Red Ken makes Jewish concentration camp guard jibe

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

mycroft

sand wrote:

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

Mr livingstone made an apology to the jewish community for unintentially offended any members of that community. He then traced the evolution of the standards hate, from jews to, irish, to blacks, to muslims. He told the journalist that if was offended he should choose a different line of profession, frankly tabloid journalists doorstepping people need to accept that they're a special kind of scum, esp a tabloid journalist who announces he's outraged by Ken's comments but see's no hyprocracy in working for a paper who's owners during the exact same same period where supporting the nazi regime. Do you not get the base irony?

If you want to have a go at ken attack him for working for the standard. Or re joining labour or privatising the tube.

When Silivio apologised he claimed "he was only joking" (bloody weak btw) Ken has come forward said that he apologises to the jewish community for any unintential offence, attacked the track record of the paper and drawn comparsion with the papers continiuous track record of xenophobia and asks how can a jewish reporter who works for a paper who has consistently attacked racial minorities for decades including his own, be offended when such a scurilous comment is made about his jewish heritage when ken didn't have a clue about his background?

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

Em do you remember the african debt thread I provided a host of links supporting my african debt is unsustainable you dismissed any link I presented as "partisan" without providing any information to dismiss the statistics I presented. You are no better than Coulter or any other fox pundit.

The Corinthian

monument wrote:

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

And as I’ve said already, if it is a question that the Mail or any of the papers in the Mail Group or any of the employees of the Mail Group are inciting hatred then they should be denounced. Otherwise it’s just partisan opinion, not unlike much of the opinion we get here.

The Mail Group is a pretty nasty, tabloidesque collection of publications that caters to the xenophobic and semi-literate Little-Englander market - but don’t confuse that with the race-hate any more than saying that the Mirror is a mouthpiece for class war. Just because their views are a little too much to the right for your delicate palate, doesn’t automatically brand them as Nazis, even though you might wish it did.

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.

Geez... if I thought you were going to be so upset, I wouldn’t have raised it. TBH, pickarooney explained the matter so now we can raze if from the discussion, I suppose.

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.

As far as you know? He probably doesn’t have the time? Seriously, are you a full time apologist or is this just something you do in your spare time?

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.”

Maybe he was looking for a juicier comment from Livingstone given he was pissed - and he got one too

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

I have enough awards, but thank you for asking.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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

And they say the art of discourse is dead...

mycroft wrote:

Em do you remember the african debt thread I provided a host of links supporting my african debt is unsustainable you dismissed any link I presented as "partisan" without providing any information to dismiss the statistics I presented. You are no better than Coulter or any other fox pundit.

Why don’t you dig up something I did in kindergarten while you’re at it or can’t you find anything to back up your claims in this thread?

monument

The Corinthian wrote:

And as I’ve said already, if it is a question that the Mail or any of the papers in the Mail Group or any of the employees of the Mail Group are inciting hatred then they should be denounced. Otherwise it’s just partisan opinion, not unlike much of the opinion we get here.

The Mail Group is a pretty nasty, tabloidesque collection of publications that caters to the xenophobic and semi-literate Little-Englander market - but don’t confuse that with the race-hate any more than saying that the Mirror is a mouthpiece for class war. Just because their views are a little too much to the right for your delicate palate, doesn’t automatically brand them as Nazis, even though you might wish it did.

No, I wont confuse “suffering from xenophobia; having abnormal fear or hatred of the strange or foreign” as any different then ‘race-hate’.

Although it is often spread as ‘last-one-in’ race-hate, whish is usually based on some irrational idea like there is no more room in any one country or there is no jobs to be filled.

The Corinthian wrote:

As far as you know? He probably doesn’t have the time?

Sorry, I must be wrong, it must be easy to prove, and the mayor of London must have loads of time and money to spend on chasing after the Mail group.

monument wrote:

Em do you remember the african debt thread I provided a host of links supporting my african debt is unsustainable you dismissed any link I presented as "partisan" without providing any information to dismiss the statistics I presented. You are no better than Coulter or any other fox pundit.

I’m sure you mean… Originally Posted by mycroft

The Corinthian

monument wrote:

No, I wont confuse “suffering from xenophobia; having abnormal fear or hatred of the strange or foreign” as any different then from ‘race-hate’.

I notice when you went to Dictionary.com, you skipped over the first few definitions until you found one you liked. Xenophobia, while distasteful, does not implicitly incite hatred or violence - that is to say:

[Incitement to hatred is] to knowingly use words, behaviour or material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention or likely effect that hatred will be stirred up against a group of people targeted because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs, as well as those targeted on racial grounds.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/faith/crime/faq.html

There is a big difference between saying “I don’t like X” and “I don’t like X and reckon you should burn out their houses” or is that too politically incorrect for you?

Hint: Replace X with Michael McDowell and tell me if we should outlaw the first phrase because it logically (according to you) leads to the second.

Sorry, I must be wrong, it must be easy to prove, and the mayor of London must have loads of time and money to spend on chasing after the Mail group.

Who said you were wrong, with the number of excuses you’re pulling out for Livingstone, one’s bound to be right, if only by fluke.

I’m sure you mean… Originally Posted by Mycroft

Yes, apologies, I did.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Why don’t you dig up something I did in kindergarten while you’re at it or can’t you find anything to back up your claims in this thread?

I know you're old, but the memory shouldn't be going just yet, that thread was really the last time we spoke and it was a few months back.

It and this demostrates your argument style, refuting anything anyone says in opposition to your platform with opinion and refusal to back your point of view with facts.

Ken offends journalist, and some members of the jewish community. Ken apologises to the jewish community for an accidental offence caused, and says to the journalist and says "if you're so offended by my comments I'd suggest you get a new line of work, and work for a different paper, because during the period that you're so touchy about, your papers bosses where wearing pom poms and acting like the 3rd reichs cheerleading squad"*
Some members of the jewish community say "thats not good enough"

I would suggest to them thats there far more absurd stuff to get outraged about, like this

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

It and this demostrates your argument style, refuting anything anyone says in opposition to your platform with opinion and refusal to back your point of view with facts.

Let's see if you're paying attention then - what platform am I putting forward?

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Let's see if you're paying attention then - what platform am I putting forward?

That it was hyprocritical for the guardian to defend livingstone and condemn Berlinsconi...

Do I win a prize for answering your patronizing question

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

That it was hyprocritical for the guardian to defend livingstone and condemn Berlinsconi...

Good. Now explain how the two cases are so different that such a double standard was justified, because to date all I've heard is mudslinging and apologists and absolutely nothing that would realistically justify it.

Do I win a prize for answering your patronizing question

You get to feel smug and sanctimonious for a few minutes until you read this.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Good. Now explain how the two cases are so different that such a double standard was justified, because to date all I've heard is mudslinging and apologists and absolutely nothing that would realistically justify it.

It has been explained several times, just not to your satisification. And seeing as you just turned up on this thread to make that smug point, combined with your habit of refusing to listen to argument or reasoning once you've made your mind up on issue means that you don't want to hear an argument you've already decided, and for example, when someone pointed out that contray to your assertion the Mail group was in fact a serious supporter of Hitler and the 3rd Reich, you didn't let that slow you down.

You get to feel smug and sanctimonious for a few minutes until you read this.

And hey guess what I still am, you aren't going to let anything change your mind on this issue, and I know how futile it when you've already made up your mind before you've heard the arguments.

Sand

Mycroft, seeing as Red Ken apparently worked for the same employer as Finegold do you reckon its fair to say that Red Ken is also just like a concentration camp guard? In fact, probably moreso as Red Ken seems terribly well educated on the sins of the paper?