News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.6K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can someone explain how this works now? If all those motions carried, when are those requests formally made and Ford given his opportunity to respond to them? Right now? Next council meeting?

EDIT: @ddale8
Motion to ask Mayor Rob Ford to answer to council on these issues passes 33-9. He may have already done so today.

So does that mean they passed the motions demanding Ford speak after he'd already spoken? WTF?
 
Last edited:
juniorfox said:
Can someone explain how this works now? If all those motions carried, when are those requests formally made and Ford given his opportunity to respond to them? Right now? Next council meeting?
Click to expand...

He already did, today, during the debate. This exercise was nothing more than formalizing the fact that the vast majority of council wants him out of there, at least temporarily.
 
khristopher said:
It is an illegal drug. So, no. I don't make the rules over which drugs are legal or illegal. This is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

And they shouldn't be jay-walking either.

Or changing lanes without signalling.

Should we audit their behavior for these actions?
 
khristopher said:
It is an illegal drug. So, no. I don't make the rules over which drugs are legal or illegal. This is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that drug consumption was legal, but possession was illegal. If this is true, what does mandatory drug testing prove? Couldn't councillors claim they somehow accidentally ingested cannabis? It's easy to imagine someone eating a cannabis infused baked good without wittingly possessing the drug. Also, since cannabis has legitimate medicinal uses, shouldn't councillors with qualifying conditions be allowed to posses cannabis?
 
Tulse said:
The person in charge of the city's police budget should not be doing illegal activities, especially one's that could be used to blackmail him.
Click to expand...

Normally I would agree, but pot is illegal for bad and stupid reasons so I see no reason to judge anyone for disregarding an unjust law that often harms people without cause. I can't see anyone smart enough to use it properly being dumb enough to somehow get themselves blackmailed over it. Then again, this is Ford we're talking about.

That said, I should apologize for the derail because none of this is about weed, it's about crack and coke and doing oxy with hookers in the mayor's office and obvious connections to murder and organized crime. People in public office who do those things can easily be blackmailed and so yes they should not be doing those things.
 
Jennifer Pagliaro ‏@jpags 43s
Media lawyers receiving less censored police document on Mayor Rob Ford and friends now. We will have it very shortly.

I'm interested in the section on "Mayor Ford and Project Traveller".
 
Roy G Biv said:
And they shouldn't be jay-walking either.

Or changing lanes without signalling.

Should we audit their behavior for these actions?
Click to expand...

There have already been complaints that the police have let Ford off on various driving infractions, or looked the other way on some of his other behaviour. Should there be one law for the mayor and a different law for everyone else? Should the police treat the person who determines their budget differently than the rest of the public?

As the saying goes, "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion". It's not enough for a politician to violate the laws that everyone else violates -- they are charged in part with maintaining those laws, and so yes, have to behave better than everyone else.
 
basic said:
Jennifer Pagliaro ‏@jpags 43s
Media lawyers receiving less censored police document on Mayor Rob Ford and friends now. We will have it very shortly.

I'm interested in the section on "Mayor Ford and Project Traveller".
Click to expand...

I believe that part may still be redacted. I believe I read lawyers are in court next week for those parts. My brain is overloaded so if I remember or cross it again I'll post it.
 
Tulse said:
There have already been complaints that the police have let Ford off on various driving infractions, or looked the other way on some of his other behaviour. Should there be one law for the mayor and a different law for everyone else? Should the police treat the person who determines their budget differently than the rest of the public?

As the saying goes, "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion". It's not enough for a politician to violate the laws that everyone else violates -- they are charged in part with maintaining those laws, and so yes, have to behave better than everyone else.
Click to expand...

I think we agree, but I am making an argument against drug testing. Yes, councillors should be expected to obey all laws, but auditing their behavior in any active way is completely asinine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top