Rob Ford's Toronto

[malvern2]

Maybe she can start by defending her back room newsstand deal without proper consultation and contract deal that could have cost the city millions. She only changed her stance once she figured out she was over her head. The lady has no clue.

 

[CowboyLogic]

Well sure, technically it's assault. If I see you walking along the street and I think "I'm going to bump into him as he passes me," that's also assault. So is spilling your drink on someone at a sporting event. Or using offensive language (verbal assault!) When I was riding my bike on College Street some guy spit out the streetcar window and it landed on me - also assault.

But does it make any sense at all to act like a gigantic baby and press charges in any of those cases? No, it doesn't. It's ridiculous. The only people that press charges are the ones with a sense of entitlement and who enjoy playing the Victim Card. The rest of us say "Ugh, people can be such assholes" and move on with our life.

First of all...does anyone have any proof that Ford is pressing charges. I've been the victim of crime before. I was never asked to press charges and the perpetrators had charges pressed against them nonetheless. I believe, in many cases, the government presses the charges.

There's a big difference between someone accidentally spitting on you or spilling their drink on you and someone purposefully tossing a drink at you. Obviously there has to be some discretion, and I'm not sure any of the examples you brought up would actually constitute assault. Throwing a drink at someone is a big deal. If you got doused with a liquid or hit with a drink, you'd probably be pissed...as would most people. Same goes if someone walked up to you and spit on you.

People are charged with assault all the time for spitting on TTC drivers. Do TTC drivers enjoy playing the Victim Card too? Its abuse, and the police have a duty to uphold the law so people don't abuse others with impunity.

This kind of reminds me of how some people, men mostly, say slapping someone on the ass isn't sexual assault. No, its not the end of the world (and it has happened to me), but its still abuse, and to prevent people from thinking its OK, its incumbent on the police to deal with it appropriately.

 

[Ralph]

Agreed Cowboy...but i guess thats what the left have to do when they cant beat him at the polls. Keep it classy...

Are apostrophes gravy?

 

[LowPolygon]

Do you know how much longer till the story comes out?

I am sure there are other people on the forum who have caught wind of this. Anyone who works in and around news, journalism, media, etc is going to be aware of certain things.

Timeline wise, I will say this: the story is being vetted to within an inch of its life. Given the stakes, there is no margin of error here. So it’s kind of an ‘as long as it takes’ kind of scenario, but I know it is very close to being bullet-proof.

The larger frame of reference is this: the idea that the Star and the Globe are going to stop digging into the Ford story until it completes itself is laughable. Reporters LOVE to dig—especially if they have something to prove. And this story is just way too juicy. It’s the kind of story reporters live for. It’s the reason they wanted to become journalists in the first place.

At the heart of all this is a simple truth, which the Fords have never understood: You don’t taunt serious journalists. You don’t accuse them of making stuff up.
You don’t impugn their integrity. Especially if it’s you that has a lot to hide. Especially if it’s you that’s lying—and you’re doing it repeatedly. All that to say: the Fords are going to rue the day they decided to provoke this fight.

Anybody who knows anything about journalists knows one thing: they are fiercely competitive. And they don’t take kindly to being called liars. By forcing the issue, and trying to weasel out of the jam they’re in by essentially claiming that the Star and the Globe are lying, they are daring the media to prove their case. In doing so, they have guaranteed their own destruction. This will not stop until everything comes out, even if it ends up in the Supreme Court.

Anyway, these guys remind me of those stories of small town hoods who try and make it in the big city, who try to play with the big boys, only to have everything blow up in their face. They’re just suburban goons who thought they could pull off the big score, and they lost everything doing it because they’re not smart enough to play the game.

 

[James_D]

Thanks for the summary.

Is it entirely unrelated to the crack video?

 

[guitarchitect]

First of all...does anyone have any proof that Ford is pressing charges. I've been the victim of crime before. I was never asked to press charges and the perpetrators had charges pressed against them nonetheless. I believe, in many cases, the government presses the charges.

There's a big difference between someone accidentally spitting on you or spilling their drink on you and someone purposefully tossing a drink at you. Obviously there has to be some discretion, and I'm not sure any of the examples you brought up would actually constitute assault. Throwing a drink at someone is a big deal. If you got doused with a liquid or hit with a drink, you'd probably be pissed...as would most people. Same goes if someone walked up to you and spit on you.

Now you want proof that Ford is pressing charges, but don't need proof that there wasn't some other circumstance that caused this girl to throw something in Ford's direction (and apologize for it shortly afterwards)? You need proof when it's related to Ford, but you don't need to see the proof when it's about other people, you're just willing to accuse them of assault before they're heard in court? I didn't realize Cowboys have such shitty logic.

 

[PinkLucy]

At the heart of all this is a simple truth, which the Fords have never understood: You don’t taunt serious journalists. You don’t accuse them of making stuff up.
You don’t impugn their integrity. Especially if it’s you that has a lot to hide. Especially if it’s you that’s lying—and you’re doing it repeatedly. All that to say: the Fords are going to rue the day they decided to provoke this fight.

Anybody who knows anything about journalists knows one thing: they are fiercely competitive. And they don’t take kindly to being called liars.

And they don't like being called maggots

 

[CowboyLogic]

Now you want proof that Ford is pressing charges, but don't need proof that there wasn't some other circumstance that caused this girl to throw something in Ford's direction (and apologize for it shortly afterwards)? You need proof when it's related to Ford, but you don't need to see the proof when it's about other people, you're just willing to accuse them of assault before they're heard in court? I didn't realize Cowboys have such shitty logic.

I don't think you understand how proof works. If someone makes an accusation, they have to provide proof. Numerous people in this thread have been implying that Ford is pressing charges against Everett...and I'm just asking "Is there any reason to think that?"

I'm just asking if there's a reasonable basis for these claims. If you prefer to just make up events to fit your anti-Ford perspective, that's cool too.

I never said Everett did commit the assault. In fact, I specifically said she was innocent until proven guilty, and although witnesses did see a drink fly towards him, Everett deserves her day in court. But, once again, if skewing the facts fits your anti-Ford perspective better, feel free to say I claimed Everett was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and deserves to go to jail.

 

[Hipster Duck]

At the heart of all this is a simple truth, which the Fords have never understood: You don’t taunt serious journalists. You don’t accuse them of making stuff up.
You don’t impugn their integrity. Especially if it’s you that has a lot to hide. Especially if it’s you that’s lying—and you’re doing it repeatedly. All that to say: the Fords are going to rue the day they decided to provoke this fight.

Anybody who knows anything about journalists knows one thing: they are fiercely competitive. And they don’t take kindly to being called liars. By forcing the issue, and trying to weasel out of the jam they’re in by essentially claiming that the Star and the Globe are lying, they are daring the media to prove their case. In doing so, they have guaranteed their own destruction. This will not stop until everything comes out, even if it ends up in the Supreme Court.

Well, I agree with you in a way, but I also think that the reason journalists keep pounding on Ford is because a story that makes Rob Ford look like a fool is ratings gold. Back before Crackgate, when comments were allowed underneath online G&M, Star and Post articles, Rob Ford stories would routinely get 600 comments within a few hours (people who comment being only a fraction of the people who read the actual article). And this was for a local interest story!

Reporting on Rob Ford's self-destruction isn't about ideology or a vendetta. It's business!

If anything, the Sun's decision not to smear Ford shows that they are bound more by ideology than a business case. Why run all those sympathetic Ford stories and forego all that ad revenue? Well, it's their prerogative, I suppose.

 

[ttk77]

I am sure there are other people on the forum who have caught wind of this. Anyone who works in and around news, journalism, media, etc is going to be aware of certain things.

Timeline wise, I will say this: the story is being vetted to within an inch of its life. Given the stakes, there is no margin of error here. So it’s kind of an ‘as long as it takes’ kind of scenario, but I know it is very close to being bullet-proof.

The larger frame of reference is this: the idea that the Star and the Globe are going to stop digging into the Ford story until it completes itself is laughable. Reporters LOVE to dig—especially if they have something to prove. And this story is just way too juicy. It’s the kind of story reporters live for. It’s the reason they wanted to become journalists in the first place.

At the heart of all this is a simple truth, which the Fords have never understood: You don’t taunt serious journalists. You don’t accuse them of making stuff up.
You don’t impugn their integrity. Especially if it’s you that has a lot to hide. Especially if it’s you that’s lying—and you’re doing it repeatedly. All that to say: the Fords are going to rue the day they decided to provoke this fight.

Anybody who knows anything about journalists knows one thing: they are fiercely competitive. And they don’t take kindly to being called liars. By forcing the issue, and trying to weasel out of the jam they’re in by essentially claiming that the Star and the Globe are lying, they are daring the media to prove their case. In doing so, they have guaranteed their own destruction. This will not stop until everything comes out, even if it ends up in the Supreme Court.

Anyway, these guys remind me of those stories of small town hoods who try and make it in the big city, who try to play with the big boys, only to have everything blow up in their face. They’re just suburban goons who thought they could pull off the big score, and they lost everything doing it because they’re not smart enough to play the game.

So closer to the video end of the scale than the webbed foot end.

Sounds promising.

 

[Ramako]

I'm very interested to find out what this rumoured story will be about, but if it's only foundation is "unnamed sources", I doubt it will sway Ford Nation or cause the Mayor to resign. Even if the sources are identified, unless they are highly credibly and seemingly objective figures, you can expect that the Ford brothers will just keep on denying whatever the allegations are. The only thing that will really crash that ship is good old-fashioned audio/video.

 

[James_D]

"Well, I agree with you in a way, but I also think that the reason journalists keep pounding on Ford is because a story that makes Rob Ford look like a fool is ratings gold. Back before Crackgate, when comments were allowed underneath online G&M, Star and Post articles, Rob Ford stories would routinely get 600 comments within a few hours (people who comment being only a fraction of the people who read the actual article). And this was for a local interest story!

Reporting on Rob Ford's self-destruction isn't about ideology or a vendetta. It's business!

If anything, the Sun's decision not to smear Ford shows that they are bound more by ideology than a business case. Why run all those sympathetic Ford stories and forego all that ad revenue? Well, it's their prerogative, I suppose. "



That's still the Sun operating on a business model. They've chosen to pander to Ford Nation for the exact same reasons.

 

[Irishmonk]

Well sure, technically it's assault. If I see you walking along the street and I think "I'm going to bump into him as he passes me," that's also assault. So is spilling your drink on someone at a sporting event. Or using offensive language (verbal assault!) When I was riding my bike on College Street some guy spit out the streetcar window and it landed on me - also assault.

But does it make any sense at all to act like a gigantic baby and press charges in any of those cases? No, it doesn't. It's ridiculous. The only people that press charges are the ones with a sense of entitlement and who enjoy playing the Victim Card. The rest of us say "Ugh, people can be such assholes" and move on with our life.

So on top of being a crass, bigoted, bellicose, belligerent, dishonest, ignorant, inarticulate, simpleminded, over-entitled, narcissistic, hypocritical, substance abusing, bullying, incompetent, half-witted fool, Rob Ford is also coward and a pussy who will press charges if you so much as look at him the wrong way. Good to know.

 

[ahm]

First of all...does anyone have any proof that Ford is pressing charges. I've been the victim of crime before. I was never asked to press charges and the perpetrators had charges pressed against them nonetheless. I believe, in many cases, the government presses the charges.

There's a big difference between someone accidentally spitting on you or spilling their drink on you and someone purposefully tossing a drink at you. Obviously there has to be some discretion, and I'm not sure any of the examples you brought up would actually constitute assault. Throwing a drink at someone is a big deal. If you got doused with a liquid or hit with a drink, you'd probably be pissed...as would most people. Same goes if someone walked up to you and spit on you.

People are charged with assault all the time for spitting on TTC drivers. Do TTC drivers enjoy playing the Victim Card too? Its abuse, and the police have a duty to uphold the law so people don't abuse others with impunity.

This kind of reminds me of how some people, men mostly, say slapping someone on the ass isn't sexual assault. No, its not the end of the world (and it has happened to me), but its still abuse, and to prevent people from thinking its OK, its incumbent on the police to deal with it appropriately.

the Crown presses charges. technically, as i understand criminal law in Canada, a crime is committed against Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada's Criminal Code. the Crown does not need the victim's consent to press charges - it differs from how the American system operates because they are a republic. lay person's understanding, btw. i just happen to read court rulings for fun sometimes and try to stay somewhat informed how it works (also, i worked in victims services for a couple years).

as much as i think that the Mayor and his brother are exagerrating the assault for political purposes, nonetheless i think the police acted appropriately laying charges. assaulting elected officials, even if it does not result in an injury (although, the Mayor could have sustained psychological damage like PTSD and now be afraid of being in public, have disrupted sleep, re-experience the trauma when triggered by drinks in cups being dropped in his presence, etc.), is a serious offense in a democracy. it does not mean an elected official is worth more than a citizen, but the ramifications are more serious.

 

[LowPolygon]

Well, I agree with you in a way, but I also think that the reason journalists keep pounding on Ford is because a story that makes Rob Ford look like a fool is ratings gold. Back before Crackgate, when comments were allowed underneath online G&M, Star and Post articles, Rob Ford stories would routinely get 600 comments within a few hours (people who comment being only a fraction of the people who read the actual article). And this was for a local interest story!

Reporting on Rob Ford's self-destruction isn't about ideology or a vendetta. It's business!

If anything, the Sun's decision not to smear Ford shows that they are bound more by ideology than a business case. Why run all those sympathetic Ford stories and forego all that ad revenue? Well, it's their prerogative, I suppose.

i think there is some truth in that, from the perspective of the editors, shareholders, the board of directors etc. but i know for a fact that individual reporters, the ones doing the heavy lifting and the grunt work of building the story, don't really think that way. they are just hardwired to be driven by the hunt....