News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ford voting on his own issue at council was an obvious conflict. He's lucky a technicality has rendered that stupid action null.

No it was not an obvious conflict of interest. Council did not have the authority to impose this penalty and therefore Rob Ford did not break any laws when he voted on this matter since it was a nullity. Why can't people understand that this is a COMPLETE VINDICATION for Rob Ford ? Rob Ford did nothing wrong! Rob Ford did not bring this upon himself. He has been the target of a witch hunt from the moment he entered office and he will continue to be a target. Rob Ford does not owe anyone any apologies.
 
No it was not an obvious conflict of interest. Council did not have the authority to impose this penalty and therefore Rob Ford did not break any laws when he voted on this matter since it was a nullity. Why can't people understand that this is a COMPLETE VINDICATION for Rob Ford ? Rob Ford did nothing wrong! Rob Ford did not bring this upon himself. He has been the target of a witch hunt from the moment he entered office and he will continue to be a target. Rob Ford does not owe anyone any apologies.

You think it was appropriate for him to vote? I am not using the MCIA definition of "conflict' here.... just the common-sense version. Rob Ford IS guilty of being a reckless idiot. That's my point. You must agree, no?

As an aside, this ruling now allows for lobbyists to donate to arms-length charities/funds of council members. How do you feel about this?
 
I'd like to hear Metroman's response to this. I brought up earlier that couldn't the fact that the COTA stated that Council did not have the power to make him payback the money, that the COI law infringement could be nullified.

Metroman seemed so sure that Ford's goose was cooked, and seemed to know what he was talking about too. The argument why this would not be the case was written in legalese, so I was hoping he could shed some light on the situation.
 
Today is the day democracy died in Toronto. The man has been caught breaking the law on several occasions, has used his influence to kick passengers off a bus to go pick up his football team, and to have the road in front of his family business repaired, while the rest of us have to wait months, if not years, for the same services. He cries ignorance when confronted with his less then ethical fundraising methods, I ask you, just how much more can this pathetic excuse for a mayor get away with? This is just my personal opinion, and I respect others do not agree with me, but I just can't understand how he can get away with so many infractions and manage to keep his job. If it were you or I, as a private citizen, we'd have lost our job ages ago, so I ask you, why is it he is above the law? I've lost what little faith I had in our justice system, this is not democracy, it's on par with Hugo Chavez. Now I know, that's not a fair comparison, but honestly, how has he managed to break the law, and the rules, and get away with it? It sets a terrible precedent, one that implies you can break the law and ignore all the rules as long as you have influence and money. Given his position, saying he didn't know it was a conflict of interest using city letter head because he never read that part of the rules is complete and utter BS. He's the mayor, the one in charge who's suppose to uphold the cities rules and regulations. Ignorance is, particularly in this case, no excuse. Had I the means, I'd seriously consider leaving this city while he is in charge. The position of mayor should represent integrity, honesty, acceptance of all, and tolerance, Ford, on the other hand thrives on fear, intimidation, ignorance, and for lack of a better term, is nothing but a belligerent bully who demonstrates nothing but contempt with his condescending attitude towards anyone who disagrees with him, this is a sad day indeed :mad:
 
You think it was appropriate for him to vote? I am not using the MCIA definition of "conflict' here.... just the common-sense version. Rob Ford IS guilty of being a reckless idiot. That's my point. You must agree, no?

As an aside, this ruling now allows for lobbyists to donate to arms-length charities/funds of council members. How do you feel about this?



No I don't agree that Ford was wrong or "reckless". Ford has been completely vindicated. When he voted on this matter he was not in violation of the law. Rob Ford was correct all along. Why do people think that Ford somehow received a free-pass and needs to be "contrite"? This is a victory for Ford and for democracy!
 
You think it was appropriate for him to vote? I am not using the MCIA definition of "conflict' here.... just the common-sense version. Rob Ford IS guilty of being a reckless idiot. That's my point. You must agree, no?

As an aside, this ruling now allows for lobbyists to donate to arms-length charities/funds of council members. How do you feel about this?

I don't know if that is exactly the case. If such a thing does happen, couldn't the politician still be suspended or reprimanded? Regardless, the City of Toronto Act needs to be amended to allow for stronger penalties for violating the code of ethics, including paying back the money in question. If that was in there, then Ford really would not have had a leg to stand on, and I would 100% agree that this decision was flawed.
 
No I don't agree that Ford was wrong or "reckless". Ford has been completely vindicated. When he voted on this matter he was not in violation of the law. Rob Ford was correct all along. Why do people think that Ford somehow received a free-pass and needs to be "contrite"? This is a victory for Ford and for democracy!

Ford was not "correct" all along. Had this not have through the ethics commissioner initially, it is very likely that he would be out of office right now.
 
No I don't agree that Ford was wrong or "reckless". Ford has been completely vindicated. When he voted on this matter he was not in violation of the law. Rob Ford was correct all along. Why do people think that Ford somehow received a free-pass and needs to be "contrite"? This is a victory for Ford and for democracy!

I am not talking about law.

You think it was reasonable for Ford to vote at that motion? Even if it was unlawful on some technicality, you think it was a reasonable and mayoral thing to do?

Do you think it is ok for the mayor to do anything he wants, as long as it is not illegal? Even if it takes two court decisions to decide the legality? You are ok with him carrying on this way? He should learn nothing from this?
 
If it were you or I, as a private citizen, we'd have lost our job ages ago, so I ask you, why is it he is above the law?
If it were you or I, we would have either have never have gotten the job, or been fired shortly after, when it was revealed that he'd falsified the academic qualification during his "interview".

As to above the law? It's the old protection of the establishment I expect. Members of the right-wing and centrist establishment often seem to get away with what others don't.

Look at Mulroney. Not only did he admit to taking cash in brown enevlopes from a lobbyist while he was an MP, he had previously successfully litigated against the Canadian government for a $2.1-million payment for false accusations based on his testimony that he hadn't had any business dealing with the lobbyist that he later admitted taking cash payments from. And yet neither was he required to refund the money that he stole from taxpayers, nor was he charged for accepting bribes.
 
Last edited:
As an aside, this ruling now allows for lobbyists to donate to arms-length charities/funds of council members. How do you feel about this?

That is scare tactics used by Ruby and believed by the gullible. Lobbyists always could contribute to charities headed by councilors (MPs and MPPs as well). The only reason this was an issue is that Rob Ford made the request using his office letter head. If he had used Deco Labels, Personal or any other other letterhead it would not be an issue.
 
I would be very surprised if this were to result in anything but a nominal costs order against Magder.

I think just the opposite will happen. I suspect that Magder will be ordered to pay a substantial portion if not 100% of Fords very substantial legal bills. The reason why I believe this is Magder did not bring this action against Ford in good faith. Paul Magder was not personally wronged by Rob Ford. Paul Magder was part of a left-wing cabal that have tried to use our court system to destroy Rob Ford and force him out of office. They have abused our legal system and when they lose in court they must be required to pay full court costs.
 
Rather than call him any names or pejoratives, I choose now to try to ignore Ford for the remainder of time that he is in office. (Reminder: there are other court dates).

Ford is totally bereft of leadership abilities and he is turning into a waste of time for the city -- just look at the transit file, and what a fiasco that was. Sure, it's okay to love subways in my books, but one cannot go around endorsing them and then denounce all of the many financing options. It's nothing personal against Ford, it's purely professional and political -- Ford must grow a brain, and fast, if he wants to win another term, and quite seriously, anyone can call him out on leadership, not that anyone need bother, because he's lost all his allies.

So until next election time, I think I won't bother with Ford issues at all - they have unfortunately become a sideshow in themselves. A pathetic waste of time, as I said before he was elected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top