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.
adma said:
True, but it's the whole "creeping/skulking around the property" aspect.
Click to expand...
What creeping/skulking aspect? He was out in daylight, in the park, trying to find the bit of property Ford wanted to purchase. I don't see how this is creeping/skulking. I often have to field work along people's backyards, and it's pretty routine to take pictures of what you've seen. Nothing odd here. I often see people in the neighbourhood, looking at things, taking notes. I assume it's related to some upcoming construction activity or something. I don't call 9-1-1; that's not what 9-1-1 is for (though haven't the police indicated, that they didn't get the call until about 15-20 minutes after Ford physically threatened the reporter, and stole his property?)

I don't see why people are trying to blame the victim here. Ford has a long history of police incidents and assults. It's without a doubt that Rob Ford was the agressor here ... and I hope he is imprisoned for the crime he has committed.
 
Last edited:
Marko said:
Just curious... what would you do if you were doing your dishes (entirely plausible, sink is often at a window and 7:30 is about the right time) and saw someone beyond your property line, taking pictures into your neighbors yard?

Even if said neighbor is a high profile person, I doubt anyone really welcomes this sort of attention. It's a nuisance and it would be unwelcome to just about anyone, and considering the stupid things people say, it's not unreasonable to go warn your neighbor.
.
Click to expand...
Why not call Ford by phone?. the whole city has his number by now. And to call 911 20 min later - He should be charged for calling 911 for the most ridiculous things. There is a non emergency fire dept number to call (which I have done so 2x) and there is a non emergency police number to call. And then the media gets to Fords house at what 10pm and Ford is telling the story and makes it seem like it happened in pitch black instead of daylight 730 time. And then someone on Ford's end makes a call from the blackberry that the Star reporter dropped which means they must have charged it to make it appear the phone had not died like the reporter claimed.
 
Help me understand the sequence of events here.

If I had made a similar application (or even an identical application) to acquire this very specific parcel of land for whatever purpose do you think the Star or any other newspaper would have sent out an unannounced reporter to investigate a dimension of my property that was not involved in the application? No, I didn't think so.

I am sure that the application describes the parcel under consideration in such detail that there would be no doubt whatsoever as to it's precise location. The Star reporter could have taken his photos without getting out of his car instead of hiking around to the back of Mr. Ford's property for whatever purpose.

We will probably never know the reason for the reporters excursion but we can guess that it was ordered to satisfy the Star's ongoing vendetta against the Mayor. We didn't hear from the other newspapers reaction to the application simply because it wasn't news.
 
spider said:
Help me understand the sequence of events here.

If I had made a similar application (or even an identical application) to acquire this very specific parcel of land for whatever purpose do you think the Star or any other newspaper would have sent out an unannounced reporter to investigate a dimension of my property that was not involved in the application? No, I didn't think so.

I am sure that the application describes the parcel under consideration in such detail that there would be no doubt whatsoever as to it's precise location. The Star reporter could have taken his photos without getting out of his car instead of hiking around to the back of Mr. Ford's property for whatever purpose.

We will probably never know the reason for the reporters excursion but we can guess that it was ordered to satisfy the Star's ongoing vendetta against the Mayor. We didn't hear from the other newspapers reaction to the application simply because it wasn't news.
Click to expand...

ANY mayor, councilor, celebrity, or politician would have had the same investigation.
 
spider said:
Help me understand the sequence of events here.

If I had made a similar application (or even an identical application) to acquire this very specific parcel of land for whatever purpose do you think the Star or any other newspaper would have sent out an unannounced reporter to investigate a dimension of my property that was not involved in the application? No, I didn't think so.

I am sure that the application describes the parcel under consideration in such detail that there would be no doubt whatsoever as to it's precise location. The Star reporter could have taken his photos without getting out of his car instead of hiking around to the back of Mr. Ford's property for whatever purpose.

We will probably never know the reason for the reporters excursion but we can guess that it was ordered to satisfy the Star's ongoing vendetta against the Mayor. We didn't hear from the other newspapers reaction to the application simply because it wasn't news.
Click to expand...

Ford was trying to keep this purchase under the radar, so The Toronto Star was investigating the parcel of land to get a better understanding of where it is before reporting on it. Being the Mayor of Toronto he might have been given special treatment and granted the sale of the land, which is almost always denied for other Torontonians, thus the investigation and exposing the potential purchase.
 
spider said:
We will probably never know the reason for the reporters excursion but we can guess that it was ordered to satisfy the Star's ongoing vendetta against the Mayor. We didn't hear from the other newspapers reaction to the application simply because it wasn't news.
Click to expand...

It is news, because of the implication it has. Ford claims he needs it for security reasons, namely to build a taller fence. A taller fence can be built on footprint of his existing fence, with little loss of space. He then claims he needs it for his children to play.

What we do know is that if he gets his way, the size of his property will be increased nearly twofold, and he will stand to gain quite a bit in the value of his home. Furthermore, we do know the consequences of Ford. Webster was fired, Dr. Mckeown was attacked by Rob and Doug, and quite a few city agencies have lost their funding in Ford's budget. What if Ford pushed to eliminate funding from Toronto to the TRCA because of the decision? There is a chance that this may alter the decision that board members (bar Crisanti) make, consciously or unconsciously.

Finally, if this is passed, it may open the floodgates for similar claims to be made- the chipping away at public space by the monied and influential.


Therefore:
1.) There are conflicting reasons as to why Ford needs that much land. Ford was previously trying to keep the purchase under radar.
2.) Ford may try to use his influence to sway the decision.
3.) If such a significant request is granted, what prevents others from wanting more space?

Sounds like story to me, and I do wonder why you'd turn a blind eye to such a potentially abusable request.
 
Last edited:
I take pictures of interesting houses all the time and I've never had a problem. A few years ago I went to the Bridal Path and took pictures of all the houses and I expected someone to call the cops on me but no one did. People saw me doing it but nobody said a thing. In all the years I've been filming and taking pics of houses, I've only had 2 people ask me why I'm filming their house. (and only one woman, near Castle Loma, seemed pissed off)

The video is on Youtube. (search "mansions of the bridal path" on Youtube)
 
Last edited:
The Star did not trepass, didn't take any photos on private property, didn't break the law. Taking photos while on public property is not a crime. There is nothing else to argue here.
 
spider said:
I am sure that the application describes the parcel under consideration in such detail that there would be no doubt whatsoever as to it's precise location. The Star reporter could have taken his photos without getting out of his car instead of hiking around to the back of Mr. Ford's property for whatever purpose.
.
Click to expand...

Actually there was some confusion about where this parcel of land was which is why Dale, like any good reporter, went to the park to check it out for himself. The story had already been written before Dales visit and a Toronto Star graphic produced on their website.

If you look at the YouTube video below- beginning at 52 seconds in - you will notice that the Toronto Star graphic incorrectly shows the vacant parcel of land as being directly BEHIND Fords house and not to the east side.

This is why Dale was in the area that he was in. He honestly believed that he was on the parcel of land in question. Despite having an honest explanation for being where he was (and it is PUBLIC property after all) Rob Ford accused Dale of climbing up on cinder blocks (blocks rearranged from the night before for the purpose of Fords media scrum) in an attempt to spy on his young family. In essence Ford was accusing Dale of being some kind of deviant when Dale was just doing his job. This is despicable and very possibly illegal (public mischief) on the part Rob Ford.

As of this weekend Rob Ford and his nosy neighbors are no longer talking to the media. I suspect they probably realize that contradictory statements made by them over the course of two days have put them into serious legal jeopardy.

Watch beginning at 52 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwoIzk7-8ac
 
Peepers said:
As of this weekend Rob Ford and his nosy neighbors are no longer talking to the media.
Click to expand...
So... the Star reporter goes to Rob Fords house, admits to walking around and trying to take pictures, and it's the neighbor who is nosy??
 
Marko said:
So... the Star reporter goes to Rob Fords house, admits to walking around and trying to take pictures, and it's the neighbor who is nosy??
Click to expand...

Firstly Dale didn't go to Rob Fords house. He was in the public park behind Fords for the purpose of a story he was reporting on. Secondly if you saw any of the media coverage of this story you will know what I mean about "nosy" neighbors. They are in every camera shot hovering in the background just waiting to give their two cents. I would hate to live beside such busybodies.
 
Peepers said:
Firstly Dale didn't go to Rob Fords house. He was in the public park behind Fords for the purpose of a story he was reporting on. Secondly if you saw any of the media coverage of this story you will know what I mean about "nosy" neighbors. They are in every camera shot hovering in the background just waiting to give their two cents. I would hate to live beside such busybodies.
Click to expand...

What about the reporters who surrounded Conrad Black's home when he returned home? In this case, they were actually taking pictures of Black's property through his fence and not pictures of his neighbours.

[video=youtube;nUhWDr74WyE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUhWDr74WyE[/video]

And they did not trespass onto Black's property, nor did they get a Rob Ford reaction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top