# Livingstone - what a result



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Let's hope this is the start of the demise of this twat.

It'll be a day too late when he finally steps out of Office.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006090181,00.html


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

Four weeks? The cretin is lucky he hasn't been booted out of office. He should go immediately. If not because he brought the high office of one of the world's great cities into dispute (incitement to racial hatred? ) then for finally offering us the proof that he is the complete moron tens of thousands of Londoners have long suspected him of being.

Oh well - at least his fascination with German concentration camp guards proves he ain't a holocaust denier like some of his mud-mullah mates.

[smiley=behead.gif]

(I suppose the fact that I am an employed, owner-occupier Tory-voting high-tax bracket Jewish London sports car driver does make me slightly biased!)

:wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Ironic eh?

No big deal unless one is maybe a tad oversensitive, and lets face it journos are not reknowned for their sensitivity, unless it suits them.

England invented the concentration camp...so let's not get too puffed up.

....and it is a Sun report. :wink:


----------



## Niko (May 10, 2005)

looks like these days we arnt even allowed and opinion.

niko


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Ironic eh?
> 
> No big deal unless one is maybe a tad oversensitive, and lets face it journos are not reknowned for their sensitivity, unless it suits them.
> 
> ...


British concentration camps in the Boer war where people died because of disease and malnutrition

Nazi extermination of millions of people on an industrial scale

Don't even fking go there ...


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

Niko said:


> looks like these days we arnt even allowed and opinion.
> 
> niko


No quite. No-one gives a toss about what Livingstone says if he is a private citizen. Fact is he's the fkng Mayor of London who keeps harping on about what a fantastic multi-cultural city he presides over.

The Mayor of London is supposed to represent all Londonders . Not act like an ill-tempered oik when he's in a public place on public duty being asked a perfectly legitimate question ("Did you enjoy the party") by a hack going about his business.

He also had the exquisite sense to start the ruck a few days before the Olympic Committee were checking out London as a venue for 2012.

He invited all this on himself by refusing to offer an apology. Had he done so it would all have gone away within a day or two.Proving again how unfit he is for public office.

How fking dumb do you actually want your politicans to be?

End of.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

Niko said:


> looks like these days we arnt even allowed and opinion.
> 
> niko


Not quite. No-one gives a toss about what Livingstone says if he is a private citizen. Fact is he's the fkng Mayor of London in high office who has a civic duty to keep his unsavoury personal opinions about religios and ethnic groups to himself. Besides which, he keeps harping on about what a fantastic multi-cultural city he presides over.

The Mayor of London is not supposed act like an ill-tempered chav when he's in a public place on public duty being asked a perfectly normal question ("Did you enjoy the party") by a hack going about his business. He may not like journalists. But as Mayor he is supposed to maintain a reasonable dialogue with the media.

He also had the exquisite sense to start the ruck a few days before the Olympic Committee were checking out London as a venue for 2012.

He invited all this on himself by refusing to offer an apology. Had he done so it would all have gone away within a day or two.Proving again how unfit he is for public office.

How fking dumb do you actually want your politicans to be?

End of.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Ironic eh?
> ...


Why fucking not? Oh, and BTW, you missed out Rwanda, where many more have been killed than in Nazi Germany. But people tend to do this because Rwanda doesn't run any global media empires or own enough banks and newspapers to press the 'emotion' button every time someone exercises their right to free speech. :-*


----------



## Niko (May 10, 2005)

well said Garyc!

also even if u want to keep it in the same war, i dont see any thing about the 20 MILLION russians that died?? And the hundreads and thousands that die each day in the middle east....

niko


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> s3_lurker said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


Fine, Rwanda, Serbia, whatever. But if you're going to attempt a grown-up argument as opposed to a reactionary rant do you think you could try and get your facts just a little straight? It is widely known that around a million people died in Rwanda and that the Nazis killed more than six million. Run the numbers on your pocket calculator. You'll probably dispute this in your usual way but run it through your search engine before using up bandwidth denying it. Besides which Rwanda was a matter of internecine tribal warfare albeit on a grand scale. The Nazi exertmination camps were inspired and implemented by the State.

And it wasn't the Evening Standard that broke the story about the "concentration camp guard" remark. The paper didn't even want it publicised. It was The Guardian's web site (hardly a global media enterprise) that broke the story. The Standard only got involved when it repudiated the accusation from Livingstone's office that Livingstone claimed the reporter had told him to "fuck off" (which the reporter's tape proved he hadn't).

And neither the reporter nor the editor of The Standard demanded Livingstone be suspended or investigated. Just that he should quite rightly apologise for a fairly stupid and insensitive remark against part of the community he purports to represent.

It was the Adjudication Panel conssidering the case of Standards Panel of England that decided to suspend him. As far as I know this Panel is a Government body whose members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor who are unlikely to own any banks or newspapers. If you want to champion freedom of speech and harsh treatment of poor Ken then complain to this Panel

His suspension isn't a punishment for "free speech". Do you consider free speech to be the right for a politician to make gratuitous insults? It is about him Mayor of London being found by The Panel to be in breach of the Greater London Authority code of conduct in that he damaged the reputation of the mayoralty. The fact that it was an unelected panel that suspended him is another argument entirely.

Or do you think politicians should be allowed to get away with whatever they want?

I assume, from your unbridled admiration for our car-hating Mayor, you would also defend him had he characterised a Muslim reporter as a pig. Or a black reporter as a slave trader. Or (God forbid) TT drivers as gays.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Ironic eh?
> ...


Both deliberate attempts to exterminate a nation. The only difference being the scale.


----------



## Soulctrla (Jan 30, 2006)

> Mr Livingstone said: "This decision strikes at the heart of democracy. Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law."


Surely Ken Livingstone has cocked up when he said the above... Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law.... well i thought if a police officer hears a person use the word N*&ger they can be arrested for it. I would have thought that if there is anything bad in what Livingstone said then he is being racists and as such has broken the law thus he by his own admission should be removed from his position.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> Both deliberate attempts to exterminate a nation. The only difference being the scale.


Are you actually suggesting it was the deliberate policy and war aim of the British Government at the turn of the century to entirely exterminate the Boer nation and wipe it from the face of the Earth?


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> >Both deliberate attempts to exterminate a nation. The only difference >being the scale.
> 
> Are you actually suggesting it was the deliberate policy of the British Government at the turn of the century to entirely exterminate the Afrikaans nation and wipe it from the face of the Earth?


Explain their actions otherwise?


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

BreTT said:


> s3_lurker said:
> 
> 
> > >Both deliberate attempts to exterminate a nation. The only difference >being the scale.
> ...


.

Boer war - British army interned Boer men, women and children in stockade-type prison camps until cessation of hostilities. Thousands inadvertently died due to lack of food, sanitation, medical attention etc

Nazis - invaded other countries for the purpose of establishing a a totalitarian fascist regime which required extermination from the planet those who did not conform to their version of the "Master Race" (Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Intellectuals, Bolsheviks, Communists, etc etc. The only time in human history where industrialised citizen slaughter of entire targeted populations was a political aim and national aspiration rather than a random consequence of war.

Will that do?


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> BreTT said:
> 
> 
> > s3_lurker said:
> ...


History is always written by the victor. I politely suggest that the Afrikaaner nation has a different interpretation of what happened.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> I politely suggest that the Afrikaaner nation has a different interpretation of what happened.

Fair comment. I lived in South Africa for five years and entirely accept your point. The British army certainly comitted atrocities against the Boers. But it was never a declared British Government policy to exterminate the Boer/Afrikaaner nation from the planet.

We shouldn't let this thread move too far away from the Livingstone debacle.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> > I politely suggest that the Afrikaaner nation has a different interpretation of what happened.
> 
> Fair comment. I lived in South Africa for five years and entirely accept your point. The British army certainly comitted atrocities against the Boers. But it was never a declared British Government policy to exterminate the Boer/Afrikaaner nation from the planet.
> 
> We shouldn't let this thread move too far away from the Livingstone debacle.


Agreed. Livingstone has certainly made an arse of things recently. Incidentally, I spent 14 years in South Africa.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > s3_lurker said:
> ...


*



garyc said:



Ironic eh?

No big deal unless one is maybe a tad oversensitive, and lets face it journos are not reknowned for their sensitivity, unless it suits them.

England invented the concentration camp...so let's not get too puffed up.....and it is a Sun report. :wink:

Click to expand...

You very nearly got taken seriously there - that is until the 'unbridled admiration for Livingstone' bit. Since at no point in my posts do I mention or refer to Ken L even once - positively, negatively, or otherwise , thereby rendering your last statement as pure projection of your own hatred of Ken L rather than any reflection of my feelings towards the man, as I expressed none. Ergo puffed up crap.

You are at liberty to point out others confusions of 'facts' (be them right or wrong) but when you conclude these with your own ill thought out, misinformed and groundless assumptions, you merely confirm your self righteous rant as serving to fuel your own apparent unbridled (sic) hatred of Ken L. :roll:*


----------



## Josh1980 (Feb 7, 2006)

glad that Antisemetic piece of filth has now got a taste of his own medicine!!!!


----------



## steveh (Jan 14, 2004)

This whole thing just adds to my long-held view that Ken is not somebody who should hold public office. I thought that back in the days of the GLC and I still think it now. What he said is almost irrelevant, it's the fact that he said it without caring about the offence it could cause that illustrates his unsuitability for the role of Mayor of London.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

You mean, because he is incapable of saying what he should rather than what feels? No, definately not a good politician. He was foolish to speak before thinking (but he's probably incapable of that as well), and proves he's an arrogant twat for not apologising (again, whether he means it or not).

What a storm in a teacup. If he had been clever enough to hold his tongue, he'd still be a fool not worthy of his position.

Josh, calling him antisemetic is a bit strong simply because of this jibe. I think he was trying to be clever, but got stumped when Finegold said he was Jewish. Then his arrogance took over (and brain shut down), and rather than apologise, he continued digging.

It is rather strange that calling any other "minority" names is, if not illegal then abhorred by society, yet Jews still seem to be "fair game", as it were. Perhaps they are seen as the only minority that can stick up for itself. Or perhaps society liken the Jewish community to the child who is consistently running to teacher when picked on, and so is picked on even more.

And about this nonsense about who suffered more, and therefore has the right to be sanctimonious: the person who is targetted to be killed or the person who "inadvertantly" dies because of ill treatment. Clearly in both cases your life was deemed to be worth less than the shit on the sole of someone's shoe. In the 21st century, we know who are suffering from such prejudice. I can't see very many of them being Jewish, can you?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Cant say i like him or his brain dead ideas at all.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Well the racist bigot is back IN office today after the High Court upheld his appeal.

He will back working today until the retrial. :x


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Someone made a good point today - why should a non-elected body be allowed to decide that they want to boot out / suspend from power an elected person? How's that democratic? That is unless a crime has been commited which requires someone to be removed from their position. Surely it's up to the voters to decide whether they say or go - even if it means an election being held earlier than normal.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

L8_0RGY said:


> Well the racist bigot


Im not sure i agree with this comment. I donâ€™t think he is racist, nor do i think his comments are an 'incitement to racial hatred'. i do however think this country has gone PC mad. It was a comment about the attitude of a person thatâ€™s all â€" yes it was bad taste.

I donâ€™t like the bloke at all, but letâ€™s not make this into something its not.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> L8_0RGY said:
> 
> 
> > Well the racist bigot
> ...


Absolutely Tosh. V well put.


----------



## dj c225 (Nov 3, 2004)

The bigest wanker around, I don't have any enemies or hate people, but this guy makes me fume.

Total wanker, needs to be put down and voted out for good.


----------



## UlsTTer (Apr 28, 2005)

Well said DJ .. I too have no respect for the twat who sat down with (why even encouraged) the ira scum that bombed our country !! :evil:


----------

