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

Sadiq Khan: There are too many "white men" on Transport for London watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So who are you talking about? Which dangerous extremists has he represented or endorsed? Which fundamentalists has he 'tolerated'? (Whatever that means)

    Or are you going to follow Zac Goldsmith's dog whistle and point out the fact that he once was in the same tesco supermarket at the same time as someone who's third cousin is rumored to support Isis?
    Lol, I appreciate the humour, but I hope you don't let emotions get the better of you in court, I suspect it may be detrimental to your case. I don't care for Goldsmith, I don't care for the majority of politicians, I'm an avid seeker of the truth.

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

    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'.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrSplash)
    More represenative of london not UK....
    Imagine if I said nearly all mp's must be white because in almost every constituency the majority of people there are white.

    That's the argument you just used.

    The only thing that matters is do they do the job right


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyreke)

    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.
    [/QUOTE]

    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'.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePaul57993)
    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.
    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

    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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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/...nsport-for-lon
    I am a muslim and i feel this is stupid af ppl should be appointed on merit and merit only
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyreke)
    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.

    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?
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Lol at the comments.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    if there were more black people would he make dah same comment doe




    dis racism x_x
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Never heard of him till his comment at Donald. Thought he was cool till this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincePaul57993)
    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.
    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/668...opkins-bbc-lbc
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyreke)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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-d...defence-league
 
 
 
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 23, 2016
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.