Ken Livingstone

Never has a man been more vilified or pilloried for simply expressing historical facts. I understand fully if there are still some that find it slightly uncomfortable, but using that feeling of not liking what he said to try and close him down, when he's asserting facts is absurd.

Ken is fighting for free speech. That was something that we used to take for granted in this country.

You may disagree profoundly with his assertions but surely unless they are proven lies he should be allowed to express them?

What do the members of this board feel about this latest attack on free speech?

.

Lying,jew hating scum supports lying,jew hating scum shocker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packerman

.

---

Another insightful contribution :hehe:

He's got a very punchable face.

A bit like Adrian Chiles.

Free Speech?

He said it. He said it again. He's not been arrested or locked up because of that.

I call that pretty much free speech don't you?

Free speech is not a free pass to immunity from other people expressing THEIR free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Another insightful contribution :hehe:

---

. better than your ramblings, need a sheep dog to round up your thoughts :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packerman

. better than your ramblings, need a sheep dog to round up your thoughts :hehe:

---

I think it would be more interested in rounding up the sheep, so keep a lookout :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TH63

Free Speech?

He said it. He said it again. He's not been arrested or locked up because of that.

I call that pretty much free speech don't you?

Free speech is not a free pass to immunity from other people expressing THEIR free speech.

---

The people who talk most about free speech disappearing tend to be the same ones who don't really understand what it means.

Old Ken is a chum of Corbyn. Is that association the reason for the faux outrage? Aye. John Mann must be a top target for deselection.

Mention of free speech, an 87-year-old woman was jailed last week in Germany for daring to question the narrative. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments

The readers' comments are both interesting and scary in half the cases... and the comments have been moderated.

Of course, the article provides an opportunity to trot out the magic six million figure. Contrast the two claims below that appear within a few paragraphs.

From:

'Some 1.1 million people, most of them European Jews, were murdered between 1940 and 1945 in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp before it was liberated.'

To:

'Perhaps the most notorious of all the Nazi concentration camps, 1.1million Jews were killed at Auschwitz.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

The people who talk most about free speech disappearing tend to be the same ones who don't really understand what it means.

---

There's a little bit more at stake than free speech. Livingstone has repeated historical facts, nothing less, nothing more, but there are some who would prefer that some aspects of history simply disappear or are forced out of socially acceptable debate. Personally I'm of the view that all history is open to analysis and reappraisal, especially as that is what historians are trained to do.
Should we outlaw historical facts and events simply because a certain section of society finds them uncomfortable? Where does that end? Will we have the Battle of Hastings rewritten simply because some people find the eventual result embarrassing? Of course not.

Livingstone is upsetting people who want history expunged, buried, or rewritten in more of a favourable light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

Old Ken is a chum of Corbyn. Is that association the reason for the faux outrage? Aye. John Mann must be a top target for deselection.

Mention of free speech, an 87-year-old woman was jailed last week in Germany for daring to question the narrative. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments

The readers' comments are both interesting and scary in half the cases... and the comments have been moderated.

Of course, the article provides an opportunity to trot out the magic six million figure. Contrast the two claims below that appear within a few paragraphs.

From:

'Some 1.1 million people, most of them European Jews, were murdered between 1940 and 1945 in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp before it was liberated.'

To:

'Perhaps the most notorious of all the Nazi concentration camps, 1.1million Jews were killed at Auschwitz.'

---

"Mention of free speech, an 87-year-old woman was jailed last week in Germany for daring to question the narrative. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments"

I was always taught that the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, does not fear any form of investigation or questioning.

It would appear that that notion has now disappeared down the shitter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

Old Ken is a chum of Corbyn. Is that association the reason for the faux outrage? Aye. John Mann must be a top target for deselection.

Mention of free speech, an 87-year-old woman was jailed last week in Germany for daring to question the narrative. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments

The readers' comments are both interesting and scary in half the cases... and the comments have been moderated.

Of course, the article provides an opportunity to trot out the magic six million figure. Contrast the two claims below that appear within a few paragraphs.

From:

'Some 1.1 million people, most of them European Jews, were murdered between 1940 and 1945 in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp before it was liberated.'

To:

'Perhaps the most notorious of all the Nazi concentration camps, 1.1million Jews were killed at Auschwitz.'

---

Worlds gone mad, if you can trust an old Nazi, who can you trust?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

There's a little bit more at stake than free speech. Livingstone has repeated historical facts, nothing less, nothing more, but there are some who would prefer that some aspects of history simply disappear or are forced out of socially acceptable debate. Personally I'm of the view that all history is open to analysis and reappraisal, especially as that is what historians are trained to do.
Should we outlaw historical facts and events simply because a certain section of society finds them uncomfortable? Where does that end? Will we have the Battle of Hastings rewritten simply because some people find the eventual result embarrassing? Of course not.

Livingstone is upsetting people who want history expunged, buried, or rewritten in more of a favourable light.

---

Why were you chuntering on about free speech in the OP then? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Why were you chuntering on about free speech in the OP then? :shrug:

---

Because the two are linked, i.e. free speech and the ability to discuss historical facts.

The Daily Mail article is an exercise in free speech. Is it historically accurate? No. Is it factual? No. Should the Daily Mail be stopped from pumping out disingenuous articles on WW2 especially as it was a paper which backed fascism? No, certainly not, and by the same token other views should not be silenced also.

It's the article which is repulsive, not an 87 year old woman whose only crime appears to be that of holding an opinion.

You should be outraged that the Daily Mail (which once backed Hitler) is again shovelling out Holocaust porn and propaganda.

"Among the many millions who met their death here were Poles, gypsies and Soviet prisoners of war."

No reputable historian asserts this.

"Only 8,000 emaciated prisoners were still inside Auschwitz and its sub-camps when Stalin's forces arrived in January 1945."

No mention of the 300+ British POW's that were there as it doesn't fit in with the narrative. Why? Because they claimed they did not see or hear anything during the time of their imprisonment in Auschwitz. No mention also that Eli Wiesel along with thousands of other prisoners chose to leave with the Germans, rather than stay and be swallowed up by Soviet forces if it was found they were not Communists.


"The rest were already being herded across central Europe with just flimsy pyjamas and wooden clogs to protect them against the winter. Most were dead by the time Europe was liberated in May 1945."


Germany was in complete ruins, everything had broken down by that time and tens of thousands died of cholera, typhus, typhoid and malnutrition.



"The day the camp was liberated by the Red Army on January 27 1945 has subsequently been declared International Holocaust Remembrance Day."

Russia's equivalent to Nazi Germany's Goebbels, Ilya Ehrenberg (Stalin's Chief of Propaganda) declared that six million Jews had died in Auschwitz in the same week. This became the official Russian position which was not opposed by the allies at Nuremberg

Following its liberation the camp has become a symbol of the holocaust and has operated as a museum since 1947.

Interestingly the word 'Holocaust' only came to be used in the media during the early 1970's. The Ukrainian Holodomor earns no money whatsoever and is rarely even mentioned, while the 'Holocaust' earns $$$' billions globally and as Prof Norman Finkelstein wrote in his famous book on the subject, has become now a global brand and an industry.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:The...t_Industry.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

Never has a man been more vilified or pilloried for simply expressing historical facts. I understand fully if there are still some that find it slightly uncomfortable, but using that feeling of not liking what he said to try and close him down, when he's asserting facts is absurd.

Ken is fighting for free speech. That was something that we used to take for granted in this country.

You may disagree profoundly with his assertions but surely unless they are proven lies he should be allowed to express them?

What do the members of this board feel about this latest attack on free speech?

---

Let’s be honest the main reason why Livingstone is being vilified in the press is because he is an associate and supporter of Jezza. It’s all part of the on-going ‘Get Corbyn’ smear campaign. I find the notion that either of them is anti-semitic to be completely ridiculous as they are both so painfully right-on. What has been particularly cringeworthy to behold has been the way some elements of the media have shamelessly exploited the memory of jewish victims of the Nazis in order to score cheap political points. As for free speech he is expressing his views on the telly so it's not like they are being suppressed or anything. It is the non-neutral way he is presented by the media that is so annoying. Basically: this is Ken Livingstone everybody, he is a loon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gabalphaville

Let’s be honest the main reason why Livingstone is being vilified in the press is because he is an associate and supporter of Jezza. It’s all part of the on-going ‘Get Corbyn’ smear campaign. I find the notion that either of them is anti-semitic to be completely ridiculous as they are both so painfully right-on. What has been particularly cringeworthy to behold has been the way some elements of the media have shamelessly exploited the memory of jewish victims of the Nazis in order to score cheap political points. As for free speech he is expressing his views on the telly so it's not like they are being suppressed or anything. It is the non-neutral way he is presented by the media that is so annoying. Basically: this is Ken Livingstone everybody, he is a loon.

---

I think you will find everything is going according to plan, free speech can also be used as rope for people to hang themselves once a story has been suitably twisted.