trying to show that Ford’s claim to always have believed his benefit-the-city/benefit-me understanding of the matter was disingenuous, Ruby played a video of Ford declaring a conflict of interest on another occasion. At that time, the matter was a report from the Integrity Commissioner suggesting Ford be reprimanded for an entirely different issue. There were, as laid out in the report, no financial implications from the City at all. Ford, on the video, stood at City Hall and said that since the report was about him, he could not speak or vote on it, and he had to leave the chamber. He said it himself, simply and straightforwardly.
“On that day, you understood the simple principle: if the report is about Rob Ford, you can’t take part in the debate, yes?†Ruby asked.
“No,†Ford said.
“I heard your voice. I heard you speak the words,†Ruby said. “Did you understand the words as you were speaking?â€
“No,†Ford said.
Click to expand...

It catches Ford blatantly lying under oath, in Judge Hackland's court. Oops.
 
Last edited:
From the Toronto Sun (at this link):

On the stand for around five hours, Ford claimed he didn’t read the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, dodged an orientation meeting for new councillors when first elected because he was the son of an MPP and offered up an incorrect version of what he believed constituted a conflict of interest which he claimed he’s been operating under throughout his 12 years in politics.
Click to expand...

So if either of your parents drove a car, there is no need for driver's ed, nor even to read the driver's handbook? What else did your parents do that one does not have to educated about?

So if my father was a bricklayer, I already have the skills to build a house? I don't need instructions on how to lay bricks.
 
Mayor Ford functioning like an American legislator?

NY Times article here

"But solving people’s problems individually takes the pressure off Congress to solve society’s problems generally. By providing constituent services, Congress is like a fire department that doesn’t put out fires, but simply rescues those who scream the loudest. The danger is that “as constituent service becomes such a prominent part of the job, legislative duties suffer,” writes Dennis F. Thompson, a professor of political philosophy at Harvard. He describes such casework, “unmentioned in the Constitution” and “unimagined by the founders,” as*a brand of low-level corruption.

That’s because Congress can hobble any agency that doesn’t do its bidding. Every time a Congressional staffer contacts an executive agency on behalf of a constituent, there’s an implicit threat: cooperate, or else."
 
Automation Gallery said:
Hahaha:D far-out...people making a big deal out of nothing
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's $3,000 or $3 billion or $3. The law is the law.

Right, but then again those "some" should look around, before pointing fingers.
Click to expand...

Look around at what? What other politician, left or right, has so repeatedly broken the law and then acted as if he was a) wasn't aware, or, b) was above the law?

Ignorance and arrogance. Some of the worst qualities to have in a human being, let alone a leader.
 
Ignorance and arrogance. Some of the worst qualities to have in a human being, let alone a leader.
Click to expand...
Jeez! It's not like he expensed thousands of dollars for French lessons or a public speaking course.
 
Yeah, but considering the paucity of his daily agenda, care to do some calculations as to just how much paid time his worship spent doing things he isn't supposed to be doing? Besides, I think his court appearance (not to mention that of his brother) didn't exactly come cheap - all because of his worship's personal fault - i.e. utter incompetence, which clearly extended for years as a councillor. How much did that cost the city? I sure as hell think it's more than a few french and voice lessons.

AoD
 
Last edited:
spider said:
Jeez! It's not like he expensed thousands of dollars for French lessons or a public speaking course.
Click to expand...

The difference here is that expensing thousands for a public speaking course can be argued as an investment in a politician's abilities to do his/her job more effectively. The same can't be argued for expensing thousands for your own, personal football charity.

Of course, you can be cynical: maybe the politician in question did use French lessons for personal gain, possibly to seduce a French lady or because he was going to Paris on vacation in a couple of weeks - but you can't prove or disprove that these lessons were solely for personal benefit, since we live in an officially bilingual country where a significant amount of political events and encounters are conducted in French. It is an asset in business and politics; I've certainly worked for a firm that gladly paid for all my Spanish lessons. I don't think they would've gladly paid for a personal football charity.

---

I also think it's interesting that Ford supporters (whoever they are) are constantly fixated on the dollar amount of the transgression, and not the fact that Ford broke the law. Look at it this way: if I commited a bank robbery and pointed a loaded weapon at the teller and demanded that she fork over five dollars and twenty cents, should I get off with a lighter sentence than if I demanded the entire contents of the vault?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top