Red Ken makes Jewish concentration camp guard jibe

Sand

Poor old Red Ken, darling of the old left in the UK, made a bit of a whoopsie there, asking a reporter first if he was a German war crinimal and then upon being told he was Jewish, said he was acting like a concentration camp guard. Upon being told of this George Bush was reported to have said "What a fricking idiot - I cant believe those morons voted for someone so stupid!"

The reporter has since made a complaint about it through the Board of Deputies of British Jews, that could see Red Ken removed from office, and Red Ken has refused to apologise, despite motions being passed by the London Assembly asking him to. Hes claiming his insults were not racist and struck a Mayor Quimby note declaring he would stand by his racial slurs.

He probably didnt intend them in a racist manner, though one wonders why he specified a German war crinimal rather than just a plain old war crinimal, and why he would specifically call someone he knew to be Jewish a concentration camp guard when he could surely have guessed it would be especially offensive. Id have expected something like this from the Tories, but not from a Old Labour warhorse? My whole world view has collapsed, I was always told the left wingers were the anti-nazis! Now I dont know what to think!

If only he had taken some advice from Kevin Myers and stuck to simply calling him a bastard. Or even followed his lead apologised for offence caused. Even Prince Harry had the cope on, or good advice to apologise for wearing a very badly thought out costume.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is offensive to the person but it is hardly racial

mycroft

He was refering to the fact that the Evening Standard was a supporter of Mosley, and the British fascist party.

the fact that Ken was the standard's restaurant critic for four years before his election as mayor.

The defense of ken is weak but the majority of criticism steems to Ken's timings coming the week before the IOC's inspection.

It's one of the pieces of Irony, you can understand Ken's criticism being doorstepped leaving a G&L event by a journalist for a paper whose owner would have been a fascist supporter 50 years.

However Ken has taken the papers shilling.

On the other hand the paper's editorialship has changed in the interium and the paper has attacked Ken's policy of attempting to set up a competitor of the standard in london.

It's a complicated issue, in comparsion to Harry, harry went out picked out his outfit and made a conscious decision to wear it. Ken was leaving a party, may have made a offhanded comment to a representive of a paper who has consistently attacked every one of his policys and still refuses to give him credit for a policy of his they now grudgenly support (congestion charges)

It was stupid, he's being bloody minded a personality trait that marks his career, but to compare it to harry is ill concieved and this is the kind of cheap shot his enemies have been waiting for.

Sand

It was stupid, he's being bloody minded a personality trait that marks his career, but to compare it to harry is ill concieved and this is the kind of cheap shot his enemies have been waiting for.

I agree to an extent, but in Harrys favour, hes A) Young, Has Prince Phillip the Diplomat as a grandfather/influence and C) Was at the very least smart enough to issue an apology for offending people, even unintentionally.

Ken is far older/experienced with dealing with the public and should be a little more capable of recognising that the only person more offended by being described as a concentration camp guard than a German ( remember the Italian PMs slur? ) would be a Jewish person. And even if he was caught up in the heat of the moment and spoke before thinking, he should have the common sense with the passing of time to recognise it was a stupid thing to say and apologise for offence caused, whilst stressing that he didnt mean it in a racist manner. People accept an apology and an exscuse far more easily than an exscuse alone - bar people with covert agendas of course as recent history tells us, but thats out of his hands anyway.

Boggle

In fairness its all a bit stupid really... the jews are up in arms over every little statement that they don't like. Nazi Germany is over so they should let it die...

Poker_Peter

He should have retracted it when he found out the journalist was Jewish.

A Dub in Glasgo

On tape Mr Livingstone is heard asking reporter Oliver Finegold if he is a "German war criminal".

Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm quite offended by that."

The mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

Offensive to the reporter - Yes
A racial slur - No
A storm in a teacup - Maybe
A sackable offence for Ken - No

pickarooney

Communists were also killed in concentration camp, so that should mean he's "allowed" make comments about nazi guards, no?

Redleslie2

Political correctness gone mad.

mike65

Ditto that.

I feel a backlash against PC in the air...

Mike.

bizmark

mike65 wrote:

Ditto that.

I feel a backlash against PC in the air...

Mike.

We can only hope

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pickarooney

I think the whole world should fúcking resign just in case it upsets anyone else.
For christ's sake, journalists are getting upset nowadays.

The Corinthian

You've got to love how consistant the Guardian are. Of Lingingstone's gaffe they say:

"Mr Livingstone is entitled to point out that the Standard's owners are in no position to deliver lectures on anti-semitism - the first Lord Rothermere was an admirer of Hitler, judged Mussolini "the greatest figure of our age" and his Daily Mail carried the headline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts"."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1415411,00.html

Even when of Berlusconi they said:

"Some have described his suggestion that Schulz should play the part of commandant in a film about Nazi concentration camps as a gaffe by a gaffe-prone politician. This is entirely to miss the point. Just because Berlusconi says things that no other European prime minister would does not mean they are gaffes. They accurately describe the nature of the man and his politics."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,992070,00.html

:rolleyes:

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

You've got to love how consistant the Guardian are. Of Lingingstone's gaffe they say:

Was made to a journalist while Ken was at a party and he was "tired and emotional" (politics for a bit pissed) to a journalist which he assumed was off the record.

Even when of Berlusconi they said:

The other was made in Parliament, while in recorded session, while Berlusconi was holding the EU presidency, to a member of parliament.




Context matters.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Was made to a journalist while Ken was at a party and he was "tired and emotional" (politics for a bit pissed) to a journalist which he assumed was off the record.

Poor petal. That's all right then.

Context matters.

Does when you're making excuses.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

offensive to whom? to the journalist? From what I remember the journalist was being hypocritical and Ken pointed this out with his remark.

I still fail to see the "offensive" piece in the statement though.

yossarin

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I would have a problem if ken had made a racial slur . what he said was not racist, just hugly offensive.
Its a storm in a teacup - the only newspapers trying to make a big deal out of it here are the standard and its sister the metro.

I did have to laugh at blair suggesting he apologise though - theres a history of kens reactions to the party line

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

I think the biggest problem is that he hasnt apologised for offence caused. Maybe he has a reputation for being stuborn, but thats his problem - he first called him a German war crinimal, and upon learning he was Jewish altered his line of insults to call him a concentration camp guard?!?!

I dont think Red Ken is a racist or anti-semetic but he surely cant ignore the fact that he picked one of the more offensive names to call someone he knew to be Jewish (in the proccess making light of the holocaust, the real concentration camp guards were no worse morally than nosy reporters, yeah?) and in doing so caused offence to the man himself. He should grow up, be a man and apologise for the offence caused even if he didnt intend to cause it.

I think Fintan O Toole had a column in the Irish Times regarding Myers offensive use of bastard, where he argued use of insults in such a fashion is designed to shock and confuse opponents - how do you debate with someone who calls you a bastard? How do you question the Mayor of London when hes calling you a war crinimal and a concentration camp guard? At least Myers apologised for his stupidity. Red Ken.......

If hes willing to risk his office for the sake of pretending to himself that his remarks werent stupid/offensive then I reckon hes going to have a reputation for stupidity more than stuborness.

I still fail to see the "offensive" piece in the statement though.

I was initially shocked by this, but now that I think about it maybe I shouldnt be.

Victor

Does the Mayor accept the tag "red"?

mycroft

Sand wrote:

I think the biggest problem is that he hasnt apologised for offence caused. Maybe he has a reputation for being stuborn, but thats his problem - he first called him a German war crinimal, and upon learning he was Jewish altered his line of insults to call him a concentration camp guard?!?!

I think he was pissed. Drunk. Said something to a tabloid journalist from a paper with a campaign aganist him and then tried to find away out of in a rambling drunken way.

As a tabloid journalist the "injuried" party has probably had worse flung at him and deserved it.

So whats the issue here, Ken's insult (should we envoke Godwin's law) he flung a Nazi insult at ajournalist paper who's owners were nazi sympathisers, now if the reporter wasn't jewish (ken didn't know it at the time) would their be outrage? Or is the 2nd part the insulting part?

So on who's behalf are we outraged? The jewish community? Or the injuried feelings of a member of the gutter press?

I dont think Red Ken is a racist or anti-semetic but he surely cant ignore the fact that he picked one of the more offensive names to call someone he knew to be Jewish (in the proccess making light of the holocaust, the real concentration camp guards were no worse morally than nosy reporters, yeah?) and in doing so caused offence to the man himself. He should grow up, be a man and apologise for the offence caused even if he didnt intend to cause it.

Agreed but again to whom does Ken owe the apology to?

I think Fintan O Toole had a column in the Irish Times regarding Myers offensive use of bastard, where he argued use of insults in such a fashion is designed to shock and confuse opponents - how do you debate with someone who calls you a bastard? How do you question the Mayor of London when hes calling you a war crinimal and a concentration camp guard? At least Myers apologised for his stupidity. Red Ken.......

One ken directed an insult at a very specific group of people. In a premediated assault, and he picked a word, bastard, in his article states "oh you didn't like that word did you"? And proceeds to use it a further 16 times. His apology is for the "unintential pain and hurt feelings that we not intented in my piece" When in the piece he was quiet clear that he carefully choice the word because he knew it would cause offense. I'd describe his apology as an empty gesture, and makes no attempt to apologise to single mothers and bastards and the article which pretty much states they're the root of all evil in modern society.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

I think he was pissed. Drunk. Said something to a tabloid journalist from a paper with a campaign aganist him and then tried to find away out of in a rambling drunken way.

What I can’t get over is how you’re falling over yourself to dream up excuses for such a gaffe and are quite happy to vilify Berlusconi for the identical screw-up. That Livingstone was drunk and at a party or reception may be reasons for this coccuring, but they are not excuses.

Personally I’m no fan of either of the two men and think that the PC gang has blown both instances out of proportions, and at worst they reflect badly upon the competence of the two individuals in question - in short, like the prince Harry affair, nothing to get worked up about. However, I do take point at the double standards used when judging both instances of buffoonery as it is blatantly hypocritical.

So whats the issue here, Ken's insult (should we envoke Godwin's law) he flung a Nazi insult at ajournalist paper who's owners were nazi sympathisers, now if the reporter wasn't jewish (ken didn't know it at the time) would their be outrage? Or is the 2nd part the insulting part?

Actually they were Fascist sympathisers, for the Blackshirt movements in both the UK and Italy. I don’t think anyone has suggested evidence that they also supported National Socialism in Germany.

sceptre

Sand wrote:

he first called him a German war crinimal

Now that's not quite true, according to this (it's Saturday and I'm trying to do my weekly news roundup). The first jibe was aimed at the newspaper rather than the reporter ("When the reporter outside, Oliver Finegold, said he was from London's Evening Standard, Mr Livingstone retorted: "How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment? What did you do? Were you a German war criminal?"").

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually they were Fascist sympathisers, for the Blackshirt movements in both the UK and Italy. I don’t think anyone has suggested evidence that they also supported National Socialism in Germany.

See my link above for the text of Viscount Rothermere's telegram to that young Schicklgruber boy (convenient that, spotted your comment after posting the link). That's assuming you're OK with equating support for "Adolf The Great" with support for National Socialism of course, which I reckon is reasonable.

Redleslie2

sceptre wrote:

See my link above for the text of Viscount Rothermere's telegram to that young Schicklgruber boy (convenient that, spotted your comment after posting the link). That's assuming you're OK with equating support for "Adolf The Great" with support for National Socialism of course, which I reckon is reasonable.

Actually Lord Rothermere was quite matey with his dear fuhrer.

Adolf Hitler, letter to Lord Rothermere (7th December, 1933)

I should like to express the appreciation of countless Germans, who regard me as their spokesman, for the wise and beneficial public support which you have given to a policy that we all hope will contribute to the enduring pacification of Europe. Just as we are fanatically determined to defend ourselves against attack, so do we reject the idea of taking the initiative in bringing about a war. I am convinced that no one who fought in the front trenches during the world war, no matter in what European country, desires another conflict.

Lord Rothermere, The Daily Mail (10th July, 1933)

I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful distracters of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia.

They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call "Nazi atrocities" which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny.

The German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministers only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew.

The Corinthian

sceptre wrote:

See my link above for the text of Viscount Rothermere's telegram to that young Schicklgruber boy (convenient that, spotted your comment after posting the link). That's assuming you're OK with equating support for "Adolf The Great" with support for National Socialism of course, which I reckon is reasonable.

I stand corrected.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Personally I’m no fan of either of the two men and think that the PC gang has blown both instances out of proportions, and at worst they reflect badly upon the competence of the two individuals in question - in short, like the prince Harry affair, nothing to get worked up about. However, I do take point at the double standards used when judging both instances of buffoonery as it is blatantly hypocritical.

1. One was said while in parliament to a elected representive who asked the current head of the EU a legimate question.

2. Was said to a gutter journalist doorstopping a politican as he walked away from a party.

Again context matters.

I ask you again, to whom does Ken, in your mind owe an apology to?

Redleslie2

It was a lousy thing to say but there's no comparison between this and idiot boy Harry's faux pas, because the windsors have a history of nazi links - philip's sisters, that michael woman's daddy and hitler fan edward VIII. Orwell was right, the whole gang should've been wiped out after the war.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

1. One was said while in parliament to a elected representive who asked the current head of the EU a legimate question.

2. Was said to a gutter journalist doorstopping a politican as he walked away from a party.

1. One was said to a German MEP who was heckling and barracking the then president of the EU.

2. Was said, in full knowledge, to a member of the racial and ethnic group that suffered most as a result of the Nazi Holocaust.

And indeed context does matter - depending exactly on how you want to twist it and in what light you want to present it.

I ask you again, to whom does Ken, in your mind owe an apology to?

I’ve already stated that I think the entire matter has been exaggerated in both cases and that both proponents are guilty of nothing more sinister than buffoonery.

My only real objection in this is the apparent hypocrisy of some to act as apologists (indeed the article I indicated goes so far as to applaud him) in one case while describing the other incident as accurately describing “the nature of the man and his politics”.

The lowest form of political partisanship, TBH.

Redleslie2

mycroft wrote:

1. One was said while in parliament to a elected representive who asked the current head of the EU a legimate question.

The German MEP is from the social democrat party whose members were among the first to be rounded up and carted off to the camps. Berlusconi probably knew this and so it was a calculated insult, especially coming from someone who tells porkies to make excuses for fascism. Mussolini Wasn't That Bad, Says Berlusconi

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Berlusconi probably knew this and so it was a calculated insult, especially coming from someone who tells porkies to make excuses for fascism.

You gotta love opinion dressed to look like fact and the conclusions that they lead to.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

My only real objection in this is the apparent hypocrisy of some to act as apologists (indeed the article I indicated goes so far as to applaud him) in one case while describing the other incident as accurately describing “the nature of the man and his politics”.

The lowest form of political partisanship, TBH.

Oh pulluuuzzeeeee I can drag up hilarious things from the Fox/O'Reilly cabal which would put this to shame.

What. Is. Your. Point? That a liberal paper can have different columnists one writing to condemn the language of Ber, and the the other to defend Ken? So the guardian engages infrequently in the kind of behaviour some of the less liberal press gleefully throw themselves into on a daily basis?

Shock horror, liberal paper defends liberal politican condemns right wing lunatic,

hold the front page

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Oh pulluuuzzeeeee I can drag up hilarious things from the Fox/O'Reilly cabal which would put this to shame.

So it’s alright for you to do so if Fox/O'Reilly does?

What. Is. Your. Point? That a liberal paper can have different columnists one writing to condemn the language of Ber, and the the other to defend Ken? So the guardian engages infrequently in the kind of behaviour some of the less liberal press gleefully throw themselves into on a daily basis?

Again, does this justify hypocrisy and double standards? What principles are you fighting for if all you do is copy your supposed ideological adversary?

Shock horror, liberal paper defends liberal politican condemns right wing lunatic,

Or defends liberal lunatic condemns right wing politician - again it depends on how partisan you are with the truth. And you are just as partisan and hypocritical as the paper in question. Perhaps more so, because you actually can see it’s a double standard.

Personally I’d opt for liberal paper defends left wing buffoon and condemns right wing buffoon.

Redleslie2

Just to clarify, Berlusconi said to the German SPD MEP - "I know that in Italy there is a man producing a film on Nazi concentration camps - I shall put you forward for the role of Kapo - you would be perfect." A kapo was a guard chosen from among the inmates. It's entirely possible that Berlusconi didn't know who he was insulting, where he was, who got exterminated in the camps or what a kapo was I suppose. The ignorance of apologists for fascism cannot be underestimated.

The british royals have enough links and fascination with the nazis without idiot boy continuing the tradition, unwittingly or not.

Livingstone insulted an employee of a newspaper which supported the fascists.

No comparison really. Unless one wishes to indulge in the most anal kind of moral relativism, which in this instance tends to favour those who would seek to rehabilitate fascism and make out that the allies were just as bad as the axis.

Redleslie2

Livingstone's statement in full.

To the Daily Mail group I say that no-one in Britain is less qualified than they to complain about anti-semitism. Their papers were not, as some have reported, guilty of “a brief flirtation” with Adolf Hitler in the l930s. In truth these papers were the leading advocates of anti-semitism in Britain for half a century.

Beginning a hundred years ago with their campaign to stop Jewish refugees fleeing to Britain from Russia they carried on right the way through the rise of Hitler and even after the start of World War II still felt free to peddle the lie that Germany’s Jews had brought the holocaust upon themselves. I have set out in detail the record of the Daily Mail group in my formal response to the London Assembly.

Whilst it is true the Mail group no longer smears Jews as bringing crime and disease to the UK it is only because they have moved on. After a decade of pandering to racism against our citizens of Black and Irish origin they have moved on and now describe asylum seekers and Muslims in similar terms. For the Mail group the victims may change but the intolerance, hatred and fear pervade every issue of the papers.

A Dub in Glasgo

An excellent statement from Ken Livingstone

Sand

Whilst it is true the Mail group no longer smears Jews as bringing crime and disease to the UK it is only because they have moved on.

Looks like poor old Ken hasnt, if he believes the views of a paper 70 years ago justifies him calling a Jewish reporter a war crinimal and a concentration camp guard in 2004. A paper, afterall, that he felt he could work for himself in the past. So i guess Livingstone is as much a German war crinimal and a concentration camp guard?

Redleslie2

And on it goes. Campaigners demand answers over Mail's 'Nazi party'

The Corinthian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

An excellent statement from Ken Livingstone

At this stage the entire affair is rapidly degenerating into an exercise of irrelevant mudsling in the hope that enough will stick, long enough to save Livingstone’s ass.

Here’s an idea; let’s dig up a 70-year-old connection between the Nazi’s and the employer of the Jewish journalist that Livingstone called a Nazi and that’ll justify it all.

I’ve rarely seen such selective and intentionally misleading presentations of the ‘facts’ as I have in this in this affair - with the possible exception of the Iraqi WMD evidence presented to the UN.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ve rarely seen such selective and intentionally misleading presentations of the ‘facts’ as I have in this in this affair - with the possible exception of the Iraqi WMD evidence presented to the UN.

One is a bunch of people like yourself trying to have a politican run out of office after a drunken comment to journalist who doorstepped him at an event celebrating a politican who if the Standard's owners had had their way in the 30s would have been sent to a prison camp for his degenerate ways.

The other was a con perpetuated by a US administration to gain control of a countries oil supply pretending the country had an plethora of weapons of mass destruction and evidence was fabricated and this fabrication was spouted by world leaders and politicans around the globe who knew the truth. This war has potentially destabilised a region, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of lives.

Wow. The parallels are just so blinding.

Way to hyperbolise.

The argument that you've just presented is classic of the anti ken camp, draw a totally outrageous anologue to try and make this out to be a bigger deal than it is, while you try and say that this is a story in a tea cup and you're not bothered by comments.

Oh, and I'm the hyprocrite?

I'd continue this with you corinthinan but past experience has taught me you'll just dismiss any argument of mine and not provide any backup to your own.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

One is a bunch of people like yourself trying to have a politican run out of office after a drunken comment to journalist who doorstepped him at an event celebrating a politican who if the Standard's owners had had their way in the 30s would have been sent to a prison camp for his degenerate ways.

TBH, I don’t really care if he’s run out of office or not - TBH, I’d probably be happier if Berlusconi was run out of office instead. And frankly, using the wartime record of the Journalist’s employer is a bit tenuous - it would be akin to checking out the wartime record of the relatives of the MEP who Berlusconi offended (I’m bound to find a Nazi if I dig deep enough).

The other was a con perpetuated by a US administration to gain control of a countries oil supply pretending the country had an plethora of weapons of mass destruction and evidence was fabricated and this fabrication was spouted by world leaders and politicans around the globe who knew the truth. This war has potentially destabilised a region, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of lives.

It was tenuous information presented in a misleading light, so as to maximise the preferred conclusion. Its end, be it political damage limitation or pretext for war, is immaterial as we’re discussing the method and not the purpose.

And in both cases you’re getting much the same thing. Excuses.

The argument that you've just presented is classic of the anti ken camp, draw a totally outrageous anologue to try and make this out to be a bigger deal than it is, while you try and say that this is a story in a tea cup and you're not bothered by comments.

It is largely a storm in a teacup, but at this stage largely because he’s refusing to apologise, not because of the original offence. The same with Berlusconi, to the point that he was forced to apologise and the matter was defused.

Oh, and I'm the hyprocrite?

The hypocrisy is where such manipulation of facts is used for cynical partisanship. To judge two cases on their merits is one thing, but to manipulate the facts simply because you’re for one ideology or against another is precisely hypocrisy.

I'd continue this with you corinthinan but past experience has taught me you'll just dismiss any argument of mine and not provide any backup to your own.

I’ve refuted, not dismissed your argument and to say I’ve not backed this up is both unfair and untrue.

Hairy Homer

Funny. I was watching the news with my aged mother a few days ago and when Gerry Kelly of Sinn Fein came on she tut tutted and said: 'That guy always reminds me of a camp commandant' By which I don't think she meant an officer in the Irish army holding a rank equivalent to major and with dubious sexual orientation.

Should I get her to apologise to Mr Kelly? After all he has spent some time in prison camps. (Quite justifiably it has to be said)

Then if we're going to get hot under the collar about calling people Nazis, maybe we should all write to cuddly right winger Bill O'Reilly, host of a leading news show on Fox news in the states and chastise him for what he says to this native Israeli.
Telling someone that the action he advocates would turn its participants into Nazis is a bit of a pointed thing to say to a Jewish guy.

Out with it Bill. Say you're sorry.

As for Red Ken: The most Nazi-like thing he has done in London is to get the busses running on time.

DadaKopf

No, I don't think Prince Harry should resign.

monument

The Corinthian wrote:

And frankly, using the wartime record of the Journalist’s employer is a bit tenuous

Ken is not just basing this on their wartime record, but but the Mail media group's hate record, and the idea that someone can hide behind “I am only doing my job”...

"Whilst it is true the Mail group no longer smears Jews as bringing crime and disease to the UK it is only because they have moved on. After a decade of pandering to racism against our citizens of Black and Irish origin they have moved on and now describe asylum seekers and Muslims in similar terms. For the Mail group the victims may change but the intolerance, hatred and fear pervade every issue of the papers."

"I do not equate the actions of one reporter with the total abdication of responsibility shown by those who were complicit to whatever degree in the horrors of the holocaust. But I do believe that abdicating responsibility for one’s actions by the excuse that “I am only doing my job” is the thin end of the immoral wedge that at its other extreme leads to the crimes and horrors of Auschwitz, Rwanda and Bosnia."

The Corinthian

monument wrote:

Ken is not just basing this on their wartime record, but but the Mail media group's hate record, and the idea that someone can hide behind “I am only doing my job”...

Simply because “I am only doing my job” is not a valid defence in all cases does not make it invalid in all cases - you cannot lump a traffic warden in with a death camp guard, as much as you’d like to. Additionally, judging a man based upon the actions of his employer 70 years ago is as insane as judging him on the actions of his grandfather.

Livingstone (that’s Ken to you and Mycroft, seeing as you’re on a first name basis) believes that the Mail incites hatred against asylum seekers and Muslims - fine, then he should denounce them legally given that there are laws that prohibit such rhetoric. Otherwise he is simply expressing his political opinion - in this case designed to justify his, apparently drunken, comments.

Again, I have to stress that the entire matter is a storm in a teacup, IMHO, stoked up with accusations by right-wingers for political advantage and obfuscated with justifications by left-wingers for political defence. But I would say the same (in reverse) for the similar incident that involved Berlusconi (note I don’t call him Silvio, and I’ve met the man). For me the fact that many of the same people now defending Livingstone that condemned Berlusconi then and those others that now condemn Livingstone that defended Berlusconi then is nothing more than blind, hypocritical partisanship of the worst kind.

pickarooney

Some leaders encourage people to refer to them by their first names - cf. Call-me-Tony and Saddam.

monument

The Corinthian wrote:

Simply because “I am only doing my job” is not a valid defence in all cases does not make it invalid in all cases - you cannot lump a traffic warden in with a death camp guard, as much as you’d like to. Additionally, judging a man based upon the actions of his employer 70 years ago is as insane as judging him on the actions of his grandfather.

Again, Livingstone was not judging the journalist on his employers’ actions 70 years ago, but his employers entire record of hate.

The Corinthian wrote:

Livingstone (that’s Ken to you and Mycroft, seeing as you’re on a first name basis)

I cannot see why what I call him matters as long as everyone understands whom I am talking about. One way or another, I can’t see why you razed the matter.

BTW at least one other person - Sand – also called him ‘Ken’… http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2392985&postcount=4

The Corinthian wrote:

[Livingstone] believes that the Mail incites hatred against asylum seekers and Muslims - fine, then he should denounce them legally given that there are laws that prohibit such rhetoric.

As far as I know, it is very difficulty to prove the legal term of incitement to hatred. But I really don’t see why Livingstone would foot the bill, never mind the fact that he probably hasn’t the time.

The Corinthian wrote:

Otherwise he is simply expressing his political opinion - in this case designed to justify his, apparently drunken, comments.

And if that was/is the case…

“Whilst this journalistic technique of door stepping may be appropriate when dealing with people who do not make themselves available to the media this is not a complaint that can be levelled against myself. Every week my press conference is open to any journalist from Britain or abroad and I have never yet left a press conference before I have answered every question journalists wish to put to me. For issues that arise urgently I am invariably able to accommodate requests for information with a quote and more often than not a radio or a television interview as required.”

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor_statement_220205.jsp

The Corinthian wrote:

(note I don’t call him Silvio, and I’ve met the man).

Will any old medial do, or do you want the Pulitzer prize?

Sand

A) Finegold works for the Evening Standard, not the Daily Mail. Though they may be part of the same group, it is stretching reality to link another papers political views 70 years ago to an individual reporters conduct as he works for a different paper in 2004.

Red Ken referred to Finegold *personally* as being just like a concentration camp guard, well aware he was Jewish and having already been informed he considered the German war crinimal slur offensive. That is crossing the line in such an obvious way that its broadly accepted as being out of order even on something as chaotic as a message board.

If Red Ken cant criticise a paper he worked for - no doubt he must endorse the views of said paper - without making offensive remarks about individuals then that his problem. He owes Finegold an apology, and I dont think he'd be too put out to offer a general apology for belittling the holocaust. Prince Harry as apologised for unintentionally causing offence. Is Red Ken less than him?

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

. Is Red Ken less than him?

Not at all

Harry is just another one of those parasites that swim around over here

monument

Sand wrote:

A) Finegold works for the Evening Standard, not the Daily Mail. Though they may be part of the same group, it is stretching reality to link another papers political views 70 years ago to an individual reporters conduct as he works for a different paper in 2004.

With an ex-deputy editor of the Mail at the helm of the Standard, no I cant agree with you on that. And for the third time, Livingstone was not judging the journalist on his employers’ actions 70 years ago, but his employers’ entire record of hate.

Sand wrote:

Red Ken referred to Finegold *personally* as being just like a concentration camp guard,

I think he was talking in very focused terms when he said that – ie the “I am only doing my job” syndrome.

Sand wrote:

well aware he was Jewish and having already been informed he considered the German war crinimal slur offensive.

...

Oliver Finegold Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did tonight go?
Ken Livingstone How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?
OF How did tonight go?
KL Have you thought of having treatment?
OF Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?
KL What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?

Now, was Livingstone really calling him a 'German war criminal' before he knew Finegold was Jewish?

OF No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?
KL Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?
OF Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?
KL It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.
OF I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment.
KL Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism.

Or did he clear up why he thought that the reporter was like a concentration camp guard - just because he is paid to - ?

Sand wrote:

That is crossing the line in such an obvious way that its broadly accepted as being out of order even on something as chaotic as a message board.

Telling someone just following orders isnt ok is not out of line. If the hollocost is still sharply in the mind of a Jewish person they should not be working at the Mail group.

Sand wrote:

If Red Ken cant criticise a paper he worked for

Yes, he has, and yes, he can, it was under a different editor, and I believe it had a different agenda at the time.

Sand wrote:

Prince Harry as apologised for unintentionally causing offence. Is Red Ken less than him?

Apparently, it’s not Ken, but the Mail’s staff who dress up as Nazis… (13 years ago btw)...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1419173,00.html