http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4746016.stm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Mayor and the Journalist
Ken Livingstone was recorded asking reporter Oliver Finegold if he is a "German war criminal".
Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm quite offended by that."
The mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
London's mayor has been suspended from office on full pay for four weeks for comparing a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.
The Adjudication Panel for England ruled Ken Livingstone had brought his office into disrepute when he acted in an "unnecessarily insensitive" manner.
The ban is due to begin on 1 March and the mayor's deputy Nicky Gavron will stand in for Mr Livingstone.
The mayor said: "This decision strikes at the heart of democracy."
He added: "Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law.
"Three members of a body that no one has ever elected should not be allowed to overturn the votes of millions of Londoners."
Mr Livingstone, whose annual salary is £133,997, said he would announce what action he would be taking next week.
The hearing followed a complaint from the Jewish Board of Deputies, which had not called for the mayor to be suspended over the comment he made to the Evening Standard's Oliver Finegold outside a public-funded party.
The chairman of the panel, David Laverick, said it had decided on a ban because Mr Livingstone had failed to realise the seriousness of his outburst.
He said: "The case tribunal accepts that this is not a situation when it would be appropriate to disqualify the mayor.
"The case tribunal is, however, concerned that the mayor does seem to have failed, from the outset of this case, to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable, was a breach of the code (the GLA code of conduct) and did damage to the reputation of his office."
Mr Laverick went on to say that the complaint should never have reached the board but did so because of Mr Livingstone's failure to apologise.
In a statement, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said it regretted the guilty result, but said Mr Livingstone had been "the architect of his own misfortune" by failing to recognise the upset caused.
It added it had never sought anything more than an apology and an acknowledgement that his words were inappropriate for the "elected representative of Londoners of all faiths and beliefs".
'Outrageous ruling'
But Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron said the incident had been "blown out of all proportion" and described the decision as absurd.
Association of London Government chairman Sir Robin Wales added the "outrageous ruling" would stall the mayor in his work to increase police numbers and prepare the city for the 2012 Olympics.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This decision constitutes a clear over-reaction and an affront to our democratic traditions."
Mr Livingstone has said he was expressing his honestly-held political view of Associated Newspapers, but he had not meant to offend the Jewish community.
The Evening Standard's editor Veronica Wadley said that Mr Finegold had behaved impeccably when he was insulted and accused Mr Livingstone of being stubborn.
The London Jewish Forum welcomed the ruling, with chairman Adrian Cohen calling for the mayor to create a strategy to ensure London's Jews would be treated with respect.
Conservative London Assembly Member Brian Coleman said Mr Livingstone had let Londoners down. All three called for the mayor to apologise.
Baroness Hamwee, Liberal Democrat chair of the assembly, said she was "quite taken aback" by the length of the suspension.
If an appeal fails, Mr Livingstone will be responsible for paying his own legal costs, estimated at £80,000.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What do you think, should the mayor apologise or shouldn't he because he was merely exercising his right of Free Speech ?
..... also, do you agree with the ban or do you agree with Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, who said: "This decision constitutes a clear over-reaction and an affront to our democratic traditions." ?
What's your opinion ?
If it was anyone else I would say he shouldn't have to apologise, shouldn't be suspended, etc.
But Ken has been on the other side of this for years - this is exactly the kind of PC nonsense he has supported.
If a police officer made such comments, you'd bet they'd get more than 4 weeks suspension, and Ken would be leading the chants for his head.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe Mayor should apologize despite having acted within his rights. People have the right to speak offensively, but that doesn't mean they should do so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4746016.stm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Mayor and the Journalist
Ken Livingstone was recorded asking reporter Oliver Finegold if he is a "German war criminal".
Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm q ...[text shortened]... r democratic traditions." ?
What's your opinion ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeFunny, even though there are several quotes opposing the ban, you focused in on the one by a Muslim. Why was that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4746016.stm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Mayor and the Journalist
Ken Livingstone was recorded asking reporter Oliver Finegold if he is a "German war criminal".
Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm q ...[text shortened]... r democratic traditions." ?
What's your opinion ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, I think that the ban is justified, given that the people of London have agreed that the conduct of their officials ought to be overseen by the adjudication panel. It is perfectly within the rights of citizens to establish reasonable and enforceable parameters upon the conduct of their public officials.
Does this mean you disagree with the ban ?
Originally posted by bbarrThe people of London did no such thing.
No, I think that the ban is justified, given that the people of London have agreed that the conduct of their officials ought to be overseen by the adjudication panel. It is perfectly within the rights of citizens to establish reasonable and enforceable parameters upon the conduct of their public officials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4748116.stm
Originally posted by bbarrI agree.
No, I think that the ban is justified, given that the people of London have agreed that the conduct of their officials ought to be overseen by the adjudication panel. It is perfectly within the rights of citizens to establish reasonable and enforceable parameters upon the conduct of their public officials.
Originally posted by bbarrIt establishes that there is none:
That article doesn't establish anything about the degree of democratic participation in the formation of this panel.
He and the 11 legal members appointed by the Lord Chancellor, currently Lord Falconer, after consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.
It's also a body for England, not London.
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are two relevant public bodies in this case, both established by Parliament (The Greater London Authority, and the Standards Board of England). The article you cite only deals with the manner in which particular agents get on the adjudication panel.
It establishes that there is none:
He and the 11 legal members appointed by the Lord Chancellor, currently Lord Falconer, after consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.
It's also a body for England, not London.
Read further:
http://www.citymayors.com/politics/livingstone_finegold.html
Originally posted by bbarrOK, I read that article. Nowhere does it say that the people of London had any participation in the Standards Board.
There are two relevant public bodies in this case, both established by Parliament (The Greater London Authority, and the Standards Board of England). The article you cite only deals with the manner in which particular agents get on the adjudication panel.
Read further:
http://www.citymayors.com/politics/livingstone_finegold.html
Originally posted by bbarrYou're pulling an LH. Here's your original assertion:
Did the people of London have any say in the election of their Parliamentary representatives?
No, I think that the ban is justified, given that the people of London have agreed that the conduct of their officials ought to be overseen by the adjudication panel. It is perfectly within the rights of citizens to establish reasonable and enforceable parameters upon the conduct of their public officials.
1) The people of London may or may not have agreed that their officials ought to be overseen by an adjudication panel. They may have vehemently disagreed;
2) So far as I can see, no parameters, reasonable or otherwise were placed upon the conduct of public officials. Instead the power to punish them was placed in an unelected body appointed by an unelected official who is himself appointed by an unelected person. Whatever the argument for the merits of such a procedure, that it somehow reflects the will of the people is a pretty unconvincing one.