Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:17 am

Ken Livingstone has warned he will take Labour to court if it expels him over alleged anti-Semitism.

He had told BBC Radio London last April that in Adolf Hitler’s policy in 1932 “was that Jews should be moved to Israel”. “He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews,” he told the Vanessa Feltz show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-judicial-review-labour-party-anti-semitism-michael-mansfield-imran-khan-jeremy-corbyn_uk_58d54dd5e4b03787d357fadb?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

This is the problem with the Far Left.

Israel did not exist in 1932, so ho could he move them to Israel?

Delusions. What he is referring to. Is the Haavara agreement between German Zionist Jews and the Nazi Germany. Of which many other zionists were against, but considering the hate many Germans Jews faced. You can hardly blame them for wanting to cut a deal, simply to get out of Germany with some of their property.

Which the Nazi's only did, to try and break the anti-Nazi boycott. It was also seen as a way of getting rid of Jews. Hitler never even supported the agreement and criticized this in 1932. He only supported the agreement between 1937-1939. Only 60,000 German Jews were able to emigrate to Palestine, of which the Nazi's exploited them of their money and property out of 522,000. There is nothing in the agreement that backs and supports the creation of a Jewish homeland or nation in former Judea and Israel.

The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky) and outside it.^[4] For German Jews, the agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Nazi Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrants and some economic support; and for the Nazis it was seen as a way of breaking the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which had mass support among European Jews and was thought by the German state as a potential threat to a fragile German economy.

The Haavara Agreement was thought among some Nazi circles to be a possible way to rid the country of its supposed "Jewish problem." The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, the anti-Nazi Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of concentrating Jews in Palestine. Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier. Hitler's own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but reversed his opinion and supported it in the period 1937-1939.
After the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, the program was ended.

Zionism

noun
1.
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

So how in anyway, was Hitler supporting Zionism, a belief in a Jewish homeland for the Jews in Israel, of which none existed at this present time? When his intention all along was to eradicate them? The Nazi's in the 1930's were not strong enough to start murdering Jews on any scale, as it could likely lead to war. They certainly persecuted the Jews and treated them as inferior Until Germany was strong enough to go to war.. So this agreement does not mean Hitler of the Nazis supported the ideology of Zionism. Like I say the Far Left are truly it seems Nazi apologists. I hope he does go to court, as he would need to show Hitler actively believed and supported a Jewish homeland for the Jews in its previous nation of Judea and Israel.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:33 am

I don't see why his remarks constitute antisemitism really. Hitler was no Zionist, but did want to get rid of the Jews, and I'm sure he would have loved them all to go to the area now known as Israel, or that part of the world. I don't think it's relevant that "Israel" wasn't called that at the time.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:14 pm

For anyone who's interested, here is the interview in question. He was talking about the suspension of Naz Shah at the time.

I'm not at all sure why Ken Livingstone brought up Hitler at that precise moment, but I don't think what he said was antisemitic. Can anyone explain why they think it was? I guess it might have annoyed Zionists to be told Hitler was supporting them, but that's about it.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why his remarks constitute antisemitism really. Hitler was no Zionist, but did want to get rid of the Jews, and I'm sure he would have loved them all to go to the area now known as Israel, or that part of the world. I don't think it's relevant that "Israel" wasn't called that at the time.

Why would he of loved for them all to go there, by then not expelling them all?
Your views make zero sense.
There was no Israel and many of these Jews were refugees from a land that persecuted them.
So it has no relevance to state Israel, when it was the British Mandate for Palestine.

As to antisemitism, this is a ploy often used to view Israel and Zionism to Nazism. As if they are comparable.
Under antisemitism terminology, it would be antisemitism. As they are not comparable.
What is comparable is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who supported the Nazis and helped recruit thousands of Muslims to his cause.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:27 pm

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:40 pm

Ken Livingstone’s characteristically outrageous intervention in the debate over anti-Semitism in the Labour Party – denying it existed while simultaneously proving that it does – was wrong on all sorts of levels, but one of them was in his grotesque mangling of the historical record. “Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932,” he told BBC Radio London, “his policy was then that Jews should be moved to Israel.”

First, Adolf Hitler absolutely did not “win” either the July or the November 1932 elections in Germany; in the latter he only gained 33% of the vote, giving the Nazi Party 196 seats in a Reichstag of 584. More centrally, however, insofar as Hitler had a stated rather than inferred policy towards Germany’s Jews at all, it was to force them to leave Germany, but not specifically to Palestine, which was then governed by the British under League of Nations Mandate and was not accepting European Jews in significant numbers

The Nazis couldn’t frankly care less where the Jews went, so long as they left Germany, preferably with as few possessions as possible. Later on they conceived ideas such as the Madagascar Plan of July 1940 which would they hoped involve mass migration to places where the Jews would suffer and eventually die of disease and malnutrition, all long before the full-scale genocidal programme conceived at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. Jews were being killed in large numbers as soon as the war began, but especially after Hitler’s invasion of Russia in June 1941. The idea that Hitler ever wanted a fully-functioning successful Jewish state in Palestine – the dream of Zionists – is ludicrous, as Mr Livingstone undoubtedly knows.

The sole reason Ken Livingstone brought up the Fuhrer in his interview was to be as vicious and loathsome as he possibly could to any Jews listening, rather than genuinely intending to make some valid historical point about the migration policies of the putative Third Reich in the 1930s. He must know perfectly well that the very insertion of the word “Hitler” in the context of a debate over anti-Semitism would create precisely the effect that it has. It was therefore a totally cold-blooded attempt to offend the maximum amount of Jews to the maximum extent, and was said to a Jewish interviewer Vanessa Feltz.

Filthy politics, of course, but Mr Livingstone has such a long record of this kind of thing that we shouldn’t be surprised, even if we must still be outraged. Likening a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard was a similar attempt at dragging the Holocaust into the discourse. Accusing Jews and what he openly refers to as “the Jewish lobby” – of “obsessing” about his links with hate preachers such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is all part of the same playbook. Whether Labour finally acts remains to be seen, and this might be clever politics in terms of the mayoral election, but when it comes to history, Mr Livingstone gets an “F”.

https://capx.co/ken-livingstone-gets-the-history-wrong-on-anti-semitism-and-hitler/

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:42 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why his remarks constitute antisemitism really. Hitler was no Zionist, but did want to get rid of the Jews, and I'm sure he would have loved them all to go to the area now known as Israel, or that part of the world. I don't think it's relevant that "Israel" wasn't called that at the time.

Why would he of loved for them all to go there, by then not expelling them all?
Your views make zero sense.
There was no Israel and many of these Jews were refugees from a land that persecuted them.
So it has no relevance to state Israel, when it was the British Mandate for Palestine.

As to antisemitism, this is a ploy often used to view Israel and Zionism to Nazism. As if they are comparable.
Under antisemitism terminology, it would be antisemitism. As they are not comparable.
What is comparable is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who supported the Nazis and helped recruit thousands of Muslims to his cause.

He clearly meant the area which is now Israel and Palestine.

Are you suggesting that Hitler liked having Jewish people in Germany?

Why is it antisemitic to say that Hitler wanted Jews to move to the area known as Israel?

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:50 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Why would he of loved for them all to go there, by then not expelling them all?
Your views make zero sense.
There was no Israel and many of these Jews were refugees from a land that persecuted them.
So it has no relevance to state Israel, when it was the British Mandate for Palestine.

As to antisemitism, this is a ploy often used to view Israel and Zionism to Nazism. As if they are comparable.
Under antisemitism terminology, it would be antisemitism. As they are not comparable.
What is comparable is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who supported the Nazis and helped recruit thousands of Muslims to his cause.

He clearly meant the area which is now Israel and Palestine.

Are you suggesting that Hitler liked having Jewish people in Germany?

Why is it antisemitic to say that Hitler wanted Jews to move to the area known as Israel?

1) Which is being claimed in hindsight, as Israel did not exist at the time.

2) Show me where I suggested Hitler wanted Jews to stay?
Never did, I said, based on your claim, he would have expelled them all. He did not.

3) He never claimed Hitler wanted Jews to move to the British Mandate of Palestine, he said Hitler was supporting Zionism

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:56 pm

Thorin wrote:Ken Livingstone’s characteristically outrageous intervention in the debate over anti-Semitism in the Labour Party – denying it existed while simultaneously proving that it does – was wrong on all sorts of levels, but one of them was in his grotesque mangling of the historical record. “Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932,” he told BBC Radio London, “his policy was then that Jews should be moved to Israel.”

First, Adolf Hitler absolutely did not “win” either the July or the November 1932 elections in Germany; in the latter he only gained 33% of the vote, giving the Nazi Party 196 seats in a Reichstag of 584. More centrally, however, insofar as Hitler had a stated rather than inferred policy towards Germany’s Jews at all, it was to force them to leave Germany, but not specifically to Palestine, which was then governed by the British under League of Nations Mandate and was not accepting European Jews in significant numbers

The Nazis couldn’t frankly care less where the Jews went, so long as they left Germany, preferably with as few possessions as possible. Later on they conceived ideas such as the Madagascar Plan of July 1940 which would they hoped involve mass migration to places where the Jews would suffer and eventually die of disease and malnutrition, all long before the full-scale genocidal programme conceived at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. Jews were being killed in large numbers as soon as the war began, but especially after Hitler’s invasion of Russia in June 1941. The idea that Hitler ever wanted a fully-functioning successful Jewish state in Palestine – the dream of Zionists – is ludicrous, as Mr Livingstone undoubtedly knows.

The sole reason Ken Livingstone brought up the Fuhrer in his interview was to be as vicious and loathsome as he possibly could to any Jews listening, rather than genuinely intending to make some valid historical point about the migration policies of the putative Third Reich in the 1930s. He must know perfectly well that the very insertion of the word “Hitler” in the context of a debate over anti-Semitism would create precisely the effect that it has. It was therefore a totally cold-blooded attempt to offend the maximum amount of Jews to the maximum extent, and was said to a Jewish interviewer Vanessa Feltz.

Filthy politics, of course, but Mr Livingstone has such a long record of this kind of thing that we shouldn’t be surprised, even if we must still be outraged. Likening a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard was a similar attempt at dragging the Holocaust into the discourse. Accusing Jews and what he openly refers to as “the Jewish lobby” – of “obsessing” about his links with hate preachers such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is all part of the same playbook. Whether Labour finally acts remains to be seen, and this might be clever politics in terms of the mayoral election, but when it comes to history, Mr Livingstone gets an “F”.

https://capx.co/ken-livingstone-gets-the-history-wrong-on-anti-semitism-and-hitler/

That's splitting hairs. Ken Livingstone also said this in an interview:

"When he ... he didn't win the election but he became the largest party in '32 ..."

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:Ken Livingstone’s characteristically outrageous intervention in the debate over anti-Semitism in the Labour Party – denying it existed while simultaneously proving that it does – was wrong on all sorts of levels, but one of them was in his grotesque mangling of the historical record. “Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932,” he told BBC Radio London, “his policy was then that Jews should be moved to Israel.”

First, Adolf Hitler absolutely did not “win” either the July or the November 1932 elections in Germany; in the latter he only gained 33% of the vote, giving the Nazi Party 196 seats in a Reichstag of 584. More centrally, however, insofar as Hitler had a stated rather than inferred policy towards Germany’s Jews at all, it was to force them to leave Germany, but not specifically to Palestine, which was then governed by the British under League of Nations Mandate and was not accepting European Jews in significant numbers

The Nazis couldn’t frankly care less where the Jews went, so long as they left Germany, preferably with as few possessions as possible. Later on they conceived ideas such as the Madagascar Plan of July 1940 which would they hoped involve mass migration to places where the Jews would suffer and eventually die of disease and malnutrition, all long before the full-scale genocidal programme conceived at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. Jews were being killed in large numbers as soon as the war began, but especially after Hitler’s invasion of Russia in June 1941. The idea that Hitler ever wanted a fully-functioning successful Jewish state in Palestine – the dream of Zionists – is ludicrous, as Mr Livingstone undoubtedly knows.

The sole reason Ken Livingstone brought up the Fuhrer in his interview was to be as vicious and loathsome as he possibly could to any Jews listening, rather than genuinely intending to make some valid historical point about the migration policies of the putative Third Reich in the 1930s. He must know perfectly well that the very insertion of the word “Hitler” in the context of a debate over anti-Semitism would create precisely the effect that it has. It was therefore a totally cold-blooded attempt to offend the maximum amount of Jews to the maximum extent, and was said to a Jewish interviewer Vanessa Feltz.

Filthy politics, of course, but Mr Livingstone has such a long record of this kind of thing that we shouldn’t be surprised, even if we must still be outraged. Likening a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard was a similar attempt at dragging the Holocaust into the discourse. Accusing Jews and what he openly refers to as “the Jewish lobby” – of “obsessing” about his links with hate preachers such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is all part of the same playbook. Whether Labour finally acts remains to be seen, and this might be clever politics in terms of the mayoral election, but when it comes to history, Mr Livingstone gets an “F”.

https://capx.co/ken-livingstone-gets-the-history-wrong-on-anti-semitism-and-hitler/

That's splitting hairs. Ken Livingstone also said this in an interview:

"When he ... he didn't win the election but he became the largest party in '32 ..."

Not splitting hairs at all, it shows that he was factually wrong.
Notice you avoid everything else mind

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:03 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He clearly meant the area which is now Israel and Palestine.

Are you suggesting that Hitler liked having Jewish people in Germany?

Why is it antisemitic to say that Hitler wanted Jews to move to the area known as Israel?

1) Which is being claimed in hindsight, as Israel did not exist at the time.

2) Show me where I suggested Hitler wanted Jews to stay?
Never did, I said, based on your claim, he would have expelled them all. He did not.

3) He never claimed Hitler wanted Jews to move to the British Mandate of Palestine, he said Hitler was supporting Zionism

It doesn't matter if Israel was called "Israel" at the time or not. It's completely obvious what KL meant. He was talking about the historic land of Israel, like Zionists do.

You suggested that Hitler would not have loved all the Jews to go to Palestine/the historic land of Israel. Do you think he wanted them to stay in Germany?

He clearly meant that Hitler was inadvertently supporting Zionism. Zionists want a homeland for Jews, and Hitler supported the idea of Jews leaving Germany and going to the historic land of Israel - he encouraged them to do so.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:10 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's splitting hairs. Ken Livingstone also said this in an interview:

"When he ... he didn't win the election but he became the largest party in '32 ..."

Not splitting hairs at all, it shows that he was factually wrong.
Notice you avoid everything else mind

I noticed that you ignored the quote from KL in another interview.

It is splitting hairs. Hitler came to power as a result of the elections of 1932 - some people would call that winning an election.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) Which is being claimed in hindsight, as Israel did not exist at the time.

2) Show me where I suggested Hitler wanted Jews to stay?
Never did, I said, based on your claim, he would have expelled them all. He did not.

3) He never claimed Hitler wanted Jews to move to the British Mandate of Palestine, he said Hitler was supporting Zionism

It doesn't matter if Israel was called "Israel" at the time or not. It's completely obvious what KL meant. He was talking about the historic land of Israel, like Zionists do.

You suggested that Hitler would not have loved all the Jews to go to Palestine/the historic land of Israel. Do you think he wanted them to stay in Germany?

He clearly meant that Hitler was inadvertently supporting Zionism. Zionists want a homeland for Jews, and Hitler supported the idea of Jews leaving Germany and going to the historic land of Israel - he encouraged them to do so.

1) It matters completely, as at the time Israel did not exist. So what he said was based not on the views of the time, but what he himself invented

2) He did not want all the Jews to go to the British mandate and there is nothing where he has even said this.
So again you are making unfounded claims. I know this history and you simply do not. Hitler wanted to be rid of the Jews but also faced boycotts. Hitler did not support the idea when the agreement was reached and was even critical. He only supported the agreement last two years before the war started.

3) How can it be inadvertently supporting Zionism, when Zionism is about the creation of a Jewish state, of which none existed then. To say wanting rid of Jews is supporting Zionism, is complete gibberish.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Not splitting hairs at all, it shows that he was factually wrong.
Notice you avoid everything else mind

I noticed that you ignored the quote from KL in another interview.

It is splitting hairs. Hitler came to power as a result of the elections of 1932 - some people would call that winning an election.

I notice you avoided his gate crash interview

No idea why you are supporting someone who supports islamic extremists and Jew haters.

Or is it you are just itching for a fight again with me?

Its not splitting hairs, as show me anywhere that when Hitler came to power he wanted all German Jews to go to the British Mandate?

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:17 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I noticed that you ignored the quote from KL in another interview.

It is splitting hairs. Hitler came to power as a result of the elections of 1932 - some people would call that winning an election.

I notice you avoided his gate crash interview

No idea why you are supporting someone who supports islamic extremists and Jew haters.

Or is it you are just itching for a fight again with me?

Its not splitting hairs, as show me anywhere that when Hitler came to power he wanted all German Jews to go to the British Mandate?

I said that saying Hitler didn't win the election was splitting hairs - pay attention.

I'm simply saying how I see the whole thing. If you call that "itching for a fight", that's your problem. You still haven't managed to explain how he was antisemitic.

This is clearly a witch hunt against KL based on people's perceptions re what he said, and some rather childish issues with whether he was "factually correct" or not. He was doing a radio interview, he wasn't reading from a history book.

Hitler encouraged Jews to go to Palestine, yes? I would call that wanting them to go to Palestine, wouldn't you?

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:20 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I notice you avoided his gate crash interview

No idea why you are supporting someone who supports islamic extremists and Jew haters.

Or is it you are just itching for a fight again with me?

Its not splitting hairs, as show me anywhere that when Hitler came to power he wanted all German Jews to go to the British Mandate?

I said that saying Hitler didn't win the election was splitting hairs - pay attention.

I'm simply saying how I see the whole thing. If you call that "itching for a fight", that's your problem. You still haven't managed to explain how he was antisemitic.

This is clearly a witch hunt against KL based on people's perceptions re what he said, and some rather childish issues with whether he was "factually correct" or not. He was doing a radio interview, he wasn't reading from a history book.

Hitler encouraged Jews to go to Palestine, yes? I would call that wanting them to go to Palestine, wouldn't you?

He did not win the election and was only appointed Chancellor by the then President Hindenburg, as his party had the most seats, but not a majority

So its you being incredible dimwitted here

You are not the standard to claim what is witch hunt and countless people know very well his antisemitic views, of which you brush aside, like called a Jewish reporter a concentration guard.

Hitler did not encourage any Jews to go to the Mandate, show me where he did?

Show me the quotes and documents where he did?

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:33 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I said that saying Hitler didn't win the election was splitting hairs - pay attention.

I'm simply saying how I see the whole thing. If you call that "itching for a fight", that's your problem. You still haven't managed to explain how he was antisemitic.

This is clearly a witch hunt against KL based on people's perceptions re what he said, and some rather childish issues with whether he was "factually correct" or not. He was doing a radio interview, he wasn't reading from a history book.

Hitler encouraged Jews to go to Palestine, yes? I would call that wanting them to go to Palestine, wouldn't you?

He did not win the election and was only appointed Chancellor by the then President Hindenburg, as his party had the most seats, but not a majority

So its you being incredible dimwitted here

You are not the standard to claim what is witch hunt and countless people know very well his antisemitic views, of which you brush aside, like called a Jewish reporter a concentration guard.

Hitler did not encourage any Jews, show me where he did?

Show me the quotes and documents where he did?

He had the largest party in Parliament, and that led to him becoming the Chancellor - ie, winning.

You're the one being dimwitted. You're clutching at straws because you clearly don't like KL and you love Israel.

He explained the concentration guard comment. He didn't know the reporter was Jewish, he just knew that he was "barking questions" at him. Your problem is that you don't put things in the proper context.

Of course Hitler encouraged the Jews to go to Palestine - you mentioned the Haavara Agreement yourself.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

He did not win the election and was only appointed Chancellor by the then President Hindenburg, as his party had the most seats, but not a majority

So its you being incredible dimwitted here

You are not the standard to claim what is witch hunt and countless people know very well his antisemitic views, of which you brush aside, like called a Jewish reporter a concentration guard.

Hitler did not encourage any Jews, show me where he did?

Show me the quotes and documents where he did?

He had the largest party in Parliament, and that led to him becoming the Chancellor - ie, winning.

You're the one being dimwitted. You're clutching at straws because you clearly don't like KL and you love Israel.

He explained the concentration guard comment. He didn't know the reporter was Jewish, he just knew that he was "barking questions" at him. Your problem is that you don't put things in the proper context.

Of course Hitler encouraged the Jews to go to Palestine - you mentioned the Haavara Agreement yourself.

1) He did not win the election, but won more seats that others. It shows you do not understand the Political system

2) Is that why I keep showing you up?

3) How would it be acceptable to any reporter to call them a concentration guard and he knew very well they were Jewish. The fact you take his side, speaks volumes

4) So you failed to produce any documents or quotes by Hitler

You are done here, but thanks anyway.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:42 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He had the largest party in Parliament, and that led to him becoming the Chancellor - ie, winning.

You're the one being dimwitted. You're clutching at straws because you clearly don't like KL and you love Israel.

He explained the concentration guard comment. He didn't know the reporter was Jewish, he just knew that he was "barking questions" at him. Your problem is that you don't put things in the proper context.

Of course Hitler encouraged the Jews to go to Palestine - you mentioned the Haavara Agreement yourself.

1) He did not win the election, but won more seats that others. It shows you do not understand the Political system

2) Is that why I keep showing you up?

3) How would it be acceptable to any reporter to call them a concentration guard and he knew very well they were Jewish. The fact you take his side, speaks volumes

4) So you failed to produce any documents or quotes by Hitler

You are done here, but thanks anyway.

I understand the political system much better than you. You're not showing me up, you're just nitpicking, and you still haven't proved that KL is antisemtic.

He didn't know the man was Jewish. How would he know that? That's just absurd.

It's completely obvious that Hitler supported Jews going to Palestine, but you are just arguing for the sake of it because you haven't got over what happened yesterday and you want to carry on. You're getting abusive and pompous again, so I suggest you watch this video and keep quiet for a while in order to calm down.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:45 pm

He certainly did, as they know many reporters on a name to name bases.

That was his poor excuse to get out of what was antisemitic.

he even defended antisemitic comments by others

So show me the documents and quotes by him?

You cant, hence you are doing this again

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism 2686688521

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism 2686688521

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:47 pm

Thorin wrote:He certainly did, as they know many reporters on a name to name bases.

That was his poor excuse to get out of what was antisemitic.

he even defended antisemitic comments by others

So show me the documents and quotes by him?

You cant, hence you are doing this again

What documents and quotes? Prove that he knew the reporter was Jewish. You can't can you? Prove that KL is antisemitic. You can't. You're just muckraking like the people who are going after him.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:He certainly did, as they know many reporters on a name to name bases.

That was his poor excuse to get out of what was antisemitic.

he even defended antisemitic comments by others

So show me the documents and quotes by him?

You cant, hence you are doing this again

What documents and quotes? Prove that he knew the reporter was Jewish. You can't can you? Prove that KL is antisemitic. You can't. You're just muckraking like the people who are going after him.

The documents and quotes you need to back up your claim

Did he know the name of the reporter and the name of the media outlet he was from?

Take your time on this?

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:07 pm

Ken Livingstone is facing a second official investigation into his personal conduct after he likened a Jewish newspaper reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard.

According to the Evening Standard, which says it has a tape of the incident, the new row began as Mr Livingstone left City Hall on Tuesday night, having attended the party he organised to celebrate the "coming out" of Chris Smith as Britain's first openly gay MP 20 years ago. Mr Livingstone and the newspaper have a poor relationship and its reporter was not allowed into City Hall. On being approached by Mr Finegold outside, Mr Livingstone refused to talk about the party.

Instead, referring to the Daily Mail - the Standard's sister paper - and its support for the Nazis in the 1930s, Mr Livingstone is said to have baited the reporter, asking if he was "a German war criminal".

On learning that Mr Finegold is Jewish, the mayor apparently said: "You are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/feb/12/pressandpublishing.londonpolitics

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism 2686688521

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:13 pm

Ken Livingstone's own words.

"I can't tell (if) a journalist is Jewish or Catholic or anything, but if a journalist is chasing you down the street at nine o'clock at night barking questions at you when you don't want to be interviewed, you might be rude to them."

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:15 pm

The tape
The Standard yesterday published a transcript of taped exchanges between the mayor and its reporter:

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?

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/feb/12/pressandpublishing.londonpolitics

Now we know where Trump got his antics over acting idiotic with reporters.

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism 2686688521

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:15 pm

Anyway, what about John Mann? That was a very unseemly episode wasn't it?

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Ken Livingstone's own words.

"I can't tell (if) a journalist is Jewish or Catholic or anything, but if a journalist is chasing you down the street at nine o'clock at night barking questions at you when you don't want to be interviewed, you might be rude to them."

Yes piss poor defense

He was clearly guilty of antisemitism

Just because you do not want to comment, does not give you the right to make unfounded and appalling accusations

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism 2686688521

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, what about John Mann? That was a very unseemly episode wasn't it?

It was unseemly.

Anything else?

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:29 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Ken Livingstone's own words.

"I can't tell (if) a journalist is Jewish or Catholic or anything, but if a journalist is chasing you down the street at nine o'clock at night barking questions at you when you don't want to be interviewed, you might be rude to them."

Yes piss poor defense

He was clearly guilty of antisemitism

Just because you do not want to comment, does not give you the right to make unfounded and appalling accusations

What unfounded and appalling accusations? Please specify. You're the one making unfounded accusations against KL.

Oh, you mean KL. What he said was crass but it wasn't antisemitic.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes piss poor defense

He was clearly guilty of antisemitism

Just because you do not want to comment, does not give you the right to make unfounded and appalling accusations

What unfounded and appalling accusations? Please specify. You're the one making unfounded accusations against KL.

Oh, you mean KL. What he said was crass but it wasn't antisemitic.

He basically accused him of being a German war criminal by asking if he was one. Which based on the reporters age was nonsense, hence accusing. Then knowing he was Jewish, of being like a concentration guard. How was he like a concentration guard, being Jewish, doing his job as a reporter?

It was antisemitic and you are not the one to say its not.

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism 2686688521

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:44 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What unfounded and appalling accusations? Please specify. You're the one making unfounded accusations against KL.

Oh, you mean KL. What he said was crass but it wasn't antisemitic.

He basically accused him of being a German war criminal by asking if he was one. Which based on the reporters age was nonsense, hence accusing. Then knowing he was Jewish, of being like a concentration guard. How was he like a concentration guard, being Jewish, doing his job as a reporter?

It was antisemitic and you are not the one to say its not.

I can say what I think and you can't stop me. You have no right to dictate what I think is antisemitic and what isn't. It was crass but not antisemitic

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

He basically accused him of being a German war criminal by asking if he was one. Which based on the reporters age was nonsense, hence accusing. Then knowing he was Jewish, of being like a concentration guard. How was he like a concentration guard, being Jewish, doing his job as a reporter?

It was antisemitic and you are not the one to say its not.

I can say what I think and you can't stop me. You have no right to dictate what I think is antisemitic and what isn't. It was crass but not antisemitic

Well many others have charged him as being antisemitic over this.

Of course he can always take me to court and lose Rags

I just did dictate to you?

What are you going to do about it?

Whinge some more?

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:51 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I can say what I think and you can't stop me. You have no right to dictate what I think is antisemitic and what isn't. It was crass but not antisemitic

Well many others have charged him as being antisemitic over this.

Of course he can always take me to court and lose Rags

I just did dictate to you?

What are you going to do about it?

Whinge some more?

I can't help what others think of KL, and what they think doesn't influence me at all. I go by what I see myself. You can dictate all you like - that kind of makes you a great dictator doesn't it? Razz

It won't make me kow-tow to you though, as much as you'd like me to.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Well many others have charged him as being antisemitic over this.

Of course he can always take me to court and lose Rags

I just did dictate to you?

What are you going to do about it?

Whinge some more?

I can't help what others think of KL, and what they think doesn't influence me at all. I go by what I see myself. You can dictate all you like - that kind of makes you a great dictator doesn't it? It won't make me kow-tow to you though, as much as you'd like me to.

Yes, we see that you bought his lie, or your lie, claiming that he did not know the reporter was jewish, when he did and still try to defend his comments.

You did make yourself look rather silly here

Shame really, if you had not the arse with me, you would not have jumped in here and made yourself look silly

Always research before posting, as seen, you ended up looking woeful here Rags

Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:02 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I can't help what others think of KL, and what they think doesn't influence me at all. I go by what I see myself. You can dictate all you like - that kind of makes you a great dictator doesn't it? It won't make me kow-tow to you though, as much as you'd like me to.

Yes, we see that you bought his lie, or your lie, claiming that he did not know the reporter was jewish, when he did and still try to defend his comments.

You did make yourself look rather silly here

Shame really, if you had not the arse with me, you would not have jumped in here and made yourself look silly

Always research before posting, as seen, you ended up looking woeful here Rags

You claimed that he knew the man was Jewish by his name.

He certainly did, as they know many reporters on a name to name bases.

Always research before posting as you will end up backtracking and looking woeful Didge. That made you look rather silly.

He didn't know he was Jewish when he first spoke to him did he?

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes, we see that you bought his lie, or your lie, claiming that he did not know the reporter was jewish, when he did and still try to defend his comments.

You did make yourself look rather silly here

Shame really, if you had not the arse with me, you would not have jumped in here and made yourself look silly

Always research before posting, as seen, you ended up looking woeful here Rags

You claimed that he knew the man was Jewish by his name.

He certainly did, as they know many reporters on a name to name bases.

Always research before posting as you will end up backtracking and looking woeful Didge. That made you look rather silly.

He didn't know he was Jewish when he first spoke to him did he?

Yes i did say that Rags and that was not even needed after I played my ace card

The one where Ken was recorded saying this.

You claimed Ken did not know he was Jewish as a defense when he did.

I can live with my error, can you? lol

Anyway, why have you not condemned him for his comments yet?

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:09 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You claimed that he knew the man was Jewish by his name.

Always research before posting as you will end up backtracking and looking woeful Didge. That made you look rather silly.

He didn't know he was Jewish when he first spoke to him did he?

Yes i did say that Rags and that was not even needed after I played my ace card

The one where Ken was recorded saying this.

You claimed Ken did not know he was Jewish as a defense when he did.

I can live with my error, can you? lol

Anyway, why have you not condemned him for his comments yet?

Ace card? Grow up Didge.

I'm not going to condemn him again - I already said it was crass. When are you going to prove that his latest comments mean he's antisemitic?

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:10 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, what about John Mann? That was a very unseemly episode wasn't it?

It was unseemly.

Anything else?

Mann accused him of being a nazi apologist. That's pretty offensive and can't be proved. He's lucky he wasn't sued for slander.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

It was unseemly.

Anything else?

Mann accused him of being a nazi apologist. That's pretty offensive and can't be proved. He's lucky he wasn't sued for slander.

Is it slander?
Then why has he not sued him for slander when he is willing to sue labour if removed from the labour party?

The reason, he would lose.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:14 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Mann accused him of being a nazi apologist. That's pretty offensive and can't be proved. He's lucky he wasn't sued for slander.

Is it slander?
Then why has he not sued him for slander when he is willing to sue labour if removed from the labour party?

The reason, he would lose.

I expect he's got better things to do. He appeared to find it quite amusing actually - lucky for Mann.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Is it slander?
Then why has he not sued him for slander when he is willing to sue labour if removed from the labour party?

The reason, he would lose.

I expect he's got better things to do. He appeared to find it quite amusing actually - lucky for Mann.

PMSL

So he has better things to do, even though has sought legal advice if he gets the boot from labour.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:17 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I expect he's got better things to do. He appeared to find it quite amusing actually - lucky for Mann.

PMSL

So he has better things to do, even though has sought legal advice if he gets the boot from labour.

I would have thought that fighting his suspension was keeping him quite busy, yes.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

PMSL

So he has better things to do, even though has sought legal advice if he gets the boot from labour.

I would have thought that fighting his suspension was keeping him quite busy, yes.

Really, based on what evidence|?

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:36 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I would have thought that fighting his suspension was keeping him quite busy, yes.

Really, based on what evidence|?

Evidence of what?

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Really, based on what evidence|?

Evidence of what?

Your assumptions.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:39 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Evidence of what?

Your assumptions.

You need evidence that fighting a suspension and preparing for a possible court case probably keeps someone busy?

Look, I didn't say that KL was going to sue Mann, I said Mann is lucky he didn't. As I said, KL seemed quite amused and calm about the unseemly scene.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Your assumptions.

You need evidence that fighting a suspension and preparing for a possible court case probably keeps someone busy?

Look, I didn't say that KL was going to sue Mann, I said Mann is lucky he didn't. As I said, KL seemed quite amused and calm about the unseemly scene.

1) You made the claim it would, not me.

2) I said he would lose, as how is it libel to claim he is a Nazi apologist after claiming wrongly that Hitler supported the belief to a Jewish nation?

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:47 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You need evidence that fighting a suspension and preparing for a possible court case probably keeps someone busy?

Look, I didn't say that KL was going to sue Mann, I said Mann is lucky he didn't. As I said, KL seemed quite amused and calm about the unseemly scene.

1) You made the claim it would, not me.

2) I said he would lose, as how is it libel to claim he is a Nazi apologist after claiming wrongly that Hitler supported the belief to a Jewish nation?

I didn't claim anything - you're just picking an argument yet again.

I didn't mention libel either.

There was no indication that he was being a nazi apologist going by what he actually said. He didn't say that Hitler was right or that he agreed with Hitler's policies.

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) You made the claim it would, not me.

2) I said he would lose, as how is it libel to claim he is a Nazi apologist after claiming wrongly that Hitler supported the belief to a Jewish nation?

I didn't claim anything - you're just picking an argument yet again.

I didn't mention libel either.

There was no indication that he was being a nazi apologist going by what he actually said. He didn't say that Hitler was right or that he agreed with Hitler's policies.

You did claim he could sue over the charge of being a nazi apologist

There is every indication based on evidence he is a nazi apologist, based on his wrong claim, that Hitler supported the creation of a Jewish nation

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:56 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't claim anything - you're just picking an argument yet again.

I didn't mention libel either.

There was no indication that he was being a nazi apologist going by what he actually said. He didn't say that Hitler was right or that he agreed with Hitler's policies.

You did claim he could sue over the charge of being a nazi apologist

There is every indication based on evidence he is a nazi apologist, based on his wrong claim, that Hitler supported the creation of a Jewish nation

No I didn't.

How is claiming that Hitler supported the creation of Jewish nation being a nazi apologist?

by Sponsored content