Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Ken Livingstone destroyed by Andrew Neil live on air watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brillo100)
    No what he said was historically correct. Go and check you facts. You have used the word apparently which says you haven't checked. We live in a double speed nation. All facts need to be checked and preferably cross checked.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah that's why I used the word "apparently" as that's what I heard on the news. However this is a student forum not a dissertation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Brillo100)
    I don't believe that Mr. Livingston was applauding Hitler. He was simply referring to a historical fact relating to deportations/ incentives/ disincentives whatever you want to call them for Jews to move from Germany to Palestine in the 30s.

    What could possibly be wrong with a fact. If there's anything wrong, it's with the people who can't deal with a fact.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, obviously he was not applauding Hitler. What he did was present something as fact that is clearly in contention. Mann pointed out that to say Hitler supported a Jewish homeland is a misinterpretation. He supported an agreement for Jews to leave Germany, but then took dozens of steps to stop this and also repeatedly dismissed the idea of a Jewish homeland. Livingston's exact comment is bizarre,

    "Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

    This is completely inaccurate and also implies that Hitler treated Jews just fine until he started gassing them.

    A major part of the issue here is not even to do with comments he made, it is that he claimed Naz Shah did not make anti-semtic comments, despite the fact that she had already admitted to doing exactly that.



    Edit: Although with the comments he's just made about labour MPs not being taught history in "Israeli schools" I am wondering if he is losing his mind.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    No, obviously he was not applauding Hitler. What he did was present something as fact that is clearly in contention. Mann pointed out that to say Hitler supported a Jewish homeland is a misinterpretation. He supported an agreement for Jews to leave Germany, but then took dozens of steps to stop this and also repeatedly dismissed the idea of a Jewish homeland. Livingston's exact comment is bizarre,

    "Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

    This is completely inaccurate and also implies that Hitler treated Jews just fine until he started gassing them.

    A major part of the issue here is not even to do with comments he made, it is that he claimed Naz Shah did not make anti-semtic comments, despite the fact that she had already admitted to doing exactly that.



    Edit: Although with the comments he's just made about labour MPs not being taught history in "Israeli schools" I am wondering if he is losing his mind.
    When it comes to Naz Shah, you say she's anti-Semitic because she said she was but when it comes to Ken Livingstone, you try and find the antisemitism because he hasn't admitted that he is an anti-Semite.

    I wonder if your crusade to find anti-semities only ends when a person admits that they are anti-semites because you display no eagerness to check whether that is indeed the case.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    "Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

    This is completely inaccurate and also implies that Hitler treated Jews just fine until he started gassing them.
    It sort of implys a softer form of anti-Semitism where Hitler just moved Jews out of Germany rather than murder them would have been acceptable or desirable. Which is an anti semitic view.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It sort of implys a softer form of anti-Semitism where Hitler just moved Jews out of Germany rather than murder them would have been acceptable or desirable. Which is an anti semitic view.
    It does seem that way. It is hard to come to many other conclusions at this point.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If Labour expel anti-Semites they will lose most of their Muslim representatives, if they bring in Muslims who aren't anti-Semites they wont be representative of Muslim communities.

    This is the future, we can't alienate the thoughts of such a rapidly growing demographic in a democracy, and as we begin to take on a semi-Muslim political agenda things like this will eventually have to become acceptable or we have to stop calling ourselves a democracy........... it's a lose/lose situation for Western democracies. The beginning of the end, and a taste of things to come.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Genuine question. What has Livingstone said? It's all blowing up on Twitter but I'm not sure what's actually been said? I know he's been suspended.
    A lot of nothing actually.

    He stated some historical fact (very matter of factly that briefly nazi-ism's goal of deporting Jews matched the zionist's movement's goal of getting Jews into Israel), and defended that female MP who got flak for some ancient comment by stating he believes while she said something utterly stupid, she isn't at heart an anti-semite.
    Questioned on anti-Semitism in the Labour party he stated that as far as he knew there wasn't a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour party, and while there are likely anti-semites within it's ranks he hasn't knowingly met any.

    I think he also pointed out when asked that criticising Israel's treatment and relationship with Palestinians isn't the same as hating all Jews such as any down your own street, and thus not anti-Semitism, although anti-Semites are opposed to Israel.

    He also never said anything about opposing the existence of the state of Israel, nor did he "big up" Hitler, he was actually quite clear that Hitler and the Nazis were evil tossers.



    So all in all, he said pretty much nothing but facts and pretty benign opinion, and defending someone with the benefit of the doubt.

    The only reason there's drama over this is because someone wants him gone or the media needs to fill out a slow news day. Perhaps both.

    And to top it off social media loves a moral bandwagon to jump on.

    I'm not a Ken Livingstone supporter either, but these are just the facts, you can read the transcripts from the interviews that apparently sparked this non-event.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7005311.html

    Weird watching a witch-hunt live against someone you know hasn't done anything remotely wrong. So weird. Mob mentality is funny.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Weird watching a witch-hunt live against someone you know hasn't done anything remotely wrong. So weird. Mob mentality is funny.
    Why did he refuse to admit that what Naz Shah said was anti-semitic?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    No, obviously he was not applauding Hitler. What he did was present something as fact that is clearly in contention. Mann pointed out that to say Hitler supported a Jewish homeland is a misinterpretation. He supported an agreement for Jews to leave Germany, but then took dozens of steps to stop this and also repeatedly dismissed the idea of a Jewish homeland. Livingston's exact comment is bizarre,

    "Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

    This is completely inaccurate and also implies that Hitler treated Jews just fine until he started gassing them.

    A major part of the issue here is not even to do with comments he made, it is that he claimed Naz Shah did not make anti-semtic comments, despite the fact that she had already admitted to doing exactly that.



    Edit: Although with the comments he's just made about labour MPs not being taught history in "Israeli schools" I am wondering if he is losing his mind.
    The Nazi Haavara agreement is not a cranky construct, it's a matter of historical fact, see link. If people get triggered by it, that's their own problem. Why should people have to censor what they say? This type of censorship leads to incorrect information being banded about. Political correctness seems to be taking us into a barbaric new Middle Ages with acceptable doctrines, inquisitions and the slaying of heretics like Ken Livingstone.


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



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Brillo100)
    The Nazi Haavara agreement is not a cranky construct, it's a matter of historical fact, see link and attachment. If people get triggered by it, that's their own problem.


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



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I already addressed that point, congrats on your reading skills. The agreement existed yes, was there ever a serious chance of it being carried out? No.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I already addressed that point, congrats on your reading skills. The agreement existed yes, was there ever a serious chance of it being carried out? No.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Really you don't think that's the founding of Israel in 1948.... Just a couple of years after Hitler lost power and fled to Argentina, was the materialisation of this? Was it just a coincidence.

    I have attached a Nazi Germany / Jewish Palestine friendship coin. Against this is the sort of thing that triggers a lot of people. They want it not to exist and say stupid things like that's why conspiracy people say, but they can't unmake it exist.

    Name:  ImageUploadedByStudent Room1462056084.807357.jpg
Views: 55
Size:  9.7 KB


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It sort of implys a softer form of anti-Semitism where Hitler just moved Jews out of Germany rather than murder them would have been acceptable or desirable. Which is an anti semitic view.
    Which was pretty much what Netanyahu, the far right prime minister of Israel said a few months ago. That Hitler didn't want to kill the Jews, just deport them but was persuaded to kill them by Mufti.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Brillo100)
    Just a couple of years after Hitler lost power and fled to Argentina, was the materialisation of this?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think we're done here.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I think we're done here.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No body of Hitler was ever found that the skull that the Russians had that was attribute to Hitler turned out to be a woman's skull.

    It has come out that an pilot has testified that he flew Hitler to Argentina after the war.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Argentina.html

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Brillo100)
    No body of Hitler was ever found that the skull that the Russians had that was attribute to Hitler turned out to be a woman's skull.

    It has come out that an pilot has testified that he flew Hitler to Argentina after the war.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Argentina.html

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They found jaw fragment that Hitler dentist confirmed were his. They weren't tested alongside the skull.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Which was pretty much what Netanyahu, the far right prime minister of Israel said a few months ago. That Hitler didn't want to kill the Jews, just deport them but was persuaded to kill them by Mufti.
    Yeah I remember that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yeah I remember that.
    I thought it was disgustingn when Netanyahu said it and equally as bad when Ken said it, the problem is quite a few on the political right turned a blind eye to Netanyahu while berating Ken. They pretty much said the same thing.


    Either people should berate both or neither, it's not much to ask for consistency.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I thought it was disgustingn when Netanyahu said it and equally as bad when Ken said it, the problem is quite a few on the political right turned a blind eye to Netanyahu while berating Ken. They pretty much said the same thing.


    Either people should berate both or neither, it's not much to ask for consistency.
    Well it's being used as a smear campaign against the labour left as well as there being any anti-semite problem.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    It does seem that way. It is hard to come to many other conclusions at this point.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Was it just as anti Semitic when the PM of Israel in November pretty much said the same thing as Ken? He said initially Hitler wanted to deport Jews, not kill them.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Was it just as anti Semitic when the PM of Israel in November pretty much said the same thing as Ken? He said initially Hitler wanted to deport Jews, not kill them.
    I'd certainly say both comments were within the same vein. They both hugely minimize the Nazi view of Jews, deforming it into a problem that had to be removed, rather than the visceral hatred it actually was. Both comments also minimize events like kristallnacht and the various boycotts and legal oppression.In some ways I'd say Netanyahu's comments were worse since he was actively trying to push the blame from Hitler to someone else.

    What do you think?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 2, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.