Red Ken suspended

[avinalarf]

simonrockman said:

One of the many, many double standards Livingstone applies is to the Evening Standard. He argues that everyone who associated them with the paper under Lord Rothermere's control was automatically a fascist. Everyone except of course him, since he use to write restaurant reviews for the paper, and he has some bks response to that about it being in a bubble of not being fascist when Max Hastings was the editor. Really it's just Ken being so wrapped up in his head he can't see the truth.

He thinks the Standard is out to get him when it was actually The Standard undermining Geoffrey Archer which won Livingstone the first mayoral election.

Still Ken has double standards all round. When he became mayor he said the Routemaster would go on for another seventeen years and be replaced by a bus built by Londoners for Londoners. He promptly killed the routemaster and imported bendy buses. When it became clear how massive a mistake this was he claimed they were "an experiment". You can find a Youtube clip of him telling me that his changing prices on congestion charge was because he "changed his mind".

The truth is many in the Labour party hate him too, but he has a strong following and they need, not him but his followers. Now they will have to look at that. He's been expelled once and suspended twice. He's clearly poison for the party and this is one particular battle he can't bounce back from. There is so much pressure on the Corbyn leadership to be seen to do something about anti-semitisim they have no option but to throw him under the bus (ideally a NBFL) in a very public way. He will be found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and expelled.

He misread this one very badly, I've never seen anyone make quite such a mess of the Godwin defence (banned at the dinner table in our house as it's lazy arguing), he needed to realise that Naz Shah said that moving Israel to America was a "solution for the Jews" and not a "solution for the Zionists", meaning there wasn't even an attempt to hide behind the word Zionist.

I'm still sorry that when I met him I didn't thump him. Maybe the chance will present itself again.

Simon

Just seen this post....lots of long words I don't understand but never mind.
LOVE IT.....
When you thump him give him a kick in the balls for me.......

[sidicks]

popeyewhite said:

jonby said:

popeyewhite said:

Doesn't really make any difference who they are. If you could show without doubt KL only said it because the pushy fool was Jewish then maybe...Can you?

No

Then it's not racist and ends there.

Absolute nonsense.

[jonby]

popeyewhite said:

jonby said:

popeyewhite said:

Doesn't really make any difference who they are. If you could show without doubt KL only said it because the pushy fool was Jewish then maybe...Can you?

No

Then it's not racist and ends there.

What ends there ? Not being provable as racist doesn't make it acceptable does it ? Which was very clearly my point, as you can see in the part of my post you chose not to paste

There is a completely separate argument about the way in this country and some others, we now seem to concentrate on language and vocabulary rather than racist intent - the use of the N word is perhaps the best example. In fact, I think there should be more differentiation between racially offensive language and racism, which are two different offences, seemingly rolled into one by much of society today.

But that all gets away from whether it was acceptable for KL, the mayor of London at the time of the incident, with the largest jewish population in the UK, to behave the way in which he did. You are quite right though - as with many (but not all) cases referred to as being racist, by the strict definition it is indeed effectively impossible to prove. A point taken advantage of by many racists

Edited by jonby on Friday 29th April 17:38

[audidoody]

popeyewhite said:

Doesn't really make any difference who they are. If you could show without doubt KL only said it because the pushy fool was Jewish then maybe...Can you?

How is a London Evening Standard journalist being a "pushy fool"for attempting to talk to the Mayor of London who is in a public place while on civic business (he claimed he was on personal time because had put his hat and coat on - never mind he was outside city hall).

Boris Johnson has managed to be Mayor for eight years without slinging personal epithets at hacks doing their jobs.

Livingstone has always been an odious two-faced demagogue and a revisionist of history. I think he's missing some sort of "morality" button. He managed to conjure up some tears after 7/7 and then promptly went on to give tacit support to any local Jihadi with an axe to grind and a bomb to explode.

Edited by audidoody on Friday 29th April 17:59

[avinalarf]

Bit of breaking news here chaps.....Ken's been at it again.
This evening when asked for a comment from a Jewish Chronicle reporter this is what happened.......

Reporter. Mr Livingstone,would you like to comment on your suspension from the Labour Party ?

Ken. You've got a big schnozzle.

Reporter .....I'm only asking you for a comment.

Ken........And you've got no balls just like Goerring.

When later asked by BBC News about whether he should apologise to the reporter Ken replied...

I don't know what the fuss is about.
Everything I said was factually correct. The reporter did have a big nose and he didn't have any balls.
To the surprise of the BBC reporter Ken then burst into song....

Hitler has only got one ball,
Göring has two but very small,
Himmler has something sim'lar,
But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.

So there you have it chaps .....Ken was factually correct and proved his anti Nazi credentials by singing the much loved
WW11 song.

Further to this when Jeremy Corbyn was asked what he was going to do about this he said.....

I have no comment at the moment as I'm going around to measure the JC reporter's nose and feel to see if I can find his balls.

[Mr Whippy]

We should celebrate KL for being a bit of a dhead, and celebrate the fact lots of people are offended.

That is how a healthy society should work.

People being honest about their feelings and getting it out of their systems and being able to accept different views in a healthy way is good.

Trying to tell people this is bad and suggesting it's unacceptable is bad in my view.


Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, or if you really want you can offend me for my views. I'd rather you do that an express yourself, than feel you have to supress your feels for my benefit!

Dave

[MarshPhantom]

chris watton said:

It does seem that some socialists, more than any other group, like to gloat and even celebrate the deaths of whom they perceive as 'enemies'

It is hardly surprising that things inevitably goes tits up when they're drunk with power. All for the greater good, comrade, of course...

Can only assume you've not read the Calais Migrant Madness, pretty sure it wasn't socialists on that stinking turd of a thread.

[Mr_B]

MarshPhantom said:

Mr_B said:

MarshPhantom said:

Mr_B said:

FredClogs said:

Why was it anti semitic, this is a delicate topic even for idiots like me on the internet let alone members of parliament, but she didn't say that they should be, she offered a tongue in cheek hyperbolic solution to the age old question of how to solve the Palestinian conflict, on her Facebook a year or two before she was a parliamentarian. I suspect the original point of which was to highlight the amount of money the US spends supporting the state of Israel rather than anything anti semitic.

It's PC gone mad.

Great excuse for anyone, that - ' oh I wasn't being vile, just tongue in cheek you silly delicate petals'.

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.

You can make all the jokes you wish. I made the point it doesn't look like much of a joke and the reaction would be very different had it been someone else talking of doing the same. You and Fred do you yourself no favours by lowering the bar. My point being you are selectively doing so.

How exactly have I lowered the bar?

You've tried to make out she is joking when the evidence says not, or why you think it's automatically a joke. I'm not totally sure in a same situation with someone else you would move to laugh it off and make excuses first. Particularly given Fred and yours history on here, posting with some glee on commenting on Ukip style morons sticking their foot in it in similar style cases. Lets have a bar that's the same for all and not a moving one going up and down.
This whole stupid student politics style on Palestine and the election of Corbyn and his group of dolts has contributed to making the thick end of the pro Palestine movement slip over the line of legitimate criticism into outright racism under the guise just be critical of the Israeli government.

[RottenIcons]

popeyewhite said:

Then it's not racist and ends there.

You are correct and it should end there. But having failed to establish that KL was a liar and was factually correct with regard to the entire Haavara Agreement, the antagonistic have no where else to go but to the race card.

[sidicks]

RottenIcons said:

You are correct and it should end there. But having failed to establish that KL was a liar and was factually correct with regard to the entire Haavara Agreement, the antagonistic have no where else to go but to the race card.

Sounds like something else you have read but not understood!

[RottenIcons]

jonby said:

Not being provable as racist doesn't make it acceptable does it ?

Yes. If you are accosted in the street by someone who 'claims' to be a reported at 9pm in the dark in London, then frankly you get what you deserve, short shrift.

It's not racist, it's a sharp retort to sweep the unknown troll out of his way. People hereabouts say much worse with less provocation and that isn't even with the real potential threat of actual bodily harm.

KL is hated by many (me amongst them) some of those that hate him will be capable of violence, he did what he did, it is not an example of racism.

[s2art]

RottenIcons said:

You are correct and it should end there. But having failed to establish that KL was a liar and was factually correct with regard to the entire Haavara Agreement, the antagonistic have no where else to go but to the race card.

Factually correct? I think I will believe a real historian.

http://capx.co/ken-livingstone-gets-the-history-wr...

[davepoth]

Maybe not racist, but he must have been trying to annoy somebody. He's not stupid, and any normal person knows that unnecessarily invoking Hitler when trying to have an argument involving the Jewish faith in some way is really dumb. He knew exactly what he was doing, but I have no idea why he said it.

[RottenIcons]

sidicks said:

RottenIcons said:

You are correct and it should end there. But having failed to establish that KL was a liar and was factually correct with regard to the entire Haavara Agreement, the antagonistic have no where else to go but to the race card.

Sounds like something else you have read but not understood!

Explain? Haavara, well known to anyone who has looked at the run up to WW2 and the race card has been played for no reason at all regarding the reporter. What's there to misinterpret?

[sidicks]

RottenIcons said:

Explain? Haavara, well known to anyone who has looked at the run up to WW2 and the race card has been played for no reason at all regarding the reporter. What's there to misinterpret?

Eh?

I'm referring to the transcript of the conversation with the journalist which is unambiguous.

[RottenIcons]

s2art said:

RottenIcons said:

You are correct and it should end there. But having failed to establish that KL was a liar and was factually correct with regard to the entire Haavara Agreement, the antagonistic have no where else to go but to the race card.

Factually correct? I think I will believe a real historian.

http://capx.co/ken-livingstone-gets-the-history-wr...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

The same goal, a homeland for the Jews in the Bible Lands, Hitler's and Zionists. Remember the entire Haavara process was RUN by Jews. The money, the transfer of goods the purchase of property all in the hands of jews, not a single German was in charge, the costs were covered by Rudolf Hess's budget given to Dr. Robert Ley. all known and well documented. Go read. Don't be a robot, find the truth it's all out there.

[RottenIcons]

For me the most startling thing about vile Ken's treatment is that he is cast as racist and evil for telling a simple truth, for exposing something that doesn't sit comfortably within the Hitler mythology.

It seems that even 71 years after his death the World still needs saving from Adolf Hitler. As shadows go, that's a biggy!

At some point that shadow is destined to become an enigma, at that point all hell will break lose, because the enigma and it's attraction will be as large as the dark shadow that has been set about him for 70 years.

What happens then?

[s2art]

RottenIcons said:

s2art said:

RottenIcons said:

You are correct and it should end there. But having failed to establish that KL was a liar and was factually correct with regard to the entire Haavara Agreement, the antagonistic have no where else to go but to the race card.

Factually correct? I think I will believe a real historian.

http://capx.co/ken-livingstone-gets-the-history-wr...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

The same goal, a homeland for the Jews in the Bible Lands, Hitler's and Zionists. Remember the entire Haavara process was RUN by Jews. The money, the transfer of goods the purchase of property all in the hands of jews, not a single German was in charge, the costs were covered by Rudolf Hess's budget given to Dr. Robert Ley. all known and well documented. Go read. Don't be a robot, find the truth it's all out there.

You take a wiki article over a respected historian?

[davepoth]

RottenIcons said:

For me the most startling thing about vile Ken's treatment is that he is cast as racist and evil for telling a simple truth, for exposing something that doesn't sit comfortably within the Hitler mythology.

I'm just going to pop a thought in your head:

Hitler wasn't a Zionist. He just wanted the Jews to not be in the Reich, and for a little while Zion was the easiest way of doing it. He then found "other" ways.

[Guybrush]

I think its clear who are the real 'nasty party'. It's Labour.