Livingstone leaps to defence of Bin Laden
Discussion
If I put them up at Claridges for a couple of nights, do you think they could include most of the AGW loons and anybody responsible for the road pricing nonsense, ID cards and just to show we're not 100% biased, could they please slot the idiot who came up with the idea of ISPs and TelCos recording all voice and data traffic?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17774186
Apprentice star and Labour peer Lord Sugar has urged people not to vote for his party's candidate Ken Livingstone.
The peer defied Labour leader Ed Miliband by telling his 1.8 million followers on Twitter not to back the former mayor's bid for re-election.
"I seriously suggest NO ONE votes for Livingstone in the Mayoral elections," he wrote.
Mr Livingstone's campaign reportedly said the comments were no surprise since the pair "aren't that friendly".
Lord Sugar said: "I don't care if Ed Miliband is backing Livingstone."
Mr Livingstone was himself previously expelled from Labour after standing as an independent against its candidate in the 2000 race.
But Labour has reportedly decided that Lord Sugar will not face disciplinary action over the comments, since the mogul stopped short of recommending that voters back any of the other candidates.
The entrepreneur told his Twitter followers that the contest between Tory Boris Johnson and Mr Livingstone was a "real issue".
"Livingstone must NOT get in on 3rd May," Lord Sugar concluded.
But he moved to end speculation that he was positioning himself for a future campaign to become the capital's top politician.
"It's been suggested I run for Mayor," he said. "Not possible, too many commercial conflicts, no time, more to the point I would not know where to start."
Apprentice star and Labour peer Lord Sugar has urged people not to vote for his party's candidate Ken Livingstone.
The peer defied Labour leader Ed Miliband by telling his 1.8 million followers on Twitter not to back the former mayor's bid for re-election.
"I seriously suggest NO ONE votes for Livingstone in the Mayoral elections," he wrote.
Mr Livingstone's campaign reportedly said the comments were no surprise since the pair "aren't that friendly".
Lord Sugar said: "I don't care if Ed Miliband is backing Livingstone."
Mr Livingstone was himself previously expelled from Labour after standing as an independent against its candidate in the 2000 race.
But Labour has reportedly decided that Lord Sugar will not face disciplinary action over the comments, since the mogul stopped short of recommending that voters back any of the other candidates.
The entrepreneur told his Twitter followers that the contest between Tory Boris Johnson and Mr Livingstone was a "real issue".
"Livingstone must NOT get in on 3rd May," Lord Sugar concluded.
But he moved to end speculation that he was positioning himself for a future campaign to become the capital's top politician.
"It's been suggested I run for Mayor," he said. "Not possible, too many commercial conflicts, no time, more to the point I would not know where to start."
The last thing we needed was to have to put him on trial.
A trial would have been a very expensive and no matter what the result it would be widely seen as a costly show trial. It could easily backfire on the countries bringing him to trial as voters questioned why we were bothering, appearing day after day on the news asking about justice for their own causes, or querrying the expense in a recession with reference to any number of domestic issues.
Lets look at the two obvious charges and how he might have responded to them:
Terrorism? He could argue he wasn't given the history of the US openly siding with his enemies, trade restrictions, killing thousands of them and alegedly coveting, or wanting to control, their natural resources. That's before you even get on to the agreed definition of a terrorist which is what precisely? An irregular soldier who fights for a cause you don't agree with? Someone who takes up arms against you without government approval? Making this charge stick would run a very real risk of being made to look hypocritical or have the whole show descend into farce.
Killing innocents? He could well argue that democracy means that YOU, yes YOU, are responsible for chosing your leaders. If your leaders go and get into a war with another country then YOU are responsible. Democracy isn't about skipping up to the ballot box every few years and choosing the guy who promises the maximum number of rainbows, its also about choosing someone who might get you killed by starting a war or getting mixed up in one and if this happens, well, it was your vote. People who live in absolute monarchies or dictatorships can legitimately claim to be innocent when their leader's actions have repercussions. Those who live in democracies will find that a lot harder. That's one of the downsides of democracy.
Then there is the fact that a trial would give him huge visibility around the world. Plenty of opportunity to use it for propaganda.
Overall a quick and decisive military conclusion was probably the best result we were going to get. At least in a fight you can say "war is war" and he, or one of his guards, had a chance to grab a gun so in a way, given the path he chose, it was a "fair trial". He's also dead and the body disposed of so any chance of him getting further publicity for his cause is gone.
A trial would have been a very expensive and no matter what the result it would be widely seen as a costly show trial. It could easily backfire on the countries bringing him to trial as voters questioned why we were bothering, appearing day after day on the news asking about justice for their own causes, or querrying the expense in a recession with reference to any number of domestic issues.
Lets look at the two obvious charges and how he might have responded to them:
Terrorism? He could argue he wasn't given the history of the US openly siding with his enemies, trade restrictions, killing thousands of them and alegedly coveting, or wanting to control, their natural resources. That's before you even get on to the agreed definition of a terrorist which is what precisely? An irregular soldier who fights for a cause you don't agree with? Someone who takes up arms against you without government approval? Making this charge stick would run a very real risk of being made to look hypocritical or have the whole show descend into farce.
Killing innocents? He could well argue that democracy means that YOU, yes YOU, are responsible for chosing your leaders. If your leaders go and get into a war with another country then YOU are responsible. Democracy isn't about skipping up to the ballot box every few years and choosing the guy who promises the maximum number of rainbows, its also about choosing someone who might get you killed by starting a war or getting mixed up in one and if this happens, well, it was your vote. People who live in absolute monarchies or dictatorships can legitimately claim to be innocent when their leader's actions have repercussions. Those who live in democracies will find that a lot harder. That's one of the downsides of democracy.
Then there is the fact that a trial would give him huge visibility around the world. Plenty of opportunity to use it for propaganda.
Overall a quick and decisive military conclusion was probably the best result we were going to get. At least in a fight you can say "war is war" and he, or one of his guards, had a chance to grab a gun so in a way, given the path he chose, it was a "fair trial". He's also dead and the body disposed of so any chance of him getting further publicity for his cause is gone.
king dissgrace, you you all be ashamedcymtriks said:
The last thing we needed was to have to put him on trial.
A trial would have been a very expensive and no matter what the result it would be widely seen as a costly show trial. It could easily backfire on the countries bringing him to trial as voters questioned why we were bothering, appearing day after day on the news asking about justice for their own causes, or querrying the expense in a recession with reference to any number of domestic issues.
Lets look at the two obvious charges and how he might have responded to them:
Terrorism? He could argue he wasn't given the history of the US openly siding with his enemies, trade restrictions, killing thousands of them and alegedly coveting, or wanting to control, their natural resources. That's before you even get on to the agreed definition of a terrorist which is what precisely? An irregular soldier who fights for a cause you don't agree with? Someone who takes up arms against you without government approval? Making this charge stick would run a very real risk of being made to look hypocritical or have the whole show descend into farce.
Killing innocents? He could well argue that democracy means that YOU, yes YOU, are responsible for chosing your leaders. If your leaders go and get into a war with another country then YOU are responsible. Democracy isn't about skipping up to the ballot box every few years and choosing the guy who promises the maximum number of rainbows, its also about choosing someone who might get you killed by starting a war or getting mixed up in one and if this happens, well, it was your vote. People who live in absolute monarchies or dictatorships can legitimately claim to be innocent when their leader's actions have repercussions. Those who live in democracies will find that a lot harder. That's one of the downsides of democracy.
Then there is the fact that a trial would give him huge visibility around the world. Plenty of opportunity to use it for propaganda.
Overall a quick and decisive military conclusion was probably the best result we were going to get. At least in a fight you can say "war is war" and he, or one of his guards, had a chance to grab a gun so in a way, given the path he chose, it was a "fair trial". He's also dead and the body disposed of so any chance of him getting further publicity for his cause is gone.
Are we talking about red ken here?A trial would have been a very expensive and no matter what the result it would be widely seen as a costly show trial. It could easily backfire on the countries bringing him to trial as voters questioned why we were bothering, appearing day after day on the news asking about justice for their own causes, or querrying the expense in a recession with reference to any number of domestic issues.
Lets look at the two obvious charges and how he might have responded to them:
Terrorism? He could argue he wasn't given the history of the US openly siding with his enemies, trade restrictions, killing thousands of them and alegedly coveting, or wanting to control, their natural resources. That's before you even get on to the agreed definition of a terrorist which is what precisely? An irregular soldier who fights for a cause you don't agree with? Someone who takes up arms against you without government approval? Making this charge stick would run a very real risk of being made to look hypocritical or have the whole show descend into farce.
Killing innocents? He could well argue that democracy means that YOU, yes YOU, are responsible for chosing your leaders. If your leaders go and get into a war with another country then YOU are responsible. Democracy isn't about skipping up to the ballot box every few years and choosing the guy who promises the maximum number of rainbows, its also about choosing someone who might get you killed by starting a war or getting mixed up in one and if this happens, well, it was your vote. People who live in absolute monarchies or dictatorships can legitimately claim to be innocent when their leader's actions have repercussions. Those who live in democracies will find that a lot harder. That's one of the downsides of democracy.
Then there is the fact that a trial would give him huge visibility around the world. Plenty of opportunity to use it for propaganda.
Overall a quick and decisive military conclusion was probably the best result we were going to get. At least in a fight you can say "war is war" and he, or one of his guards, had a chance to grab a gun so in a way, given the path he chose, it was a "fair trial". He's also dead and the body disposed of so any chance of him getting further publicity for his cause is gone.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff