TOvp
Active Member
Holy moly. Mention of the MMVA lends this serious credibility because someone in the arts community mentioned seeing the video to me.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
Gavin
Active Member
Yeah, I don't think I believe any of this for a second.
dforthandbview
Senior Member
It's really great that we can get the teenie bopper community involved in this serious story.
JasonParis
Moderator
Off-topic, but where can one get a list of which streets were once Metro? I can remember some, but not all.
Like me?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonparis/sets/72157631424894240/
Why stay North American, can you name one world city that does? Or can you name one comparable city that Toronto competes against that doesn't?
We all know the answer here and that's because anyone with half a brian knows about the economic multipliers associated with investment in arts and culture.
Electrify
Senior Member
Somebody who is familiar with libel laws needs to get in touch with these people ASAP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that libel suits can cross international borders.
Then again, I've been burned so many times that I would not be surprised if they are trying to simply generate hits. That letter they received looks like a copy and paste of the one that Gawker was handed, and if someone had the video why did they not just give it to Gawker rather than wait for the international press to come to Toronto?
On a side note, I got my eBook from donating to the Crackstarter today.
Then again, I've been burned so many times that I would not be surprised if they are trying to simply generate hits. That letter they received looks like a copy and paste of the one that Gawker was handed, and if someone had the video why did they not just give it to Gawker rather than wait for the international press to come to Toronto?
On a side note, I got my eBook from donating to the Crackstarter today.
ShonTron
Moderator
Some of the provincial 1:250,000 maps that were published in the 1970s and 1980s distinguish county roads (green) from lower-tier roads (brown). Unpaved county roads were dashed green/white, while unpaved lower-tier or unorganized roads were white. I looked it up and checked, because the MTO considered Metro Roads as county roads: the DVP was a green expressway (the Gardiner was yellow as it carried a locally-maintained provincial highway, 2). That's how I checked. I'll find that map again and post it.
Jarvis and Mount Pleasant (only as far as Lawrence) were Metro Roads. Most major roads were Metro's, (Bloor, Danforth, Kingston Road, Yonge, Avenue, Kipling, Islington, Wilson, Sheppard, Eglinton, Lawrence, Bathurst, Weston, and Lake Shore all were for example) but I don't have a complete list. I'm sure there were some oddities as well.
Metro also had control of all traffic lights, whether they were on their roads or not. In return, the local municipalites maintained street lighting, with the exception of Provincial highways and the Gardiner, Allen and DVP, which Metro looked after.
Tulse
Senior Member
I'm not sure that's the case, and if not, Britain's libel laws make it rather easy for plaintiffs to sue (much easier than in Canada).
nfitz
Superstar
Sure they can. However, it's the libel laws in the place of publication that you have to follow. British libel laws are much stricter than ours. It could all be perfectly true, the video could exist and be public, and Rob Ford would still likely win there. No wonder such a letter would terrify them. US laws are much weaker than ours. There, the onus would be on Ford to prove that it's not true. This is why Gawker is able to make claims that the Canadian media can't.
the lemur
Senior Member
The e-mail: From a man identified as Dennis Morris
'I have been contacted by the office of Mayor Rob Ford, referencing your implication that your paper may decide to run a photo of Ford smoking crack cocaine.'
Doesn't he mean a photo purporting to show Ford smoking crack or some other carefully worded denial? This sounds like he's acknowledging that such a photo exists but he will sue if it is published.
And if he's Ford's lawyer, shouldn't he show him the courtesy of referring to him as 'Mr Ford'?
Ford has denied the claims, and the existence of the photo, and any postings of any content of Mr. Ford are defamatory and slanderous.
Better, but Ford/Mr Ford? Make up your mind.
You will be held legally accountable. Ford has made it clear that no events of smoking any illegal drugs took place.
Well, no, he hasn't made it clear. He hasn't specifically denied that he smoked anything illegal in the past, just that he doesn't (currently) do so, and it's not about 'events' but about Ford's own actions.
Either 'Dennis Morris' is a lawyer who writes spectacularly awkward letters, or this is not a message from a real lawyer.
'I have been contacted by the office of Mayor Rob Ford, referencing your implication that your paper may decide to run a photo of Ford smoking crack cocaine.'
Doesn't he mean a photo purporting to show Ford smoking crack or some other carefully worded denial? This sounds like he's acknowledging that such a photo exists but he will sue if it is published.
And if he's Ford's lawyer, shouldn't he show him the courtesy of referring to him as 'Mr Ford'?
Ford has denied the claims, and the existence of the photo, and any postings of any content of Mr. Ford are defamatory and slanderous.
Better, but Ford/Mr Ford? Make up your mind.
You will be held legally accountable. Ford has made it clear that no events of smoking any illegal drugs took place.
Well, no, he hasn't made it clear. He hasn't specifically denied that he smoked anything illegal in the past, just that he doesn't (currently) do so, and it's not about 'events' but about Ford's own actions.
Either 'Dennis Morris' is a lawyer who writes spectacularly awkward letters, or this is not a message from a real lawyer.
Last edited:
Ramako
Moderator
We do know that Dennis Morris is a real lawyer: http://www1.lsuc.on.ca/LawyerParale...rrentPoint=0&iD=bai5QtFQ9JU=&iD=1371582494356
bobbob911
Active Member
Wouldn't a libel suit need to reference specific claims? For example, if they simply published the video but made no claims as to what the video actually portrays, where is the libel?
RC8
Senior Member
I seriously doubt a bunch of teenagers (13 year olds, aren't they?) got their hands on the video. They likely have nothing and are garnering attention. Less likely but still a possibility, is that someone gave them a fake version of the video and charged them money for it.
Look up who these people are, they have zero credibility.
Look up who these people are, they have zero credibility.
Mongo
Senior Member
bobbob911
Active Member
Oh of course they have nothing - but likely at some point, someone is going to have it. Either it will mysteriously find its way on the internet, or some news/gossip site will want to break it. If the latter, there could be legal implications but they seem to be fairly easily avoided in my opinion. (IANAL 
)
)
the lemur
Senior Member
I know, and that Dennis Morris defended Ford on an assault charge (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/05/22/assault_charge_against_councillor_withdrawn.html), but is the message on the site really his handiwork? Because between the bizarre writing style and the meaningless 'govern yourself accordingly' the note is not exactly inviting readers to take it seriously.
- Status