News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Star was wrong period... It's one thing to take videos of someone at the local KFC... Its a whole new ball game when you enter one's domain. If this had happened in Texas, we could have had a much bigger story on our hands!
 
Last edited:
ttk77 said:
Yup...that's the general consensus around here too, along with the fact that there might finally be something with which he can be criminally charged. Opinion on The Star comment section is split slightly in favour of Ford though.
Click to expand...

Do you work with a lot of people with kids? The average age around here is late 30s/early 40s, many with kids. I don't intend to have any, but I feel like if I did and a neighbour alerted me to a peeping Tom scurrying around my backyard fence, I would immediately go on the defensive.

It's important to note that although Ford reacted the way he did, the neighbour was clearly distubred as he also saw it as something unusual. Maybe someone should go trolling around an editor's backyard and see that he doesn't get disturbed. A man's home is his castle, and that should be off limits. Imagine pulling something like this at 24 Sussex? You'd likely be in jail or breathing through a hole in your chest.
 
The journalist was never on Ford's property...that has been established by both parties. Whether or not he was taking inappropriate pictures of the Mayor's house while investigating the public land will remain in dispute until the security video given to the police is released, but until then it's premature to say that The Star is in the wrong here. It's pretty clear that Ford broke the law though when threatening physical violence if the reporter didn't surrender his phone, again, something both parties admit. His reaction was way overblown considering he knew the guy from media scrums at work.

I'm eager to hear what these rumours mentioned up thread are all about.
 
Ford also knew the journalist. He has admitted that himself. He recognized him immediately, so it wasn't a case of an unknown peeping stranger. Maybe for the neighbour it was, but Ford KNEW the man and therefore KNEW there was no danger to his children. As per usual, he overreacted. And I say that as a parent who had an actual, known child molester peeping in my windows and coming in to my garage looking for my 2 year old child.
 
Automation Gallery said:
I wonder if its even legal for newspaper to publish a map down to the intersection and lot-line of politicians property as they did today in the Toronto Star
Up until today i had no clue of what intersection of the city he lived in....this is not right, and the Star should be ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...

Except for several things:
1. His address was published in the phone book, he did not ask for it to be removed.
2. He drives around in a beige minivan with vanity plates
3. The Globe and Mail published a similar map
4. Such applications to the TRCA or other bodies (zoning or CoA meetings at the city, for example) would have such information freely accessible to the public as part of a public agenda.

If Ford is so worried, he should have moved to a house with a larger lot and de-listed his phone number and got generic license plates.
 
As a Mayor seeking to purchase land from the TRCA, whether he has kids or not, he should expect it to be reported on my the media. Simply because you have kids doesn't mean you're given carte blanche.

Automation Gallery said:
I wonder if its even legal for newspaper to publish a map down to the intersection and lot-line of politicians property as they did today in the Toronto Star
Up until today i had no clue of what intersection of the city he lived in....this is not right, and the Star should be ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...

The lot line was an important aspect of this issue. If the reporter is on Ford's prperty then it's a whole other story. It's the newspaper's job to report the facts, and therefore it was necessary to publish the map. I have no problem with it, and anyone can readily find that information online anyways.

And ultimately you have to decide whether the initial story of Ford wanting to purchase land behind his home from the TRCA is worth reporting. If it is (and I don't see how anyone can argue it isn't), then it's important to have a reporter work on the story, and that would inevitiably involve sending the reporter to the property in question. I don't see why anyone should have any issues with reporting the initial story. It's the aftermath (that Ford kind of created) that has taken things to another level.
 
PinkLucy said:
Ford also knew the journalist. He has admitted that himself. He recognized him immediately, so it wasn't a case of an unknown peeping stranger. Maybe for the neighbour it was, but Ford KNEW the man and therefore KNEW there was no danger to his children. As per usual, he overreacted. And I say that as a parent who had an actual, known child molester peeping in my windows and coming in to my garage looking for my 2 year old child.
Click to expand...

Big deal if he knew him! Most bad things are perpetrated by people that you know, not random strangers. Your argument doesn't make sense. I have two kids and if someone was snapping pictures of them behind my house they'd get more than a tongue lashing from me!
 
You can give him a tonguelashing, but give up on the peeping tom business. Ford overreacted. It's what he does. No one was taking pictures of the kids. They were in the house.
 
jn_12 said:
As a Mayor seeking to purchase land from the TRCA, whether he has kids or not, he should expect it to be reported on my the media. Simply because you have kids doesn't mean you're given carte blanche.



The lot line was an important aspect of this issue. If the reporter is on Ford's prperty then it's a whole other story. It's the newspaper's job to report the facts, and therefore it was necessary to publish the map. I have no problem with it, and anyone can readily find that information online anyways.

And ultimately you have to decide whether the initial story of Ford wanting to purchase land behind his home from the TRCA is worth reporting. If it is (and I don't see how anyone can argue it isn't), then it's important to have a reporter work on the story, and that would inevitiably involve sending the reporter to the property in question. I don't see why anyone should have any issues with reporting the initial story. It's the aftermath (that Ford kind of created) that has taken things to another level.
Click to expand...
Problem is the reporter was nowhere near the lot in question. Instead, he was yards away from it behind the mayor's house. Otherwise hard to reach without trekking in the bush from that parking lot. The reporter claims he was confused by the city map yet I find that very hard to believe given these city maps outline roads very clearly yet the reporter was behind the house far from any road. Any reporter would first compare the city map with google earth to get his bearings before throwing himself into 'field' work.

I'm lead to believe he was there trying to catch the dear mayor with his pants down so to speak under the guise he was investigating a fairly routine procedure with the TRCA.
 
Filip said:
Problem is the reporter was nowhere near the lot in question. Instead, he was yards away from it behind the mayor's house. Otherwise hard to reach without trekking in the bush from that parking lot. The reporter claims he was confused by the city map yet I find that very hard to believe given these city maps outline roads very clearly yet the reporter was behind the house far from any road. Any reporter would first compare the city map with google earth to get his bearings before throwing himself into 'field' work.

I'm lead to believe he was there trying to catch the dear mayor with his pants down so to speak under the guise he was investigating a fairly routine procedure with the TRCA.
Click to expand...

But the reporter had already filed the initial story about the land purchase earlier in the day (it appeared on the web site prior to the 7:30pm altercation) - so there was a clearly established reason to be in the vicinity.

It could be perceived as suspicious as to why he was in the wrong spot, but in either case they are both public pieces of land - there is no reason why he couldn't be in either.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether or not the reporter was in fact surveilling Rob Ford while he was there. video security footage and/or the reporter's camera should establish that.
 
Filip said:
Problem is the reporter was nowhere near the lot in question. Instead, he was yards away from it behind the mayor's house. Otherwise hard to reach without trekking in the bush from that parking lot. The reporter claims he was confused by the city map yet I find that very hard to believe given these city maps outline roads very clearly yet the reporter was behind the house far from any road. Any reporter would first compare the city map with google earth to get his bearings before throwing himself into 'field' work.

I'm lead to believe he was there trying to catch the dear mayor with his pants down so to speak under the guise he was investigating a fairly routine procedure with the TRCA.
Click to expand...


wow, paranoid or stretching the truth there bud.
the reporter is cleary IN the land that RF wants to purchase and again, that is public land, NOT RF's backyard !

looking at the pics below, if one is to believe RF's version that the reporter was on the cinder blocks, they are at least 5-10 feet from the fence since the bushels of branches are in the way.

it also appears the lands are sloping AWAY from the fence, which could put the fence at least 7+ft above the level of the cinder block. (who's location have been altered btw). who knows if the reporter were on the blocks or not, but if he were, maybe he's taking pics of the other angle down the ravine?

if one really wanted to take pics of RF's backyard, why not just climb the tree there?

Peepers said:
AsATDJQCEAEiwL8.jpg

Global News

Here is the problem. A photo was taken the night of the incident and the cinder blocks were not arranged in a stacked fashion as shown. Here is how they looked the night before:

dsc_2931.jpg

National Post
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Filip said:
Problem is the reporter was nowhere near the lot in question. Instead, he was yards away from it behind the mayor's house. Otherwise hard to reach without trekking in the bush from that parking lot. The reporter claims he was confused by the city map yet I find that very hard to believe given these city maps outline roads very clearly yet the reporter was behind the house far from any road. Any reporter would first compare the city map with google earth to get his bearings before throwing himself into 'field' work.

I'm lead to believe he was there trying to catch the dear mayor with his pants down so to speak under the guise he was investigating a fairly routine procedure with the TRCA.
Click to expand...

ya you're way off here if you really think the reporter was trying to get footage of Ford in his house/on his property. I'm not even sure what you think the reporter would potentially be going there to see if he's not there for the reason of checking out the TRCA parcel. Care to explain? Was he hoping to on a whim catch Ford hitting his kid, or cheating on his wife, or dumping toxic sludge or...? Seems that if you're so willing to stretch your opinion of the story, you should probably go all the way and explain to everyone what you think he was looking for.
 
Filip said:
This is just great for the mayor.

The current topic du jour at work is precisely this. Concensus seems to be "I don't like Mayor Ford but this is going too far". Many comment how they would unleash their dogs if someone was peeping behind their backyard and they had kids home. The Star has clearly lost the war for popular opinion, and the mayor has gained an incredible amount of sympathy. Sympathy leads to votes anyway, good job Star.
Click to expand...

Don't you work in a VERY conservative environment? (banking/economics) That might explain why you and your coworkers are so supportive of Ford. He can't do anything wrong in their eyes but most other people are pretty much asking what the hell is wrong with our mayor. Is he losing his mind? It's not like he thought the photographer was a stranger. Ford knew who this guy was, so he can't claim he was afraid for his children's safety. This guy wasn't a perv on the prowl, he was a well known Star reporter. (an award winning one at that) Ford's reaction, as usual, was way over the top and quite unprofessional. It's certainly not the way I'd expect a mayor to act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top