News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     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
 5.5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dubster said:
Whereof we can't know, we should not speak.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Let's just shut the thread down then.

It may be speculation but it's well thought out and of interest the story. Feel free to skim over it and leave the moderating the mods.
 
Greg Banks said:
And therein is the corundrum...it is stated R Ford is submitting a "monthly expense sreadsheet" during his Mayoralty campaign...by extension does that mean he was submitting "spreadsheets" during his time as Councillor and if so is there any reason to believe his modus operendi has changed since becoming mayor? You look at his lack of expenses charged to the City in TMMIS would suggest one of two things either R Ford pays for everything out of pocket on a personal basis or he in fact charges back to Deco through a spreadsheet...it is up to you to decide which scenario is more believable...
Click to expand...

Since Ford's "as poor as a church mouse".....

The thing about Ford is that he willfully lies, not just about his substance abuse issues but about actual policy issues. He doesn't read the reports, he makes decisions based off of his whims, he intentionally obfuscates and insults pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. He's an awful Mayor and constantly practices divisiveness and has taken advantage of and at some point helped in the creation of a poloraized environment within city hall because it plays to his votes. Even if you remove his substance issues, he's a terrible mayor and imo an awful person. Someone may be an alcoholic but that doesn't mean they weren't a jerk before they became an alcoholic, it also doesn't mean that everyone has to accept his substance issues as an excuse for his behaviour. I'm on the it's all on him side.
 
pud99 said:
There is no 3.2 in the Compliance Audit Report that is posted on-line by the City (part 3 ends with 3.159). There is a reference to a Deco credit card in 3.159, but it is a Deco card that is mentioned, not a card that is issued to Rob and paid for by Deco, which was the subject matter of my post - i.e., I was responding to the [apparently plucked from the air] suggestion that gasoline for the Escalade is paid for by Ford using a credit card that is paid for by Deco.* I also could not find any spreadsheet linked to the posted Report. Of course it would be quite possible for Ford to have been charging some expenses to Deco before he was sworn in as the mayor, since up to that time he was professing to be employed by Deco (IIRC he claimed that he was spending about 5 hours per week working on the books and he apparently had the title of CFO, or something of that ilk).

(* It seems to me quite implausible that if the Deco credit card mentioned in the Report had been one issued to Rob the auditors would have failed to mention that.)
Click to expand...

Also worth noting is that the 2013 Sunshine List ( 2014 will be out by the end of this month ) shows the City paid the mayor $1,182.62 in Taxable Benefits. That could possibly have something to do with mileage expenses.
 
basic said:
Oh, please. Let's just shut the thread down then.

It may be speculation but it's well thought out and of interest the story. Feel free to skim over it and leave the moderating the mods.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to put forward an outlandish theory based on available evidence, it is quite another to talk about a man's inner pain when neither he nor anyone near him has spoken one whit on the matter. It's quackery along the lines of reading facial cues or trying to guess at a person's health based on photographs alone.
 
His problems are his own - no one can change him except himself. There is no reason for the city to be held hostage by his issues however, and if someone needs to drown, it might as well be him.

AoD
 
ParkdalePetunia said:
Since Ford's "as poor as a church mouse".....

The thing about Ford is that he willfully lies, not just about his substance abuse issues but about actual policy issues. He doesn't read the reports, he makes decisions based off of his whims, he intentionally obfuscates and insults pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. He's an awful Mayor and constantly practices divisiveness and has taken advantage of and at some point helped in the creation of a poloraized environment within city hall because it plays to his votes. Even if you remove his substance issues, he's a terrible mayor and imo an awful person. Someone may be an alcoholic but that doesn't mean they weren't a jerk before they became an alcoholic, it also doesn't mean that everyone has to accept his substance issues as an excuse for his behaviour. I'm on the it's all on him side.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Rehab will not fix stupid, Rob will still be an idiot.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
His problems are his own - no one can change him except himself. There is no reason for the city to be held hostage by his issues however, and if someone needs to drown, it might as well be him.
Click to expand...

I was reading an amateur psychologist describing the sympathy of many in Toronto for the trials and tribulations of Rob and Doug for "what they are going through" ( never mind what THEY are putting us through ) as a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome!
 
Greg Banks said:
And therein is the corundrum...it is stated R Ford is submitting a "monthly expense sreadsheet" during his Mayoralty campaign...by extension does that mean he was submitting "spreadsheets" during his time as Councillor and if so is there any reason to believe his modus operendi has changed since becoming mayor? You look at his lack of expenses charged to the City in TMMIS would suggest one of two things either R Ford pays for everything out of pocket on a personal basis or he in fact charges back to Deco through a spreadsheet...it is up to you to decide which scenario is more believable...
Click to expand...

Doubtless he was claiming reimbursement of some expenses from Deco for years before he was sworn in as mayor, including while he was a councillor. During that time he was employed (at least ostensibly) by Deco and could purport to be incurring some expenses in his role as an employee. IIRC he has claimed not to be employed by Deco since he was sworn in as mayor, and without him being employed by it (at least ostensibly) Deco could not reimburse him for expenses and claim the reimbursements as a tax deduction.

However, that does not necessarily lead to either of the scenarios you posit. There is a third. He is able to get money from Deco, either indirectly via DFH (the owner of Deco) or directly (e.g., interest on so-called shareholder loans to Deco), or via his father's estate or the family trust that owns DFH, all on top of his salary as Mayor, just as he was able to do the same on top of his salary as a councillor, that would suffice to enable him to pay the office expenses, etc. that he does not claim from the City. That is not the same as saying that those sums are being charge to or paid by Deco. (If you own shares of, say, a bank and the bank pays you a dividend on those shares and you use that money to pay rent, you are not charging the rent expense to the bank.) He is no more prohibited from having an indirect ownership interest in Deco, or an outstanding so-called shareholder loan to Deco, and so on as the mayor than he was as a councillor.
 
Last edited:
pud99 said:
Doubtless he was claiming reimbursement of some expenses from Deco for years before he was sworn in as mayor, including while he was a councillor. During that time he was employed (at least ostensibly) by Deco and could purport to be incurring some expenses in his role as an employee. IIRC he has claimed not to be employed by Deco since he was sworn in as mayor, and without him being employed by it (at least ostensibly) Deco could not reimburse him for expenses and claim the reimbursements as a tax deduction.

However, that does not necessarily lead to either of the scenarios you posit. There is a third. He is able to get money from Deco, either indirectly via DFH (the owner of Deco) or directly (e.g., interest on so-called shareholder loans to Deco), or via his father's estate or the family trust that owns DFH, or on top of his salary as Mayor, just as he was able to do the same on top of his salary as a councillor, that would suffice to enable him to pay the office expenses, etc. that he does not claim from the City. That is not the same as saying that those sums are being charge to or paid by Deco. (If you own shares of, say, a bank and the bank pays you a dividend on those shares and you use that money to pay rent, you are not charging the rent expense to the bank.) He is no more prohibited from having an indirect ownership interest in Deco, or an outstanding so-called shareholder loan to Deco, and so on as the mayor than he was as a councillor.
Click to expand...

Reaching aren't you?
 
casita said:
Also worth noting is that the 2013 Sunshine List ( 2014 will be out by the end of this month ) shows the City paid the mayor $1,182.62 in Taxable Benefits. That could possibly have something to do with mileage expenses.
Click to expand...

Plausible scenario if in fact M Thompson's taxable benefit was $ 6,836 approx (transporation, klickage, parking) but it is not M Thompson's benefit is shown as $ 704. approx
 
Dubster said:
It's one thing to put forward an outlandish theory based on available evidence, it is quite another to talk about a man's inner pain when neither he nor anyone near him has spoken one whit on the matter. It's quackery along the lines of reading facial cues or trying to guess at a person's health based on photographs alone.
Click to expand...

The man is extremely overweight and red-faced most times, has been filmed totally obliterated on several occasions and is obviously suffering from addiction problems. I'd say it's pretty fair to say the man is not in the best of health and has to be going through struggles considering this. As for what people next to him are saying, Renata is on tape trying to get her husband into rehab but otherwise they seem like a bunch of enablers/deniers. Not quackery to speculate on his physical/mental state given all this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top