Severian Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has been suspended on full pay for 4 weeks for calling a reporter a 'concentration camp guard'. Given the recent discussions we have had on inciting racial/religious hatred, what do people think of this. Ken made an interesting comment himself I thought: "Elected politicians should only be able to be removed by the voters or for breaking the law." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4746016.stm Hmm... I wonder if I could get suspended on full pay for 4 weeks if I make an offensive comment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I don't really understand the process by which he was suspended, so I can't make a really informed judgement, but it still doesn't seem right to me. I agree with the quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Livingstone believes the Holocaust happened?? I actually find that surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 This is ridiculous. The Mayor suspended by an unelected group of 3 for making an 'offensive' remark to a journalist. Free speech anyone? In a democracy if you don't like a politician then elect someone else. The idea that a politician can be removed from office for expressing the 'wrong' opinions is a very serious and bad precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 You know, as much as I feel America has gone downhill, I can't help but feel that the UK is worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 You know, as much as I feel America has gone downhill, I can't help but feel that the UK is worse... A case of decline in different directions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I think that Livingstone is is not up for re-election for another three years, so the electorate don't have a say. The man is an unreconstructed leftie semi-loonie who got in on the rebound from Thatcherism, and even the Blairite tendency campaigned against him. As a lefty loonie, his views are, surprise surprise....extreme. Only suspended? If we had a constitution, perhaps he could have been impeached, I would have voted for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I think that Livingstone is is not up for re-election for another three years' date=' so the electorate don't have a say. The man is an unreconstructed leftie semi-loonie who got in on the rebound from Thatcherism, and even the Blairite tendency campaigned against him. As a lefty loonie, his views are, surprise surprise....extreme. That is all true. And not one word of it alters the fact that he has a genuine democratic mandate. Only suspended? If we had a constitution, perhaps he could have been impeached, I would have voted for that! Impeached for what? Having unpopular opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Aardvaark: Impeached for what? Having unpopular opinions? No, for bringing his office into disrepute, especially at a time when incitement to hatred is being hotly debated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Does anybody actually know the process by which he was suspended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 And not one word of it alters the fact that he has a genuine democratic mandate Getting a majority vote doesn't give someone the right to be unethical though. I think this particular case is overkill, but I think elected officials should follow a code of ethical behavior. Just because you vote for someone doesn't mean you knew he was a bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 No' date=' for bringing his office into disrepute, [/quote'] That's just a meaningless cliche. Just how has the office of Mayor of London been brought into 'disrepute'. it hasn't. The office of Mayor of London remains reputable. especially at a time when incitement to hatred is being hotly debated. What do you mean here? Muslims are killing people because of a cartoon so the Mayor of London should be impeached for being rude to a journalist? I'm afraid your opinions appear highly sanctimonious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I wonder how people would've reacted if Livingstone had made a statement more in reference to Muslims then Jews. Would've the statement been tkaen less seriously? More seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcs Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Well that wasn't very British of Livingstone. Hey, you gotta hand it to the Adjudicators. They fiercely defend the British cultural love affair with understatement from the threat of hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I wonder how people would've reacted if Livingstone had made a statement more in reference to Muslims then Jews. Would've the statement been tkaen less seriously? More seriously? Probably with some confusion. Livingstone is well known for sucking up to Fundamentalist Muslims. (slightly oddly considering his views on feminism, homosexuality and abortion.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 IMO the whole case is stupid. When Livingstone said his original comment it was a bit out of order, and then he refused to appologise. Even when it was on the front page of every newspaper he wouldn't just say "sorry". Why didn't he just say sorry, that would have been sufficient, idiot. So now he has been suspended on pay. Which is also stupid. But hey, 4 weeks with no work and you still get paid, doesn't sound so bad does it!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I'll ask again: does anyone know who appointed and empowered the panel which suspended Livingstone? Are they judges or what? Under what legal mechanism did this take place? What was the official offense? The article isn't clear, and I can't judge the legitimacy of this without the answers to those questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Sysiphus: The Standards Board for England was established by Parliament in 2001 to enforce the Local Government Code of Conduct, which covers all councillors and mayors in England. If found to have contravened the code or brought his office into disrepute, Mr Livingstone could face a number of sanctions by the body, including being required to undergo training, loss of office for up to one year or even a ban from public office for five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 So if this "unelected" board was set up by an elected parliament, then that does raise some interesting questions, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I'll ask again: does anyone know who appointed and empowered the panel which suspended Livingstone? Are they judges or what? Under what legal mechanism did this take place? What was the official offense? The article isn't clear, and I can't judge the legitimacy of this without the answers to those questions. Question aked, question (briefly) answered. Response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I suppose if its appointed by an elected body, they have explicit authority to impose just this sort of punishment for "bringing the office into disrepute," and its their honest judgement that he did so, then I have to say it's entirely legitimate. I don't think I agree with the judgement, and the vagueness of what it means to "bring the office into disrepute" makes me very uncomfortable, but I guess if the guy refuses to even apologize for what was, after all, just a stupid comment said in anger with no real principle behind it, then I suppose they have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Agreed. Peace. As an afterthought, I wonder just how far down the layers of "indirectly elected" bodies one can go before they are genuinely unaccountable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now