Daniel Dale on what happened near the mayor’s home

[slowpoke]

......What could Dale possibly have to gain by trying to peer into Rob Ford's backyard and/or windows?

That's what I'd like to know. If you believe Ford's version, the reporter was perched on a stack of cinderblocks, bobbing up and down in broad daylight, trying to peek over the fence - but to achieve what exactly? Was the reporter hoping to get a glimpse or fuzzy photo of Ford sitting in the kitchen or living room? How about Ford wandering around in his underwear? Or maybe Ford's wife and/or kids doing whatever mundane stuff you'd expect families to be doing at 7:30 in the evening? What good would it do anyone to see or photograph something so completely unremarkable? No journalist would expect to get anything useful out of such an exercise and no newspaper would be able to use it anyway. The reporter's claim that he was checking out the parcel of land he was writing about makes a lot more sense than Ford's delusional claim that he was being spied upon.

Ford must think his domestic arrangements are so irresistably fascinating that reporters would do just about anything to show and tell us all about them. But who could possibly give a shit about what the Ford family was doing at that hour? As motives go, the one about spying on the Ford household is about as unlikely as they get.

 

[fuji]

Ford submitted a written claim stating that his fence was inadequate, giving that as the reason in his written submission why he needs to buy park land from the city. As such, how adequate the fence is, and how much privacy it affords, is actually now a matter of public interest. The application to purchase that park land is now being submitted to public consultation--the public actually needs to know these things now, in order to participate in that consultation process, and weigh the pros and cons of losing that park land. If Ford didn't want that to be a matter of public interest, then he probably shouldn't have filed papers inviting public comment that made that claim.

This aside from the question of whether the reporter was actually doing that--he says he wasn't standing on any blocks--but I assume he was sent there by his editor in part there to find out how good that fence was. He probably was jumping to see how well you could see over it, as that was the job he was sent to do.

 

[slowpoke]

Ford submitted a written claim stating that his fence was inadequate, giving that as the reason in his written submission why he needs to buy park land from the city. As such, how adequate the fence is, and how much privacy it affords, is actually now a matter of public interest. The application to purchase that park land is now being submitted to public consultation--the public actually needs to know these things now, in order to participate in that consultation process. If Ford didn't want that to be a matter of public interest, then he probably shouldn't have filed papers inviting public comment that made that claim.

This aside from the question of whether the reporter was actually doing that--he says he wasn't standing blocks--but I assume he was sent there by his editor in part there to find out how good that fence was.

To be honest I think Ford's written submission was bullshit--his fence is perfectly adequate as apparently it requires cinder blocks and jumping to see over it. So it looks like the Star reporter has caught him in a lie there.

The reporter could just as easily have been trying to make sure he had a reasonable grasp about the parcel of land in question and its orientation relative to Ford's property. But it really makes no difference whether he was checking out details about the existing fence or just trying to get a handle on the adjacent plot of land or whatever. It was still daylight, he was on public property and he had no compelling reason to be spying on Ford. BTW, if Ford's videos had anything incriminating on them, the reporter would probably have been charged with something by now.

 

[Rockslinger]

stating that his fence was inadequate,

I think City bylaw limits the height of any fence to be no greater than 6 feet so Fuji can stand on his soapbox and watch your wife sunbathe nude:Eek:. Hee, hee, hee.

 

[groggy]

The reporter could just as easily have been trying to make sure he had a reasonable grasp about the parcel of land in question and its orientation relative to Ford's property. But it really makes no difference whether he was checking out details about the existing fence or just trying to get a handle on the adjacent plot of land or whatever. It was still daylight, he was on public property and he had no compelling reason to be spying on Ford. BTW, if Ford's videos had anything incriminating on them, the reporter would probably have been charged with something by now.

At this point, the only one with a case would be Dale, with Ford's threatening assault and using his cellphone.

 

[slowpoke]

At this point, the only one with a case would be Dale, with Ford's threatening assault and using his cellphone.

I agree. Ford seems to be on much thinner ice than Dale from a legal standpoint. But Dale's boss at The Star was interviewed by Stephen LeDrew on CP24 yesterday and he said his newspaper had no plans to press charges against the mayor. Rightly or wrongly, there are enough people out there who think Ford's actions were justified that The Star probably doesn't want to push it. They're perceived to have a real hard on for Ford and taking him to court could backfire.

 

[Cornelius]

It's not desperation at all. Ford gets ridiculed for superficial stuff constantly. This Dale pussy acted like Al Qaida was going to kill him. Personally, running the way he did looked like an admission of guilt that he was up to no good. This weasel actually stated he didn't have the agility to climb up onto cinder blocks. It was hilarious to watch him speak. He must keep his balls in a jar in the top cupboard in his kitchen.

 

[Rockslinger]

This weasel actually stated he didn't have the agility to climb up onto cinder blocks.

Didn't Ford's neighbour say he saw a dude standing on cinder blocks? Is Dale lying?

 

[fuji]

It's not desperation at all. Ford gets ridiculed for superficial stuff constantly. This Dale pussy acted like Al Qaida was going to kill him. Personally, running the way he did looked like an admission of guilt that he was up to no good. This weasel actually stated he didn't have the agility to climb up onto cinder blocks. It was hilarious to watch him speak. He must keep his balls in a jar in the top cupboard in his kitchen.

So, Cornelius, I realize you probably don't like facts, but here they are:

-- If we believe Ford's account 100% Dale did nothing wrong

He was outside the fence, possibly peering over it, possibly standing on cinder blocks, all of which is perfectly legal. Of course Ford having a history of outright lying we probably shouldn't believe his version--but even if we did, where's the problem???

 

[fuji]

Didn't Ford's neighbour say he saw a dude standing on cinder blocks? Is Dale lying?

My guess is that nobody is lying. My guess is that Dale was trying to figure out how well you could see over Ford's fence, and was jumping and otherwise trying to assess that. He probably wasn't standing on cinder blocks, but the neighbour saw what he was doing and thought that he was. In any case, Dale's behavior there would be perfectly legal, and fully in line with the story he was sent to write.

 

[guelph]

Didn't Ford's neighbour say he saw a dude standing on cinder blocks? Is Dale lying?

Ford said his neighbour said that. We all know Ford's record for honesty.

 

[Anbarandy]

Ford said his neighbour said that. We all know Ford's record for honesty.

Is it a honorable record?

Can someone elaborate.

 

[Anbarandy]

Ford said his neighbour said that. We all know Ford's record for honesty.

'You know whose' neighbor has refused to comment on 'cinder-block-Gate'

'You know who' has suddenly gone quiet about 'Fence-Gate' which is very reminiscent of the aftermath of 'Marge-Gate'. All sound, fury, bluster and accusations of a crime, yet in both instances when the facts get in the way, 'you know who' suddenly quiets down. When evidence such as the 911 audio tapes and the 'Fence-Gate' video surveillance tape are available to examine the evidence and to set the record straight of what actually occurred, 'you know who' did not and will not release or authorize their release. Questions abound about the intergrity of the complainant, 'you know who'.

All of this should really be called 'Victim-Gate', a clever political ploy to frame 'you know who' as the victim of underhanded, nefarious 'left-wing' social elitists hellbent on exacting a vendetta against the defender of the common man also known as the taxpayer. "Look at what they're trying to do to me."

 

[Butler1000]

So setting aside the legality of the situation a question for the reporters apologists still stands. Was it appropriate behavior? Do we as a society want strangers to have the high moral ground to peer into our backyards? Quite simply I don't. I believe this goes beyond "left or right". Our privacy has already been steadily eroded in public spaces. Shouldn't our homes at least be the one place where no one can intrude?
I don't buy into the "if you are a public figure you are fair game anywhere" mentality. Maybe if you are one of those idiotic reality types but as they are inviting them in but politicians? No I don't think so. Everyone has the right to some privacy. The fact they choose to serve the public is no excuse for violating the spirit of the sanctity of the home. I often wonder if this attitude by the press is what prevents some of the better minds in our nation to public service. Look what we keep getting at all level of government.
To add to an old quote
Those who can do
Those who can't teach
And the rest end up with the gov't

 

[fuji]

It was absolutely appropriate. The public had an interest in knowing the facts around the mayor's application to buy that park land and that very much calls for someone to go check it out in person. This is not a case of someone going there for no reason, Ford applied to buy that land from the city, which is definitely news. He made several claims that needed fact checking, and some appear to have been lies. Now there is a public consultation and people will need the facts.

Things worth checking:

How good is the fence? Is there really a security issue? Who else uses that park? What would it do to the neighborhood? How nice us the land?

The story broke that afternoon, Dale was writing a piece for the morning paper. He did the right thing going to check it out.

 

[Butler1000]

The "story broke" that morning. Was it really breaking news? Were several news organizations clamouring to "get the story"? The story was a non issue and easily pursued over a couple of days. Instead the "deadline" became more important than getting the facts(no charged phone) straight. Did he go there to provoke? No. His actions show he doesn't have the balls for that. Did he do anything criminal? Actually I don't think so. But he did show bad judgement. And came across as doing something wrong by his reaction and demeanor. And again I ask this question. If it was the Sun and olivia chow say when her and Jack were living in subsidized housing........and they were peering over the fence..........would you defend the SUN?

 

[fuji]

The "story broke" that morning. Was it really breaking news? Were several news organizations clamouring to "get the story"?

Newspapers are in the business of printing TODAY's news, not last week's news.

The story was a non issue and easily pursued over a couple of days.

And this is why you are not a newspaper editor...

 

[fuji]

If it was the Sun and olivia chow say when her and Jack were living in subsidized housing........and they were peering over the fence..........would you defend the SUN?

Yes, if they were reporting the facts honestly. If Jack and Olivia made certain claims about their dwelling place, I would expect a good reporter to go and find out whether those claims were actually true.

(The Sun actually lied when they printed that story. They misled people into thinking Jack and Olivia were paying a subsidized rate when in fact Jack and Olivia were paying the full rate and thereby subsidizing the others. However, their lying is a different matter, I support their right to go and check the facts. Just wish they would print the facts...)

 

[groggy]

So setting aside the legality of the situation a question for the reporters apologists still stands. Was it appropriate behavior? Do we as a society want strangers to have the high moral ground to peer into our backyards? Quite simply I don't. I believe this goes beyond "left or right". Our privacy has already been steadily eroded in public spaces. Shouldn't our homes at least be the one place where no one can intrude?
I don't buy into the "if you are a public figure you are fair game anywhere" mentality. Maybe if you are one of those idiotic reality types but as they are inviting them in but politicians? No I don't think so. Everyone has the right to some privacy. The fact they choose to serve the public is no excuse for violating the spirit of the sanctity of the home. I often wonder if this attitude by the press is what prevents some of the better minds in our nation to public service. Look what we keep getting at all level of government.
To add to an old quote
Those who can do
Those who can't teach
And the rest end up with the gov't

On the contrary.
I'd say if public officials are trying to use influence to buy public property, then I'd say it would be a failure of the media not to investigate.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

On the contrary.
I'd say if public officials are trying to use influence to buy public property, then I'd say it would be a failure of the media not to investigate

Exactly how is playing a Peeping Tom into Ford's kitchen window performing a legitimate investigation??