More socio-political blather

[Barry Shnikov]

Mr A: "Stop harrassing me. You are a real pain."
Mr B: "I have to do it. It's my job."
Mr A: "You're no better than a concentration camp guard - that was the excuse they all offered."

Can anyone explain to me how that constitutes behaviour that should lead to somebody being publically censured?

Even if it goes on:

Mr B: (stung) "I'm jewish, you know"

I still don't see why this is so reprehensible that it becomes a matter of national interest - no matter who Mr A is.

The remark may have been unjustified, but that is not the same thing as alleging that it is improper.

[Andy McGregor]

Mr A: "Stop harrassing me. You are a real pain."
Mr B: "I have to do it. It's my job."
Mr A: "You're no better than a concentration camp guard - that was the excuse they all offered."

Can anyone explain to me how that constitutes behaviour that should lead to somebody being publically censured?

Even if it goes on:

Mr B: (stung) "I'm jewish, you know"

I still don't see why this is so reprehensible that it becomes a matter of national interest - no matter who Mr A is.

The remark may have been unjustified, but that is not the same thing as alleging that it is improper.If that's the sum total of the conversation then the upset is entirely with Mr B. And it's unjustified for him to complain that he's Jewish. The Jews were not the only people killed in concentration camps and it annoys me when some of them claim that they need some special treatment because they are Jewish.

If all Mr A said what the above he was entirely correct to say it. The excuse that you're "just doing your job" is one that many former guards used in their trial. The fact that B is Jewish might even mean that he's more likely to understand the sentiment beind the statement made by A rather than resent it.

Of course, this is another example of political correctness gone mad:mad:

[El Salsero Gringo]

If that's the sum total of the conversation then the upset is entirely with Mr B. And it's unjustified for him to complain that he's Jewish. The Jews were not the only people killed in concentration camps and it annoys me when some of them claim that they need some special treatment because they are Jewish.They constituted the vast majority of those killed in the Death Camps ("concentration camps" is an unfortunate euphemism) and were certainly singled out for "special treatment" by the Nazis.

The reason that many Jews find this kind of thing offensive is because it trivialises and downgrades the entirety of the Nazi Holocaust. (So, by the way, does a comment like "the Jews were not the only people killed in conecentration camps". We'll just have to live with your annoyance, Andy.) Anyone who can suggest, particularly as some kind of gag or off-the-cuff witicism, that a reporter is in any sense like a guard at a Nazi death camp is displaying a vast lack of sensitivity to the experience of the Jewish People *and* the others who were industrially murdered in the same way. If you can't understand why, then some some background reading about what actually took place in the Third Reich and how the guards in the camps behaved might help.

Given Mr Livingstone's position on other matters, his attitude and behaviour is not particularly surprising. The reason that is a matter of national importance however is because the Mayor of London represents all Londoners regardless of race or creed - and because his refusal to apologise demonstrates that he clearly doesn't understand the point. He has a duty to maintain the confidence of all parts of the community. Remarks like that and his subsequent refusal to acknowledge that it might have been an unwise comment don't enable him to maintain that confidence.

On the other hand, there's been no rioting, no demonstrations, no embassies burnt, and nobody's been killed.

[LordOfTheFiles]

On the other hand, there's been no rioting, no demonstrations, no embassies burnt, and nobody's been killed.

Well I am fairly busy today, but at a push I could probably organise some form of small scale protest, perhaps setting his garden shed on fire, or ringing the doorbell and then running away - that sort of thing.

[LordOfTheFiles]

I still don't see why this is so reprehensible that it becomes a matter of national interest - no matter who Mr A is.

The problem is that Red Ken WANTS to be a matter of National Interest. Ordinarily I am all for privacy laws and respecting the individual, but we can be sure that if the situation was reversed then Ken would use it to get headlines.



The remark may have been unjustified, but that is not the same thing as alleging that it is improper.

Yes it is a tricky one. Personally I don't really think that the quote was unjustified or particularly improper - being hounded by the press on your own doorstep must be a touch annoying. However I think that to not apologise after realising how much offence you have inadvertantly caused, not necessarily to the reporter but to the community at large, is rather foolish. I can appreciate that there is no point in hollow apologies if you feel you have done nothing wrong (and indeed respect people who do not bend just because of popular opinion) but I am suye that in retrospect he rather wishes he had not made the comments. it seems he has just created a rod for his own back

[David Bailey]

Wasn't he supposed to be suspended by now? I was waiting for the entire city to shut down in sheer panic, power to cease, water to run out, buses to stop, and so on, at the absence of his continuing leadership...

Clearly, the Powers That Be haven't suspended him because they're worried about us all taking to the streets in million-strong protests, running around screaming "The Sky is falling! Save us, Obi Ken, you're our only hope!".

Hold on, maybe I'm thinking of Chicken Little here. :innocent:

Slightly more seriously - Barry, you've got a great career as a spin doctor, I believe you've mis-represented the tone of the conversation - it went like this:


Finegold: "Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard — how did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?"
Finegold: "Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?"
Livingstone: "What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?"
Finegold: "No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal and I’m actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "Right, well you might be — but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are doing it just because you are paid to, aren’t you?"
Finegold: "Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?"
Livingstone: "It’s nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots."
Finegold: "I’m a journalist and I’m doing my job. I’m only asking for a comment."
Livingstone: "Well, work for a paper that doesn’t have a record of supporting fascism."

(Source: The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2057003,00.html))

Honestly, I reckon he was drunk when he said this - it's the only explanation I can think of. Ken should have apologised, and he just looks more and more arrogant by refusing to do so, and (effectively) picking fights with the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

And bringing up the editorial policy of a newspaper 70 years ago as a justification for his behaviour is just weird - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's probably not the same guy in charge now as it was in the 1930's. So the whole episode just seems, well, weird...

[LordOfTheFiles]

Ok I was wrong. It isn't really very tricky is it??

You just can't go round saying that sort of stuff - not even when drunk. And I should know, I talk nonsense sober and I am almost incomprehensible whilst drunk, but even I might think at least seven (there's that number again) times before saying something so stupid.

[El Salsero Gringo]

being hounded by the press on your own doorstep must be a touch annoying.Yes it must be. But he wasn't on his doorstep - he'd just left a party marking 20 years since Chris Smith came out as the first gay MP.

Personally I still don't see that the Mayor being asked for a comment by a reporter (paid to do the job) is like a Death Camp guard (paid to do the job) selecting which Jew goes straight to the gas chamber and which Jew gets used as slave labour (before being sent to the gas chamber).

Andy McGregor and Barry obviously see a similarity - after all, they're paid to do their jobs too.

[Andy McGregor]

The reason that many Jews find this kind of thing offensive is because it trivialises and downgrades the entirety of the Nazi Holocaust. (So, by the way, does a comment like "the Jews were not the only people killed in conecentration camps". We'll just have to live with your annoyance, Andy.) Anyone who can suggest, particularly as some kind of gag or off-the-cuff witicism, that a reporter is in any sense like a guard at a Nazi death camp is displaying a vast lack of sensitivity to the experience of the Jewish People *and* the others who were industrially murdered in the same way. If you can't understand why, then some some background reading about what actually took place in the Third Reich and how the guards in the camps behaved might help.I have read a great deal of the history of the Holocaust and I was moved to tears by what I read - I walked round in a daze for weeks, I was so moved after seeing Schindler's List :tears:

However, it saddens me to see such propriety in grief. To take it away from the Jewish arguement for a moment (and probably open another can of worms), I saw a similar situation when my gay brother was dying of AIDS. Some, but far from all, of the gay community seemed to have taken ownership of the disease. As the carer for my brother and his boyfriend I came up against a number of gays who seemed to think that only gays knew how to suffer. One AIDS support worker even said to me words to the affect of "what would you know about the suffering of AIDS? You're not gay".

And in the first version of the conversation between Mr A and Mr B I believe that Ken was using an obvious and throwaway line about jobsworths - and it's a line I've heard many people use with no thought or malice. However, the Times version of the conversation is a different thing altogether. I believe that Ken should have apologised at the time for his thoughtless and hurtful remark - but I still think it was his right to say nothing about the subject the reporter was quizzing him about - it was even understandable that Ken might be justified in being rude to this reporter: he just chose the wrong kind of rude.

[Andy McGregor]

Personally I still don't see that the Mayor being asked for a comment by a reporter (paid to do the job) is like a Death Camp guard (paid to do the job) selecting which Jew goes straight to the gas chamber and which Jew gets used as slave labour (before being sent to the gas chamber).

Andy McGregor and Barry obviously see a similarity - after all, they're paid to do their jobs too.


[/SIZE]The comparison is ESG's and is taking the whole thing out context. The line attributed to Mr A at the top of this thread is one that's in daily use. I fail to see how either of us have said that the jobs are similar - which is what ESG is trying to attribute to us.

[El Salsero Gringo]

And in the first version of the conversation between Mr A and Mr B I believe that Ken was using an obvious and throwaway line about jobsworths - and it's a line I've heard many people use with no thought or malice. However, the Times version of the conversation is a different thing altogether. I believe that Ken should have apologised at the time for his thoughtless and hurtful remark - but I still think it was his right to say nothing about the subject the reporter was quizzing him about - it was even understandable that Ken might be justified in being rude to this reporter: he just chose the wrong kind of rude.Well, a recording of the conversation - from the reporter's tape - is on the BBC website. There's nothing to be gained by discussing hypothetical conversations between a Mr A and a Mr B which never actually took place.

I don't see anyone that disagrees with Mr. Livingstone's right to be rude to the reporter. It was because he'd chosen 'the wrong kind of rude' - and more specifically because in the light of day didn't acknowledge that fact - that the complaint was raised. And only because he didn't acknowlege that, that the complaint has escalated as far as it has.

I don't see that it's "political correctness gone mad."

[El Salsero Gringo]

The comparison is ESG's and is taking the whole thing out context. The line attributed to Mr A at the top of this thread is one that's in daily use. I fail to see how either of us have said that the jobs are similar - which is what ESG is trying to attribute to us.The line may be in daily use but it's still patently a nonsense and doesn't deserve the even the *hint* of justification that you appear to give it in your first post in this thread.

[El Salsero Gringo]

However, it saddens me to see such propriety in grief. To take it away from the Jewish arguement for a moment (and probably open another can of worms), I saw a similar situation when my gay brother was dying of AIDS. Some, but far from all, of the gay community seemed to have taken ownership of the disease. As the carer for my brother and his boyfriend I came up against a number of gays who seemed to think that only gays knew how to suffer. One AIDS support worker even said to me words to the affect of "what would you know about the suffering of AIDS? You're not gay".Andy, arguments aside, there is a difference. No one, ever, denies the suffering of those sent to the camps by the Third Reich, be they Jews, Gypsies, homsexuals, political dissenters, the disabled or anyone else who didn't fit the German ideal. On an individual level there is no doubt that all suffered. But the Death Camp industries, and the gas chambers themselves, were the culmination of many years of research to find the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem in Europe". Their very existence - the research, the planning, the administrational effort, the efficient bureacracy of death and the sheer scale of the murder carried out there was because of the size of the Jewish communities the Nazis wanted to dispose of.

[Andy McGregor]

Well, a recording of the conversation - from the reporter's tape - is on the BBC website. There's nothing to be gained by discussing hypothetical conversations between a Mr A and a Mr B which never actually took place.

snip

I don't see that it's "political correctness gone mad."My first post on this thread was commenting on the version of the conversation that had been posted. And, if that had been the conversation it would, IMHO, have been political correctness gone mad. However, we all know that was not the conversation - so my comment on something that was not said is irrelevant and I'm surprised that ESG has attempted to make it relevant to the subsequent debate.

We're posting about posts already - this could run and run.

And, BTW, I agree with the rest of ESG's stuff - although not the way he said it. The Third Reich was trying to exterminate all 'undesireables' - if you were a gypsy family living in Europe at the time you would have felt no less fear than any other group marked down for death.

[Barry Shnikov]

Anyone who can suggest, particularly as some kind of gag or off-the-cuff witicism, that a reporter is in any sense like a guard at a Nazi death camp is displaying a vast lack of sensitivity to the experience of the Jewish People *and* the others who were industrially murdered in the same way. If you can't understand why, then some some background reading about what actually took place in the Third Reich and how the guards in the camps behaved might help.

That's pretty high-handed of you, ESG. What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with the details of the holocaust? The fact that I hold a different viewpoint on what Livingstone says?

You seem to be falling back on the argument that "if somebody takes offense, what happened was offensive", which I'm afraid is fallacious.

Do you contend that you can never compare anyone to a concentration camp guard?

[El Salsero Gringo]

The Third Reich was trying to exterminate all 'undesireables' - if you were a gypsy family living in Europe at the time you would have felt no less fear than any other group marked down for death.Jews and Gypsies (Roma?) were the two racial groups that were singled out for extermination by the Nazis. That means that the events of the Holocaust are bound to have a special significance in the collective memories of those societies.

[Andy McGregor]

That's pretty high-handed of you, ESG. What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with the details of the holocaust? The fact that I hold a different viewpoint on what Livingstone says?

You seem to be falling back on the argument that "if somebody takes offense, what happened was offensive", which I'm afraid is fallacious.

Do you contend that you can never compare anyone to a concentration camp guard?I agree with Barry. When people use examples they use extreme examples. There are many poeple who are doing their job in spite of the fact they know the job they've been asked to do is wrong. And the most universally known and extreme version of that situation is the one we're talking about - so it's hardly surprising it's the one that people refer to. IMHO this has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi or anything else that people are trying to say. All that people are doing is using an extreme example of jobsworthiness. IMHO the worst they can be accused of is thoughtlessness. And I also believe that Ken should have quickly apologised for that particular comment and then told this reporter to get lost or chosen some other insult.

[El Salsero Gringo]

That's pretty high-handed of you, ESG. What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with the details of the holocaust? The fact that I hold a different viewpoint on what Livingstone says?If you aren't familiar with those details then I'm likely to interpret your comments as arising out of ignorance. If you are familiar with those details - as much as one can be - then I will interpret your comments either as a troll, out of gross misjudgement, or out of malice (probably not either of the latter, knowing you as I do).
You seem to be falling back on the argument that "if somebody takes offense, what happened was offensive", which I'm afraid is fallacious.I don't think it's fallacious; in fact I think it's tautological: by definition, an offensive thing is a thing that causes offence to somebody. But I think what you're meaning to question is whether I think the reporter was right to be offended. On that point, I didn't express an opinion.
Do you contend that you can never compare anyone to a concentration camp guard?One may make that comparison as often as one likes - but, in this case, as in most, where the similarity is so distant as to be unrecognisable one has to ask, what use is such a comparison, and what is the purpose of making it?

[Barry Shnikov]

I would agree that the actual version of the conversation is significantly different from my original post.

I would also agree, as stated elsewhere, that KL's recent attempt to smear the Standard by pointing to events from 70 years ago is irrelevant.

I would contend, however, that the excuse "I'm doing this because it's my job" is an acceptable justification for comparing someone to war criminals, because that is the justification they often used.

My view is that it is not then effective for Jewish people or anybody else to turn around and say 'The situation with the Holocaust is so special that you cannot use it as a comparator for anything and therefore we demand an apology."

The reason that many Jews find this kind of thing offensive is because it trivialises and downgrades the entirety of the Nazi Holocaust.

I can see why they might think that. I do not accept that they have the right to insist everyone else complies with their view.

If that is not what is being said, then people then have to explain why on this particular occasion the comparison was objectionable - and I haven't heard that being done. (Except for ESG here in these very environs.) It's mostly "How terrible - he compared someone to concentration camp guards. A Jewish reporter, no less! And he won't apologise! String him up!"

Furthermore, if he was not acting in his capacity of Mayor at the time, it's no business of any investigation into standards in public life. It's probably precisely because he wanted to be a private individual - no longer at a public occasion - that led to his anger in the first place.

[El Salsero Gringo]

I would contend, however, that the excuse "I'm doing this because it's my job" is an acceptable justification for comparing someone to war criminals, because that is the justification they often used.That's what I don't understand, Barry. It's no more a justification for that comparison than, say, for a railway guard to be compared to a Death Camp guard because they're both called guards. Or because they both wear uniforms. If you draw a comparison like the on KL did then there's an implication that the likeness extends beyond the obvious point of reference, which is the insult that KL intended to heap on the reporter. Not only was he doing it because "it was his job", but he must therefore also be a Nazi sympathiser and participant in mass murder and genocide? Lots of people "are paid to do their jobs" - of what possible relevance is that?
My view is that it is not then effective for Jewish people or anybody else to turn around and say 'The situation with the Holocaust is so special that you cannot use it as a comparator for anything and therefore we demand an apology."It was certainly a unique event in history - among history's unique events. People who feel more strongly about these matters than I do are likely to say that the deliberate and systematic murder of so many people for such incomprehensible purposes deserves a certain respect when things are compared to it.
I can see why they might think that. I do not accept that they have the right to insist everyone else complies with their view.I can see why you don't want to accept that, I just don't accept that you have the right to insist on what other people are allowed to insist on....
people then have to explain why on this particular occasion the comparison was objectionable - and I haven't heard that being done. I agree. Knee-jerk reactions are bad. Which is why I've tried to explain how some people in the Jewish community feel about it, and why they think he should apologise or at least take a less high-handed approach.
Furthermore, if he was not acting in his capacity of Mayor at the time, it's no business of any investigation into standards in public life. It's probably precisely because he wanted to be a private individual - no longer at a public occasion - that led to his anger in the first place.I don't think a public figure such as Ken Livingstone, when making a comment to a reporter holding a tape-recorder, can consider himself as a private individual. He was invited to the party because of his political career, he was interviewed because he was a politician, and he well knew that his remarks would be attributed to him as a politician. The "private individual expressing his own beliefs" argument just doesn't wash.

[El Salsero Gringo]

I agree with Barry. When people use examples they use extreme examples. There are many poeple who are doing their job in spite of the fact they know the job they've been asked to do is wrong.I think we're perhaps getting to the bottom of why we see differently on this.

You're misunderstanding the actions of the guards in the camps. They didn't think it was wrong. They did their 'duties' with relish, freeing the Fatherland from the pernicious menace of the Jews, the Gypsies and the other racial pollutants. The line that "I was only following orders" was only a convenient excuse given later.

To compare someone to a camp guard is to suggest that their morality is so twisted and sick that they could see nothing wrong with those kinds of actions. *Not* that they were just doing it because they had to.

[LordOfTheFiles]

1) Ken Livingstone (or indeed KL) is a man who loves the limelight and tends to court publicity whenever he can. The argument that he should be allowed to shy away from public speculation can only really hold merit if with the other hand he isn't using publicity to furthre his career and agenda

2) I don't believe that comment was anything more than a throw away line by a man who was probably drunk. The conversation almost sounds like something he had practised in the mirror and liked the way it sounded, but when drunk he couldn't figure out the punchline and it descended into farce and a pretty offensive comment.

3) It wasn't the fact that the reporter got paid for his job that made him the "jobsworth", but rather that the job the reporter did was basically to harass people into making a comment and interfering with a person's social life. I get paid to do my job, but (as far as I know) my job is not to cause other people misery, and I have never had to qualify my actions by saying "I am just doing my job" as I made headlines out of somebody for my personal gain.

4) We can all agree that the holocaust was one of the worst acts of atrocity ever commited by mankind in a sadly long list of atrocities. It is almost not necessary to have an opinion on the scale of destruction or the emotions it should cause because the answer is incredibly obvious to us all. It should never have happened and we can only pray it will never happen again. Any other stance seems to fly in the face of common sense and decency.

5) I have never experienced the holocaust first hand or had to deal with the emotions and pain of knowing people that have. Because of this I do not wish to tell those that have lived through the holocaust or knew people who did how they should react. I see the holocaust as history and hope that its very existence will mean that I never have to experience such a thing. People who have been touched by it will never have the benefit of looking at the situation through the veil of history and forever will be affected by its grip. How dare anybody not apologise even if they never meant to cause offence if what they said (in whatever situation) caused these people hurt.

[stewart38]

I think we're perhaps getting to the bottom of why we see differently on this.

You're misunderstanding the actions of the guards in the camps. They didn't think it was wrong. They did their 'duties' with relish, freeing the Fatherland from the pernicious menace of the Jews, the Gypsies and the other racial pollutants. The line that "I was only following orders" was only a convenient excuse given later.

To compare someone to a camp guard is to suggest that their morality is so twisted and sick that they could see nothing wrong with those kinds of actions. *Not* that they were just doing it because they had to.


Should we put people in prison (looking for 10yrs now i hear) for people who dare to suggest or query not the existance but the size of the holocaust

[LordOfTheFiles]

Should we put people in prison (looking for 10yrs now i hear) for people who dare to suggest or query not the existance but the size of the holocaust

No. I really don't see what the point of doing that is.

People have the right to their views, even the crazy ones. More importantly I think that bringing the sort of publicity that a trial undoubtedly would to such ideas is counter productive. 1+1=2. You can argue differently, but most people would see you as the fool that you are. I think that those who question such readily verifiable facts shouldn't get the benefit of publicity for their ideas. If somebody told me that the world was flat, I would not bother shining a light on him and introducing his ideas to a wider audience, but rather just ignore him or throw him some loose change

[El Salsero Gringo]

No. I really don't see what the point of doing that is.

People have the right to their views, even the crazy ones. More importantly I think that bringing the sort of publicity that a trial undoubtedly would to such ideas is counter productive. 1+1=2. You can argue differently, but most people would see you as the fool that you are. I think that those who question such readily verifiable facts shouldn't get the benefit of publicity for their ideas. If somebody told me that the world was flat, I would not bother shining a light on him and introducing his ideas to a wider audience, but rather just ignore him or throw him some loose changePersonally, I agree. But Austria, with it's recent history to consider, may have different perceptions as to how public policy is best served.

[LordOfTheFiles]

Personally, I agree. But Austria, with it's recent history to consider, may have different perceptions as to how public policy is best served.

Without a doubt. I am not critical of their policy, I was simply stating what I would do in the newly formed Files Kingdom

[David Bailey]

Do you contend that you can never compare anyone to a concentration camp guard?
Well, I guess you can compare people doing similar levels of job to concentration camp guards. Such as... errr... well, I guess anyone who's similarly complicit in that level of genocidal activity. But that usually doesn't include journalists.

And the problem with these types of comparisons is that they're massively overused, and generally tend to cheapen / kill the debate - as implied by good old Godwin's law.

The "You're just a Nazi" level of insult is stuff immature left-wing students come up with (see "The Young Ones"), and having an elected official come out with it, just because he has a history with a set of publishers, is not wonderful.


I would contend, however, that the excuse "I'm doing this because it's my job" is an acceptable justification for comparing someone to war criminals, because that is the justification they often used.
Yeah, but surely taken to the ultimate, surely that means that you can compare anyone to a Nazi war criminal if you don't like what they're doing, simply because they do what their bosses tell them to? That has to be spreading the net too wide...


Furthermore, if he was not acting in his capacity of Mayor at the time, it's no business of any investigation into standards in public life. It's probably precisely because he wanted to be a private individual - no longer at a public occasion - that led to his anger in the first place.
Well, I don't think the Mayor of London is ever really a private individual - and it's not as if Ken was inexperienced in public life, or had to have his arm twisted to stand for the post. He was out in public, and he was attending a semi-public event, so it's not as if the reported braged into his house or something. Or are we only allowed to question him between 9am - 5pm?

[Barry Shnikov]

*rolls up sleeves*

That's what I don't understand, Barry. It's no more a justification for that comparison than, say, for a railway guard to be compared to a Death Camp guard because they're both called guards. Or because they both wear uniforms.
I would agree that your sample comparisons would be pointless comparisons. However, if you don't see an important difference between those comparisons and this comparison, that is being drawn between different types of people who justify their actions by appealing to the necessity to 'do my job', then I'm surprised. Perhaps you could give an example of a comparator that would do just as well.

If you draw a comparison like the on KL did then there's an implication that the likeness extends beyond the obvious point of reference, which is the insult that KL intended to heap on the reporter. Not only was he doing it because "it was his job", but he must therefore also be a Nazi sympathiser and participant in mass murder and genocide? Lots of people "are paid to do their jobs" - of what possible relevance is that?
That's not the comparison: "people paid to do their jobs". The comparison is: the justification for my actions is "I was doing my job" or "I was only following orders".
I've no doubt KL was wishing to insult the reporter. That's not particularly anybody else's business. The question is, was his insult improper? In this case, the impropriety can only be on the grounds of racism. IIRC Finegold claims that KL was an old enemy and knew very well that he was jewish; (again IIRC) KL says he did not.

It was certainly a unique event in history - among history's unique events. People who feel more strongly about these matters than I do are likely to say that the deliberate and systematic murder of so many people for such incomprehensible purposes deserves a certain respect when things are compared to it.
That's unfathomable. How do you show 'respect' when comparing things to the Holocaust? Either it's a valid comparator: "Pol Pot was worse than Hitler" - "hold on, Pol Pot was killing everyone, not attempting to destroy a race" or it's not.
(I have the uneasy feeling that too much emphasis is placed on Hitler's desire to exterminate a race - each individual death was of more significance. He could never have exterminated the jewish race - there were millions in America, not to mention all over African, Asia and South America. I haven't explored this in too much depth so I may abandon it if challenged...:) )
Plus - and this is important - KL did not say 'extermination' camp, but concentration camp. They were most particularly not specific to Jewish prisoners.

I can see why you don't want to accept that, I just don't accept that you have the right to insist on what other people are allowed to insist on....
:rolleyes:

I agree. Knee-jerk reactions are bad. Which is why I've tried to explain how some people in the Jewish community feel about it, and why they think he should apologise or at least take a less high-handed approach.
They are welcome to think what they like about KL, and vote accordingly when it comes to it. What I don't think they should be entitled to do is have a throwaway remark which does not contravene the Race Relations Act nor constitute a criminal offence from being examined by some public standards body. I recognise that they are so entitled, since that is what happened. Here I'd agree with Andy M that it is political correctness rearing its ugly head.

I don't think a public figure such as Ken Livingstone, when making a comment to a reporter holding a tape-recorder, can consider himself as a private individual. He was invited to the party because of his political career, he was interviewed because he was a politician, and he well knew that his remarks would be attributed to him as a politician. The "private individual expressing his own beliefs" argument just doesn't wash.
How do you know why he was invited? He might be a friend of whatsisname, the gay MP. He may have been interviewed because he was a politician, but by extension that argument would enable a reporter with a microphone to go over to a table in a restaurant where a public figure had just received a proposal of marriage and insist that they tell the public how they feel.
I don't think KL was expressing a 'private belief'. (I didn't say that, did I?) But I do think that he is entitled to draw some boundaries as to when he wishes to speak to reporters. Or is he not entitled to any privacy at all unless he is in his own home? That led to his short temper, and his bad tempered remark. Standard reporters must be aware of his antipathy to the paper, so Finegold must have had some idea of the reception he is likely to have got.

[Barry Shnikov]

You're misunderstanding the actions of the guards in the camps. They didn't think it was wrong. They did their 'duties' with relish, freeing the Fatherland from the pernicious menace of the Jews, the Gypsies and the other racial pollutants. The line that "I was only following orders" was only a convenient excuse given later.

...and it's perfectly possible that the reporter did his "duty" with relish, helping to free London from the pernicious menace of 'Red Ken'. If that is so, his explanation is similarly unacceptable.

On the other hand, I think you must realise that, in general, Nazi war criminals and their justification of following orders are the paradigm of those people who do questionable things and appeal to the 'just doing my job' defence when challenged. Finer points of comparison are beside the point.

[Barry Shnikov]

1) Ken Livingstone (or indeed KL) is a man who loves the limelight and tends to court publicity whenever he can. The argument that he should be allowed to shy away from public speculation can only really hold merit if with the other hand he isn't using publicity to furthre his career and agenda
No he doesn't. You don't see him inviting Hello! magazine into his home, or anything like that. He's quite a private man. Does he court publicity for his political ends? Absolutely, but that's not the same thing.

3) It wasn't the fact that the reporter got paid for his job that made him the "jobsworth", but rather that the job the reporter did was basically to harass people into making a comment and interfering with a person's social life. I get paid to do my job, but (as far as I know) my job is not to cause other people misery, and I have never had to qualify my actions by saying "I am just doing my job" as I made headlines out of somebody for my personal gain.
Exactamundo.

4) We can all agree that the holocaust was one of the worst acts of atrocity ever commited by mankind in a sadly long list of atrocities. It is almost not necessary to have an opinion on the scale of destruction or the emotions it should cause because the answer is incredibly obvious to us all. It should never have happened and we can only pray it will never happen again. Any other stance seems to fly in the face of common sense and decency.
Is the holocaust unique? What about Stalin's purges, or Mao's? Japanese POW camps? Pol Pot, I just mentioned. Rwanda. Ethnic cleansing. My view is that the Holocaust is probably the extreme end of a strategy that many viciously self-serving politicians have found convenient to implement. Far from being unique, it's scarily common. The one unique factor it might have is the 'production line' methods, and certainly that is chillig enough.

5) I have never experienced the holocaust first hand or had to deal with the emotions and pain of knowing people that have. Because of this I do not wish to tell those that have lived through the holocaust or knew people who did how they should react. I see the holocaust as history and hope that its very existence will mean that I never have to experience such a thing. People who have been touched by it will never have the benefit of looking at the situation through the veil of history and forever will be affected by its grip. How dare anybody not apologise even if they never meant to cause offence if what they said (in whatever situation) caused these people hurt.
Some things in life you just have to take on the chin. When my mother was pained and humiliated during her divorce, she complained that every program on TV appeared to be about or to feature divorcing couples or divorcees. There were probably thousands of other people suffering similar pangs of misery for the same reason. Just because one is offended does not mean one is entitled to an apology.

[El Salsero Gringo]

{snip lots of stuff}

What I don't think they should be entitled to do is have a throwaway remark which does not contravene the Race Relations Act nor constitute a criminal offence from being examined by some public standards body.Why on earth not? Why should 'they' not? And if not 'they' then who? And if not for this matter then for what? If it were simply a matter of criminal behaviour then we have the police and the CPS to handle things.

Livingstone is entitled to say and do what he likes, subject, as are you and I, to the law of the land. But if you think his actual exchange with the journalist (as distinct from the version with which you initiated the thread) was wise, sensible, and didn't bring the office of Mayor into disrepute, then I disagree with you. What brings the office further into disrepute is his failure to acknowledge the error. Which is the reason the Board of Deputies have pursued the matter.

[Barry Shnikov]

Or are we only allowed to question him between 9am - 5pm?
The hours may be up for discussion but, essentially, yes.

No harm in saying "Mr Public figure, could I ask a question?" but if the answer is "No", then I think our society would benefit no end from having the reporter say "OK. Can I call your secretary to set up an interview?" rather than just ploughing ahead regardless.

Why should somebody be available to reporters 24/7?

[Barry Shnikov]

Why on earth not? Why should 'they' not? And if not 'they' then who?
"they" are, as defined in your post which I quoted, 'some people in the jewish community'.

[El Salsero Gringo]

The hours may be up for discussion but, essentially, yes.

No harm in saying "Mr Public figure, could I ask a question?" but if the answer is "No", then I think our society would benefit no end from having the reporter say "OK. Can I call your secretary to set up an interview?" rather than just ploughing ahead regardless.

Why should somebody be available to reporters 24/7?He was in a public street - in the city in which he is Mayor. Why shouldn't he be asked questions?

[El Salsero Gringo]

"they" are, as defined in your post which I quoted, 'some people in the jewish community'.So who should be allowed to refer the matter to a public standards body? Anybody else? And what else is the public standards body there to do?

[Barry Shnikov]

was wise, sensible
hell, if politicians' remarks to reporters pestering them could be censured for not being "wise and sensible" there'd never be an end to it...
and didn't bring the office of Mayor into disrepute[/QUOTE]
It only brings the office of mayor into disrepute if you accept that comparing someone to a concentration camp guard or a war criminal is, per se, wrong. Wrong as in 'impermissible'. Otherwise, one then has to enquire into the actual circumstances of this occasion and whether KL was justified in what he said. The necessary implication, surely, is that as an individual he may be a pillock for saying it but that doesn't bring the office of Mayor into disrepute.

I do see this as an attempt by certain parties within society to circumscribe what is and what is not permissible without a majority consensus, on the basis of offence felt by themselves.

In a similar way, dare I say it, to the way Moslems have tried to circumscribe what is and is not acceptable in Western newspapers.

DISCLAIMER!!!! Please note it has not escaped my attention that nobody is calling for KL to be executed, burnt, beheaded and so forth. The comparison is not intended to be a point-by-point comparison.

[Barry Shnikov]

He was in a public street - in the city in which he is Mayor. Why shouldn't he be asked questions?
Is it not implicit from what I said that he can be asked questions, but should be at liberty to indicate that he is not minded to answer them at this time, and that the reporter should accept that response?
If reporters have a responsibility to interview someone about their private life, then it may be that they can justify intruding into that private life. Say a politician charged with child sex offences. But excepting those circumstances, you can't just trample all over someone's privacy, even a politician.
At least, I don't think such behaviour by reporters should be acceptable.

[Barry Shnikov]

So who should be allowed to refer the matter to a public standards body? Anybody else? And what else is the public standards body there to do?
It's not the technicalities of the process I'm objecting to. I'm saying that "We're offended" is not what I believe should be an appropriate ground for an enquiry as to whether "He's bringing the office of mayor into disrepute'".
"He made a racist comment" should be.
Do you think his comment was racist?

[El Salsero Gringo]

It only brings the office of mayor into disrepute if you accept that comparing someone to a concentration camp guard or a war criminal is, per se, wrong. Wrong as in 'impermissible'. Otherwise, one then has to enquire into the actual circumstances of this occasion and whether KL was justified in what he said. The necessary implication, surely, is that as an individual he may be a pillock for saying it but that doesn't bring the office of Mayor into disrepute.Two quick points:

Firstly he caused widespread offence within the Jewish community. Whether or not you think the offence is justified, and whether you share it. Which brings him and the office he holds into disrepute. I'd feel the same about a politician cracking a gag about the Prophet being a suicide-bomber too. I personally might not be offended, but I recognise that the widespread offence caused would make carrying out his or her duties with the respect of the entire community more difficult. That offence was unnecessary and served no purpose at all, as far as I can tell.

Secondly: if the pillock (to use your word) in office behaves like such an obvious pillock, how can that help but demean the office he holds?

[LordOfTheFiles]

Is the holocaust unique? What about Stalin's purges, or Mao's? Japanese POW camps? Pol Pot, I just mentioned. Rwanda. Ethnic cleansing. My view is that the Holocaust is probably the extreme end of a strategy that many viciously self-serving politicians have found convenient to implement. Far from being unique, it's scarily common. The one unique factor it might have is the 'production line' methods, and certainly that is chillig enough.

Not once did I point out that these events were unique, indeed I believe I pointed out that they were an atrocity in a long line of atrocities (which I believe makes it look as though I said they were not unique). Uniqueness never was the point though. They were horrific events perpetrated with forthought on a section of the population who had no defenders. And those events have left scars that remain today.

In chosing such a careless phrase, KL foolishly belittled the events that had happened, and frankly I suspect he knows this. Unfortunately instead of apologising unreservedly and saying that in his defence he was annoyed because the press had been harassing him all day, he decided that attack was the best form of defence. From a public official this is unacceptable as it appears he is putting his ego above the rank of his office and his responsibilities.

[El Salsero Gringo]

At least, I don't think such behaviour by reporters should be acceptable.Perhaps not. But the reporter is paid by the Evening Standard who can decide if he's brought the office of journalist into disrepute and deserves censure. The Mayor is paid out of public funds (my taxes) and I require a higher standard of behaviour from him than from an Evening Standard hack.
Do you think his comment was racist?If he knew or thought the reporter was Jewish and that was why the 'concentration camp' gibe came into his head, then yes. It's not a comparison that has ever leapt into my mind when someone behaves in a way I don't like. However, I don't know what he knew or didn't know, and to some extent it's beside the point.

[Lynn]

Not once did I point out that these events were unique, indeed I believe I pointed out that they were an atrocity in a long line of atrocities (which I believe makes it look as though I said they were not unique). Uniqueness never was the point though. It was ESG in post 20.

Just being helpful. Carry on.

[LMC]

Everyone loses their temper on occasion and says unwise things. Whether it is appropriate for a person in public office to lose their temper is neither here nor there - it demonstrates imperfection, and I'm sure most people would have forgiven him for thoughtless words if he had made his regret clear.

Not to acknowledge the offence in the cold light of day and apologise to those offended just compounds the error and adds to the contempt in which so many people hold KL. He can surely make it perfectly clear that he still objects to the invasion of privacy but is sorry for the words he used, in the heat of the moment, to make that objection.

[Lynn]

If he knew or thought the reporter was Jewish and that was why the 'concentration camp' gibe came into his head, then yes. It's not a comparison that has ever leapt into my mind when someone behaves in a way I don't like. However, I don't know what he knew or didn't know, and to some extent it's beside the point. According to the recorded conversation he did know, the reporter told him, after he made the 'German war criminal' comment.

[El Salsero Gringo]

It was ESG in post 20.

Just being helpful. Carry on.I said "It was certainly a unique event in history - among history's unique events". I didn't mean to imply it held any kind of position in a league-table of awfulness, because I don't think comparisons between Stalin's regime, Pol Pot, Hitler have any validity. Each has lessons that we can learn, and each resonates with different volume according to our own personal circumstances. It was Ken Livingstone however who appropriated a metaphor from the period of the destruction of European Jewry under the Third Reich.
According to the recorded conversation he did know, the reporter told him, after he made the 'German war criminal' comment.If that was the reason for his use of the comparison, and for asking about being a German war criminal, then yes, I think it was a series of racist comments.

[Lynn]

I said "It was certainly a unique event in history - among history's unique events". I didn't mean to imply it held any kind of position in a league-table of awfulness, because I don't think comparisons between Stalin's regime, Pol Pot, Hitler have any validity. I was just being helpful as to where the phrase had been in the thread. I agree about not making comparisons, though people do (recently someone drew comparisons with the situation in NI which understandably caused a fuss.)

If that was the reason for his use of the comparison, and for asking about being a German war criminal, then yes, I think it was a series of racist comments. It would seem that the first comment KL made was without any awareness of the fact that the reporter was Jewish, but having been made aware, he then continued.

I'm not really joining in this discussion, just following it. Though my personal POV is that surely the easiest thing all round would be an apology?

[David Bailey]

No harm in saying "Mr Public figure, could I ask a question?" but if the answer is "No", then I think our society would benefit no end from having the reporter say "OK. Can I call your secretary to set up an interview?" rather than just ploughing ahead regardless.
Firstly, journalists have to be pushy; if they took the "Oh, can I please ask a question, if it's not too much bother to you?" approach, they'd never get an answer. Secondly, the answer wasn't "No", or even "No, leave me alone ***", it was "No - you Nazi". Twice.

That's bad enough, but the worse sin, at least to me, was not apologising for that - and then trying to justify that lack of an apology with "Oh, I wouldn't mean it" and "I'm not apologising to that bunch of fascists". The sensible thing, and the best way to serve the people who elected him, would have been to apologise immediately, and it'd have been over and done with. Now, it looks like stubborness and arrogance is actually harming his ability to do his job.

And saying "I'm an elected representative, how dare these puny unelected beaurocrats presume to lecture ME" doesn't exactly make him appear any less arrogant. :rolleyes:

Firstly, he tried to smear the newspaper for daring to publicize the exchange, then he tried to smear the Board of Deputies for daring to complain, now he's trying to smear the standards board for daring to rebuke him - anyone else notice a pattern here? :whistle:

Now I've no idea about this Finegold guy, and I don't know or care about KL's feud with that chain of newspapers. It could well have had some setup elements, and I'm sure the Standard took great pleasure in splashing the transcript over the front page. But again, I don't care - to me, media interest is the price of public office.


Why should somebody be available to reporters 24/7?
Because if, for example, a soldier gets killed in Iraq at 5.01pm, I want the media to attempt to question the politicians who sent him there immediately, not wait until the following morning. Media exposure is the price of power.


Though my personal POV is that surely the easiest thing all round would be an apology?
Oh, OK then... I'm very very sorry.
:)

[Dreadful Scathe]

It appears to me that KL has all the diplomacy of a slug. A simple 'no comment' would have sufficed and any intelligent politician knows that what they say can and will be twisted out of proportion - so even idle innocent comments should be carefully thought about. His comments here were neither idle or innocent and a man in his position should know better.

Saying that though, we dont know KL's past history with the evening standard and in light of the knowledge maybe many of us may agree with his fascist comparison. The reporters are representing the newspaper just as much as KL is representing the Mayors office, you cant have it both ways and say the reporter is an individual but KL is an extension of the Mayors office...or can you?


It should never have happened and we can only pray it will never happen again. Any other stance seems to fly in the face of common sense and decency.


You could argue that by pointing out harassment of the private lives on individuals KL is taking the correct stance.

[LMC]

As it 'appens, the ES is part of the Daily Mail group, so IMO, "fascist rag" is about right. But as a public official, KL, as many others have said, should know better and/or have better self-control.

[stewart38]

It appears to me that KL has all the diplomacy of a slug. A simple 'no comment' would have sufficed and any intelligent politician knows that what they say can and will be twisted out of proportion - so even idle innocent comments should be carefully thought about. His comments here were neither idle or innocent and a man in his position should know better.

.

The problem with KL is he is honest thats why he is in difficulty

He doesnt believe he owes an apology so guess what he doesnt want to be a hypocrit

[David Bailey]

The problem with KL is he is honest thats why he is in difficulty
:rofl:

Yeah, we need a lot less honesty in our politicians, all this truth and stuff is so boring,

[Lynn]

The problem with KL is he is honest thats why he is in difficulty

He doesnt believe he owes an apology so guess what he doesnt want to be a hypocritBut there is honesty and there is diplomacy. Any politician knows that.

[LordOfTheFiles]

The problem with KL is he is honest thats why he is in difficulty

He doesnt believe he owes an apology so guess what he doesnt want to be a hypocrit

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with honesty and everything to do with arrogance. He probably doesn't believe that he owes an apology, but not because he hasn't caused offence. He just believes he is above it all. And that is a bit of a shocker

[Lynn]

Oh, OK then... I'm very very sorry.
:)Why, what did you do? :wink:


Nonsense. This has nothing to do with honesty and everything to do with arrogance. He probably doesn't believe that he owes an apology, but not because he hasn't caused offence. He just believes he is above it all. And that is a bit of a shockerQuite a few people hide behind 'I'm just honest and outspoken' while really being arrogant and rude. You can be honest and say what you think and still know when to keep silent, or when to smooth over offence with an apology.

[El Salsero Gringo]

The reporters are representing the newspaper just as much as KL is representing the Mayors office, you cant have it both ways and say the reporter is an individual but KL is an extension of the Mayors office...or can you?I don't think anyone is saying that. But the Evening Standard is a commercial enterprise; one can buy its papers or not as one pleases. The journalist's duty is to his boss, the editor, the proprietor and the shareholders. Livingstone is a public employee. Once he's elected, I don't have the option not to buy his product (or to pay his taxes).
You could argue that by pointing out harassment of the private lives on individuals KL is taking the correct stance.He's not a private individual taking a stance! He's the Mayor of London being a twat!

[LordOfTheFiles]

He's not a private individual taking a stance! He's the Mayor of London being a twat!

Good use of the word twat

[stewart38]

. He's not a private individual taking a stance! He's the Mayor of London being a twat!


Yes he was voted for by the people and I bet 99% of those that VOTED for him wouldnt want some Twat unelected group to ban him for a month.

[LordOfTheFiles]

Yes he was voted for by the people and I bet 99% of those that VOTED for him wouldnt want some Twat unelected group to ban him for a month.

Rubbish use of the word twat!

[El Salsero Gringo]

Yes he was voted for by the people and I bet 99% of those that VOTED for him wouldnt want some Twat unelected group to ban him for a month.If we're placing mythical bets, I'll bet that same 99% think he should have apologised in the first place and that would have been the end of the matter. Unfortunately the 99% don't have any power over either of those outcomes.

[stewart38]

Rubbish use of the word twat!


Clearly there is a Anti KL thread going on here :sad:

[LordOfTheFiles]

Clearly there is a Anti KL thread going on here :sad:

I quite like Red Ken. In general he fights for what he believes is right and has a fairly endearing stubborn streak. However on this point I simply can't defend his choices. He could have put this to bed a long time ago by simply apologising.

[LMC]

I like the TfL website too.

KL was immediately inappropriately aggressive to someone who was just doing his job: "no comment" should have been sufficient. Even if he doesn't want to apologise for his annoyance at the invasion of privacy, apologising for upsetting people with his language wouldn't go amiss.

Stewart, this one's for you:

[David Bailey]

Why, what did you do? :wink:
What didn't I do? :innocent:

OK, I didn't call a reporter a Nazi - so, apart from that, then... :whistle:


I quite like Red Ken. In general he fights for what he believes is right and has a fairly endearing stubborn streak. However on this point I simply can't defend his choices. He could have put this to bed a long time ago by simply apologising.
:yeah:

He's clearly got a massive stubborn streak. That can be a good thing when trying to force through change (Bus lanes, congestion charge), but you also want someone who'll admit it when he's wrong (i.e. here) or on a hiding to nothing (e.g. the row over the PFI stuff and the Tube).

Knowing when to pick your battles is a skill too.

[Andy McGregor]

So, what might have been going through Mr Livingstone's head?
Finegold: "Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard — how did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?"I don't like the Standard and believe that anybody working for them needs medical treatment - probably from a psychiatrist
Finegold: "Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?"
Livingstone: "What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?"I don't like you and think you are acting like a German war criminal - you probably think you're just doing your job and that has annoyed me.
Finegold: "No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal and I’m actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "Right, well you might be — but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are doing it just because you are paid to, aren’t you?"Well, as you're jewish I'm going to refer to an event you will have heard of and compare you to someone you probably hate. Have you got the message that I don't want you around asking me questions?
Finegold: "Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?"
Livingstone: "It’s nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots."Oh, you're still here, how rude do I have to be to get you to go away?
Finegold: "I’m a journalist and I’m doing my job. I’m only asking for a comment."
Livingstone: "Well, work for a paper that doesn’t have a record of supporting fascism." I've already said the guard bit, I still need to slag off the paper :devil:

My own opinion is that the residents of London will not change their opinion of Mr Livingstone. He is behaving in exactly the same manner as he did before he was elected - and they still voted for him to become Mayor. And I have a thought about the reporter too. Is there any chance that he's using the fact he's Jewish to blow this up and sell more newspapers? After all, had he been a North American Indian he'd have had nothing to get his teeth into.

[David Bailey]

My own opinion is that the residents of London will not change their opinion of Mr Livingstone. He is behaving in exactly the same manner as he did before he was elected - and they still voted for him to become Mayor.
Well, be fair, you have to consider the alternatives we were offered (both times)... :rolleyes:


And I have a thought about the reporter too. Is there any chance that he's using the fact he's Jewish to blow this up and sell more newspapers? After all, had he been a North American Indian he'd have had nothing to get his teeth into.
Oh, absolutely; almost goes without saying. I wouldn't even be too shocked if it turned out that they'd sent a Jewish reporter specifically to wind him up, or to set him up - the way the tape is played almost seems artificial in some ways. And yes, of course the Board of Deputies aren't big Ken fans - he's been consistently anti-Israeli, and of course Jewish people aren't going to generally appreciate that,

But, he said what he said, and he didn't apologise for what he said - and now he's flailing around, issuing personal statements about the affair on the official Mayoral website to put his particular spin on it, blaming everyone and anyone...

And there's a lot of history there - for example, there was that punchup in 2002, which also was referred to the standards body I believe. Controversy follows him around; it's just too early to say whether this is a Ken thing, or whether all mayors will have this. Let's face it, Giuliani was Mr Controversy when he was mayour of New York, and he'll probably be standing for President of the USA next time round.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Oh, absolutely; almost goes without saying. I wouldn't even be too shocked if it turned out that they'd sent a Jewish reporter specifically to wind him upDon't be absurd: it was Livingstone who started the whole racial thing. Are you saying you think the ES should have taken pains to avoid sending a Jewish reporter? Do you think that London deserves the kind of Mayor for whom being interviewed by a Jew is a 'problem'? Are there any other people that Jews should avoid interviewing in their capacity at Evening Standards journalists? Of course not. What a ridiculous idea.
Well, as you're jewish I'm going to refer to an event you will have heard of and compare you to someone you probably hate.Well that counts as racism by any definition.
After all, had he been a North American Indian he'd have had nothing to get his teeth into.If he'd been a North American Indian, the insult wouldn't have been made. What exactly is your point?

[Barry Shnikov]

Not to acknowledge the offence in the cold light of day and apologise to those offended just compounds the error

This is the bit I have difficulty with, and why I wrote in an earlier post "just because something has offended people doesn't make it offensive".

As an illustration. There was an occasion (previously discussed in these columns) where a woman photographer put photographs of her children in an exhibition of her work in London. The children were, in some pictures, naked and romping on a beach. The police demanded that the exhibition be closed while they determined whether the pictures were criminal.

I've no doubt that many people might be offended by such pictures. I assert that the pictures are not offensive, and just because some people may be offended does not make them offensive.

[El Salsero Gringo]

This is the bit I have difficulty with, and why I wrote in an earlier post "just because something has offended people doesn't make it offensive".Barry, if Livingstone wants to offend people then fair enough. But he's a public servant. When public servants offend sections of the community with off-the-cuff insults to people, that's not acceptable, and deserves an apology. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Barry Shnikov]

If that was the reason for his use of the comparison, and for asking about being a German war criminal, then yes, I think it was a series of racist comments.

I think first we have to decide whether it is possible to use what I had hitherto supposed was a fairly commonplace comparison, that someone who justifies their actions by saying they are doing what they were told to do is using a weak argument that can be demolished by showing that the same argument was employed by concentration camp guards to justify their actions. This is a rhetorical device known as reductio ad absurdum. That is, you take a ridiculous conclusion that is supported by the premise to demonstrate the fallacy of the premise.

I haven't yet seen any argument that persuades me that this specific comparison is, per se, wrong. I note that no-one has come up with any other similar comparison which could be employed.

If that is right, then it can't be a racist comment. If that were true then it would require that of all the people in the world, jewish persons would be the only ones that could not be addressed in this way. Which can't be right.

I should write, as I have not so far, that I'm not entirely happy about the incident, about what KL said and did. Howefver, I remain uncomfortable about the idea that if you say something that pisses off one segment of the community you can be hounded and harrassed until you are forced to apologise or suspended from office.

[Barry Shnikov]

The sensible thing, and the best way to serve the people who elected him, would have been to apologise immediately, and it'd have been over and done with. Now, it looks like stubborness and arrogance is actually harming his ability to do his job.
Most convincing argument I've read. Unanswerable, in fact.

Because if, for example, a soldier gets killed in Iraq at 5.01pm, I want the media to attempt to question the politicians who sent him there immediately, not wait until the following morning. Media exposure is the price of power.
That's silly. Why should anybody have to give an off-the-cuff response in circumstances like that?
Anyway, I do feel that it's OK to bump into a politician or ring him up and ask him for a comment. If he doesn't want to give that comment, and as long as the question is not about personal misdeeds, then in my view the journalist is wrong to continue.
There's a guy who does sports on the Today program, can't remember his name. He's a pest. He'll be interviewing a - football manager, say - and he'll ask "So do you think X should be fined for what he did?" and the manager will say "Well, the disciplinary hearing is not until this afternoon so I'd rather not comment", and the response will be "Yes, but do you think he should be fined?" and I've heard him ask a question four times when the interviewee is saying 'No comment'. IT'S THE SPORT SECTION, DUDE, give it a rest.

[Barry Shnikov]

He's not a private individual taking a stance! He's the Mayor of London being a twat!

I believe that a politician is not obliged to put up with however reporters choose to behave. He or she is entitled to impose some boundaries.

Do you agree?

[El Salsero Gringo]

I think first we have to decide whether it is possible to use what I had hitherto supposed was a fairly commonplace comparison, that someone who justifies their actions by saying they are doing what they were told to do is using a weak argument that can be demolished by showing that the same argument was employed by concentration camp guards to justify their actions. This is a rhetorical device known as reductio ad absurdum. That is, you take a ridiculous conclusion that is supported by the premise to demonstrate the fallacy of the premise.He was doing the very opposite. He wasn't weakening the journalists argument through reductio ad absurdum, he was using the comparison to inflate the imaginary wrongdoing he thought he was suffering. And in fact, if you read the exchange as reported, it was Livingstone who introduced both the war-criminal and the "doing it because you're paid to" lines. The journalist never made, defended his questioning, or otherwise used that point.
I haven't yet seen any argument that persuades me that this specific comparison is, per se, wrong. I note that no-one has come up with any other similar comparison which could be employed.

If that is right, then it can't be a racist comment. If that were true then it would require that of all the people in the world, jewish persons would be the only ones that could not be addressed in this way. Which can't be right.Nonsense. If you assume he would have made the same remarks to anyone then (as I said) it wouldn't be a racist insult. But people on this thread seem satisfied (Andy McGregor has said explicitly) that the insult was designed to be especially insulting to the journalist because he was Jewish. That makes it racism.
I should write, as I have not so far, that I'm not entirely happy about the incident, about what KL said and did. Howefver, I remain uncomfortable about the idea that if you say something that pisses off one segment of the community you can be hounded and harrassed until you are forced to apologise or suspended from office.Why are you uncomfortable with that idea? What proportion or how many segments of the community need to be pissed off before an apology is appropriate?

[Barry Shnikov]

KL was immediately inappropriately aggressive to someone who was just doing his job

...which brings us full circle!:eek:

[Barry Shnikov]

Oh, absolutely; almost goes without saying. I wouldn't even be too shocked if it turned out that they'd sent a Jewish reporter specifically to wind him up, or to set him up

WHOA!!!

Back up there, chief. Is there any evidence (I don't know of any) that KL is likely to be especially antagonised by a jewish reporter?

[El Salsero Gringo]

I believe that a politician is not obliged to put up with however reporters choose to behave. He or she is entitled to impose some boundaries.

Do you agree?He's not obliged to put with anything at all. But he didn't take the opportunity to say "no comment", or "talk to my office in the morning", or walk away. What was his first line as reported? "How awful for you, are you having treatment?" - then straight into a character assasination of the journalist.

So yes, he's fully entitled to impose some boundaries. But he has to accept that he can be called to account for how, and in what manner he imposes those boundaries. There's no concept, in my mind, that he has the right to say anything that comes into his head and be exempt from being judged on it. To anyone.

[Barry Shnikov]

Barry, if Livingstone wants to offend people then fair enough. But he's a public servant. When public servants offend sections of the community with off-the-cuff insults to people, that's not acceptable, and deserves an apology. What's so hard to understand about that?

I don't think he necessarily wanted to offend this guy, I think he wanted him to p!ss off.

You could be in a situation where you make strongly adverse remarks about, say, a play without knowing that the playwright has overheard you. You may not have wished to offend him, but why should you apologise about airing your views simply because he's offended? You could if you wished apologise for the offence, but you may choose to say "Well, that's how I felt."

What is the purpose of an apology? Is it a way of saying "What I did was wrong and I regret it?" or is it a way of saying "I see you're upset and I would generally prefer the smallest possible number of people to be upset". The former would not be true, in KL's case, and what would be the value of the latter?

[Barry Shnikov]

He's not obliged to put with anything at all. But he didn't take the opportunity to say "no comment", or "talk to my office in the morning", or walk away. What was his first line as reported? "How awful for you, are you having treatment?" - then straight into a character assasination of the journalist.
You're stipulation would be OK if this were the first occasion on which KL had attempted to get a reporter not to pester him inappropriately. I suspect it was not, in which case he may have more justification than you allow for being impolite.

So yes, he's fully entitled to impose some boundaries. But he has to accept that he can be called to account for how, and in what manner he imposes those boundaries. There's no concept, in my mind, that he has the right to say anything that comes into his head and be exempt from being judged on it. To anyone.
I absolutely agree on your latter point.

[El Salsero Gringo]

I don't think he necessarily wanted to offend this guy, I think he wanted him to p!ss off.You'll have to explain to me the difference.
What is the purpose of an apology? Is it a way of saying "What I did was wrong and I regret it?" or is it a way of saying "I see you're upset and I would generally prefer the smallest possible number of people to be upset". The former would not be true, in KL's case, and what would be the value of the latter?The value of the latter would be that the matter could be allowed to rest by all parties concerned.

I don't see why if an off-the-cuff comment - serving no purpose to anyone and spoken purely to **** off or offend one journalist - demonstrably causes offence to a large number of people why it shouldn't be recognised as an error of judgement to have said it. It's Livingstone's refusal to accept it was an error that has driven this as far as it has come.

[David Bailey]

Don't be absurd: it was Livingstone who started the whole racial thing.
To be fair, Livingstone did not make (and as far as I know, has never made) a comment which could be construed as racist.

And Livingstone being anti-Israeli (or pro-Palestinian) is a legitimate political position - in fact, he'd probably say he was simply supporting an oppressed minority or something. I don't agree with it.

But then again, he's done a lot of things historically (talking to the IRA, controlling fare prices) and recently (gay marriages, congestion charging etc.) that looked extreme or wacky at the time, but in the long run have turned out to be courageous and visionary. So you never know.


Are you saying you think the ES should have taken pains to avoid sending a Jewish reporter? Do you think that London deserves the kind of Mayor for whom being interviewed by a Jew is a 'problem'? Are there any other people that Jews should avoid interviewing in their capacity at Evening Standards journalists? Of course not. What a ridiculous idea.
Nooo.... just that it almost seems too perfect a setup, if you know what I mean? I don't know the backstory, but I'm willing to believe the ES wasn't quite the lily-white innocent it's portrayed as - usually with these things, the real story is more complex than a simple exchange. Or maybe I'm just a born conspiracy theorist.

Don't get me wrong - I think he was bang out of order, I think he should have apologised, and I think the more he tries to smear everyone who disagrees with him - including his own deputy, Nicky Gavron, a daughter of a death camp survivor - the worse he looks.

But I don't think it's really relevant that the guy happened to be Jewish, and I'm not comfortable with portraying KL as an anti-semite. However, I'm completely fine with using the "T-word" to describe him at the moment.

[Barry Shnikov]

He was doing the very opposite. He wasn't weakening the journalists argument through reductio ad absurdum, he was using the comparison to inflate the imaginary wrongdoing he thought he was suffering. And in fact, if you read the exchange as reported, it was Livingstone who introduced both the war-criminal and the "doing it because you're paid to" lines. The journalist never made, defended his questioning, or otherwise used that point.
We differ on this point. It was quick-fire stuff, but the essence of what KL was saying was: "Leave me alone; your pestering is unacceptable, you must exercise judgment in the exercise of your calling and the constant apologia of your profession that you are just doing your job is no more a defence of your behaviour than it was for Nazis under Hitler." ergo reductio ad absurdum.

Nonsense. If you assume he would have made the same remarks to anyone then (as I said) it wouldn't be a racist insult. But people on this thread seem satisfied (Andy McGregor has said explicitly) that the insult was designed to be especially insulting to the journalist because he was Jewish. That makes it racism. Why are you uncomfortable with that idea? What proportion or how many segments of the community need to be pissed off before an apology is appropriate?
I'm not persuaded that saying something that is especially uncomfortable to someone because of their race is thereby a racist remark. Try and convince me.

[Barry Shnikov]

You'll have to explain to me the difference.The value of the latter would be that the matter could be allowed to rest by all parties concerned.
You don't see the difference between setting out to offend somebody and setting out to make them p!ss off? You must do, surely!

I don't see why if an off-the-cuff comment - serving no purpose to anyone and spoken purely to **** off or offend one journalist - demonstrably causes offence to a large number of people why it shouldn't be recognised as an error of judgement to have said it. It's Livingstone's refusal to accept it was an error that has driven this as far as it has come.
I would agree that the apology would be very sensible if it got everybody to simmer down. In fact I'm beginning to come round to the point of view that KL should have apologised for that
very reason.
What I was asking is what value does such an apology have for the offended people? It's not a recognition of a mistake, it's simply realpolitik.

[Barry Shnikov]

Enjoyed that.

[David Bailey]

That's silly. Why should anybody have to give an off-the-cuff response in circumstances like that?
Because, for example if the person were the PM, it was ultimately his call to send them there in the first place? And the families are due that respect. (I know, thread mutation - but this family letter thing in the news gets my goat, Bliar should have the courage to talk to the families of people who died in the service of their country).


There's a guy who does sports on the Today program, can't remember his name. He's a pest. He'll be interviewing a - football manager, say - and he'll ask "So do you think X should be fined for what he did?" and the manager will say "Well, the disciplinary hearing is not until this afternoon so I'd rather not comment", and the response will be "Yes, but do you think he should be fined?" and I've heard him ask a question four times when the interviewee is saying 'No comment'. IT'S THE SPORT SECTION, DUDE, give it a rest.
Yeah, in most of those cases, the manager is just saying that because he wants to avoid saying "No comment", rather than really waiting for due process. That's a typical political trick (see Hatfield train crash) - you launch a long-term enquiry, then say you can't comment until it's over. And you know that the public pressure will be much less, or that you'll have moved on up the slippery pole, by the time the chickens come home to roost.

Besides, it may be just the sports, but it is the Today programme - they'd get sacked if they didn't act like Rottweillers :)

[El Salsero Gringo]

We differ on this point. It was quick-fire stuff, but the essence of what KL was saying was: "Leave me alone; your pestering is unacceptable, you must exercise judgment in the exercise of your calling and the constant apologia of your profession that you are just doing your job is no more a defence of your behaviour than it was for Nazis under Hitler." ergo reductio ad absurdum.But it wasn't a defence the journalist ever made, it was something Livingstone came up with all by himself. He was comparing the journalist to a Nazi based on his own assumptions of the guy's motives.


I'm not persuaded that saying something that is especially uncomfortable to someone because of their race is thereby a racist remark. Try and convince me.Aren't you? If I call you someone a 'paki', or a 'yid', or a 'wog', because I know that they will be especially insulted as members of a racial group, isn't that racism? If I make crude suggestions towards a woman with the aim of causing offence in a way that I wouldn't towards a man, then isn't that sexism?

[El Salsero Gringo]

What I was asking is what value does such an apology have for the offended people? It's not a recognition of a mistake, it's simply realpolitik.Whether Livingstone privately thinks he should apologise is irrelevant because it's not really Livingstone's personal opinion that counts. It's his speaking as Mayor that offends. So, if you like, the apology needs to come from him as office-holder. He can cross his fingers behind his back as much as he likes but the statement from his office has some value.

[under par]

I was reading this post this morning and thought they really can't keep this going for long can they?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


You have all excelled yourselves .. Well Done!:respect:

[under par]

I'll be looking in again in a few days to see how you are all getting on.:cheers:

[ducasi]

... The reason that is a matter of national importance however is because the Mayor of London represents all Londoners regardless of race or creed ... After reading this thread I'm glad I live in a nation where what the mayor of London thinks and says is of zero importance.

Unfortunately we have our own fair share of dumb politicians. (And no matter whether you think KL is right or wrong, you have to agree he's been dumb.)

[LMC]

Thread summary:

Barry: I don't get what the problem is
Andy: It's political correctness gone mad
ESG: KL was offensive
LOF: helpful suggestion to raise consciousness as per Muslim cartoon row
LOF: KL should apologise for offending so many people
DJ: ruins thread with factual content

followed by 4-5 pages of circular argument along the lines of:

KL should apologise
No he shouldn't, he can say what he likes
No he can't, he's a public official and should mind his big mouth
KL often behaves like a twat, but is at least always "interesting"...

Don't *think* I've missed anything...

[Andy McGregor]

Don't *think* I've missed anything...LMC kills thread with summary? :whistle:

[LMC]

Let's chunk up then and go to principles. The one at stake here is free speech - there was a good article in the Guardian this morning which made me think :yeah:

We must stand up against the tyranny of the group veto (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1721447,00.html)

In relation to this thread, please note that the article does say that KL should get rapped on the knuckles. The point is the proportion of the reaction to the likely consequences of the offence. Big well done to everyone who turned out against the ALF in Oxford.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Let's chunk up then and go to principles. The one at stake here is free speech - there was a good article in the Guardian this morning which made me think :yeah:

We must stand up against the tyranny of the group veto (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1721447,00.html)

In relation to this thread, please note that the article does say that KL should get rapped on the knuckles. The point is the proportion of the reaction to the likely consequences of the offence. Big well done to everyone who turned out against the ALF in Oxford.This has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.

The role of the Mayor of London is not to pronounce on foreign affairs, WW2 history, or to insult journalists. He wasn't expressing a point of view, he was quite deliberately making a vile insult against an individual member of the public. Sure he was free to speak his mind - but people are 'free' to be offended by it if they wish and 'free' to take him to task if he refuses to apologise. The committee on standards in public life is 'free' to decide Ken's use of his 'freedom' has brought his office into disrepute.

Don't try to confuse the issue, or change it.

[LordOfTheFiles]

Settle down at the back there Class...

Nothing wrong with a bit of heated debate guys and gals, but let's at least pretend that we are civil

[Dreadful Scathe]

It seems KL is slightly anti-Israel anyway, not necessarily anti-semitic too but these quotes show a certain bias.

On Ariel Sharon:
"I'd like to see him locked up in the next cell to the former Serb President Slobodan Milosevic."

On Bush:
"I'm not even sure he was aware there were any Palestinians before he was elected, any more than he knew the name of the President of Pakistan."

On the Middle East:
"[There will be no peace until] the West shows it is taking on board the injustice of what's happening to Palestinians, and looks at the financial network of corruption between some of the oil sheikhdoms , the oil companies and the White House."

he doesnt like the saudi royals though...

On the Saudi Royal Family:
"I just long for the day I wake up and find that the Saudi Royal family are swinging from the lamp-posts and they've got a proper government that represents the people of Saudi Arabia."

[Andy McGregor]

he was quite deliberately making a vile insult against an individual member of the public. Sure he was free to speak his mind - but people are 'free' to be offended by it if they wish and 'free' to take him to task if he refuses to apologise. The committee on standards in public life is 'free' to decide Ken's use of his 'freedom' has brought his office into disrepute.

Don't try to confuse the issue, or change it.I think that one consideration here is proportion. One person was insulted by Ken Livingstone. If the reporter had made a complaint to the Standards Committee that complaint would have been considered and, I believe, Mr Livingstone would have been censured. That is what I believe will happen. Mr Livingstone will be told off and he will be told to apologise to the individual by the committee. If he fails to comply with the instructions of the committee he will receive further censure for that failure.

However, that insult was repeated in the newspapers, on TV, on here, etc, etc. Those repetitions were not the doing of Mr Livingstone and I do not believe it would be right or proper for him to be punished for the actions of the media. It was the managers of those media who chose to repeat the insult and they, themselves must stand by their decision to do so, especially in the light of the fact that they are repeating racism and their actions will upset many Jews. Remember, if the event hadn't been reported, it would have upset only one person. And, if that person wasn't a reporter, he would not have been present to receive that insult.

There is an argument that Mr Livingstone should expect his every word to be repeated in the media. That is a valid argument. However, he is not the media and the managers of those media are responsible for the upset they cause by the items they choose to publish. Remember, Mr Livingstone was not speaking to all Jews, he was speaking to one person. It was the media that told everyone else - and, on this rare occasion, they reported the event accurately (we hope:innocent: ).

p.s. Nothing is as simple as it seems at first, is it?

[El Salsero Gringo]

However, he is not the media and the managers of those media are responsible for the upset they cause by the items they choose to publish. Remember, Mr Livingstone was not speaking to all Jews, he was speaking to one person. He was speaking to an accredited member of the press, on the record, who'd identified both himself as a journalist and the paper for which he worked. How much closer to "speaking to all Jews" can you possibly get?????

Drop the doublethink, and stop trying to blame *everybody else* for what Livingstone said!

[David Bailey]

I think that one consideration here is proportion. One person was insulted by Ken Livingstone.
Yeah - but as ESG says, it's not a casual conversation, it's a comment made at a quasi-official occasion to an accredited an identified member of the press. It's not as if he said it to his mate down the pub or something.

And I believe the censure is not just for what he said, or for who he said it to, but for not apologising afterwards for being such a Tw&t.

And as for reporting what he did and publicising it - well, err, that's why they're called reporters. He was, ahem, just doing his job there :devil:

I think I'm right in the middle of the debate here - I think KL was a dick, but I think his mistake has been exploited by his enemies, and I think suspending him is a bit iffy.

I dunno, I wish he'd just said "sorry" and let it go in the first place. :rolleyes:

I still respect Ken, and I'd still vote for him, but he's clearly got major flaws in the "compromise and move on" area...

[Andy McGregor]

He was speaking to an accredited member of the press, on the record, who'd identified both himself as a journalist and the paper for which he worked. How much closer to "speaking to all Jews" can you possibly get?????

Drop the doublethink, and stop trying to blame *everybody else* for what Livingstone said!Mr Livingstone is to blame for insulting an individual. That's what he did and we should not lose sight of that. The insult was vile and it was wrong for a public figure to make it. However, it was the newspapers who repeated that insult - so now we have millions of people who consider that they were insulted. Think about libel (or malicious falsehood, if you're feeling pompous), how wrong is the person who repeats a libel, knowing it to be libel. Can they hide behind the defence that they're just repeating what somebody else said? I think not. Now consider a racist insult. Can somebody repeat a racist insult knowing that it is one and remain blame free - I think not. It's creating racial hatred and should be treated in the same way as all other racism. If we could get away with attributing insults we'd have people in the street chanting (chooses innocuous insult in place of racist slur) "Mr Smith says that all the Jones women have hairy top lips". Can the person chanting take no blame for upsetting the Jones family and simply pass that blame on to Mr Smith - again, I think not. IMHO the papers must shoulder some of the blame for reporting news that might result in an increase in racial hatred.

[LordOfTheFiles]

I agree in general with those sentiments but I do believe he should have been suspended. Doubtless the press played on it, but that's what they do, and Ken knows this.

I don't know if you have ever seen Clear and Present Danger, but there is a part where Harrison Ford offers the President advice on how to deal with the drugs related death of a friend. He advises to give the press no room to manouver by instead of denying the link, embracing it. I believe the phrase is "If they ask were, you friends you should say, we were the best of friends, and if they ask were you the best of friends you should reply, No we were the closest of friends"

In issuing a thousand denials and claiming freedom of speech and attacking the paper for being a facist rag, Ken was given enough rope and he promptly hanged himself. If on the other hand he apologised and qualified it with the fact he was under pressure or whatever there would have been no story and the press could not have strung the story out without looking vindictive.

[Andy McGregor]

Yeah - but as ESG says, it's not a casual conversation, it's a comment made at a quasi-official occasion to an accredited an identified member of the press. It's not as if he said it to his mate down the pub or something.The insult was personal. The reporter was asking questions about something that KL didn't want to talk about. The insult then became the news - but it was not what the reporter had attended to report and it was not what he'd asked questions about. It was the reporter who made the decsion to make the insult "the news". This is why some reporters are treated badly by the press. That and the fact that reporters so often fail to get their facts right. I've been involved in quite a few items which have made their way into the papers. Local papers are usually quite accurate and the national papers are often quite inaccurate. How many other people on here have seen events reported in the national papers where they have first-hand knowledge of the facts and then found them to be missing or inaccurately reported? In this light it's hardly surprising that people who are the subject of these reports get abusive.

[LordOfTheFiles]

IMHO the papers must shoulder some of the blame for reporting news that might result in an increase in racial hatred.

I am afraid I am going to have to call you on this. It is the "responsibility" of the paper to report events and news. We can't ask them just to report the nice stuff of things that we agree with. There is no doubt that the paper made some political capital running the story, but I hardly think that they have in any way increased racial hatred by pointing out that a racist comment is wrong. They are not simply repeating it, but rather pointing out that it is offensive, and that for a man in a position of power to have made such comments should not be tolerated.

[Andy McGregor]

I am afraid I am going to have to call you on this. It is the "responsibility" of the paper to report events and news. We can't ask them just to report the nice stuff of things that we agree with. There is no doubt that the paper made some political capital running the story, but I hardly think that they have in any way increased racial hatred by pointing out that a racist comment is wrong. They are not simply repeating it, but rather pointing out that it is offensive, and that for a man in a position of power to have made such comments should not be tolerated.I believe this is what the newspaper will claim. However, we need to consider the results. It's gone from one to many and that can't be right. Don't ask me the solution but newspapers are responsible for repeating so much racism I believe that we'd have far less acutal trouble if it were reported differently.

[stewart38]

I was reading this post this morning and thought they really can't keep this going for long can they?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


You have all excelled yourselves .. Well Done!:respect:



The Evening Standard has a big gripe against KL and unfortunately its clouded everyones opinion


This could go on for ages :wink:

[LordOfTheFiles]

I believe this is what the newspaper will claim. However, we need to consider the results. It's gone from one to many and that can't be right. Don't ask me the solution but newspapers are responsible for repeating so much racism I believe that we'd have far less acutal trouble if it were reported differently.

Or perhaps if papers didn't bring certain events to the public forum, then nobody would be aware that these events happened. Should we allow individuals to get away with discriminatory comments just so the problem is not highlighted for fear of exacerbating the problem??

Seems a topsy turvy way of looking at things to me

[El Salsero Gringo]

Mr Livingstone is to blame for insulting an individual. That's what he did and we should not lose sight of that. The insult was vile and it was wrong for a public figure to make it. However, it was the newspapers who repeated that insult - so now we have millions of people who consider that they were insulted. Think about libel (or malicious falsehood, if you're feeling pompous), how wrong is the person who repeats a libel, knowing it to be libel. Can they hide behind the defence that they're just repeating what somebody else said? I think not. Now consider a racist insult. Can somebody repeat a racist insult knowing that it is one and remain blame free - I think not. It's creating racial hatred and should be treated in the same way as all other racism. If we could get away with attributing insults we'd have people in the street chanting (chooses innocuous insult in place of racist slur) "Mr Smith says that all the Jones women have hairy top lips". Can the person chanting take no blame for upsetting the Jones family and simply pass that blame on to Mr Smith - again, I think not. IMHO the papers must shoulder some of the blame for reporting news that might result in an increase in racial hatred.I don't think that reporting the insult increases racism. Whereas ignoring it, or accepting or condoning it would, in some tiny way.

I don't really think this issue is about racism particularly, or free speech, or any other great topic. It's just about one local politician losing his temper and not having the balls to apologise for it.

[LordOfTheFiles]

The Evening Standard has a big gripe against KL and unfortunately its clouded everyones opinion


I can assure you that The Evening Standard's opinion of Red Ken has in no way clouded my judgement. The fact I think that he was wrong in this situation is because, well in this situation he was wrong!! Who reported the story and how, and for what reasons is not particularly important. Ken has never denied he made the statement, so I have to come to the conclusion that he made the comments attributed to him. And I consider that what he said wasn't the most clever, but more importantly that he should show a modicum of humility and apologise, because it is obvious that his comments DID cause offence.

It seems pretty simple to me

[LordOfTheFiles]

I don't really think this issue is about racism particularly, or free speech, or any other great topic. It's just about one local politician losing his temper and not having the balls to apologise for it.

Maybe we should have just said that at the beginning?? It seems to be pretty much the crux of the matter....

[under par]

they'll never stretch this to 200 posts .................


.............


..............



..............



or will they?



....... the saga continues:worthy:

[El Salsero Gringo]

Maybe we should have just said that at the beginning?? It seems to be pretty much the crux of the matter....Well, apart from on this Forum (where people like to argue great issues because we know it's of no consequence whatsoever) I thought it was fairly obvious...

I have to agree with the statement from the Board of Deputies (http://www.bod.org.uk/bod/index.jsp):

"The Board of Deputies of British Jews regrets that the Mayor’s intransigence over his hurtful comments last February outside City Hall and his subsequent failure to apologise has led to a finding that the Office of the Mayor has been brought into disrepute. Had the Mayor simply recognised the upset his comments had caused, this sorry episode could have been avoided. He has been the architect of his own misfortune.
The Board of Deputies has at no stage passed judgement on the motivation for the Mayor’s comments, nor have we sought anything other than an expression of regret and an acknowledgement that the words used were wholly inappropriate for the elected representative of Londoners of all faiths and beliefs. We hope that all those involved can now move on from this episode."

[El Salsero Gringo]

they'll never stretch this to 200 posts .................


.............


..............



..............



or will they?



....... the saga continues:worthy:90 to go.

I'm up for it. Anyone else?

[David Bailey]

89 now... :devil:

[under par]

90 to go.

I'm up for it. Anyone else?

Ooops anyone seen a gauntlet ?


I think I dropped one last time I was in here!:whistle:

[under par]

89 now... :devil:


What days till SOUTHPORT :clap: :clap: :clap:



I thought it was a bit longer than that David!:rofl:

[stewart38]

they'll never stretch this to 200 posts .................


.............


..............



..............



or will they?



....... the saga continues:worthy:


Given that the Evening Standard actually /deliberately set out to entrap poor old KL by sending out 'THAT' reporter I don’t know

There is much more to debate :whistle:

[Barry Shnikov]

Because, for example if the person were the PM, it was ultimately his call to send them there in the first place? And the families are due that respect. (I know, thread mutation - but this family letter thing in the news gets my goat, Bliar should have the courage to talk to the families of people who died in the service of their country).
The key question is, what is the value of the off-the-cuff response? Dragging it back on-topic, the question that was being asked of KL was 'Did you like the party?' Hardly Panorama, is it?

Yeah, in most of those cases, the manager is just saying that because he wants to avoid saying "No comment", rather than really waiting for due process. That's a typical political trick (see Hatfield train crash) - you launch a long-term enquiry, then say you can't comment until it's over. And you know that the public pressure will be much less, or that you'll have moved on up the slippery pole, by the time the chickens come home to roost.
That's only one example. He does the same thing with team selection: "Will X play?" "Team selection will be announced this afternoon at 3pm." "Yes, but will X play?"

Besides, it may be just the sports, but it is the Today programme - they'd get sacked if they didn't act like Rottweillers :)
That's true.:D

[Barry Shnikov]

Aren't you? If I call you someone a 'paki', or a 'yid', or a 'wog', because I know that they will be especially insulted as members of a racial group, isn't that racism? If I make crude suggestions towards a woman with the aim of causing offence in a way that I wouldn't towards a man, then isn't that sexism?
There is a set "all comments making jews uncomfortable" and there is a set "all racist remarks against jews". Are they identical?

[Barry Shnikov]

Whether Livingstone privately thinks he should apologise is irrelevant because it's not really Livingstone's personal opinion that counts. It's his speaking as Mayor that offends. So, if you like, the apology needs to come from him as office-holder. He can cross his fingers behind his back as much as he likes but the statement from his office has some value.
Quite right. And the more I think about it the more I believe that KL would have been better off to have done that. But that's only an opinion. I'm not sure that there should be mechanisms available to persons to punish him if he chooses not to.

[Barry Shnikov]

Yeah - but as ESG says, it's not a casual conversation, it's a comment made at a quasi-official occasion to an accredited an identified member of the press. It's not as if he said it to his mate down the pub or something.
Is that right? I understood that Ken went to a private party (celebrating Chris Wossname's 20 years as an MP) and was 'doorstepped' after he left, by a reporter who was just hanging around trying to provoke or persuade somebody into giving him something to write about. That's partly why I have sympathy for KL's position. If it was an official occasion (and what would a 'quasi-official' event look like?) then that would be different.
Who agrees with me that a public figure is not obliged to respond positively just because the person pestering them is 'an accredited member of the press'?

[stewart38]

Who agrees with me that a public figure is not obliged to respond positively just because the person pestering them is 'an accredited member of the press'?


who was that women (rock star ??) who grab that female reporters hair a few yrs back at an airport

she would agree with you ?

Maybe Sean Penn as well as many others :yeah:

[Barry Shnikov]

"The Board of Deputies has at no stage passed judgement on the motivation for the Mayor’s comments, nor have we sought anything other than an expression of regret and an acknowledgement that the words used were wholly inappropriate for the elected representative of Londoners of all faiths and beliefs. We hope that all those involved can now move on from this episode."
I'm not sure I understand why "the words used were wholly inappropriate". In fact, I definitely don't understand.
The statement says nothing about the words being spoken to a jewish reporter so the inference would appear to be that the Board thinks it is wholly inappropriate to compare anyone to a concentration camp guard for 'just following orders'.
Is that what the Board thinks?

[LordOfTheFiles]

I'm not sure I understand why "the words used were wholly inappropriate". In fact, I definitely don't understand.
The statement says nothing about the words being spoken to a jewish reporter so the inference would appear to be that the Board thinks it is wholly inappropriate to compare anyone to a concentration camp guard for 'just following orders'.
Is that what the Board thinks?

Who cares?? Should we really be spending hours going round in circles and trying to defend somebody's right to compare somebody to a concentration camp guard?! I remember Esther Ranzen (sp?) and her jobsworth award. That was what he was implying, so he couldnhave mate his point in a hundred less sensitive and potentially insulting ways.

[El Salsero Gringo]

...and I'd like to welcome Barry back to the floor. 200 posts in next to no time, now he's back.

There is a set "all comments making jews uncomfortable" and there is a set "all racist remarks against jews". Are they identical?(Barry, why always a question with a question?)

How about the subset, all comments intended to serve no purpose other than make Jews (in particular) feel uncomfortable. Isn't that racism?


the question that was being asked of KL was 'Did you like the party?' Hardly Panorama, is it?
...was 'doorstepped' after he left, by a reporter who was just hanging around trying to provoke or persuade somebody into giving him something to write about.Was he doorstopped with an impertinent question to raise his ire and provoke a rebuke, or was it an innocuous question not worthy of Panorama? How about you choose one and stick to it?
Is that what the Board thinks?I don't speak either for or on behalf of the Board.

[Andy McGregor]

Who agrees with me that a public figure is not obliged to respond positively just because the person pestering them is 'an accredited member of the press'?:yeah:

[Barry Shnikov]

Who cares?? Should we really be spending hours going round in circles and trying to defend somebody's right to compare somebody to a concentration camp guard?! I remember Esther Ranzen (sp?) and her jobsworth award. That was what he was implying, so he couldnhave mate his point in a hundred less sensitive and potentially insulting ways.
Presumably you've lost interest in the thread. Can't argue with that.

There's a difference between a jobsworth - "sorry mate, we both know this is a waste of time/inconvenient, but if I don't do it, it's more than my jobs worth..." and what KL was alleging, which would be - "I'm doing this reprehensible/bad/terrible thing because I have been told to do it/following orders".

[El Salsero Gringo]

Who agrees with me that a public figure is not obliged to respond positively just because the person pestering them is 'an accredited member of the press'?I also agree.

But his freedom to respond how he pleases doesn't release him from the obligation to live up to the consequences of whatever he says. We agreed on that earlier in the thread.

Nor can he make any pretence about the remarks having been made in private, or having been duped. (In fact he hasn't said that, but it's no excuse as some people here are offering.)

[LordOfTheFiles]

Presumably you've lost interest in the thread. Can't argue with that.

Big Hand to that man. I can't believe anyone has any interest left in this thread. It wasn't THAT interesting to begin with, and has now degenerated into an unfocused ramble through semantics and answering questions with questions within questions.

Like a poor man's Labyrinth

[Andy McGregor]

Or perhaps if papers didn't bring certain events to the public forum, then nobody would be aware that these events happened. Should we allow individuals to get away with discriminatory comments just so the problem is not highlighted for fear of exacerbating the problem??

Seems a topsy turvy way of looking at things to meLet's look at another example of disregard for consequences displayed by newspapers. The cartoons of the prophet. Their publication has resulted in many deaths. That the families of the dead have not privately prosecuted the publishers for corporate manslaughter can only mean they are still preparing their cases.

Newspapers regularly stir up hate and prejudice whilst bleating about freedom of speech and the public interest. How was it in the public interest to publish a batch of cartoons when the obvious consequence would be to whip up certain extremist members of the Muslim faith into committing even more atrocities. Those extremists have such a consistent history of murder it was almost certain that the publication of those cartoons would result in murder - but the newpapers still went ahead with their publication. What was the "public interest" in their publication?

To come back to the publication of Mr Livingstone's comments. It seems to me that he is likely to get egged at his next public appearance. That egging will be a criminal offence - and that offence will be as a result of the publication of Mr Livingstone's comments in the media.

[El Salsero Gringo]

That the families of the dead have not privately prosecuted the publishers for corporate manslaughter can only mean they are still preparing their cases.You have got to be kidding.

Perhaps Barry, as a lawyer, would like to give us his advice to anyone seeking a prosecution in those circumstances?

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
o come back to the publication of Mr Livingstone's comments. It seems to me that he is likely to get egged at his next public appearance. That egging will be a criminal offence - and that offence will be as a result of the publication of Mr Livingstone's comments in the media.The egging will be the result of nothing other than the egger's criminal conduct. Stop trying to shift the blame for *everything* on to the press.

[David Bailey]

The key question is, what is the value of the off-the-cuff response? Dragging it back on-topic, the question that was being asked of KL was 'Did you like the party?' Hardly Panorama, is it?
Actually, the exact question which prompted the insult was:


Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?"

Given the context (that this party was celebrating the 20-year anniversary of the first announcement of an openly gay MP in the UK), I think it's legitimate to ask that sort of question - especially given KL's promotion of gay marriages. And in fact, it was a great opportunity for KL to spout on about that particular issue, promoting his agenda in that way - but he decided to be an idiot instead.

The party wasn't exactly private, it was clearly quasi-official in that it was making a political statement about tolerance, and I don't believe KL just popped along to say "Hi" to an old mate. So I stick with my opinion that it's legitimate - or at the very least, defensible - for a reporter to try to get a comment from KL in that situation.


That's only one example. He does the same thing with team selection: "Will X play?" "Team selection will be announced this afternoon at 3pm." "Yes, but will X play?"
Yeah, it's annoying - but if you're interviewing a selector, and the topic is about today's selections, one might ask what other type of questions could he possibly ask? And sometimes you do get some fairly strong hints ("I couldn't pre-empt the announcement, but...").

[Barry Shnikov]

Big Hand to that man. I can't believe anyone has any interest left in this thread. It wasn't THAT interesting to begin with, and has now degenerated into an unfocused ramble through semantics and answering questions with questions within questions.
Like a poor man's Labyrinth

:confused:

You are still reading the thread because...?

[Barry Shnikov]

Perhaps Barry, as a lawyer, would like to give us his advice to anyone seeking a prosecution in those circumstances?


Ahem. (adjusts tie)

No such offence as corporate manslaughter. Manslaughter in UK still requires a mens rea (NB not the same thing as 'man's bum'), or "guilty mind". Somebody has to have the intent (e.g. murder) the negligence (e.g. manslaughter) or recklessness (e.g. criminal damage) to go along with the criminal act (or actus reus) of the crime.

Some directors/managers etc have been prosecuted, on the basis that they were so intimately involved with the deadly incident that it may be possible to identify that particular person as having the mens rea, but AFAIK not, to this date, successfully.

What the law may be in the countries where publication took place might be, I do not know.

BUT more than that, you would have to say that the proper person(s) to charge in respect of such deaths would be the death-dealing party; that is to say, the publishers cannot be held responsible for crimes which are committed by other persons exercising their freedom of choice.

[Andy McGregor]

Ahem. (adjusts tie)

No such offence as corporate manslaughter. Manslaughter in UK still requires a mens rea (NB not the same thing as 'man's bum'), or "guilty mind". Somebody has to have the intent (e.g. murder) the negligence (e.g. manslaughter) or recklessness (e.g. criminal damage) to go along with the criminal act (or actus reus) of the crime.

Some directors/managers etc have been prosecuted, on the basis that they were so intimately involved with the deadly incident that it may be possible to identify that particular person as having the mens rea, but AFAIK not, to this date, successfully.

What the law may be in the countries where publication took place might be, I do not know.

BUT more than that, you would have to say that the proper person(s) to charge in respect of such deaths would be the death-dealing party; that is to say, the publishers cannot be held responsible for crimes which are committed by other persons exercising their freedom of choice.So, what you're saying is that a newspaper can whip up criminal groups into a muderous frenzy and not get prosecuted - the world's gone mad.


Are we any nearer 200 yet:whistle:

[El Salsero Gringo]

So, what you're saying is that a newspaper can whip up criminal groups into a muderous frenzy and not get prosecuted - the world's gone mad.


Are we any nearer 200 yet:whistle: "It was the Forum what made me do it, m'Lud. I was whipped - nay, cudgelled - into a murderous frenzy by the inflammatory writings of Andy McGregor..."

[David Bailey]

"It was the Forum what made me do it, m'Lud. I was whipped - nay, cudgelled - into a murderous frenzy by the inflammatory writings of Andy McGregor..."
Works for me.

65 to go...

[El Salsero Gringo]

Works for me.

65 to go...I'd like to nominate Ken Livingstone to succeed Trevor Philips as chairman of the Comission for Racial Equality.

Does anyone want to second my nomination, before I send it to the Home Secretary?

[Andy McGregor]

I'd like to nominate Ken Livingstone to succeed Trevor Philips as chairman of the Comission for Racial Equality.

Does anyone want to second my nomination, before I send it to the Home Secretary?Only if you spell it corectly :innocent:

[stewart38]

Ahem. (adjusts tie)

No such offence as corporate manslaughter. Manslaughter in UK still requires a mens rea (NB not the same thing as 'man's bum'), or "guilty mind". Somebody has to have the intent (e.g. murder) the negligence (e.g. manslaughter) or recklessness (e.g. criminal damage) to go along with the criminal act (or actus reus) of the crime.

Some directors/managers etc have been prosecuted, on the basis that they were so intimately involved with the deadly incident that it may be possible to identify that particular person as having the mens rea, but AFAIK not, to this date, successfully.

What the law may be in the countries where publication took place might be, I do not know.

BUT more than that, you would have to say that the proper person(s) to charge in respect of such deaths would be the death-dealing party; that is to say, the publishers cannot be held responsible for crimes which are committed by other persons exercising their freedom of choice.


Corporate manslaughter is a crime that can be committed by a company in relation to a work-related death.

The offence is intrinsically linked to whether a director or senior manager - a "controlling mind and will" of the company - is guilty of manslaughter.

If the director or manager is found guilty, the company is guilty; if the director or manager is found innocent, the company is innocent.


Is it difficult to prosecute?

Proving corporate manslaughter has been notoriously difficult in the past. There have been a few cases successful but often still just fines not imprisonment of guilty party



There was a interesting book written about it in 1980 , if you read it now you would have thought it was written in 2005 so little has moved on


What AG says technically could happen , causation would be interesting

Cartoon - riot - death of innocent party

Basically if Publisher knew publishing cartoon would leave to deaths there is an angle.

[Barry Shnikov]

Corporate manslaughter is a crime that can be committed by a company in relation to a work-related death.

It can?

Statute or case authority please.

[stewart38]

It can?

Statute or case authority please.


It can?

Statute or case authority please.


In (P & O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd (1991) 93 Cr App R 72) Mr Justice Turner ruled that a company may be properly indicted for manslaughter. That case however, ended in the acquittal of the defendant company because the Crown could not show that a 'controlling mind' had been grossly negligent.

Subsequent convictions of companies for the offence of corporate manslaughter have been infrequent. Three rare examples are: ( R v Kite and OLL Ltd (the “Lyme Bay” case, Winchester Crown Court, 8 December 1994, unreported), R v Jackson Transport (Ossett) Ltd, and R v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd, Central Criminal Court 10 December 1999, unreported).

there are a number of smaller cases, its not on the statute books the draft bill sept 2005 went to me for consulation but like all labour promises its gone down the pecking order

any google search will bring you up to date

[El Salsero Gringo]

In (P & O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd (1991) 93 Cr App R 72) Mr Justice Turner ruled that a company may be properly indicted for manslaughter. That case however, ended in the acquittal of the defendant company because the Crown could not show that a 'controlling mind' had been grossly negligent.Call me a nitpicker, but I have a sneaky suspicion Stewart didn't type that paragraph all on his own.
any google search will bring you up to date:rofl:

Over to you Barry...

[Stuart M]

who was that women (rock star ??) who grab that female reporters hair a few yrs back at an airport

That was Bjork - around the time she released 'It's Oh So Quiet', a song I hate dancing to.

Rep please for shoehorning dancing into this thread :D

[LMC]

Rep please for shoehorning dancing into this thread :D
OK, even if you are skating round the topic.

[Barry Shnikov]

How about the subset, all comments intended to serve no purpose other than make Jews (in particular) feel uncomfortable. Isn't that racism?
Yep. But can there be comments that make jewish people uncomfortable which are nevertheless not racist?

Was he doorstopped with an impertinent question to raise his ire and provoke a rebuke, or was it an innocuous question not worthy of Panorama? How about you choose one and stick to it?I don't speak either for or on behalf of the Board.
I don't think they're mutually incompatible. It isn't my thesis that the guy was there to rile Ken Livingstone specifically, there's been nothing I've seen to suggest that. But what was his purpose in hanging around outside the party? Seems to have been pretty close to 'papping'.

[Barry Shnikov]

In (P & O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd (1991) 93 Cr App R 72) Mr Justice Turner ruled that a company may be properly indicted for manslaughter. That case however, ended in the acquittal of the defendant company because the Crown could not show that a 'controlling mind' had been grossly negligent.
Yes, that was the Herald of Free Enterprise, wasn't it? But if I remember criminal law (howk ptui!) on the CPE, there had been no successful prosecutions except where the deceased was an employee - is that right.

there are a number of smaller cases, its not on the statute books the draft bill sept 2005 went to me for consulation but like all labour promises its gone down the pecking order

And certainly there should be a process by which those whose management style and/or failure to supervise their employees leads to the death of persons at the hands of the corporation which they manage.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Yep. But can there be comments that make jewish people uncomfortable which are nevertheless not racist?Don't know - that's too theoretical for me.

[under par]

Yep. But can there be comments that make jewish people uncomfortable which are nevertheless not racist?



How about! " I've just put itching powder down your trousers"

Now that comment would make jewish people uncomfortable (well everyone really!)

Not too theoeretical after all and no racism either!

[Andy McGregor]

How about! " I've just put itching powder down your trousers"

Now that comment would make jewish people uncomfortable (well everyone really!)

Not too theoeretical after all and no racism either!So, if the conversation had gone this way,

Finegold: "Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard — someone's just put itching powder down my trousers"
Livingstone: "How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?".. we wouldn't be having this conversation.

One thing we all seem to have taken as read is that doorstepping reporters are unwelcome. However, this is not always the case. When a politician has got something to say he can't wait to tell the press. They both need each other in a parasitic symbiosis. But is it a true symbiotic relationship where each depends on the other? My guess is that politicians would get along fine without the press but the reverse is not true.

[under par]

So, if the conversation had gone this way,
.. we wouldn't be having this conversation.

.

Come on Andy I thought this thread had deteriorated to answering specifics of others posts not the general topic of the thread.

Re read my post and you will find that I have infact answered Barrys question, totally unrelated as it is to the thread:whistle:

So don't come all high and mighty with me, or misquote me, or take my comments out of context or anything at all really! :D

I'm doing my bit .......only 53 to go now lads.....keep up the good work:clap:

[Andy McGregor]

Come on Andy I thought this thread had deteriorated to answering specifics of others posts not the general topic of the thread.

Re read my post and you will find that I have infact answered Barrys question, totally unrelated as it is to the thread:whistle:

So don't come all high and mighty with me, or misquote me, or take my comments out of context or anything at all really! :D

I'm doing my bit .......only 53 to go now lads.....keep up the good work:clap:I think we've rather run out of steam. We sort of agree with each other - except that ESG is totally wrong, nothing new there though. In fact, we have an, until now unspoken, agreement that we will disagree with each other, even if we actually agree with what the other is saying. At least I think that's what it must be because ESG's arguments are often so weak he can't really believe them at all :whistle:

[El Salsero Gringo]

ESG's arguments are often so weakThen why, time and again, are you incapable of arguing with them...? (:whistle:)

[Andy McGregor]

Then why, time and again, are you incapable of arguing with them...? (:whistle:)Shooting fish in a barrel is never much sport :innocent:



Who agreed to this silly 200 thing? Quick, somebody find something else about Mr Livingstone or the Standard that we can disagree about.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Shooting fish in a barrel is never much sport :innocent: :rofl:

[stewart38]

...and I'd like to welcome Barry back to the floor. 200 posts in next to no time, now he's back.



Her goes


Ahem. (adjusts tie)

No such offence as corporate manslaughter.



My Lord I think we have established this is not a credible witness


Yes, that was the Herald of Free Enterprise, wasn't it? But if I remember criminal law (howk ptui!) on the CPE, there had been no successful prosecutions except where the deceased was an employee - is that right.
.

I move to have the case dismissed ie KL has no case to answer, before we reach 200 ,who will second me ??

[El Salsero Gringo]

I move to have the case dismissed ie KL has no case to answer, before we reach 200 ,who will second me ??You're absolutely right, Stewart. Not even I can blame Ken Livingstone for the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster.

[Barry Shnikov]

Re read my post and you will find that I have infact answered Barrys question, totally unrelated as it is to the thread

Whose post was totally unrelated to the thread? Yours or mine?

[Barry Shnikov]

You're absolutely right, Stewart. Not even I can blame Ken Livingstone for the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster.

Huh. Last time I respond to one of your appeals for help.

[David Bailey]

With all the fuss over Tessa "5 mortages" Jowell, I've kind of changed my mind - it does seem unfair that Ken - an elected representative with a personal electorate of several million - can be suspended by a quango, but Jowell - with a personal electorate of, well, about 20 at the moment, I guess - can be cleared simply by Blair saying "Oh, she's all right".

Surely all elected representatives should be judged in the same way? When all's said and done, all Ken is guilty of is being a tw&t and refusing to apologise for it. I don't believe anyone's ever suggested he has even a hint of sleaze attached to him.

[El Salsero Gringo]

With all the fuss over Tessa "5 mortages" Jowell, I've kind of changed my mind - it does seem unfair that Ken - an elected representative with a personal electorate of several million - can be suspended by a quango, but Jowell - with a personal electorate of, well, about 20 at the moment, I guess - can be cleared simply by Blair saying "Oh, she's all right".

Surely all elected representatives should be judged in the same way? When all's said and done, all Ken is guilty of is being a tw&t and refusing to apologise for it. I don't believe anyone's ever suggested he has even a hint of sleaze attached to him.This is another bit of the argument about how Ken's been 'done wrong' that I don't agree with.

Suppose I get a parking ticket. Right, I say, I shouldn't have had the ticket because I'm above such things. So I'm not going to pay.

So the penalty doubles, then I get a summons for non-payment, judgement is issued against me, with costs, I still don't pay, the bailiffs come round etc etc and let's suppose that in the end because I refuse at each stage to pay that I'm made bankrupt and I lose my house, my job, whatever (OK, technically that might not be possible, but I think you understand what I mean).

Then I go to the press and complain about how awful it is that I've lost my home and my job over a parking ticket, the penalty is disproportionate, people do far worse things than park on a yellow line and get away with it etc etc. Do I deserve sympathy? None whatsoever - because the penalty hasn't resulted from the parking ticket in the first place - that was just a £50 fine. The penalty is deserved because of failure to accept and deal with the situation when it arose.

[David Bailey]

This is another bit of the argument about how Ken's been 'done wrong' that I don't agree with.

{snip example}
I didn't say "he's been done wrong", I still think he's basically in attack / smear mode, when he should be apologising and just getting on with his flippin' job - and I'll be incensed if it turns out that he's wasting public money on his High Court challenge...

But that said, it's an interesting contrast between the two situations, don't you think?

And, motives aside, I think it is an interesting fact - I certainly was quite surprised at it - that the Standards board has the power to suspend the Mayor of London, but can't even comment on behaviour of an MP - they're both elected representatives, surely they should be treated consistently?

Certainly, Jowell's also brought politics (more) into disrepute - whether as much as or less than KL, who knows, but at least to a degree.

(How many more now?)

[El Salsero Gringo]

But that said, it's an interesting contrast between the two situations, don't you think?

And, motives aside, I think it is an interesting fact - I certainly was quite surprised at it - that the Standards board has the power to suspend the Mayor of London, but can't even comment on behaviour of an MP - they're both elected representatives, surely they should be treated consistently?

Certainly, Jowell's also brought politics (more) into disrepute - whether as much as or less than KL, who knows, but at least to a degree.

(How many more now?)There are lots of interesting contrasts in all sorts of situations, but I'm very wary of trying to use them to justify one outcome over another (not saying that's what you were doing though). I suspect that the real reason the committee can't comment on MPs is because MPs see themselves consistently and arbitrarily above any kind of process that gets imposed on others.

[David Bailey]

I suspect that the real reason the committee can't comment on MPs is because MPs see themselves consistently and arbitrarily above any kind of process that gets imposed on others.
What? - surely these humble servants of the public don't consider themselves above us mortals?

Actually, what about MSPs and Welsh Assembly members - hold on, I forgot, it's the Standards Board for England. Duh...

I know it's the height of sadness to be doing this on a Saturday night, but the actual adjudication (http://www.adjudicationpanel.co.uk/documents/notice_of_decision.pdf) says that:


at the time of the exchange... the Mayor of London was not conducting the business of his office

In other words, he was not Being Mayoral at the time. But what KL was caught out on was the "Code of Conduct" clause, which says:

"A member must not in his official capacity, or in any other circumstance, conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute"

I think there's definitely a question for the future over how much authority these guys should have over the Mayor of London - for example, they technically could disqualify him, which would be IMO grossly undemocratic. But those are the rules at the moment - and KL whingeing about them now comes across as just, well, whingeing.

And having read through the notice (yes, I know, I'm sad), I think the standards board did a good job under difficult circumstances, in this case, and I'd agree with their decision - it's difficult to see what else they could do, given KL's complete refusal to admit he'd done anything wrong.

Incidentally, The English Standards Board apparently has authority over:

386 local authorities
8,350 parish councils
31 fire and civil defence authorities
43 police authorities
6 passenger transport authorities
7 national parks authorities
the Greater London Authority
the Corporation of London
the Broads authority
the Council of the Isles of Scilly

Now that's what I call a mixed bag... :what:

[Andy McGregor]

The setting up of the Standards Board was one of the reasons I got out of local politics (the others were that my circumstances changed and I didn't have the time required to do the job properly and that I felt I'd done my bit by serving for two terms).

As an elected member of a council you can be dragged before the standards board for just about any reason the opposition can dream up. This means that a complaint could be made to the board for the perfectly normal act of entering a dance contest dressed as a very attractive and spookily sexy lady of the night. This act would not be part of your duties as a councillor (cross dressing is OK, sometimes compulsory - impersonating a lady of the night is not). However, the reporting of this act in the newspapers in a negative light might bring the position of councillor into disrepute!

We do the job of councillor as a civic duty - and because we didn't say 'no' quickly enough when the Conservative party asked us. And it is a tough job both intellectually and from a time management point of view. To know that, at any time, probably for party political reasons, you could be ordered to appear before the board to explain you actions makes the job far less attractive. You ask yourself the question "why put yourself through it?". And, most of the time, you do not have a persuasive answer.

[El Salsero Gringo]

The setting up of the Standards Board was one of the reasons I got out of local politicsThis could be the single most effective result the board has ever obtained in respect of safeguarding the welfare of our nation!

[Barry Shnikov]

This could be the single most effective result the board has ever obtained in respect of safeguarding the welfare of our nation!

Boo! (and, because 4 characters isn't sufficent) !

[Andy McGregor]

Boo! (and, because 4 characters isn't sufficent) !:yeah:

Waves order papers...

[under par]

I was reading this post this morning and thought they really can't keep this going for long can they?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


You have all excelled yourselves .. Well Done!:respect:

come on you have slowed down your imput on this thread......

and the quality of posts has certainly deteriorated :flower:

will you make 200 ??

only with my urgings me thinks!

[under par]

come on you have slowed down your imput on this thread......

and the quality of posts has certainly deteriorated :flower:

will you make 200 ??

only with my urgings me thinks!



I told you this one wouldn't make 200 posts:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

For goodness sake, 9 posts are mine! How sad am I?

[Stuart M]

I thought this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1725799,00.html) was funny, and out of charity (this thread needs 200 posts - give generously...) I put it here instead of the Religious Beliefs thread. And it's about politicians and religion so it fits.

[under par]

I thought this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1725799,00.html) was funny, and out of charity (this thread needs 200 posts - give generously...) I put it here instead of the Religious Beliefs thread. And it's about politicians and religion so it fits.



Stuart shhhhhhhhh! be careful someone may find us in here! Shhhhhhhhhh!:what:

[Dreadful Scathe]

:rofl:



What has particularly incensed the Almighty is that Mr Blair made the claim on the Parkinson show. "If he'd done it on Richard and Judy I could have forgiven a lot,"

[Barry Shnikov]

Since there is no god - I repeat, no god - you will all understand that I find it highly disturbing that a man who is apparently running the country claims to be getting advice and encouragement from whatever it is he believes in.

For me it is the exact equivalent of saying "I put a seashell to my ear and whatever it tells me to do, that's my policy."

Seems to me that there should be an instant pardon for Peter Sutcliffe - the voices he heard only told him to kill a couple of dozen people...

[Dreadful Scathe]

but the difference is - the Prime Minister isnt accountable for killing people :)

[ducasi]

Since there is no god - I repeat, no god - you will all understand that I find it highly disturbing that a man who is apparently running the country claims to be getting advice and encouragement from whatever it is he believes in. God, or no God, I would hope that we all can get encouragement from whatever it is we believe in. :)

[bigdjiver]

but the difference is - the Prime Minister isnt accountable for killing people :)some of the electorate might think differently.

[Dreadful Scathe]

some of the electorate might think differently.
they may well do, doesnt change the facts though :)

[Barry Shnikov]

God, or no God, I would hope that we all can get encouragement from whatever it is we believe in. :)
Uh...not really, not if it's encouragement to invade a country in order to gain regional political advantage, entailing the expenditure of billions of pounds and the death of thousands and the maiming, crippling and infliction of lifelong mental anguish on tens or even hundreds of thousands. That's the exact problem with such 'beliefs' - believers can so easily become convinced that they are a 'channel' for the purposes of a higher power, convincing themselves that the motive originates 'elsewhere' than themselves.
TB hasn't said as much, but if he really believes that the approval of God is more important to him than the authority of the British people, then democracy no longer has any value until he's gone, and somebody who doesn't suffer from similar aberrations is Prime Minister in his stead.

[Andy McGregor]

TB hasn't said as much, but if he really believes that the approval of God is more important to him than the authority of the British people, then democracy no longer has any value until he's gone, and somebody who doesn't suffer from similar aberrations is Prime Minister in his stead.:yeah:

What he has said (I think) is that his actions will be judged by God. However, he was elected by the people to make decisions on their bahalf. He was not elected by God and does not act on the behalf of God. And he must answer to those people who elected him to do his job. What I think is that his actions will be judged by the electorate and found wanting. We live in a country where one man/woman gets one vote. In our democracy if God had a vote it would be one vote - every vote is important, but the vote of Gods as a proportion of the electorate is probably very small.

On anther, related matter*, we have a head of the Church of England and that person is not elected and it is not Tony Blair. I believe the position of head of the Church should be achieved through merit rather than birth. But to speak against the head of the Church of England would be political suicide as that, not elected, person is currently very popular. I believe this will change when and if Charles takes over.

*and in an attempt to take the post count on this thread over the 200 target.

[El Salsero Gringo]

TB hasn't said as much, but if he really believes that the approval of God is more important to him than the authority of the British people, then democracy no longer has any value until he's gone, and somebody who doesn't suffer from similar aberrations is Prime Minister in his stead.I think you misrepresent somewhat the nature of a parliamentary democracy. We don't elect a government to carry out our wishes (election manifesto pledges excepted) - we elect a government to make decisions on our behalf - a very different thing.

When we elected our MPs and they gave TB their seal of approval as Prime Minister, we gave him the authority to take this country to war (constitutional niceties about parliamentary and royal assent not withstanding) - without further reference to us, the electorate. We didn't elect a government to carry out its duties in a way that continues to maintain our approval, either.

Wherever it is that he draws his inspiration from, he's already been given the go-ahead to keep on getting it there until he loses a vote of no-confidence in the house or fails to command a majority of MP's.

[Andy McGregor]

However, he was elected by the people to make decisions on their bahalf.

we elect a government to make decisions on our behalf Spooky. Now I'm getting very scared:what:

[El Salsero Gringo]

Spooky. Now I'm getting very scared:what:I'm not picky about the company I keep when it comes to arguing with Barry.

[LMC]

Shame that said elected government was given its mandate by less than 50% of those who voted.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Shame that said elected government was given its mandate by less than 50% of those who voted.Why is it a shame? It's certainly not unprecedented.

[Andy McGregor]

Why is it a shame? It's certainly not unprecedented.Stop agreeing with me and posting what I'm about to post. It's like finding I agree with Tony Blair*.


*which I don't and would find unthinkable :wink:

[Barry Shnikov]

I think you misrepresent somewhat the nature of a parliamentary democracy. We don't elect a government to carry out our wishes (election manifesto pledges excepted) - we elect a government to make decisions on our behalf - a very different thing.

In terms of my complaint about his decision making processes, this is a distinction without a difference. His primary responsibility is to be concerned with the citizens of the country that elected him, and not with some mumbo-jumbo about a personal saviour (or whatever his brand is).

[Barry Shnikov]

I'm not picky about the company I keep when it comes to arguing with Barry.
Safety in numbers, right?

[El Salsero Gringo]

Safety in numbers, right?As long as the spoon with which I sup is a long one.


In terms of my complaint about his decision making processes, this is a distinction without a difference. His primary responsibility is to be concerned with the citizens of the country that elected him, and not with some mumbo-jumbo about a personal saviour (or whatever his brand is).I don't see the contradiction. Even if it was his bedside table that was telling him to go war (mine does constantly) then as long as he thought it was best for this country, wouldn't he be doing right by his office?

[ducasi]

Those interested in arguing the toss about religion may find this article (http://www.sundayherald.com/54557) in today's Sunday Herald interesting.

I didn't have the patience to read it all myself, but if there is a "God gene", or some-such – in other words, if we have in our make-up a propensity towards belief in a higher being – then you can hardly blame the folks who are just going along with nature...

[El Salsero Gringo]

Those interested in arguing the toss about religion may find this article (http://www.sundayherald.com/54557) in today's Sunday Herald interesting.

I didn't have the patience to read it all myself, but if there is a "God gene", or some-such – in other words, if we have in our make-up a propensity towards belief in a higher being – then you can hardly blame the folks who are just going along with nature...Of course you can. We blame people with the bank robbery gene and the beating-old-ladies-over-the-head-with-a-stick gene, don't we?

(not to mention the argumentative tosser gene...)

[Barry Shnikov]

As long as the spoon with which I sup is a long one.

I don't see the contradiction. Even if it was his bedside table that was telling him to go war (mine does constantly) then as long as he thought it was best for this country, wouldn't he be doing right by his office?

Hmmmmm. I see what you're getting at. It's just that there's no way he can tell whether he's genuinely hearing from God, being tempted by the devil, or suffering from delusions.

[Barry Shnikov]

Of course you can. We blame people with ... the beating-old-ladies-over-the-head-with-a-stick gene,
They found that one at last, did they??

[Andy McGregor]

Those interested in arguing the toss about religion may find this article (http://www.sundayherald.com/54557) in today's Sunday Herald interesting.

I didn't have the patience to read it all myself, but if there is a "God gene", or some-such – in other words, if we have in our make-up a propensity towards belief in a higher being – then you can hardly blame the folks who are just going along with nature...This is rubbish. There's loads of people with the same genes. But there's only one Tony Blair. He's a proven liar. He's a right wing believer in a socialist party. Honest? I think he's deluding himself and I think he's misleading the country. Biased? Moi :innocent:

[Andy McGregor]

Hmmmmm. I see what you're getting at. It's just that there's no way he can tell whether he's genuinely hearing from God, being tempted by the devil, or suffering from delusions.But now we know* there is no God we must believe that Tony Blair is deluded.


*Shnikov. Scottish Ceroc Forum.

[Dreadful Scathe]

But now we know* there is no God we must believe that Tony Blair is deluded.


sounds sensible to me :)

[Barry Shnikov]

But now we know* there is no God we must believe that Tony Blair is deluded.


*Shnikov. Scottish Ceroc Forum.

...will you tell him, or shall I?

[under par]

Come on guys it's taking an inordinate amount of time to draw this thread to a conclusion:na: :na: :na: :na: :na: :na:

[Andy McGregor]

...will you tell him, or shall I?I think the whole country will tell him at the next election.

[Andy McGregor]

Come on guys it's taking an inordinate amount of time to draw this thread to a conclusion:na: :na: :na: :na: :na: :na:Stop padding the thread out with irrelevant commentary ....

[under par]

Stop padding the thread out with irrelevant commentary ....

Almost there !!! .............please hurry I'm giving up the will to live:flower:

[Andy McGregor]

Almost there !!! .............please hurry I'm giving up the will to live:flower:So, who's going to be the one to hit UP's silly target. Who is silly?:whistle:

[ducasi]

So, who's going to be the one to hit UP's silly target. Who is silly?:whistle:
I'll do it... :rolleyes:

[under par]

I'll do it... :rolleyes:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap::
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :
:
HOORAH!!!!!!! close the thread now:rofl: