News   Nov 08, 2024
UrbanToronto Industry Updates: City of Toronto’s Rental Housing Push, Ontario Market Forecasts, and December's Buildings Show
 406     0 
News   Nov 08, 2024
Tricon's Birch House Welcomes Residents to the Canary District
 844     3 
News   Nov 08, 2024
News Roundup for November 8, 2024
 470     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
junior43 said:
ETA - If anyone has a client list of DECO's clients, I'd love to see it. I'll start by boycotting anyone who uses their products - and let them know exactly why.
Click to expand...

V4vmLuT.jpg


Not my work - I am just the messenger.
 

Attachments

  • V4vmLuT.jpg
    V4vmLuT.jpg
    97.3 KB · Views: 1,074
stoobiedood said:
Somebody told me Sobey's is a client -- can anyone confirm?
Click to expand...

The detergents and cleaning products in the picture above are available from Sobeys, so yes.

I'm already boycotting Maple Leaf Foods /Schneider's for their anti-competitive/monopolistic behaviour,not shopping at Sobeys/Freshco will be no big deal.
 
ROFOMOFO said:
The detergents and cleaning products in the picture above are available from Sobeys, so yes.

I'm already boycotting Maple Leaf Foods /Schneider's for their anti-competitive/monopolistic behaviour,not shopping at Sobeys/Freshco will be no big deal.
Click to expand...


Thanks for all this. Unfortunately, I don't use many of them. Tried to send an email to maple leaf foods anyways, but it crashes when you submit on their site.
 
My wife isn't all that political and watches CP24, which she has on now. I don't mind their reporting when not talking about the Ford family, but in the last segment about Doug being sued, they totally sugar coated the details. Apparently, lots of Ford Nayshun watches them, so they have to do that.
 
Last edited:
kevinsp8 said:
So the Chief will get some lawyer-written apology letter, and Doug will go on hinting that he didn't really mean the apology and coming as close as he can to renewing the alleged libel.

Should the Chief let things drop or proceed with a lawsuit?

He'd have grounds to proceed, for sure. As others have noted, even an apology only mitigates potential damages, it doesn't necessarily end the matter.

If I were the chief, though, I'd just move on. First off, Doug's statements were (no doubt deliberately) couched vaguely in the first place. Things like "the top leadership of the police" (could be more than one person), "condoned this behavior". All he's really saying is the top people who are in charge of the police (who?) "condoned" the leaking. Absent evidence that the "leadership" began an investigation into the alleged leak, isn't this fair comment? Granted, the sniggering wink-wink "you know exactly what I'm talking about" certainly implied more. But it's not a slam-dunk case, and the argument could be made that it's fair comment. Furthermore, damages to the Chief are hard to quantify. If you're a prospective employer of the ex-Chief, are you going to say to yourself, well, he was accused of leaking stuff because he was against Ford therefore I won't hire him? Maybe. Maybe others would be more likely to hire him (or vote for him) if they knew he knew how to play hardball and choose a side. Being police chief in a big city is inherently a bit of a political job, and leaking things to the press really isn't unheard of for politicians (and considered at worst a venial sin). Even if every person in Canada believed that the Chief deliberately leaked the news of the subpoena because he didn't particularly like His Worship, does that really do any specific monetary damage to him? After all, as the Globe article pointed out, the brothers "have been claiming for close to a year now that, for one reason or another reason [...] the chief is out to get them." The Chief didn't sue over those repeated jabs at him--doesn't that imply he either didn't think they were libelous, or that it they were, they didn't cause any harm to him?

Remember the last libel suit the Twinmayors faced: because the Defendant's comments were kind of vague and mealy-mouthed, the Plaintiff ended up paying the Defendants significant costs.

Nobody wins in a lawsuit except the lawyers, usually.

Living in "this great city" feels like I'm stuck in a very bad Veronica Mars episode.
Click to expand...

On the bolded above, IIRC the 'ask' from Blair was a written apology that would be delivered verbally in an appropriate public forum, as well. So Doug would have to choke it out in front of a forest of mics and cameras. That would be something.

As for damage, as u/Cooper helpfully pointed out, there may well be damage to reputation that could affect 'future employment' of Blair. You know, just in case he wants to join Magnum P.I. or whatever. As for the Tuggs thing referenced above, Rob Ford actually had a pretty good case inasmuch as he claimed that he didn't impugn Foulidis (sp?) personally, but rather the process as whole. Plausible enough to skate on that one.

Anyway, can't wait for the Sun headline: Blair Blazes Ahead, Both Barrels Blasting. Or some inane variation on Blair/Blare.
 
Last edited:
Videodrome said:
My wife isn't all that political and watches CP24, which she has on now. I don't mind their reporting when not talking about the Ford family, but in the last segment about Doug being sued, they totally sugar coated the details. Apparently, lots of Ford Nayshun watches them, so they have to do that.
Click to expand...

Ha - this comment was posted a few hours ago on that IHTWOMRF Facebook page concerning a Ford-sympathetic letter to the Buffalo News:

I hate cp24 and if your a true ford supporter then let's all stop watching this dumdass news station that try's their hardest to help the fords look like foolish in every thing they do
Click to expand...

Has 10 "Likes" so far; one of the Top Comments...:confused:
 
Well, what's flattering to us is probably insulting to them because we have a much lower bar of what Doug flattery looks like :)

That, and they're Ford Nation. 'nuff said.
 
hper said:
On the bolded above, IIRC the 'ask' from Blair was a written apology that would be delivered verbally in an appropriate public forum, as well. So Doug would have to choke it out in front of a forest of mics and cameras. That would be something.

As for damage, as u/Cooper helpfully pointed out, there may well be damage to reputation that could affect 'future employment' of Blair. You know, just in case he wants to join Magnum P.I. or whatever. As for the Tuggs thing referenced above, Rob Ford actually had a pretty good case inasmuch as he claimed that he didn't impugn Foulidis (sp?) personally, but rather the process as whole. Plausible enough to skate on that one.

Anyway, can't wait for the Sun headline: Blair Blazes Ahead, Both Barrels Blasting. Or some inane variation on Blair/Blare.
Click to expand...

If they could, I say make attendance of Diane, his wife and children mandatory, and have one of the camping offices the venue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top