Red Ken suspended

[RottenIcons]

jonby said:

RottenIcons said:

Joey Ramone said:

Bearing in mind his previous form,comparing a Jewish journalist to a nazi concentration camp guArd,

5 He didn't know the guy was Jewish, perhaps if you want to avoid any such mix up occurring again you might want to consider having Jews wear badges in the future. I don't think turned out too well last time, but at least it would mean you won't accidentally insult a Jew.

I think I've picked the correct quote that you were responding to ?

He used the concentration guard quote AFTER the journalist told him he was jewish

From Telegraph & DM: in the High Court in 2006 where Mr Justice Collins said: 'When he knew that Mr Finegold was particularly offended because he was Jewish, to go on to compare him to a concentration camp guard was indefensible.

'He should have realised it would not only give great offence to him but was likely to be regarded as an entirely inappropriate observation by Jews in general, and those who had survived the Holocaust in particular.'


But even putting to one side a little thing like the facts, you seriously think it's OK for a senior politician to compare anyone to a concentration guard, in any circumstances ?

I'm afraid you are wrong, in the final appearance of the case in Court the 'facts' you have put up regarding the Journalist and foreknowledge was immediately dismissed in the Judges opening statement and Ken Livingstone won the case. Since then the lie has been given food and water, grown legs and is stomping around the internet like it owns the goddam place.

You can check this, you can even hear from KL's own mouth on TV yesterday, I checked, he is telling the truth. (again)

The programme:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0794ygx/dail... go to exactly 20.00mins in and hear for yourself and then do as I did, go and find the case.

Again much as i hate having to I have to leap to my mortal enemies defense because above all else it is moral to do so. Stop making me have to defend this communist bast!

[RottenIcons]

franki68 said:

Out of curiosity , but those defending Ken and his hitler comments because they were 'factually correct' , did you defend Netanyahu when he made his comments about the Palestinian relationship with the nazis ,which was 'factually correct ' as well ?

Yes. Speaking the truth no matter how harsh is a moral imperitive. I will though on occasion (usually if the matter in hand is a recent hurt) try my best to avoid unnecessary hurt. On the same vein of care and concern I have asked if someone wants my answer as it might offend/upset them and they have the right to say no. That again is the moral thing to do.

[MarshPhantom]

boxxob said:

MarshPhantom said:

So are we not even allowed to make jokes about Israel?

If it was a serious suggestion then I'm not sure Shah had considered the logistics of moving an entire country 10000 miles across the Atlantic.

Interesting the right wing press are far more vexed about this than they managed to be about Hillsborough the other day.

Are you able to make jokes about [something]? Are you able to make direct parodies of the Shah's post in reference to other ethnicities? As long as they are not serious suggestions...of course

I am not sure what your point is about the news-worthiness of this, in relation to the Hillsborough case, other than an attempt to play-down the events? This is an emerging story with significant context.

Not trying to play anything down, it is a bit of a non story as Ken has gone.

Hillsborough on the other hand didn't appear on the front pages of most of the right wing press.

Which do you consider to be the bigger story?

[MrBarry123]

Halb said:

MrBarry123 said:

Anti-semitism within Labour is quite predictable...

Regardless of how they have portrayed themselves in recent history, their fundamental underpinnings are socialism. They therefore disagree with the vast majority of US domestic policy and therefore, almost by proxy, become opposed to the majority of their foreign policy - including their stance on supporting Netanyahu and his regime in Israel. This subsequently leads to a general anti-Jewish feeling within the Labour party with this undercurrent making itself seen/heard occasionally with events such as this.

Are you saying that people who are anti-imperial foreign policy, and anti-Israel government become anti-Jew?

Absolutely not. I'm anti-Israeli government myself however have nothing against Jews or Judaism.

What I'm saying is that this anti-Israel feeling manifests itself ultimately as an anti-Jewish feeling as some within Labour stereotype the entire race and fail distinguish between the minority of bad apples and the vast majority of good, well meaning Jewish people.

[franki68]

RottenIcons said:

Yes. Speaking the truth no matter how harsh is a moral imperitive. I will though on occasion (usually if the matter in hand is a recent hurt) try my best to avoid unnecessary hurt. On the same vein of care and concern I have asked if someone wants my answer as it might offend/upset them and they have the right to say no. That again is the moral thing to do.

That's good ,but unfortunately I think you are the minority.

[Halb]

MrBarry123 said:

Absolutely not. I'm anti-Israeli government myself however have nothing against Jews or Judaism.

What I'm saying is that this anti-Israel feeling manifests itself ultimately as an anti-Jewish feeling as some within Labour stereotype the entire race and fail distinguish between the minority of bad apples and the vast majority of good, well meaning Jewish people.

Thank you for clearing that up.

[RottenIcons]

franki68 said:

RottenIcons said:

Yes. Speaking the truth no matter how harsh is a moral imperitive. I will though on occasion (usually if the matter in hand is a recent hurt) try my best to avoid unnecessary hurt. On the same vein of care and concern I have asked if someone wants my answer as it might offend/upset them and they have the right to say no. That again is the moral thing to do.

That's good ,but unfortunately I think you are the minority.

Tell me about it!

It is easy to spot when someone is getting edged-up and spoiling for the subject to killed off. The ramping up of the goading, hectoring and taunts are fairly obvious and the result is more heat than light. I want to persuade people to at least look at an alternative that I think fills in some gaping holes and ruts in the present social asphalt, but the goading works on many as does hectoring for a 'quote' that can be edited down to condemn another even if it bears no real sentiment that the original full text did.

Discussion, honest discussion is a fabulous gift of civilisation, to disagree without having your head stoved-in is a mark of huge human progress, I like to think we can do the same on the internet, you may hate my views, I may do yours, but I want to see how you got where you are in that thought process as much as I want others to see what brought me to mine.

But I will fail as others do and occasionally let go of the reins and call someone I'm chatting to a prannet at some point, goading works, it's very effective but I will have tried my best not to!

[jonby]

RottenIcons said:

jonby said:

RottenIcons said:

Joey Ramone said:

Bearing in mind his previous form,comparing a Jewish journalist to a nazi concentration camp guArd,

5 He didn't know the guy was Jewish, perhaps if you want to avoid any such mix up occurring again you might want to consider having Jews wear badges in the future. I don't think turned out too well last time, but at least it would mean you won't accidentally insult a Jew.

I think I've picked the correct quote that you were responding to ?

He used the concentration guard quote AFTER the journalist told him he was jewish

From Telegraph & DM: in the High Court in 2006 where Mr Justice Collins said: 'When he knew that Mr Finegold was particularly offended because he was Jewish, to go on to compare him to a concentration camp guard was indefensible.

'He should have realised it would not only give great offence to him but was likely to be regarded as an entirely inappropriate observation by Jews in general, and those who had survived the Holocaust in particular.'


But even putting to one side a little thing like the facts, you seriously think it's OK for a senior politician to compare anyone to a concentration guard, in any circumstances ?

I'm afraid you are wrong, in the final appearance of the case in Court the 'facts' you have put up regarding the Journalist and foreknowledge was immediately dismissed in the Judges opening statement and Ken Livingstone won the case. Since then the lie has been given food and water, grown legs and is stomping around the internet like it owns the goddam place.

You can check this, you can even hear from KL's own mouth on TV yesterday, I checked, he is telling the truth. (again)

The programme:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0794ygx/dail... go to exactly 20.00mins in and hear for yourself and then do as I did, go and find the case.

Again much as i hate having to I have to leap to my mortal enemies defense because above all else it is moral to do so. Stop making me have to defend this communist bast!

I won't have sound until tonight when I will listen with interest - I'll happily concede without a song & dance if I am wrong and he used the expression 'concentration camp guard' before being told (or without the knowledge) that he was jeiwsh

I have found this though

http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Livi...

Here is a copy & paste from the link

KL. What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
OF. No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal
KL. Ah right.
OF. … I’m actually quite offended by that. So how did tonight go?
KL. Well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard.
You’re just doing it ‘cause you’re paid to aren’t you?
OF. Great, I’ve got you on record for that. So how did tonight go?

Do you have a link to the case you are referring to - I am aware there were several including at least one appeal but I thought this the one ?

Edited by jonby on Friday 29th April 11:16

[FredClogs]

RottenIcons said:

franki68 said:

RottenIcons said:

Yes. Speaking the truth no matter how harsh is a moral imperitive. I will though on occasion (usually if the matter in hand is a recent hurt) try my best to avoid unnecessary hurt. On the same vein of care and concern I have asked if someone wants my answer as it might offend/upset them and they have the right to say no. That again is the moral thing to do.

That's good ,but unfortunately I think you are the minority.

Tell me about it!

It is easy to spot when someone is getting edged-up and spoiling for the subject to killed off. The ramping up of the goading, hectoring and taunts are fairly obvious and the result is more heat than light. I want to persuade people to at least look at an alternative that I think fills in some gaping holes and ruts in the present social asphalt, but the goading works on many as does hectoring for a 'quote' that can be edited down to condemn another even if it bears no real sentiment that the original full text did.

Discussion, honest discussion is a fabulous gift of civilisation, to disagree without having your head stoved-in is a mark of huge human progress, I like to think we can do the same on the internet, you may hate my views, I may do yours, but I want to see how you got where you are in that thought process as much as I want others to see what brought me to mine.

But I will fail as others do and occasionally let go of the reins and call someone I'm chatting to a prannet at some point, goading works, it's very effective but I will have tried my best not to!

That's all well and good but the premise of your soliloquy is that there is an imperative truth, which of course there isn't - on this subject more than any, you big banana headed loafer.

[RottenIcons]

FredClogs said:

That's all well and good but the premise of your soliloquy is that there is an imperative truth, which of course there isn't - on this subject more than any, you big banana headed loafer.

All truths are of their time alone. So the passing of time puts all truth into question, but that is not a moral issue, the moral issue is equally contemporaneous so that each imperative truth is a marker.

People here hated my early posts that said where I was and what I was eating/doing and where I was when I finished saying my piece. It was ridiculed, but it was important in that it put one of those markers down as being of that particular time or contemporaneous. I've stopped doing it because it seemed to annoy people here.

Edited by RottenIcons on Friday 29th April 11:27

[FredClogs]

RottenIcons said:

FredClogs said:

That's all well and good but the premise of your soliloquy is that there is an imperative truth, which of course there isn't - on this subject more than any, you big banana headed loafer.

All truths are of their time alone. So the passing of time puts all truth into question, but that is not a moral issue, the moral issue is equally contemporaneous so that each imperative truth is a marker.

People here hated my early posts that said where I was and what I was eating/doing and where I was when I finished saying my piece. It was ridiculed, but it was important in that it put one of those markers down as being of that particular time or contemporaneous. I've stopped doing it because it seemed to annoy people here.

Edited by RottenIcons on Friday 29th April 11:27

That's ok then, just don't muscle your opinion loudly and proudly and excuse any offense under the guise that you're only speaking the truth. Given your contribution to the Hillsbrough thread on the letter the lovely Bernard Ingram wrote to the families.

My thoughts, as I watch the clock tick to 12 eating a slice of battenburg awaiting the long wet weekend...

(I wouldn't confuse ridicule or even imitation for hatred.)

[saaby93]

jonby said:

I won't have sound until tonight when I will listen with interest - I'll happily concede without a song & dance if I am wrong and he used the expression 'concentration camp guard' before being told (or without the knowledge) that he was jeiwsh

I have found this though

http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Livi...

Here is a copy & paste from the link

KL. What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
OF. No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal
KL. Ah right.
OF. … I’m actually quite offended by that. So how did tonight go?
KL. Well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard.
You’re just doing it ‘cause you’re paid to aren’t you?
OF. Great, I’ve got you on record for that. So how did tonight go?

Do you have a link to the case you are referring to - I am aware there were several including at least one appeal but I thought this the one ?

reading that legal summary OF was an interviewer who was trying to be over persistent
Youve come in just after the beginning with your quote but you can see whats happened
KL has suggested the peristence was similar to a German war criminal - so must have a narrow range of jokes /irony
It's OF thats brought up being Jewish
OF then suggested he was offended - but isnt it self offence - at that point KL hasnt suggested it anything to with Jewish.
Now that OL has tried to use it to create argument KL comes back with OF in doing that is like a guard after all - which KL may have a point
Maybe not surprisingly the legal judgement sided with KL

Has the approach Mann made to KL followed a similar process?


Like others here I'm not what youd call a KL supporter but there seems something insiduous here about trying to play one card to undermine a different argument

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 29th April 11:44

[jonby]

saaby93 said:

jonby said:

I won't have sound until tonight when I will listen with interest - I'll happily concede without a song & dance if I am wrong and he used the expression 'concentration camp guard' before being told (or without the knowledge) that he was jeiwsh

I have found this though

http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Livi...

Here is a copy & paste from the link

KL. What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
OF. No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal
KL. Ah right.
OF. … I’m actually quite offended by that. So how did tonight go?
KL. Well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard.
You’re just doing it ‘cause you’re paid to aren’t you?
OF. Great, I’ve got you on record for that. So how did tonight go?

Do you have a link to the case you are referring to - I am aware there were several including at least one appeal but I thought this the one ?

reading that legal summary OF was an interviewer who was trying to be over persistent
Youve come in just after the beginning with your quote but you can see whats happened
KL has suggested the peristence was similar to a German war criminal - so must have a narrow range of jokes /irony
It's OF thats brought up being Jewish
OF then suggested he was offended - but isnt it self offence - at that point KL hasnt tied the two
Now that OL has tried to use it to create argument KL comes back with OF is like a guard after all
which he may have a point
Not surprisingly the legal judgement sided with KL

Has the approach Mann made to KL followed a similar process?

Let's be absolutely crystal clear

1. Joey Ramone referred to KL's comparison of a jewish journalist to a nazi concentration camp guard
2. Rotten Icons stated KL didn't know the guy was jewish when he made the comment, followed by a sarcastic remark about jews wearing badges
3. I stated that KL DID know he was jewish when he made the remark.

I have only made 2 arguments. Firstly, that KL knew. Secondly, that even if he didn't know, I didn't think it appropriate language for a senior politician. I have not made any arguments about whether KL was provoked or should or should not have been suspended. My first argument is one of fact (either I'm right or I'm wrong). The second is one of opinion

Moving on, Rotten Icons suggested I was factually incorrect. I've now found a pair of headphones and listened to the interview he used to support his argument. In it, KL correctly argues that the case was overturned. But having read the case transcript, that has nothing to do with his use of the phrase or the timing being after he found out OF was jewish. In fact most of the arguments in court appear to be about whether he was acting in his official capacity at the time

Where am I going wrong here ? Do you and Rotten Icons belive KL referred to OF as a concentration guard with, or without, the knowledge he was Jewish ? It's a simple enough question

Here is what the judge also said in KL's successful appeal

45. I must make it clear that this decision must not be taken as an indication that the appellant’s actions were appropriate. They clearly were not. His initial question: “Were you a German war criminal?” was obviously intemperate. However strongly he felt about the impropriety of the journalist’s conduct, the remark was unnecessarily offensive. In itself, it would not have led to the proceedings against the appellant. But, when he knew that Mr Finegold was particularly offended because he was Jewish, to go on to compare him to a concentration camp guard was indefensible. He should have realised it would not only give great offence to him but was likely to be regarded as an entirely inappropriate observation by Jews in general
and those who had survived the holocaust in particular.
46. The appellant could have put the criticism to rest by apologising. He chose not to do so. However, he could have done so without compromising his feelings about the actions of the Mail Group and Mr Finegold as its employee. There was no reason why he should not have, as he did, explained why he had been so incensed by Mr Finegold’s actions, but made clear that he had not intended any slur on him because he was Jewish. He could and in my view should have apologised for any particular hurt occasioned, not only to him but to others, including, but not limited, to Jews for whom the actions of the Nazis in the establishment and use of concentration camps were especially loathsome. Had he done so, it is likely that no action would have been taken against him.

[jonby]

RottenIcons said:

I'm afraid you are wrong, in the final appearance of the case in Court the 'facts' you have put up regarding the Journalist and foreknowledge was immediately dismissed in the Judges opening statement and Ken Livingstone won the case. Since then the lie has been given food and water, grown legs and is stomping around the internet like it owns the goddam place.

taking into account the subsequent posts, I must ask for a copy of the judges opening statement that you refer to where, you absolutely explicitly state above, 'the 'facts' you have put up regarding the journalist and foreknowledge was immediately dismissed in the judges opening statement'

KL did win the case. But I see no reference to the 'foreknowledge' being dismissed, immediately or otherwise

I can't see how I am misinterpreting your statement, so what am I missing ?

I brought up facts. You tell me my facts are wrong. In what way ?

[avinalarf]

I used to have a work colleague that insisted that it was perfecty OK to use the N and P and Y words.
When I tried to explain that times had moved on and that these words were now considered unacceptable in polite conversation he just would not accept that insisting they were only words and that he had many black mates down the gym.
I do not believe he was racist but that he just had that mindset.
These words are considered by many nowadays to be unacceptable because of the offence they cause.
Is that offence justified ?
Is it the words themselves or the context of the conversation ?
Is a just a lot of PC nonsense and people should "man up". ?

[Mr Whippy]

jonby said:

saaby93 said:

jonby said:

I won't have sound until tonight when I will listen with interest - I'll happily concede without a song & dance if I am wrong and he used the expression 'concentration camp guard' before being told (or without the knowledge) that he was jeiwsh

I have found this though

http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Livi...

Here is a copy & paste from the link

KL. What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
OF. No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal
KL. Ah right.
OF. … I’m actually quite offended by that. So how did tonight go?
KL. Well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard.
You’re just doing it ‘cause you’re paid to aren’t you?
OF. Great, I’ve got you on record for that. So how did tonight go?

Do you have a link to the case you are referring to - I am aware there were several including at least one appeal but I thought this the one ?

reading that legal summary OF was an interviewer who was trying to be over persistent
Youve come in just after the beginning with your quote but you can see whats happened
KL has suggested the peristence was similar to a German war criminal - so must have a narrow range of jokes /irony
It's OF thats brought up being Jewish
OF then suggested he was offended - but isnt it self offence - at that point KL hasnt tied the two
Now that OL has tried to use it to create argument KL comes back with OF is like a guard after all
which he may have a point
Not surprisingly the legal judgement sided with KL

Has the approach Mann made to KL followed a similar process?

Let's be absolutely crystal clear

1. Joey Ramone referred to KL's comparison of a jewish journalist to a nazi concentration camp guard
2. Rotten Icons stated KL didn't know the guy was jewish when he made the comment, followed by a sarcastic remark about jews wearing badges
3. I stated that KL DID know he was jewish when he made the remark.

I have only made 2 arguments. Firstly, that KL knew. Secondly, that even if he didn't know, I didn't think it appropriate language for a senior politician. I have not made any arguments about whether KL was provoked or should or should not have been suspended. My first argument is one of fact (either I'm right or I'm wrong). The second is one of opinion

Moving on, Rotten Icons suggested I was factually incorrect. I've now found a pair of headphones and listened to the interview he used to support his argument. In it, KL correctly argues that the case was overturned. But having read the case transcript, that has nothing to do with his use of the phrase or the timing being after he found out OF was jewish. In fact most of the arguments in court appear to be about whether he was acting in his official capacity at the time

Where am I going wrong here ? Do you and Rotten Icons belive KL referred to OF as a concentration guard with, or without, the knowledge he was Jewish ? It's a simple enough question

Here is what the judge also said in KL's successful appeal

45. I must make it clear that this decision must not be taken as an indication that the appellant’s actions were appropriate. They clearly were not. His initial question: “Were you a German war criminal?” was obviously intemperate. However strongly he felt about the impropriety of the journalist’s conduct, the remark was unnecessarily offensive. In itself, it would not have led to the proceedings against the appellant. But, when he knew that Mr Finegold was particularly offended because he was Jewish, to go on to compare him to a concentration camp guard was indefensible. He should have realised it would not only give great offence to him but was likely to be regarded as an entirely inappropriate observation by Jews in general
and those who had survived the holocaust in particular.
46. The appellant could have put the criticism to rest by apologising. He chose not to do so. However, he could have done so without compromising his feelings about the actions of the Mail Group and Mr Finegold as its employee. There was no reason why he should not have, as he did, explained why he had been so incensed by Mr Finegold’s actions, but made clear that he had not intended any slur on him because he was Jewish. He could and in my view should have apologised for any particular hurt occasioned, not only to him but to others, including, but not limited, to Jews for whom the actions of the Nazis in the establishment and use of concentration camps were especially loathsome. Had he done so, it is likely that no action would have been taken against him.

Gah, do you really care that much?

[MarshPhantom]

jonby said:

saaby93 said:

jonby said:

I won't have sound until tonight when I will listen with interest - I'll happily concede without a song & dance if I am wrong and he used the expression 'concentration camp guard' before being told (or without the knowledge) that he was jeiwsh

I have found this though

http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Livi...

Here is a copy & paste from the link

KL. What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
OF. No, I’m Jewish. I wasn’t a German war criminal
KL. Ah right.
OF. … I’m actually quite offended by that. So how did tonight go?
KL. Well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard.
You’re just doing it ‘cause you’re paid to aren’t you?
OF. Great, I’ve got you on record for that. So how did tonight go?

Do you have a link to the case you are referring to - I am aware there were several including at least one appeal but I thought this the one ?

reading that legal summary OF was an interviewer who was trying to be over persistent
Youve come in just after the beginning with your quote but you can see whats happened
KL has suggested the peristence was similar to a German war criminal - so must have a narrow range of jokes /irony
It's OF thats brought up being Jewish
OF then suggested he was offended - but isnt it self offence - at that point KL hasnt tied the two
Now that OL has tried to use it to create argument KL comes back with OF is like a guard after all
which he may have a point
Not surprisingly the legal judgement sided with KL

Has the approach Mann made to KL followed a similar process?

Let's be absolutely crystal clear

1. Joey Ramone referred to KL's comparison of a jewish journalist to a nazi concentration camp guard
2. Rotten Icons stated KL didn't know the guy was jewish when he made the comment, followed by a sarcastic remark about jews wearing badges
3. I stated that KL DID know he was jewish when he made the remark.

I have only made 2 arguments. Firstly, that KL knew. Secondly, that even if he didn't know, I didn't think it appropriate language for a senior politician. I have not made any arguments about whether KL was provoked or should or should not have been suspended. My first argument is one of fact (either I'm right or I'm wrong). The second is one of opinion

Moving on, Rotten Icons suggested I was factually incorrect. I've now found a pair of headphones and listened to the interview he used to support his argument. In it, KL correctly argues that the case was overturned. But having read the case transcript, that has nothing to do with his use of the phrase or the timing being after he found out OF was jewish. In fact most of the arguments in court appear to be about whether he was acting in his official capacity at the time

Where am I going wrong here ? Do you and Rotten Icons belive KL referred to OF as a concentration guard with, or without, the knowledge he was Jewish ? It's a simple enough question

Here is what the judge also said in KL's successful appeal

45. I must make it clear that this decision must not be taken as an indication that the appellant’s actions were appropriate. They clearly were not. His initial question: “Were you a German war criminal?” was obviously intemperate. However strongly he felt about the impropriety of the journalist’s conduct, the remark was unnecessarily offensive. In itself, it would not have led to the proceedings against the appellant. But, when he knew that Mr Finegold was particularly offended because he was Jewish, to go on to compare him to a concentration camp guard was indefensible. He should have realised it would not only give great offence to him but was likely to be regarded as an entirely inappropriate observation by Jews in general
and those who had survived the holocaust in particular.
46. The appellant could have put the criticism to rest by apologising. He chose not to do so. However, he could have done so without compromising his feelings about the actions of the Mail Group and Mr Finegold as its employee. There was no reason why he should not have, as he did, explained why he had been so incensed by Mr Finegold’s actions, but made clear that he had not intended any slur on him because he was Jewish. He could and in my view should have apologised for any particular hurt occasioned, not only to him but to others, including, but not limited, to Jews for whom the actions of the Nazis in the establishment and use of concentration camps were especially loathsome. Had he done so, it is likely that no action would have been taken against him.

Ken's ongoing theme seems to be "you suffered the holocaust and know your doing x,y or z" be it photographing gay couples leaving a party to bombing Palestine. Israel may be doing nothing illegal but neither was Hitler.

[jonby]

Mr Whippy said:

Gah, do you really care that much?

yes

there is enough that surrounds this whole debate which is subjective and very little which can be proven factually

so when the odd thing comes up that is a matter of straightforward fact and even that is denied, I care

I happen to think it quite important that when a senior politician like KL is suspended and I state he knowingly likened a jewish man to a concentration camp guard, it isn't undermined by suggestions I've got my facts wrong. Equally, if I am wrong, I'd like to be proven wrong so I can apologise for a disgusting slur on my part

[Mr Whippy]

jonby said:

Mr Whippy said:

Gah, do you really care that much?

I happen to think it quite important that when a senior politician like KL is suspended and I state he knowingly likened a jewish man to a concentration camp guard, it isn't undermined by suggestions I've got my facts wrong. Equally, if I am wrong, I'd like to be proven wrong so I can apologise for a disgusting slur on my part

So it's all about knowingly likening someone to being like someone else.

And because the person in question follows the Jewish faith, and in the past members of the Jewish faith were imprisoned and killed by guards at a German concentration camp, it's in bad taste to liken someone who is Jewish to the someone who acts like one of those guards?

I'm just trying to be exactly clear here why that person would be specifically offended.


So, strip away everything except the intent to offend. If KL had used another historical stereotype that are basically overpowering obnoxious offensive people to offend the person, then that would have been ok?

Or is the core issue the fact that KL wanted to cause offense?

Would it have been ok to be offensive by using another stereotype of a character that hasn't involved the Jews at some point in history?

[saaby93]

jonby said:

Where am I going wrong here ? Do you and Rotten Icons believe KL referred to OF as a concentration guard with, or without, the knowledge he was Jewish ? It's a simple enough question

No its not a simple enough question and that's where youre going wrong
You've missed a key step

And why have you linked me with Rotten Icons?
I'm deeply offended - if you take the same line of thinking