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.
TinyTiny said:
I disagree. I fully expect him to lie under oath. It's what he does. He lies. It's the default setting in the hollowed-out walnut that resides in his skull. Furthermore, I don't think he really has the mental capacity to understand consequence. His entire approach towards governance is so remorseless and shameless, to the point that I don't think he believes he can be held accountable to anything or anyone.
Click to expand...

+1. Remember the conflict of interest testimony, where the judge practically begged him to shut up, and he couldn't stop himself. Come the spring, he will no longer be Mayor and all these 'sensible people' trying to not impugn the Mayor will have their filters removed. Looking forward to it!
 
pud99 said:
I agree that as a practical matter one rarely would have a need to go so far as to get a witness declared hostile. Normally the issue to be dealt with is one or more adverse statements, plus if the witness is 'merely' adverse you do not have to disavow other, non-adverse testimony he or she might have given. But, to go back to my main statement - what is the "not really" here? You seem to be suggesting that an adverse witness is "not really" different. But the common law test for who is a hostile witness and the common law result of such a finding really are different and more radical (the common law test requires elements of belilgerence, truculence, etc. and, on the other hand, does not necessarily require showing that any prior inconsistent statements were made.) Resort to the common law has been overtaken by s. 9 in the sense that resort to s. 9 is a lesser thing that suffices in most case; it has not been overtaken in the sense that s. 9 subsumes or repalces the common law test - it doesn't.
Click to expand...

I'm simply saying that in reality, it doesn't happen, and it won't happen.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
+1. Remember the conflict of interest testimony, where the judge practically begged him to shut up, and he couldn't stop himself. Come the spring, he will no longer be Mayor and all these 'sensible people' trying to not impugn the Mayor will have their filters removed. Looking forward to it!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but as per my point above, he wasn't LYING on the stand there. He was telling his own, totally genuine (but insane) version of the truth. So, he wouldn't say, "I don't recall if I spoke with Sandro Lisi when I heard about the video." He's more likely to say, "Yeah, I called him. He's my friend. Maybe you guys don't call your friends when you're in trouble but me and my friends are SOLID. So I asked him to get the video back. I don't see what's wrong, if someone takes a video and you don't know about it, for you to ask for it back. You wouldn't ask for it back? And if they don't give it back you wouldn't say, 'give it to me or else?' Of course you would!"
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
I forget what the time limit is but I expect Blair will at least serve a notice of libel against Doug soon. As we saw with Daniel Dale, this is very easy to do which is partly why it makes it so funny that for all their bluster (up to and including this week) the Fords have never actually even taken that minimal step. (I believe they did serve libel notice way back when about the Star's football story but never proceeded to actually suing.) It's amusing to note Doug never even did this when the Globe ran its story about him being a dealer, Doug arguing their pockets were just too deep for the Fords to fight with them. BUT then this week he said he would sue them (I guess someone's financial situation has changed?) but he still hasn't filed a notice. What a bunch of tools, really.
Click to expand...

What I am thinking more of is will the Star sue the Fords for libel after he stops being Mayor, I wonder if they can say they waited for him after the Mayor so it doesn't seem lik there is a conflict of interest.

There is something about the Star answer to something I always found strange. A lot of people on the Star are more then willing to say that their coverage of Ford has "hurt their sales". I always wondered why give him that satisfaction? You can simply say every paper is hurting currently why boost his ego. Then it hit me

A big thing about libel is that you have to show that people "believed the lie" and you suffered consequences because of it. That's why Daniel Dale case was such a slam dunk and Ford backed down fast over it, because dale had a long list of tweets, comment replies, and talk radio phone calls of "taking pictures of my kids" comment. Which made it kind of hilarious the Ford nation parrots repeated the Ford claim after it and each time they did it helped Dale case.

But back to the Star libel case against Ford. So the Star can claim that their sales were hurt because people trusted the Mayor that they "Lied on purpose" and "pushed an conspiracy" the BEST and funniest part of this possible case, the Fords are on record on many occasions bragged about taking credit that the star revenue is down because their "lies" on Ford turned off readership. BUT as we found out it's not the Star lies, but it was the Fords lies. So in a way the Fords themselves are in a way saying sales are down because of their lies, the same argument The Star could be pushing on a libel suit. How awesome would it be the Fords ego and bragging and taking credit for something ends up biting them in their able backside because of it
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Yeah, but as per my point above, he wasn't LYING on the stand there. He was telling his own, totally genuine (but insane) version of the truth. So, he wouldn't say, "I don't recall if I spoke with Sandro Lisi when I heard about the video." He's more likely to say, "Yeah, I called him. He's my friend. Maybe you guys don't call your friends when you're in trouble but me and my friends are SOLID. So I asked him to get the video back. I don't see what's wrong, if someone takes a video and you don't know about it, for you to ask for it back. You wouldn't ask for it back? And if they don't give it back you wouldn't say, 'give it to me or else?' Of course you would!"
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'd expect from him. He simply doesn't have a clue, it's not an act.
 
Just watched the City News segment on today's circus at City Hall, and it was master class: a perfect example of how to cover a Rob Ford scrum without ending up as a microphone for his campaign messages.

The segment was heavily edited to focus entirely on the subpoena issue, showing Amanda Ferguson asking several times about the subpoena and him not answering. She noted that he went on to say his campaign points, but the segment didn't broadcast any of his talking points. Instead, it showed clips like the Steak Queen video! It then covered the Doug Ford stuff, showed Bill Blair's statement calling Doug a liar, and finished on Ford getting angry while saying that the subpoena isn't news.

It was awesome. I hope they post it to the site. I'll keep my eye out for it and update with a link if I can. If not, tune in at 11PM. It's so worth it.
 
StatGeek said:
What I am thinking more of is will the Star sue the Fords for libel after he stops being Mayor, I wonder if they can say they waited for him after the Mayor so it doesn't seem lik there is a conflict of interest.

There is something about the Star answer to something I always found strange. A lot of people on the Star are more then willing to say that their coverage of Ford has "hurt their sales". I always wondered why give him that satisfaction? You can simply say every paper is hurting currently why boost his ego. Then it hit me

A big thing about libel is that you have to show that people "believed the lie" and you suffered consequences because of it. That's why Daniel Dale case was such a slam dunk and Ford backed down fast over it, because dale had a long list of tweets, comment replies, and talk radio phone calls of "taking pictures of my kids" comment. Which made it kind of hilarious the Ford nation parrots repeated the Ford claim after it and each time they did it helped Dale case.

But back to the Star libel case against Ford. So the Star can claim that their sales were hurt because people trusted the Mayor that they "Lied on purpose" and "pushed an conspiracy" the BEST and funniest part of this possible case, the Fords are on record on many occasions bragged about taking credit that the star revenue is down because their "lies" on Ford turned off readership. BUT as we found out it's not the Star lies, but it was the Fords lies. So in a way the Fords themselves are in a way saying sales are down because of their lies, the same argument The Star could be pushing on a libel suit. How awesome would it be the Fords ego and bragging and taking credit for something ends up biting them in their able backside because of it
Click to expand...

I think the Star just kept hammering that point about how Ford coverage hurt their income to counter the arguments from both Ford supporters ("the Star makes up fake stories about Rob") AND some neutrals ("the Star chases Ford stories and sensationalizes them") that the Ford stories boosted their sales. They wanted to defend their reputation in general.
 
kaboi said:
Just watched the City News segment on today's circus at City Hall, and it was master class: a perfect example of how to cover a Rob Ford scrum without ending up as a microphone for his campaign messages.

The segment was heavily edited to focus entirely on the subpoena issue, showing Amanda Ferguson asking several times about the subpoena and him not answering. She noted that he went on to say his campaign points, but the segment didn't broadcast any of his talking points. Instead, it showed clips like the Steak Queen video! It then covered the Doug Ford stuff, showed Bill Blair's statement calling Doug a liar, and finished on Ford getting angry while saying that the subpoena isn't news.

It was awesome. I hope they post it to the site. I'll keep my eye out for it and update with a link if I can. If not, tune in at 11PM. It's so worth it.
Click to expand...
I noticed the night of the debate fiasco they were hammering the Fords. They kept playing the video of Doug and Rob shouting at the organizers. It seems like the last of the pandering media has finally turned on the Fords. Karma, baby.
 
kaboi said:
Just watched the City News segment on today's circus at City Hall, and it was master class: a perfect example of how to cover a Rob Ford scrum without ending up as a microphone for his campaign messages.

The segment was heavily edited to focus entirely on the subpoena issue, showing Amanda Ferguson asking several times about the subpoena and him not answering. She noted that he went on to say his campaign points, but the segment didn't broadcast any of his talking points. Instead, it showed clips like the Steak Queen video! It then covered the Doug Ford stuff, showed Bill Blair's statement calling Doug a liar, and finished on Ford getting angry while saying that the subpoena isn't news.

It was awesome. I hope they post it to the site. I'll keep my eye out for it and update with a link if I can. If not, tune in at 11PM. It's so worth it.
Click to expand...

Another example of pissing off people. Sorry Dougie, the whole victim routine is old, your refusal to answer direct questions is just the inability to use rational thought. Some would say that does make you a victim, from being a closet elitist.
 
pattycakes said:
I noticed the night of the debate fiasco they were hammering the Fords. They kept playing the video of Doug and Rob shouting at the organizers. It seems like the last of the pandering media has finally turned on the Fords. Karma, baby.
Click to expand...

Nope - CP24 are still revoltingly pro-ford.
 
From what I can tell, stating an opinion is considered fair comment, so long as it is based in fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top