Yoosk today! - Question - I think you're probably the most suitable politician in the entire UK to help organize such a mass event, possibly because you're one of the few who's still actually interested in the masses. Please don't...

I'd like to ask
472 people in 178 cities are asking questions to 1,041 people

Login

Username

Password
Remember me
Forgot your password?

Question

Ken Livingstone, I think you're probably the most suitable politician in the entire UK to help organize such a mass event, possibly because you're one of the few who's still actually interested in the masses. Please don't let us down.
Asked by rezashah on Jul 20 2007 9:20:08 AM and supported by 53 members
53

12 comments

TimHood at Jul 20 2007 12:00:00 AM : I agree with the sentiment, but where is your question?!

rezashah at Jul 21 2007 12:00:00 AM : True, I didn't actually ask anything. Just an excuse to say I quite like old Red Ken, I admit.

peterthurgood at Aug 17 2007 12:00:00 AM : So you actually think that Livingstone, a committed friend of terrorism is the best person to oversee this venture do you, especially with the real threat of terrorism overshadowing the games anyway?

rezashah at Aug 17 2007 12:00:00 AM : So, Peterthurgood, you actually think that half the population of London votes for a terrorist supporter as Mayor? You mustn't think much of Londoners! Aren't you exaggerating about old Ken? Do you really know what a terrorist is? Greetings from Belfast.

peterthurgood at Oct 11 2007 12:00:00 AM : I have only just seen this reply from rezashah, and I am not sure whether it is meant as some sort of sick joke, or as a veiled threat. I can assure you rezashah, that I, as a Londoner, do indeed know what a terrorist is, and whether they are from the middle east or Ireland, they are just a bunch of cowards that are frightened to come out from behind their women's skirts, and ever fight like real men. They have killed and maimed innocent men, women and children here in London, and still Ken supports them. Do you?

rezashah at Oct 12 2007 12:00:00 AM : No, peterthurgood, I certainly don't support terrorists, be they IRA, UDA, Islamists, or whatever. Quite the opposite- I despise them. Having been brought up in Belfast, I know only too well how they destroy society. And there's no threat whatsoever in my comment. All I'm saying is that I think you're exaggerating when you link Livingstone to terrorism. Although he may seem extreme to some, at times, as far as I know he's never supported terrorists. Moreover, I consider him one of our most consistent and honorable polticians, albeit rather outspoken.

rezashah at Oct 12 2007 12:00:00 AM : I forgot to add this in my previous comment to peterthurgood: As further proof of my oppostion to support for terrorists, look at my question on the home page for Jamal Harwood. Now he is someone I suspect of supporting terrorism, and a real threat for the UK and the world.

peterthurgood at Oct 16 2007 12:00:00 AM : I don't know if rezashah really doesn't know anything about the type of people Ken Livingstone associates himself with, and heaps praises upon, or if he (rezashah) is just trying to sweep it all under the carpet, and hope that most people will not be aware of it. Whichever the answer is, I, as someone who has to live in London, and have this ghastly creep for our mayor, will certainly never forget Ken and his awful associates. Here, below, you will see a small collection, taken from various reports over the last few years, regarding your chum Ken. __________________________________________________________________ On Channel 4 News last week, the mayor was asked about his public embrace of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has repeatedly praised suicide bombers - not, admittedly, those on London trains and buses but those in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Livingstone responded by making Qaradawi's case for him, explaining that while Israel had fighter jets and tanks, the Palestinians "only have their bodies" and no other way to "fight back". ________________________________________________________________________ Perhaps it was a moment of madness, a terrible mistake, a crazy slip? But surely not. Livingstone was found guilty a couple of weeks ago by the adjudication tribunal that was set up by parliament to regulate standards in public life of having been "offensive" and "insensitive" when he employed low-level racist abuse against a Jewish journalist. Livingstone is currently appealing this finding. Lightning doesn't strike twice. There must be another reason why he thinks that it is OK to employ low-level racist abuse against Jews. Livingstone made a fool of himself late at night after a party by persisting with his clever "Nazi war criminal" analogy for an Associated Newspapers journalist ________________________________________________________________________ The LCC gave evidence in their dossier of some of al-Qaradawi's venomous remarks and positions. He refused to condemn the beheading of Nicholas Berg by militants in Iraq, described homosexuality as an "abdominal practice" and "a disease" whose offenders should be put to death to "maintain the purity of Islamic society". The cleric used his authority in Islamic theology to give his seal of approval for suicide bombers in Israel who target Israeli civilians, and gave his support to the actions of the terrorist group Hamas. He condoned practices of female circumcision and okayed domestic abuse but "in no case should he resort to using a stick… that might cause pain or injury". More recently, Livingstone's favorite cleric commented, as reported in The Times and the BBC on 11 January, that the victims of the Asian tsunami deserved to die. _______________________________________________________________________ Chavez cancels Livingstone's oil barter deal signing ceremony According to the BBC, it seems that a substantial number of people in Venezuela object to to the dubious scheme concocted by their autocratic President Hugo Chavez and Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, which, incredibly, is meant to subsidise Transport for London buses, at the expense of the poor people of Venezuela, through a dodgy crude oil barter deal. Any effect on bus fares in London will be virtually zero, since the UK Treasury will still levy fuel duty and VAT, per litre of fuel, irrespective of the "cheaper" (but non-zero) price of the fuel out of the oil refinery gates via this supposed barter deal. The effect on the people of Venezuela will be proportionately much more, due to the lost oil revenue which they could have benefited from at market rates. International oil barter deals are notoriously corrupt, e.g. the United Nations administered "oil for medicines" deals in the period between the liberation of Kuwait and the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. How many dodgy middlemen does Livingstone's oil barter deal involve ? The signing ceremony in Caracas for the deal has been cancelled at the last minute, denying Ken Livingstone a media opportunity to pretend that he is some sort of world statesman. Surely the London taxpayer should not be having to pick up the bill for Ken Livingstone's trip to see his communist friends in Cuba, where he seems to have decided to stop off en route. ? ________________________________________________________________ Chavez makes anti-Semitic slur Venezuela's president said in his Christmas speech that "the descendants of those who crucified Christ own the riches of the world. _______________________________________________________________________ Yet this is the same Ken Livingstone who invited Sinn Fein leaders Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams to London in 1993, at the height of the Provisionals' murderous campaign, which culminated in the bombings at Harrods and Canary Wharf.

rezashah at Oct 17 2007 12:00:00 AM : Most of the information offered by peterthurgood is news to me. It may be accurate, exaggerated or false. I honestly don't know. But even if you believe Livingstone has had dealings with some dubious characters, that doesn't mean he's the same as them, does it? I mean, for example, just because Margaret Thatcher was close enough to the late Chilean dictator General Pinochet to the end of his life, to call him, and I quote, "a friend", doesn't mean she's just like him, does it? I would remind you that Pinochet staged a coup and then probably the most sustained and brutal, systematic organization of murder and torture South America has ever seen. Should we judge Margaret Thatcher purely on her friendship with Pinochet, even if she did campaign not to have him tried for his crimes?

peterthurgood at Oct 17 2007 12:00:00 AM : Sorry rezashah, but your tact of trying to condone Livingstone's antics, by bringing Margaret Thatcher in the equation, through her friendship with General Pinochet is ludicrous, to say the least. Unlike Livingstone's "friends", General Pinochet never threatened the UK or the British way of life, in any way. He was arrested, whilst on a friendly visit to London in 1998, under a request from Spain to have him extradited for alleged abuses during the 1970s and 80s. It was the Home Secretary, Jack Straw's decision not to extradite him, to face charges in the Spanish courts - after medical reports showed he was not well enough. Margaret Thatcher had campaigned for General Pinochet's release since his arrest in London in 1998, because she thought he would face an unfair show-trial in Spain, where he would not be able to call any witnesses to testify on his behalf. Using rezasah's reasoning, would we also condemn Jack Straw as well then? The people Livingstone associates himself with, and has on several occasions, invited to the House of Commons, and to speak at City Hall, have never been friends of the UK, quite the opposite in fact. These people condone the murder of British citizens, and by Livingstone inviting them here, he stands equally as guilty of their crimes as they do. Margaret Thatcher, by the way, is not running for London Mayor.

rezashah at Oct 17 2007 12:00:00 AM : Using MY reasoning we would NOT condemn Jack Straw, Margaret Thatcher or Livingstone. Under peterthurgood's reasoning, I suppose HE would have to condemn all three!

peterthurgood at Oct 18 2007 12:00:00 AM : There is no need to angry and personal about this subject rezashah, you brought Margaret Thatcher into this, I didn't. All I was trying to show you, was that Margaret Thatcher's backing for General Pinochet was for justifiable reasons, i.e. his failing health, and the fact that he would not have got a fair trial in Spain. I also mentioned Jack Straw in the same context, i.e that he blocked Pinochet's deportation to Spain, for these same reasons. Whereas, Livingstone's backing for some of the despicable people he has fraternised with, is totally unjustifiable. These are people who have threatened and murdered British citizens. Need I say more?

Topics you are talking about:

People you are asking:
James Purnell Margaret Curran John Mason Ian Robertson Paul Hudson Ian Levitt Lynne Featherstone Davena Rankin Simon Bradshaw Alex Salmond David Beckham Rt Hon John Denham MP Barack Obama AL Gore Sepp Blatter