Conrad Black responds to Toronto Star and critics of his Rob Ford interview

Black takes on Ford critics and media coverage

Chris Young/CP

In a column published Saturday in the National Post, Conrad Black defends his interview with Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and takes on his critics at the Toronto Star.

“I do not conduct an antagonistic debate,” Black said of Zoomer, the show he co-hosts on Vision TV. “This is a format that viewers seem to enjoy, and it was on this basis that guests — including Mayor Ford, last week — have agreed to speak with me.” The intent of the interview? To give Ford space in which “he could say whatever he wanted to get off his chest.”

In the conversation broadcast Monday evening, Ford was asked about his relationship with the media. During his response, he discussed an incident on May 2, 2012, outside Ford’s home involving Star reporter Daniel Dale. ”I have little kids,” Ford told Black. “When a guy’s taking pictures of little kids, I don’t want to say that word, but you starting thinking you know, what’s this guy all about.”

Ford may not have said the word but response to his insinuation was swift.

“Just when you think Mayor Ford has said the most stupid thing, such as letting the whole world know about his sex life at home, he tops himself with another outrage,” Cooke wrote in an email to The Canadian Press. ”Mr. Ford calling reporter Daniel Dale a pedophile tells you all you need to know about our mayor’s brain.”

Dale also replied to the Ford interview:

It’s the word that people are already attaching to my name in emails and Twitter posts. It’s the word that will now come up every time a prospective interviewee or new acquaintance Googles me. It’s false. It’s malicious. It’s defamatory. It’s mind-boggling. It’s damn gross”

The mayor declined to elaborate or apologize for his comments. “I stand by my words, what I said with Conrad Black,” he told reporters on Tuesday. “I stand by every word I said.”

Later in the week, Dale served Ford with a libel notice.  In response, Vision TV posted a message on its website:  “As there is now the threat of legal action, ZoomerMedia will not be making a statement until such time as we can consult with our attorneys to consider the allegations and determine next steps.”

ZoomerMedia may have declined comment but Black has quite a lot to say in Saturday’s column. Calling the Dale story a sideshow, he said of the lawsuit: “it’s righteousness is hypocrisy and claptrap, as usual.”

As for that word Ford wouldn’t say, Black says people have it wrong:

“Mr. Ford’s exact phrasing was: ‘I have little kids, and when a guy’s taking pictures of little kids, I don’t want to say that word, but you start thinking, you know, what’s this guy all about?’ The plainest meaning that can be ascribed to these words is that Mr. Ford was explaining his thoughts at the time, before he found out that the person lurking about his property line was a reporter, not a predator. … The notion that the mayor had insinuated that Dale was a pervert was a confection uniquely of his colleagues at the Star, and he has his colleagues to thank for whatever stigmatization he feels he has suffered.”

You can read Black’s column in its entirely by following this link.




Browse

Conrad Black responds to Toronto Star and critics of his Rob Ford interview

  1. Why is convict Black still in Canada?

    • Served his time derp de dum?

      • He has no citizenship in Canada since he was knighted. He has been given a special temporary permit though.

        • He has never been knighted.

          • He was “lorded”? He’s a lord in the UK, I have no idea what that means, what he gets for being one, or what he’s supposed to do as one but Black considered it to be worth renouncing his Canadian citizenship to become one.

          • In England he was given “British Knighthood in recognition of his many achievements.”. He waived his citizenship in order to get it.

          • His accomplishments being mail fraud and obstruction of justice

    • This comment was deleted.

      • If Conrad Black was of average means he would never have been allowed back into Canada since he renounced his citizenship and foreign criminals aren’t normally given visitors visas like he was. Even still he’s only allowed in Canada temporarily, he’s obviously now got himself a worker’s visa since he’s now working in Canada so that will buy him more time, unless of course he’s working in Canada illegally without a visa which I wouldn’t put past this pompous crook. But as soon as he becomes unemployed he’ll no longer be welcome in Canada, if he stayed he would be in Canada illegally, if you harboured Black you would be charged with harbouring a criminal and/or obstruction of justice.

        Btw the police reviewed all the video and evidence from that night and agreed with Dale’s version of events. Ford should’ve been charged with mugging Dale, after all he used the threat of violence against Dale to gain possession of his smart phone. If you don’t think that would get anyone else arrested then I suggest you try doing exactly what Ford did, run at someone near your home with your fist cocked like your about to hit them demanding they give you their phone, it won’t matter if you return the phone later you’d still be arrested for mugging that person. Dale and the Star didn’t want to pursue such charges against Ford but the police still should’ve done. Its just another example of Toronto cops covering up for Ford for as long as they possibly could.

      • As I understand it, it was not merely the obstruction of justice but the fraud as well. While it is true that not every charge of fraud was made out (I recall his PR team crowing about it at the time) IIRC he served significant time for his business conduct even before violating a court order to smuggle those boxes out of storage.

        I am willing to accept corrections on this matter from an authoritative source.

        • You need an authoritative source? Are you incapable of looking it up yourself? The fraud charge was dropped but he spent time in prison on the obstruction charge relating to the fraud charge, just like I said in my other post. It really was that easy.

          • From Wikipedia:

            Black was found guilty of diverting funds for personal benefit from money due (to) Hollinger International, and of other irregularities. The embezzlement occurred when the company sold certain publishing assets. For example, in 2000, in an arrangement that came to be known as the “Lerner Exchange,” Black personally acquired Chicago’s Lerner Newspapers and sold it to Hollinger.[44] He also was found guilty of obstruction of justice.[45]

            So… he was convicted of fraud AND obstruction of justice.

            44: http://www.secinfo.com/dsvr4.1A52.c.htm
            45: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6897991.stm

            From the bbc:
            Conrad Black convicted of fraud

            Media tycoon Conrad Black has been convicted of three charges of fraud and one of obstructing justice.

          • LOL you found the oldest news report possible? He was not convicted of fraud and only served time for obstruction of justice. Could you at least be more current?

          • I don’t see how time changes a conviction into not a conviction, but whatever.

            From February of 2013:

            http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/20/conrad_black_loses_bid_to_void_guilty_verdict.html

            States convictions of Fraud and Obstruction of Justice.

            So, he was convicted of FRAUD and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

            He still had one fraud conviction left after appeal:

            Black lost an appeal as to fact and law on his remaining convictions for fraud and obstruction of justice.

            LOL.

    • Such hostility…

  2. Who gives a rat’s @$$ about what Black thinks!? He’s a convicted fraudster, who stole people’s pensions and ruined their lives. The only thing I want to hear about Black is that he’s back in a cell, rotting, where he belongs.

    • Wrong about that Justin, check your facts. Convicted of obstructing justice – the other charges were false.

      • He has tried to take pensions, has been taken to court, and lost. Dominion workers got half their pension back.

        • The only reason the pensioners lost out was because of the gross incompetence of the management team that came AFTER Black was gone.

          • That is not true. He did own the company, it’s on the wiki page.

            “In 1984, Black withdrew for shareholders over $56 million from the Dominion workers’ pension plan surplus without consulting plan members.”

            -source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black#Dominion_pension_dispute

            It is difficult to find much on this since it is so far back. The star also has a snippet on this.

            http://www.thestar.com/sponsored_sections/2007/03/11/the_world_according_to_conrad_black.html

            Also, I personally lived through this.

          • And how did it effect you?

          • Money was put into RRSP’s when the pension was divided. That has helped offset the loss, but I wouldn’t say the pension itself is livable. At least there was enough time between then and now. It was worse for those who were within a year or two etc. of retirement that lost half their pension.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Conrad Black, interesting?

        Just how boring is your life?

        • Oh, I’d say it’s about average. What are you doing here if Conrad is such a drag?

          • I’m not here re any interest in Conrad Black. I’m just following the story on the Ford fiasco and all of its twisted tributaries. When the Ontario Securities Commission takes him to court, trust me, I won’t be following. That he’s a very rich, very smug alleged embezzler is not news but a hackneyed saga. One thing I will say about him…he has a smoking hot wife. Too bad she can’t write anything worthwhile anymore. Must be the effect of all that money.

      • interesting? Me, I’m into watching paint peel, myself. Whatever floats yer boat.

        • That’s the way I see it. Careful with those paint stripper fumes.

    • If you truly didn’t care – why are you here reading and posting to his comments?

      • I don’t care what he has to say. However I do care that a convicted criminal has been allowed into the country. He should be deported.

        • Don’t worry, it’s just a matter of time before you get caught doing something illegal.

          • I’m a good boy, thank you very much.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • None of which are criminal offences.

          • I have a medical condition, that prevents me from driving. But do try again, a hole.

            A minor traffic violation hardly compares to the lives Black helped ruin. You’re not even compare apples to oranges at this point.

          • Besides which I assume that you, unlike Conrad Black, are a Canadian citizen or if a recent immigrant will become one at some point. Canadian citizens cannot be deported from Canada for any crime. A Canadian citizen could kill thousands of people here and couldn’t be deported, they’d get dangerous offender status and never let of of prison till they’re dead but they wouldn’t be deported.

            Conrad Black is not a Canadian citizen and non-citizens can and are deported even for non-violent crimes. If Black is working here without a proper workers visa or if he loses his job but still remains in Canada then he is breaking the law and would be deported for something like that. Well most people would but of course its different for the wealthy and politically connected like Black which is the only reason he was allowed into Canada in the first place.

          • Please name all the lives Black has ruined.

          • Probably a good thing you don’t drive then especially after you’ve been drinking as that is a criminal offence. Come on, name those lives that he’s ruined because I think you’re just being over dramatic.

        • This comment was deleted.

          • Where did he say that, stupie? You know that Canadian citizens can’t be deported, right?

          • i wouldn’t bet on it!

          • No, only the ones that aren’t Canadian. Are you really this dense, can’t you read?

          • We could ask the same of the CPC – though getting elected isn’t that big a worry; break the law on the party’s behalf & if the voters don’t want you don’t sweat it – there’s a Senate seat with your name on it.

      • Maybe because Black’s name appeared in an article headline. That could lead to some not-unreasonable venting. It’s bad enough his Lordship being here, does he have write about our affairs as well?

    • He served his time fair and square. Funny how you rant and rail against tough-on crime Conservatives, and hate mandatory minimums for gun crimes…. but suddenly want someone jailed for life because you disagree with their politics.

      How progressive of you.

      • Politics has nothing to do with it. The lives he helped ruin, does. He’s not even Canadian, he has no right to be in Canada.

        • This comment was deleted.

          • nope. he beat some of the fraud charges but not all of them. Also remember he was a terrible businessman who treated shareholders interests like a piggy bank he could throw lavish parties for Barbara with.

          • He beat all of the fraud charges. Get your facts straight. He spent time in prison for obstruction of justice relating to the fraud charge.

          • you are lying or mistaken.

          • Well you sound jealous of parties with Barbara. Instead of calling me a liar why don’t you just look it up, it’s not hard.

          • Black was convicted of three counts of mail fraud and one count of obstructing a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission probe.

            He successfully appealed two of the fraud convictions and won a three-year reduction of his original 6½-year sentence.

    • I’d be satisfied with Black just being gone from Canada.

      I don’t know why he was allowed back in the first place. There was no reason to let him back into Canada especially since he just got out of prison in the US and we normally don’t give criminals visitor visas let alone workers visas, which I assume he has or he’s breaking even more laws right now by working here. He might’ve been a Canadian citizen at one time but he renounced his citizenship and all the rights and privileges that go alone with it and after doing something like that you won’t be regaining citizenship ever again. Well most no one else would but Black has political connections, hence being allowed into Canada in the first place, so I suppose anything is possible for him.

      I heard he was disgraced in Britain but they wouldn’t take away his citizenship for committing a crime. Besides he’s not just a citizen of Britain he’s a British lord, whatever that’s
      supposed to be, so why didn’t he return to his own country instead of
      coming to Canada? Perhaps Britain wasn’t so much fun anymore with people looking down on him and he figured there’s be enough fools in Canada to make him feel big and important again. Judging from some of these comments that’s obviously the case.

  3. Black, always thinks he the smartest guy in the room when he’s really a glorified weather girl giving puff interviews.

  4. Black is right. Ford was simply describing his thinking at the time. He’s not at all suggesting that Dale is a pedophile. And Black’s right in suggesting that Dale’s colleagues are the ones making it the ridiculous issue that it’s become.

    • Wow! Really? Really?

      • Yes, really. Ford was talking about his worst run-in with the media, and how it went down. He was clearly describing his thinking at the time. He even says “but you start thinking”…. How is this not plainly obvious?

        • It’s not obvious to the stupid or to others with a Toronto Star-esque agenda.

        • I wish that there were people who believed this in real life, that I knew them,and that they enjoyed betting sizable sums on the course of current events.

          As nothing about Rick Omen’s account is honest or reputable or credible, the idea remains fiction

    • This will no doubt be the line of defense. Problem is, in May 2012 Ford said the children were inside doing homework. In the Black interview he claims they were outside playing. Why did he want to inaccurately attach his children to the scenario? The insinuation is clear. And why hold a sputtering press conference after the fact (not sure if it was later that night, or the next day), when he knew it was Daniel Dale, and knew why he was there. Ford wants to keep this alive. Well, he sure has.

      • He said his children play in the yard, he did not say they were outside when this happened. Open your ears.

        • “Daniel Dale is in my backyard taking pictures. I have little kids. When a guy’s taking pictures of little kids…..” Open yours.

          • Quit taking it out of context. Finish that line.

          • Since the line has been repeated to often, and is at the crux of the outrage, really didn’t think it needed repeating, but here it is: “when a guy’s taking pictures of little kids, I don’t want to say the word, but you start thinking what’s this guy all about?” It’s in the article above ferchrissake!

          • Any sane parent would think the same thing…taking pictures of my backyard which my children play in. But keep on protecting the media for their outlandish behaviour. I wasn’t kidding, I would have punched him in the face. And probably the reason why this crap only happens in Toronto.

          • He wasn’t taking pictures of the backyard. The neighbor didn’t even say that. Ford ASSUMED that, has now lied about it so often, he may even believe it. That happens with habitual liars.

          • Did you forget all about the cinder block?

          • Yah. You’re right. Dale travels with cinder blocks in his trunk, and carted them out. What about the cinder blocks? So what?

          • He was standing on them and looking over the fence. Did you forget that or are you playing it like it never happened?

          • Where do you get that “fact” from? Only one who ever said it was Ford. And he never even said he actually saw Dale on cinder blocks. He just assumed it.

      • Ford always injects his family into questionable situations he gets himself into. With the Princess Warrior and Ford’s infamous 911 calls he claimed it scared his children, well the video clearly shows there were no children anywhere to be seen. He brings them up regularly and uses them to deflect accounts of his own bad behaviour. He does this very regularly, the most infamous use of his family to help get him out of political tight spots was when he dragged his wife through a room packed tight with media after his eating at home comments. To Ford his family are useful political props.

        • Seriously disgusting. How dare he play the “kid card” while running around with the criminal element, getting into “drunken stupors”, a dicey domestic situation, and leaving Lisi with his children! And he played that card long before he “got clean” (if we’re to believe him). I’m a parent. It’s sickening.

          • If you are a parent like you claim, are you sure that you’ve done everything right and to 100% of your ability? Yeah I didn’t think so.

          • ??? No parent can say that. But I can confidently say probably 90% better than Ford.

          • In your dreams.

    • Ford has been using the false allegation of Dale taking photos of his children in his talking points, that goes well beyond “at the time” and into calculated personal attacks against a reporter for doing their job. If Dale didn’t challenge this whenever someone googled his name the allegations of him being a pedophile because of Ford’s repeated comments would constantly come up. They still will but at least now there will also be accounts of Dale charging Ford with libel, or slander, I forget which is speech and which writing, which I suspect will be upheld by the courts clearing Dale’s name. If Ford had just mentioned that during that “interview” Dale had pointed out he wouldn’t have gone through with filing charges against Ford but it was Ford’s repeated allegations of Dale’s “questionable interests” as ongoing talking points that convinced him he had to do so.

      • Slander is speech, libel is written. I guess the journalist never got what he wanted, makes me want to sit down and cry…not. This is all due to google and what comes up first? LOLOLOLOL

  5. Conrad Black is the smartest person in the room. It wasn’t Conrad who ruined peoples lives and stole their pensions. As long a he was in charge he made nothing but money for his shareholders. The money wasn’t lost until jealousy took hold and he was relieved of his job.

    • I think you mean the smartest person in the cell. Because that’s where his profit-taking actions landed him.

    • And so not true. Investors, his shareholders, started the case against him.

    • Well the room was him and Ford, so if you don’t count the cameraman, then probably.

  6. Considering the police found no pictures were taken of his kids or his house or anything else of Ford, how does one come to such a conclusion? The answer is you make it up on the fly without considering what you are saying. I suspect the first impression Ford must of had is one of a guttural interpretation. Even if he had indicated that interpretation as a first thought, knowing he is mayor of Toronto and that any interest would be of him, one would actually respond with; I first thought he was a —— but after due deliberation I found I was wrong. In this case, being interviewed several months later and not stating this, would indicate that Ford has an agenda which is not pretty. He was wrong and he is wrong now and Black could have interpreted this but chose not to do so.

    • He didn’t have to take a picture. Ford saw a man snooping behind his property with a camera. If his kids were in the backyard at the time, it would be a natural reaction.

      • But they weren’t in the backyard, they were inside, doing homework which Rob stated he was helping them with. You’re making things up.

        • I said “if”. I didn’t know where his kids were.

          • Ford’s comments and the outcome of the Police investigation are a matter of public record. You either said “if” because you’re too lazy to bother looking them up or because you wanted to muddy the waters and affirm Ford’s lies about Dale.

        • He didn’t say his kids were in the yard when Dale was there, open your ears.

          • “Daniel dale is in my backyard taking pictures. I have little kids. When a guy’s taking pictures of little kids…….”

          • Now finish that sentence.

      • It could have been though it certainly would not be a normal reaction to this situation. If someone is checking an adjacent property behind my house I certainly would not think of this as my first thought. Secondly, he had several months to compose himself and deliberate what had actually transpired. So no. He knew what he was saying.

        • Your reaction is only normal to those that have medical conditions and cannot confront anyone.

    • If the guy was a respectable reporter why could he not have walked up to the front door, rang the bell, explained his reasons for being there and carried on?

      • He had no reason to as he was never on Ford’s property at any time. Ford had made a very unusual request to buy some public parkland. Being the city affairs reporter Dale went to the park to see for himself the condition and sort of land Ford wanted to buy. No one needs the permission of people who live beside a park to be in that park for any reason. At no time was he taking photos or looking into Ford’s backyard as the police confirmed when they viewed Ford’s security video completely contradicting Ford’s claims he could see Dale’s head on the video popping up over the fence.

        What’s much more outrageous and regularly overlooked since charges weren’t laid was that Ford used the threat of violence against Dale to gain possession of Dale’s smartphone. Ford ran at Dale with his fist cocked as if he were about to hit him yelling at him to hand over his phone. Dale dropped his phone on the ground and ran away. That is called a mugging. if you doubt it try doing it yourself and see what charges are laid against you when you’re arrested. No it won’t matter if you return the stolen property later on. Neither the Star nor Dale wanted to pursue charges against Ford but the police should’ve done so anyways since there was ample evidence of what happened. That was just another example of the police covering up for Ford at every possible opportunity.

        • Ford’s neighbour saw Dale peering into Ford’s backyard. We have a witness here and that changes everything.

          • A neighbor who refused to go on record during the police investigation.

          • Who said the neighbour refused? The police? LOL

          • The neighbor also refused to corroborate the story to the media the next day.

      • The purpose of his being there had nothing to do with interviewing Ford. Why would anyone knock on someone’s door to tell them they are not there to talk to them. The reporter was on adjacent land and not on the property..

        • Then why was he peering over Ford’s back fence?

          • I don’t know how much plainer one can comment about the entire situation. He may have been looking over the fence, if there was a fence. We don’t know. But the issue is not this but rather the ensuing response by Ford. What Ford related to the press and to police has been proven as false. To continue with what Ford is saying, knowing the actual situation some months after the incident suggest another agenda on Ford’s part.

          • Really? You don’t know if there was a fence? Are you stupid? Since property owners usually own 3 ft behind a back fence, that would put Dale on Ford’s property. Last time I checked you can say whatever the hell you want to someone caught on your property. If Dale couldn’t take the heat, maybe he shouldn’t have been there in the first place. The police have proven nothing other than they have their own agenda.

          • “Property owners usually own 3 ft behind a back fence” !? Wow. Where do you live?? What a ridiculous statement.

          • I guess if you don’t own a fence you would have no understanding that it cannot be on the property line in the back or front of your home. Would you please take a course in property rights.

          • My entire property is fenced. On the property line. One I share with my neighbor. I live in Toronto. Seriously, where in the world do you live?

          • Apparently you have no back alleys like Ford does?

          • In fact I do. If the neighbor behind me and I had our property lines extending 3 feet beyond our fences, there wouldn’t BE a back alley, ha, ha.

    • “Considering the police found no pictures were taken of his kids or his house or anything else of Ford, how does one come to such a conclusion?” How did you come up with that conclusion that the police found no pictures of the kids? Or are you simply stating that because they didn’t print the pictures of his kids?

      • You might want to check facts before you start typing. The Police looked through the contents of Dale’s Blackberry which he dropped on the ground as Ford was doing his best impression of an angry Rhino–bellowing and running toward the reporter.

        In order to address the claims of peeping over the fence, Dale allowed the Police to check the photos of his phone which showed that there were no photos of Ford’s property. Ford provided the Police with the recording from his security camera which AGAIN showed that Dale did not peer into his property. The Police dismissed Ford’s claims as being groundless.

        • This comment was deleted.

          • Your paranoid fantasies are running away with you. Since the facts on the public record don’t agree with what you’d like to believe you’re making up a whole imaginary world of police conspiracy and coverup.

            Get help.

          • Two words – High River.

          • Two words: “paranoid fantasies”.

          • Two words: Tinfoil Hat.

          • Don’t your find it odd that the new credit card holders are lined with tinfoil. LOL

          • Don’t you like local news?

          • A security camera would have shown him “in my backyard” as he said to Conrad Black, or at least looking over the fence. Ford is a liar, and using his children to spew vile crap.

          • Seriously, a security camera? Have you ever looked at the footage of one of those? Yeah I didn’t think so. Ford’s neighbour is a witness to Dale’s shenanigans.

          • Security cameras would should show a head peering over the fence if there was one. They didn’t. Sure, start deleting photos with a guy twice your size raging at you and yelling for you drop your camera?

        • Dale dropped his smartphone because Ford had his fist cocked as if he were about to hit him and was yelling at him to hand over his phone, so Dale dropped it on the ground and ran away from Ford. That is otherwise known as a mugging, the use of or threat of violence to illegally gain someone elses property. Anyone who doubts that should try doing the exact same thing that Ford did that night and see what they get charged with when the police arrest them.

          Neither the Star nor Dale wanted to press charges against Ford, probably figuring it’d be seen as an anti-Ford vendetta. But still the police should’ve pressed charges since there was evidence, like Ford being in possession of Dale’s phone and both making statements that somewhat matched. Police arrest people for mugging on much less evidence regularly.

          • If I had never done anything wrong, I would never have dropped my phone when asked. But since Dale did, that speaks volumes.
            As previously stated our local cops would not press charges against a girl who assaulted 2 people…so the police’s refusal to press charges against Dale is absolutely meaningless.

          • If he had done something wrong he would have KEPT his phone.

          • No he’s obviously a chicken and dropped it when told. Not really the actions of someone who was innocent.

      • Ford told police he was helping his kids with their homework. Maybe he sets up a classroom outside @ 7:30 pm.

        • He never said the kids were outside when Dale was there.

    • Did Dale have time to delete the pictures?

  7. It’s interesting that Dale feels he has been libeled but it was quite alright for him to libel Ford as long as he had press protection.

    • Why hasn’t Ford served the Star with papers for libel, then? There has not been one lawsuit despite his many threats and claims.

      With his Dad’s millions, Ford can afford the lawyers, so the smart answer is that he wasn’t libelled and what the Star printed has printed is close enough to the truth that a libel lawsuit would be unsuccessful and would just subject Ford to embarrasing cross-examination in court where his tendency to lie would be regarded as criminal.

      • It’s up to the police to lay charges and they’ve proven by precident that all Ford’s future accusations will all be GROUNDLESS.

        • You actually have no idea how libel works, do you? The Police don’t file charges of libel because it’s not a criminal act. They’re filed under civil law which means that it’s up to the wronged party to file charges. If Ford felt he had a winnable case, it’s up to him to file charges.

          Google it before you start typing again.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • There were no criminal actions by Dale, otherwise he would have been charged.

            Why would you sue your copy with libel? Did he publish stuff about yout in the papers or put it on TV? You’re telling me you know all about “how libel works” but you’re showing me you don’t know the difference between slander and libel.

            Good talk, buddy. Enjoy the rest of your day–I’ve got better things to do than keep correcting your mistakes.

          • ??

        • Ford could start a civil suit, like he could instigate along with all the other ones he’s threatened to proceed with. He shuts up because his lawyer wisely tells him to skip it.

          • Yes he could start a civil suit. But if you are thinking that Dale is not guilty due to the police not laying charges from this incident, you really need to take a long hard look at police shenanigans.

      • This comment was deleted.

        • No doubt.

        • And suggesting someone is motivated by pedophilia instead of a bona fide investigation is NOT an attempt to silence them?

          • Gayle, when was the last time the police actually did ANY investigation? Since the police were unable to charge Ford, they resorting to slandering him.

          • Your comment has nothing to do with mine.

    • Dale has never libeled anyone and there is no press protection against slander or libel. The press are not like MPs in the Commons who are free to say anything without risk of being held to account under slander or libel laws. The press can be and have been charged with slander/libel, there are some defences against such charges, one being that what was said was true, another being that it was a well researched statement and in the public interest. Those defences are available to anyone and not just the press.

      Considering Ford’s love of fighting I’ve no doubt he’d drag people through civil court if he thought he could get them on slander or libel. He never does so because he would also be under oath and his chronic lying would become a legal issue in itself besides the fact the truth defence would make it impossible for Ford to win and slander or libel charge he brought against someone.

      • The police are immune to charges of slander and libel and that’s why Bill Blair can be so vocal…no repercussions. In my case the newspaper kept on saying that the police were the ones who came out with the original story and they were only printing what they were given. So in fact newspapers do hide behide the skirt of the police and therefore no civil lawsuit.

    • Please back that up. Just what did Dale say that hasn’t proven to be true? If you can’t point to specific stories, I’ll have to conclude that, like your idol, you just make up crap.

      • Yeah he did say he was scared and peed his pants, didn’t he?

        • Given that we’ve all seen Rob in a rage on video, and given that Dale is half his size and was without a dart gun, I would say “scared” would be appropriate.

          • How about the peeing his pants part?

          • I don’t seriously address potty jokes.

          • Just answer the damn question!

          • I don’t seriously address potty jokes. Sorry if that makes you a little peeved.

          • Well due to your inability to answer I have to assume that he did.

          • Okay. Assume whatever you want. Assumptions seem to appeal to you more than facts.

          • You defended Dale by saying he was scared but would not defend him against peeing his pants. What am I supposed to think?

  8. “Calling the Dale story a sideshow, he said of the lawsuit:

    it’s righteousness is hypocrisy and claptrap, as usual.” ”

    Checked the original story in the National Post. Yep, that what he wrote, folks. That’s a high-school/comment-section blunder. The sort of basic grammar doltery we commenters make fun of each for (or, if you prefer, “…for which we commenters make fun…”).

    • Wow. That completely destroys any credibility of what was written, doesn’t it? Get a clue.

  9. Regrettably, I must comment as guest, having had a lifetime ban under DISQUS id on MacLeans, for any comment on any article; for my trenchant but clean defense against the Star reporters, of a mayor whose deplorable behaviour has become only too clear.

    • You’re defending a most politically correct media outlet, one of the quickest to ban legitimate public discourse comments that don’t follow their agenda? Ironic to say the least.

      • The real irony is that he has to come to a different publication all together to comment on it.

        • I think what I’ve said is misunderstood. Actually, I came here to wish his Lordship bon voyage to the bracing perpetual rains of his beloved England, and had a “…and another thing, while I’m here…” moment.

      • My comment said nothing in defense of the Star; perhaps it was too convoluted a sentence. It is certainly giving MacLeans a piece of my mind.

  10. I agree with M. ford, anyone who gets ” too close for comfort” with my kids is suspicious. Mother Bear gets UPSET!

    • Then you disagree with the Police and with the facts. The Police dismissed Ford’s charges of trespass and found no photos of Ford’s property or family on the phone camera. The security camera also exonerated Dale from charges of trespass or peering into the yard.

      Before he said Dale was a pervert, Ford said the kids were inside where he was helping them with their homeword.

      You’re lying to support a liar–are those the values “Mother Bear” is teaching her kids?

      • This comment was deleted.

        • You’re making things up.

          You don’t know exactly what the neighbour said because they won’t corroborate Ford’s story.

          Black asked him what’s the worst thing the media has done, not what’s the worst “thought process you had at the time.” It’s 18 months after the event and the Etokicoke Police–Rob’s buddies whoe were kept out of the loop during this year’s investigation–dismissed Ford’s accusation.

          • Let me guess. If Rob Ford ran into a burning building and saved a child, you’d be accusing him of child abduction, wouldn’t you?

          • Since you changed the subject, I can only assume that you have no relevant reply.

          • I’m afraid you are wrong about that. The neighbours said they would corroborate the story…but because the police never laid charges, it went no further.

          • A quote from the neighbour at the original time of the incident.

            “Mr. Ford’s next door neighbour, told the Post Wednesday night that he did not see the reporter enter Mr. Ford’s backyard.”

            Your imaginary version of events just doens’t match up to the various statements and reports from the time it occurred. I’m tired of fact checking your mistakes. Bye.

          • Since no one is saying that Dale entered Ford’s backyard, the neighbour’s comments are only confirming what everyone already knows. What did the neighbour say about calling Ford due to Dale peering over the fence? That is the issue.

          • “Daniel Dale is in my backyard taking pictures”. In the interview. On camera.

          • Since people usually own about 3 feet behind their back fence, that would put Dale on Ford’s property.

          • ???

      • You are stating that Ford said that Dale was a pervert. In so stating, YOU are a liar.

        • You’re correct, Ford said: “He’s taking photos of little kids.I don’t want to say that word, but you start thinking ‘What’s this guy all about.’”

          Beyond the fact that Ford is lying about the photos being taken, I believe the impllication’s pretty clear. We’ll see what the judge thinks, won’t we?

          • are you a judge?

          • Hell No! He’s a sm*rt ass

          • And we’ll see what the “recovered” cell phone pictures reveal.

          • We already know, because the police kept the phone and looked at it. There were no pictures on it. None. This was published everywhere, including the Toronto Sun, last year.

            You wouldn’t look nearly as silly if you had bothered to go back to the original stories and read what the police said last May.

          • You never answered my previous question…did Dale have time to delete the pictures? If he did, there should be a forensic lab capable of recovering the deleted photographs.

          • Another question you could have answered for yourself by reading the old stories. According to the original stories, which Ford has confirmed by saying that he “lost his cool”, he ran at Dale shouting and waving his fist. Dale dropped the phone and ran away.

            Ford picked up the phone and gave it to the police, who, with Dale’s permission, looked at the contents and saw no photos of Ford’s property. Dale had no time to delete any photos.

          • You have no proof that Dale didn’t have time to delete the photos. And the police never bothered looking for deleted photos and that is a fact.

          • A “fact” because you think so? Your statements are becoming more and more bizarre.

          • The police did not look for the deleted photographs. That is a fact.

    • That’s fine. But if you publicly insinuate they are pedophiles in there may very well be consequences.
      (All of this, of course, is giving unreasonable credence to Ford that the version of the story he currently relates is even remotely accurate).

      • Around here, we have no qualms about calling a pedophile a pedophile. I’ve done so on more than a few occasions and warned my kids against going near them. But I see you are too politically correct to protect your own kids.

        • CONVICTED pedophiles should be locked up forever. Sounds like you’re just suspecting. Surprised that “around there” you don’t just shoot ‘em just in case. And you are making a case for why Dale should sue. It is one of the worst accusations anyone can make.

          • How can you compare warning your kids against known pedophiles and compare that to shooting pedophiles? I would never shoot anyone. If parents are that stupid and don’t know who the pedophiles are especially if they are living in your neighbourhood, convicted or not, maybe stupid parents like yourself are the ones who have the problem??? You’ve watched too many wild west movies and I have a right to warn my kids against anyone I so choose.

          • Well, if you’d punch someone you just suspected, wonder what you’d do if they were KNOWN. The rest of the post is too ridiculous to respond to. You’re becoming a bit unhinged.

          • I do remember a few years back when Joe found George messing with his daughter and sent him to the hospital. Yes that does happen but currently if the same thing happened, dad would get more charges laid against him than the pedophile.

        • Sounds like a lovely neighbourhood.

          • Well Carly considering that pedophiles are supposed to inform the neighbours that they are pedophiles, but don’t…I would say my neighbourhood is safe. Can you say the same?

    • He’s about as far from “Mother Bear” as you can get: thugs, drugs, drunken stupors, domestic issues resulting in 911 calls. Not my idea of Mother Bear.

      • I understand that when the annual parade takes place you always play “Mother Bare” on the lead float.

  11. Daniel Day, reporter for the Toronto Star, wrote an article on Aug 30th of this year fact checking Rob Ford’s economic claims that he’s saved taxpayers tons of money. No doubt it left a very sour taste in Ford’s mouth as it exposes the truth about Ford’s claims so it’s no wonder that Ford is going after Mr. Day publically as it’s Rob’s version of his financial record as mayor that’s in shambles.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/08/30/fact_check_how_true_are_rob_fords_economic_claims.html

    • I’m supposed to listen to someone who can’t even get the reporter’s name right? Maybe click through that link, read the name at the top, and try to actually comprehend what’s written.

      Daniel Dale writes that Ford has saved Toronto taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. You quibble about the actual number, but the fact remains.

      • Well if he got he reporters name wrong then Ford’s math must be correct. Btw using the same “Fordian” math it was calculated mayor Miller saved Toronto $1.4 billion in his last term alone. That’s not reality but neither is Ford’s accounting.

        • Rob Ford only has one vote down there but he’s doing an excellent job of being loud and vociferous about the bottom line..

          But let me give you some Miller reality. because I’ve looked into it carefully.

          At the end of 2003 when Miller showed up with his NDP tax
          plunderers, the liabilities of the City totalled $5.9 billion. When Miller hiked out at the end of 2010 the liabilities had more than doubled to $12.5billion. That’s an increase of $6.6 billion. Those numbers are from the publicly available audited financial statements, Schedule 70, line 9940.

          So here’s how I look at it:

          a) Miller increased the liabilities by $6.6 billion and he
          spent the money.
          b) Miller gave us tax increases of approx 28% and he spent
          the money.
          c) Miller gave us the vehicle registration fees and he spent
          the money.
          d) Miller gave us a special land transfer tax and he spent
          the money.
          e) Miller gave us a grocery bag tax but allowed Loblaws etc.
          to spend the money.

          But on top of that Miller is likely the worst we’ve ever seen:

          f) Miller found that the City was the owner of advertising space on public land that has an unknown value but is worth at least $10 million and possibly as much as $20 million. Miller turned this over to a private company in return for a stack of construction pay toilets for downtown streets.
          g) Miller purchased for $500 or $600 million a garbage disposal site in London Ontario and we now send dozens of heavily laden leaky garbage trucks out on to the 401 every day for a 450 km return trip that increases the danger of driving on the busiest highway in Ontario.
          h) Miller, during his term, gave us a rat infested six week garbage strike in the middle of a hot summer leaving stinking garbage piled everywhere in the street.
          j) Miller in connection with the hot summer garbage strike closed all the kid’s swimming pools stealing from young children a precious summer of our short lives.

          If we’re smart we’ll never again turn the City over to a collection of tax plundering rinky dinks like Dave Miller and his friends.

      • You’ve left a meandering trail of mistakes, half-truths, and outright lies all across these forums for ages — and whenever you’re corrected, instead of being a grown-up and acknowledging it, you run and hide.

        So what’s that worth?

    • Wow people actually read the Toronto Star? Do they even have readership outside of Toronto?

  12. One scumbag interviewing another scumbag..this is news?

    • It is when it results in libel charges!

    • Wow! impressive post, don’t you have anything important to do?

  13. Rob Ford will win the next election for Mayor again, Toronto is a joke. There is a

    Campaign to raise money for him $50K. Ford will properly get $10 Billion with this campaign and walk away a billionaire and buy Toronto. What a joke, Torontonians, circus show. Tax payer’s money goes toward his problems, only in Canada.

  14. A liar defending a liar. I’d say “Birds of a feather stick together,” but that would be unfair to the winged population.

    • Two words – Joe Fontana.

      • Is Black defending him, too? Really gets around. Could you pass on the link, please?

        • The fact that there is no link to Joe Fontana on this site only means that birds of a feather stick together.

  15. Apparently Conrad Black agrees with Rob Ford that Daniel Dale has dared to dream wild dreams of a coup d’etat against mayor Rob Ford. To work so to undermine the people’s single-hearted devotion to their mayor, I suppose, makes him a traitor for the ages.

    • Ask yourself where else in Canada has a sitting mayor had his duties reduced after never being charged with a criminal offense?

  16. Mr. Black is in Canada at the behest of Mr. Harper and I assume, Mr. Flaherty. However, they are also dear, dear friends of the family Ford. Whether Conrad was ‘requested’ to keep the interview ‘low key’, I don’t know but nothing gets in the way of Rob Ford’s mouth. And there it is – out pops another ridiculous comment. Except this comment may have required some rebuttal on Mr. Black’s part but he is no interviewer and prefers to ignore it. Sort of. Now he wants to defend himself from being raked over the coals because he didn’t say anything! He wants to stand behind Rob and try to tell us there was no innuendo intended? Connie, Connie, where or where were all those words entangled in your brain waiting to come out and chew the scenery??

  17. The intent of the interview? To give Ford space in which “he could say whatever he wanted to get off his chest.”

    Presumably then, should say JT or even Mulcair be foolish enough to appear on zoomer they will receive the same license to say whatver they want without any danger they might be cross examined by His Lordship? Not a cotton pick’n chance!

    As for black’s parsing of Fords’ words, given the RCMP clearance on the rest of Ford’ fantasy details…pathetic ought to just about cover it.

    • You really don’t understand how the police work do you? Locally 3 people put in police statements in which a girl had assaulted 2 people. Oh yeah, you would think that would be cut and dried. The police didn’t lay charges. So in Ford’s case the police not laying charges is meaningless. It only means that was not the direction they wanted to go. It really is that simple.

      • I would say you don’t know how the police work.

        By the way, your little anecdotal story is not evidence of anything.

        • Sorry Gayle, it proves that the police will not do the right thing and charge her…and only because her mom is a co-worker of the police. Over the course of the last 5 years, I can prove that on 4 separate occasions, the police will do everything in their power to never charge their friends or friend’s kids. It really is that simple. Maybe it’s because you’re from the city that you cannot comprehend this. You don’t even know your next door neighbour let alone which kid belongs to which cop.

          • Again, interesting anecdote, coloured by your opinion, but not evidence.

          • Come to my house and I will provide you with all the evidence you need.

          • I don’t think so. Here is what you fail to understand. Your experience with the police in your jurisdiction, whether or not an objective analysis would reach the same conclusion as you, does not mean all police in all jurisdictions behave the same way.

            Maybe it is because I live in the city, and am able to understand my own personal experience does not translate into a global experience.

          • Because you live in a city you don’t even know your own neighbours so how could I expect you to recognize whether all police jurisdictions behave the same? You do realize that Bill Blair is immune to a slander lawsuit due to the police being immune to slander lawsuits, don’t you? You do understand that, right?

          • That is your argument? Making stuff up about me not knowing my neighbours and then extrapolating from that fiction to say that it must mean all police in all jurisdictions behave the same?

            I thought maybe you were not all that smart, and now I know it to be true. I shall not waste my time on you any further.

            Good luck.

          • Do you know your neighbours? Yeah I didn’t think so.

          • Said the crazyspider to the fly.

  18. Conrad – why would he not want to say “reporter”? I wouldn’t let a six year old get away with that logic and certainly not he who claims to be the most erudite ex Canadian ever.

  19. pervert….predator…..prick…..so many ‘p’ words and the Star has selected its’ word…..Go Conrad go !

    • Yes, please go.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • I haven’t seen where anyone has won anything yet.

    • All are slanderous. But my daughter and I while watching the interview, sorry conversation, looked at each other with our mouths open. Both of us assumed pedophile.

      • Now if Bill Blair came out saying that Dale was a pedophile, would you believe him?

        • What are you talking about now?! I’m getting a toothache.

          • Just a hypothetical question…would you believe him?

          • Garbage hypothetical questions that demean both men in question don’t merit a response.

          • Good way of answering that you would believe him.

          • You have descended into lunacy. I’m done.

          • Big Baby.

  20. One wonders why convicted felon Black would associate himself with Ford as a kindred spirit. It reveals much about Blacks (lack of) character that he would give the crack mayor another platform to smear his opponents with baseless accusations.

    • - something to do with breaking the law, or at least of being perceived as breaking the law and possibly having to go to court and spend jail time. Black’s values have become warped.

    • I don’t believe Black cares a whit for Rob Ford. He’s just ANTI all of us “prigs and twits” who think people should be held accountable. In our sanctimonious righteousness.

      • Yes you have a sanctimonious righteousness bigger than most.

  21. I think that Conrad Black has too much power and that despite being sent to jail, he doesn’t realize how such threats to a person’s reputation might destroy their career. Nat Post should have cut him out so he can better understand how the world works for the ordinary person.

  22. I enjoyed very much reading Mr. Black’s response and agree with every his word. People who write here hostile comments about him just can’t forgive him that he is educated, intelligent and clever man to the contrary to them.

  23. I worked for Dominion Stores when Conrad Black owned and sold it. The employees paid 50% to the pension fund. Conrad took all the surplus $56 mil, and through court was made to pay 50% back. I am sure with his business background he knew he wasn’t entitled to the entire surplus.

    • Since you aren’t a corporate lawyer, I’m sure you didn’t have a clue as to whether he was entitled to it or not.

    • The Dominion Store employee pension funds were governed by a contract between the Company and the Union and in that contract it was specifically agreed by the Company and the Union that any pension fund surplus, as determined by independent actuaries, belonged to the company.

      The reason for an agreement like this is that in that same contract, the one you would have been a party to, the Company alone was responsible for any shortfall in the plan , as determined by the actuaries.

      On the basis of that contract Dominion Stores, which was in poor financial condition at the time, withdrew the actuarial surplus in order to survive and keep people employed.

      This pension businesss is the most unfair allegation against Black because Dominion Stores was a publicly traded company either directly or indirectly through Argus Corporation and Black as a director and executive had a fiduciary responsibility to take the steps that were taken. He was damned if he did and he was damned if he didn’t

      It’s a complicated issue that is still being battled out today.

      http://www.benefitscanada.com/pensions/governance-law/battle-for-the-bulge-10842

  24. Conrad Black is part of the Illuminati – why is he trying to convince the great unwashed that he IS our man?

  25. If a freak like Dale was looking at my kids I’d run him off too.

  26. Has anyone in the media checked to see if Dale is a pervert?
    That would be standard media procedure, wouldn’t it?
    Check the facts?

    • Don’t you know the media always protects their own. You don’t have to look any further than the George Smitherman oxy freak who can do no wrong.

      • Yup, it’s odd how some drug addicts are acceptable to the left and others not so much..

        • Would the Toronto Star ever print how many times Smitherman said he just wanted to cuddle?

    • So if someone says “Harper eats kittens” it is the media’s job to investigate that?

      • Everyone knows Harper loves kittens. They are delicious. But do we really know for sure that Dale is not a pervert?

  27. Once again Conrad Black reveals his own bias against the mainstream media in Canada. Presumably because they didn’t defend him when he was being convicted in the U.S.

    Calling that farce an interview is giving credit where it isn’t due. Black was speaking to someone he knows has a reputation (well-deserved) for lying, yet he defends his interview to Carol Off by saying he accepted that the Mayor was telling him the truth in everything he said.

    I won’t attempt to speak for anyone else, but the first word that came to my mind when I heard Ford’s words was pedophile. And Black himself, when pressed by Off, said “peeping Tom”. And a peeping tom, who is peeping at children is, guess what, a pedophile.

    And finally, it is rich when Black criticizes someone else for pursuing a libel suit. I don’t care whether Black stays in Canada or goes back to England (although I’d prefer the latter), but I do wish he would keep his personal prejudices to himself.

    He is defending Ford only because he doesn’t like to see the media and justice system attempt to hold someone rich (above them) to account. It reminds him too much of himself and his own failures.

    • Pure speculation that will not hold up in court.

    • What did Ford actually say?
      He described his thought process when told someone was looking over the fence at his kids.
      Any parent would think the same.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *