Sadiq Khan: There are too many &quot;white men&quot; on Transport for London

Scroll to see replies

Below is a summary of his history of association with 'unsavoury' characters.

Right from the start I see your desperation. The best you can offer is 'association'.

1. Dr Azam Tamimi threatened 'fire throughout the world', at a rally protesting the images created of Muhammad. Mr Khan shared a platform with this man, and condoned his language, describing it as 'flowery'.

Actually he didn't 'condone' it, he said it was over the top -hence 'flowery'. At the time he had no way of knowing who Tamimi was...

2. Sadiq Khan spoke at an event called the 'Global Peace and Unity Festival', organised by the Islam channel, who Ofcom found guilty of extremism both before and after Khan's appearance.

So what? He spoke at an event, it wasn't like he was parroting extremist views. Rather he was expressing secular views.

3. In 2012, Khan spoke at an event organised by FOSIS. FOSIS have welcomed hate preachers onto student campuses. One year before Khan spoke at the event, there was a parliamentary effort to ban the group on account of its links to extremism.

Again, so what? Unless he actually said anything to support extremism its irrelevant.

4. In 2003, Mr Khan spoke at an event alongside convicted terrorists Yasser Al Siri and Sajil Shahid, the man responsible for training the ring leader of the 7/7 bombers, Mohammed Sadiq Khan.

So he 'shared a platform' with someone before 7/7? Because of course Khan knew about what was to come.
Again 'sharing a platform' is a meaningless statement. Sharing a platform does not mean you agree with someones views. Ed Miliband and David Cameron 'shared a platform' at the TV debate last year, they must endorse each other's views.

Laughable desperation. You can't say he's an extremist, you can't say he even supports 'extremists' so you're left clutching at the most tenuous links to show he spoke at events which certain people before or after were extremist.

So we're now at the entirely ambiguous and meaningless term of 'association'.

Reply 161

JezWeCan!

Original post by Bornblue

So you're argument against Khan is that he has 'shared a platform' (one of the most meaningless phrases) with unsavoury characters.
So what, 'sharing platforms' is how we discuss and debate ideas and policies.

Your

Would you share a platform with an Islamist terrorist, by the way? Or an extreme right wing anti semite?

Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable with that?

Why didn't Sadiq Khan?

Reply 162

username878267

Original post by JezWeCan!

It indicates his extreme left wing mindset. (Or he is just mouthing lefty platitudes as cover for getting his pliant mates in). Maybe both...

As for his sorting out the "housing cost" crisis, how is he going to achieve that?

Does the mayoralty even have the power to do so?

'Extreme left'? Oh do me a favour.
Sadiq Khan in his campaign said he'd be the 'most pro-business mayor ever' - really sounds 'extreme left' right?
He voted for Andy Burnham for leadership, really sounds 'extreme left' right?
He's been going on about how Labour need to look outwards and speak to tory voters and businesses rather than just appeal to the party.
Last year he was in charge of the Labour campaign aganist the Greens but of course Sadiq is 'extreme left'.

Not to mention the fact that as chief whip, he whipped through 42 day detention without trial for terror suspects - but of course that was extremely left.

Khan is an out and out centrist.

Reply 163

username878267

Original post by JezWeCan!

Your

Would you share a platform with an Islamist terrorist, by the way? Or an extreme right wing anti semite?

Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable with that?

Why didn't Sadiq Khan?

Of course I would. And i'd tell them exactly what I thought of them and show them up for the ********s they are.
Sharing platforms is a chance to discuss and debate and challenge people, especially people with extreme views and to show them up.

I've shared platforms with tories before, does that mean i'm a tory sympathiser?

This whole 'sharing platforms' argument is used by both the left and the right and its ludicrous. It doesn't matter if they've shared a platform, what matters is what they've said.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 164

PrincePaul57993

Original post by Tyreke

LMAO! Care to provide any evidence?

Good job you didn't grow up in the 60s, you'd have genuine grievances then instead of this make belief victim role you're playing.

White people in the 60's used to say what you are saying right now to my grand father. That is, they used to say "Good job you didn't grow up in the 20s"

The denial of racism is essential to it's maintenance.

But I guess white denial has become such a widespread phenomenon nowadays, that most whites are unwilling to entertain even the mildest of suggestions that racism might still be issues.

If you want to know about whether or not racism is a problem, it would probably do you best to ask the folks who are its targets. Now if you want to think that black people are lting, then that's on you.

We, after all, are the ones who must, as a matter of survival, learn what it is, and how and when it’s operating. Whites on the other hand, are the persons who have never had to know a thing about it, and who have always had a keen interest in covering it up.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 165

Tyreke

Original post by Bornblue

Right from the start I see your desperation. The best you can offer is 'association'.

You are really rather predictable, I expected better from a self-declared lawyer. Before I opened your post I was certain it would consist of you making the leap of faith that I'm implying he's an extremist by listing these facts, and voila, you did. :smile:

My initial comment was that he hasn't shown himself to be corrupt, but has a history of associating with these people, as illustrated.

I never suggested he was an extremist, you brought that into the discussion.

Don't you agree that someone who works in the public sector and is running for such a high profile role that serves the public needs to be meticulous in who he is associataing with? I do.

Imagine for a second if Donald Trump spoke at a rally alongside Anders Breivik, 2 years before he murdered innocent people. I wonder what people would think?

Reply 166

Tyreke

Original post by PrincePaul57993

You have failed to offer evidence to back up your claim that all companies in Liverpool are racist.

It is quite evident from your post that you believe racism can not be directed towards white people. It can, and it is, in fact you are guilty of it in your post. My sister numerous times has been called 'white slut' by members of a certain community in this country. My ancestors were subjects of racism in the early 20th Century through the use of the rule 'No Irish, No Dogs'.

You have made a racist statement. 'Whites on the other hand....have always had a keen interest in covering it up.' Thanks for judging hundreds of millions of white people based on the colour of their skin :smile:

Of course there is racism in our society, there always will be unfortunately. Nowhere did I say that it doesn't exist, I was challenging your assertion regarding institutional racism in liverpool.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 167

AlvlVictim

Original post by EUTyranny

London's transport authority is far too dominated by white men, Labour's mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan said today.

There are currently 13 white men on the Transport for London board and just three women. Khan said he would ensure the board better reflected the "diversity" of Londoners if he becomes mayor.

"I will reshape TfL's board," he said during a speech in Brixton this morning."It needs to better reflect London's diversity in the interest of Londoners.

Did you know there are 16 people on the board of TfL?

Read More:
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/03/30/sadiq-khan-there-are-too-many-white-men-on-transport-for-lon

I am a muslim and i feel this is stupid af ppl should be appointed on merit and merit only

Reply 168

username878267

Original post by Tyreke

So you know I studied law and you're a new member. You've been on here numerous times and keep getting banned. First you were 'Excited Pup', then you were Golden Fang, then BoS. And you keep coming back despite being banned. Sigh. I wait then 10,000 daily anti-Corbyn posts (And yes I want Corbyn gone too).

No I don't agree re association.
Because 'association' is such a nothing term. I don't agree with no platforming. I believe in challenging extremist Islamic viewpoints like Khan has done. And campaigning against extremism in Muslim communities means tackling extremists head on, challenging their views, even it if means 'sharing platforms' to do so.

If Donald Trump spoke to Brievik two years before he carried out the attack it would be outrageous to criticize Trump for it. How would he know he'd do it? Should we all just stop associating with anyone in case it turns out they're a future extremist?
That's an apalling line of attack. If I go to the supermarket and have a conversation with someone who two years later kills someone, does that mean I should be criticized?
It's ridiculous.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 169

Tyreke

Original post by Bornblue

So you know I studied law and you're a new member. You've been on here numerous times and keep getting banned. First you were 'Excited Pup', then you were Golden Fang, then BoS. And you keep coming back despite being banned. Sigh. I wait then 10,000 daily anti-Corbyn posts (And yes I want Corbyn gone too).

No I don't agree re association.
Because 'association' is such a nothing term. I don't agree with no platforming. I believe in challenging extremist Islamic viewpoints like Khan has done.

If Donald Trump spoke to Brievik two years before he carried out the attack it would be outrageous to criticize Trump for it. How would he know he'd do it? That's an apalling line of attack. If I go to the supermarket and have a conversation with someone who two years later kills someone, does that mean I should be criticized?
It's ridiculous.

Good job you're a lawyer and not a detective.

If you're forgetting, in your initial message you introduced yourself as a lawyer, I haven't trawled through your previous posts to find it out.

Khan didn't vehemently denounce these people did he? His own denunciation, if one can call it that, was in itself ambiguous, what does 'flowery' language even mean?

Reply 170

Nehemiah'sFaith

Lol at the comments.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 171

z33

if there were more black people would he make dah same comment doe

dis racism x_x

Reply 172

Vikingninja

Never heard of him till his comment at Donald. Thought he was cool till this.

Reply 173

Tyreke

Original post by PrincePaul57993

Paul mate, I admire your enthusiasm, that kind of enthusiasm is what caused great change in the 60s in America, but I feel your enthusiasm has given birth to some divisive thioughts. Every colour can and does suffer from racism. Check the link below. I'll be the first to admit that Black people have suffered horribly, particularly in the case of the USA at the hands of institutional racism, but that doesn't mean it is right to blame all whites for this.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/668778/katie-hopkins-bbc-lbc

Reply 174

username878267

Original post by Tyreke

No I didn't. I said Khan was a human rights lawyer and the vast majority of 'extremists' he ever 'associated' with was in that capacity.

He has denounced these people. He called extreme Islam a cancer. He supported gay marriage, despite receiving death threats from his own community.

You're berating him with speaking to people and 'sharing platforms' before they carried out acts of extremism. Khan's not a mindreader, he cannot predict the future.

Your Donald Trump example was outrageously flawed - of course he could not in any way be criticized for having spoke to someone before they carried out an attack.
Khan has regularly fought extremism in the Muslim community and one of the best ways to do this is tackle the issue head on and that means giving talks at events which may be attended by unfavourable people.

This is a classic Goldsmith tactic of guilty by association. It's trawling through every event he's ever been to and looking if anyone at that event has ever said or done anything extremist before or after.

He described a comment of 'fire throughout the world' as 'flowery' which means over the top, over dramatic. But he had no way of knowing at the time who Tamimi.

We can't hold everyone responsible for people they've spoken to, only for things they've done and said. And Khan has never done or said anything to remotely suggest he's an extremist.

I know you're not explicitly saying he's an extremist but it's clear that your attempt to accuse him of 'associating' with them is an attempt to smear him and make out that he's sympathetic.

The best you can offer is that he spoke at events which people who later carried out attacks attended.

Reply 175

Bang Outta Order

Original post by Bornblue

Well lets wait until or if he actually does it before getting our knickers in a twist.
Personally i'm more interested in him sorting out rising transport and housing costs and he's already made a good start with the former.

Precisely

Reply 176

Tyreke

Original post by Bornblue

You're berating him with speaking to people and 'sharing platforms' before they carried out acts of extremism. Khan's not a mindreader, he cannot predict the future.

You've accused me of berating him. I didn't. I said he has a history of associating with extremists, which is true. You have made the link between this and me attempting to smear him?

The comparison with Donald Trump is not flawed, as you say. Tommy Robinson associated with Anders Breivik, before Breivik conducted his malicious act. And yet Tommy Robinson was scolded by the media and many of the population for this, in fact it is still brought up today in interviews with him. For example,
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/anders-breivik-and-the-english-defence-league

Reply 177

username878267

Original post by Tyreke

Then why bring it up? What relevance does it has? You say he's associated, so what? If I argued against a neo-nazi at an event, i'd have associated with him. So what?

Yes and it's ridiculous to criticize Robinson for speaking to someone before they carried out an attack.

Reply 178

Tyreke

Original post by Bornblue

I don't know the manner in which his associations took place, and so rightly I shouldn't have made the comment without knowing this. Under these circumstances I realise it was wrong mention his association with these people. I'd like to thank you for debating with me as it has enlightened me, which is the purpose of me partaking in these discussions. I will reiterate however, my initial comment about his association with extremists was not an attempt to smear him as you seem to have suggested.

Reply 179

PrincePaul57993

Original post by Tyreke

My ancestors were subjects of racism in the early 20th Century through the use of the rule 'No Irish, No Dogs'.

That's true. The Irish had been s.h.a.t on by the English, centuries of overt oppression, virtual enslavement and they came to the UK and saw "No Irish" signs

But guess what ?

When your ancestors first came to the UK and Liverpool they had had almost no experience with blacks. But after a very short time in the UK, Irish immigrants were rioting against blacks, especially when soldiers came back from WW1 and WW2 only to find no jobs and who did they blame ? Yup. Black people.

So the Irish joined in the barring of blacks from labor unions and many jobs back then

Original post by Tyreke

You have failed to offer evidence to back up your claim that all companies in Liverpool are racist.

We are way beyond proof. There have been books written on racial discrimination. But understand that no compamy or firm is going to say -

That's not how it works. For example in Liverpool. You won't see black people working anywhere. Now that is either one of two things

1) Black people dont want work are lazy and want to soak up benfits
2) There is systemactic racism at work

I believe it's #2. You must think it's #1. I also note from my own experience of having phoned up for jobs, then turning up only to be told the job was gone.....now he could have been telling me the truth, but I doubt it.

I also notice the ease in the way whites I know who left uni got jobs, where as black people didn't. Even a white person who used to work in recruitment told me that they used to fight to try and get whites on their books, not particularly because they did not like black or Asian people.

They just knew that it would be much harder getting a black person into work, than it would do a white person and they had targets to reach

Original post by Tyreke

It is quite evident from your post that you believe racism can not be directed towards white people.

Although a person of colour in an authority position can discriminate against a white person, this kind of thing rarely happens because,

A) Such persons are still statistically rare relative to whites in authority.

B) in virtually all cases, there are authorities above those people of colour who are white, and who would not stand for such actions.

C) Even in cases where a black person sits atop a power structure (as with President Obama), he is not truly free to do anything to oppress or marginalize white people (even were he so inclined), given his own need to attract white support in order to win election or pass any of his policy agenda.

There are no institutional structures in the U.K. in which people of colour exercise final and controlling authority: not in the school systems, labour market, justice system, housing markets, financial markets, or media. As such, the ability of black and brown folks to oppress white people simply does not exist.

Racism is when you can deny people jobs, housing, health care, decent educations, or their physical freedom via the justice system, thereby wrecking their lives. And there are virtually no black folks in the UK who can do any of that. But there are white folks in positions to do those things, and who do them regularly

Original post by Tyreke

My sister numerous times has been called 'white slut' by members of a certain community in this country.

Well if your negative experiences with blacks “prove” that blacks are bad people, then by definition, anyone who had had good experiences with black people would be able to say that all blacks are good people: an argument every bit as silly, but just as logical, given the original line of reasoning.

I'm not justifying the name callng. But when all you have to fear from black people is being called names. Is that really anything to fear ?

And you have a system to protect you in case you get called too many names. And if that black person DARES to try to get physical with you, you have a system to protect you and give you the benefit of the doubt. We all know that a black crime and black on white crime is punished differenly.

I know black guys in Liverpool who have done petty crimes in a black area, they got smacked on the wrist, the minute they went to the white suburbs, they got 8 and 9 year jail sentences.