Of course, it just HAD to be NewLabour legislation, didn't it!The Adjudication Panel for England is an independent judicial Tribunal which was established by Part III, Chapter IV of the Local Government Act 2000
Of course, it just HAD to be NewLabour legislation, didn't it!The Adjudication Panel for England is an independent judicial Tribunal which was established by Part III, Chapter IV of the Local Government Act 2000
HarrisonSlade said:![]()
How very true.
Livingstone should have known that the reporter was carrying a tape recorder, and therefore should have used a bit of professionalism. He should have apologised to the people he had offended, as well as attack the Evening Standard. He didn't, and gave this newspaper ammunition to cause what has happened now. It was unprofessional, and Mr Livingstone can be given little sympathy for his arrogant, idiotically stubborn attitudeeditor said:Wooargh! Let's have a bit of context here. Ken was walking home in his private time and being accosted by a journo from a paper who have made it their business to plot his downfall.
If he'd said those words at a press conference, there might be a point to this, but the late-night, post-booze comments were aimed solely at the reporter. Not the most sensible thing Ken's said granted, but if anyone was 'offended' by his words it's only down to the Standard plastering them all over their shitty front page in an attempt to pursue their agenda.
al qaradawi is extremelly politically dodgy. Not as bad as Hitler, but when you look at what we didn't know about AH before 1945 you can say that the two are not too dissimilar in their views.JoePolitix said:Ken Livingstone meets father christmas - so what?
4thwrite said:The Standard are playing a nasty little game with this - but it doesn't make LIvingstone any less of an idiot. He might have said it originally in the heat of battle, but that still doesn't make it any less moronic to bate a jew with holocaust language.
Is doorstepping Ken and demanding answers to questions late at night after a social function professional then?HarrisonSlade said:It was unprofessional, and Mr Livingstone can be given little sympathy for his arrogant, idiotically stubborn attitude
But he didn't, did he?Mikey77 said:Which he knew he was doing. I wonder if he had called a black journalist a slave trader would people still be supporting him?

HarrisonSlade said:al qaradawi is extremelly politically dodgy. Not as bad as Hitler, but when you look at what we didn't know about AH before 1945 you can say that the two are not too dissimilar in their views.
yes, it WAS unprofessional - but that is hardly grounds for calling in the political dibble, is it. And DMg have been worse than that; their reporter was intrusive, and their subsequent actions were venal, cynical and hypocritical.HarrisonSlade said:Livingstone should have known that the reporter was carrying a tape recorder, and therefore should have used a bit of professionalism. He should have apologised to the people he had offended, as well as attack the Evening Standard. He didn't, and gave this newspaper ammunition to cause what has happened now. It was unprofessional, and Mr Livingstone can be given little sympathy for his arrogant, idiotically stubborn attitude
EH?HarrisonSlade said:al qaradawi is extremelly politically dodgy. Not as bad as Hitler, but when you look at what we didn't know about AH before 1945 you can say that the two are not too dissimilar in their views.
but if he'd made that clear and done a straightfroward apology to those who might have been offended (NOT to the Standard itself) he might not be in this mess. He's had ample time afterwards to get this sorted, but his (understandable) hatred of the Standard stopped him doing so.editor said:Is doorstepping Ken and demanding answers to questions late at night after a social function professional then?
His comments were stupid, but they were clearly aimed at the journo and no one else.

editor said:But he didn't, did he?
![]()
but he DIDN'T traget the 'sensitivities of a jewish person'; his comment referred to finegold's journalistic ethics.Mikey77 said:No, but I don't see the difference between targeting such sensitivities of a Jewish person or any other minority. I think there would be a double standard from many people if he had made the comment to another minority and they would rightly condemn him for doing so, whether or not the journalist was up his arse.
Red Jezza said:I disagree. The DMGs nazi-loving past is all of a piece with where their politics - or rather, Rothermere politics - have always been; siding with whichever strongman of the right is most likely to give the biggest kicking to The Unions and the workers, whilst simultaneously appealing to and fuelling their readers worst bigotries and prejudices. there's a clear continuity. and for Finegold to work for such an organisation and then to complain about ANYONE's perceived anti-semitism is rank hypocrisy.
HarrisonSlade said:al qaradawi is extremelly politically dodgy. Not as bad as Hitler, but when you look at what we didn't know about AH before 1945 you can say that the two are not too dissimilar in their views.
Red Jezza said:but he DIDN'T traget the 'sensitivities of a jewish person'; his comment referred to finegold's journalistic ethics.
Mikey77 said:He didn't have to use the concentration camp guard example, but he did because the reporter was a Jew. There are many ways to skin a prat, but Livingstone chose the most offensive. He knew exactly what he was doing.


I think you're part-way there mentioning assets, but you should bear in mind that they were also attempting to protect what they perceived as "the natural order", a natural order that the ever-expanding involvement of the working classes in the political process was eroding.Harold Hill said:I don't know the motivation of every blueblood back in WW2 but I'd suspect the motivation of many that 'sympathized' with Nazism would have been to protect their own assets rather than out and out endorsement of fascism. Not anything that anyone with dignity or integrity should be proud of but different from the likes of Moseley.
agred to an extent - the rothermere of the time sent fawning letters to 'adolf the great' as he called him, and seemed to be besotted with the Ordnung and 'fitness' of the New Order. as was his mouthpiece Ward Price; if you can, get hold of a copy of Dictators I Have Met-shocking stuff.Harold Hill said:I don't know the motivation of every blueblood back in WW2 but I'd suspect the motivation of many that 'sympathized' with Nazism would have been to protect their own assets rather than out and out endorsement of fascism. Not anything that anyone with dignity or integrity should be proud of but different from the likes of Moseley.
were I jewish, i wouldn't.As for Finegold, should Jewish recording artists or authors be signed with BMG due to their alleged history?
errr...he was making a point about finegold's hypocrisy?Mikey77 said:He didn't have to use the concentration camp guard example, but he did because the reporter was a Jew. There are many ways to skin a prat, but Livingstone chose the most offensive. He knew exactly what he was doing.
<pedantry>St Elsewhere said:The hearing followed a complaint from the Jewish Board of Deputies not The Evening Standard. And it was upheld by another 'Independent Judicial Tribunal' appointed by the government. About as independent as Toni Blair's hair spray.
And what did you do besides posturing on a bulletin board, eh?When I saw the headline on the way home I wondered how the pusillanimous 'left', so brave in their opposition to MI5 pantomime patsies, would respond when democracy is so brazenly shat on by real power.
The answer?
They shift the blame to a crappy rag of a newspaper. No, there's more. It's nothing less than a fucking victory for Lord Rothermere and Adolf Hitler.![]()
Absolutely fucking pathetic.![]()
Red Jezza said:errr...he was making a point about finegold's hypocrisy?
bollocks there is a history of the mail and it's associated newspapers historically recycling their stories every 6 months to 5 years and indeed have done since the 30's true the names have changed over the years intially it was these dirty filthy theiving imagrant jews to irish to blacks to italitians to asiains pakistainis, eastern europeans, muslims... etc etc same news same stories same tradition... the ideal and the placement that the DMG has had since it's inception has for the largest part not waveried one iota it is and always will be a right wing sensationalist risiable newspaper, whch treats everyone with contempt espcailly it's readers... even the jornos from the DMG dispise their readers... such is the level of contempt....Harold Hill said:I can't know for certain how offended the reporter was but this idea that Associated Newspapers today should be measured by any action of Lord Rothmere in WW2 is pathetic. He wouldn't start goose stepping in front of German tourists whose grandparents may have supported the Nazis - he tried to be clever towards an centre right media group making valid criticisms of him and its come back to bite him on the bum. Boo hoo![]()
ViolentPanda said:<pedantry>
It's "The Board of Deputies of British Jews" actually, although they're about as representative of Jewish opinion as a syphilis lesion on a dosser's todger.</pedantry>
The hearing followed a complaint from the Jewish Board of Deputies, which had not called for the mayor to be suspended over the comment he made to the Evening Standard's Oliver Finegold outside a public-funded party.
St Elsewhere said: