Lonan3 Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Although I don't approve of Livingstone's reaction, I think I can understand it to some extent. Anyone who has been the subject of a hate campaign, as he has for many years, by Associated Newspapers (Daily Mail and Evening Standard) can hardly be blamed for 'biting back' at them once in a while. At the same time, his comment was extremely ill-judged and it would do him more credit to apologise for the content of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Although I don't approve of Livingstone's reaction, I think I can understand it to some extent. Anyone who has been the subject of a hate campaign, as he has for many years, by Associated Newspapers (Daily Mail and Evening Standard) can hardly be blamed for 'biting back' at them once in a while.At the same time, his comment was extremely ill-judged and it would do him more credit to apologise for the content of it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can see why Ken made these comments. He doesn't trust the press especially right wing journalists from the lows of the Daily Mail, Evening Standard or The Sun. However I think in this case he should at least say he regrets his comments even if he doesn't directly apologise. Some attacks on him by newspapers have been very harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 I was talking about this very subject a few weeks ago with a friend who works on The Telegraph. His opinion was that Livingstone made the statement that he did in full knowledge of what the result would be (he knew the reporter of old) and reasoned that whereas it would not lose him any votes from those who would be offended as they would not be voting for him anyway it would gain him votes from – other sectors. Livingstone is not well known for spontaneity but he is known for calculation and duplicity as well as political pragmatism. A lot of people don’t have a good word for him. I do. ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I was talking about this very subject a few weeks ago with a friend who works on The Telegraph. His opinion was that Livingstone made the statement that he did in full knowledge of what the result would be (he knew the reporter of old) and reasoned that whereas it would not lose him any votes from those who would be offended as they would not be voting for him anyway it would gain him votes from – other sectors. Livingstone is not well known for spontaneity but he is known for calculation and duplicity as well as political pragmatism. A lot of people don’t have a good word for him. I do. ****. Sorry to drag this out of the depths of the distant past - but there is a genuine update to the story about Ken Livingstone's comments to the reporter. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Cleared if not vindicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Not only cleared but awarded £250k costs, good on you Ken. The Mail shoulds be made to pay everybody in Britain a Thousand pounds each to put up with the shit they pump out in their rag. The reporter saying he was just doing his job was tantamount to an SS guard saying he was just "following orders". The choice of the Mail sending a Jewish reporter should be questioned more closely considering their attitude toward the Jews just before WW 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Ken Livingstone hasn't emerged from this with any personal credit. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to re-read the article linked by Lonan3. Having said that, he has a good and capable team in London and isnt afraid to tackle unpopular issues head on. In my opinion he has been a capable Mayor. However, Im a little confused that anyone should be linking this story with the original thread. The original thread was dealing with a speech made by Livingstone shortly after the London tube bombings. To jog memories a little Livingstone appeared to be offering comfort and support to suicide bombers operating inside Israel. He was widely condemned at the time. Its a pity the first poster didnt include a link to the news item. This is the incident Any reasonable person reading or listening to the speech could only have been outraged at his comments. My recollection is that it was well publicised at the time and even the BBC provided a transcript and sound file for people to either read or listen to. Liningstone's run in with the Evening Standard reporter was a totally different incident. Im also confused by references to the Daily Mail. Did the Mail have a role in any of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 The original thread di go on to include the incident with the reporter. Liningstone's run in with the Evening Standard reporter was a totally different incident. Im also confused by references to the Daily Mail. I think the expression is 'joined at the hip.' "Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) is the management company for five major newspapers - Daily Mail,The Mail on Sunday, Evening Standard, London Metro, Ireland on Sunday and the advertising publication Loot. Established in 1905, it is a subsidiary of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc (DMGT). " The judge, Mr Justice Collins, said that the Daily Mail Group, which includes the Standard, had behaved "disgracefully" in harassing Livingstone and his family over many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.