Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I saw him on Newsnight last night - there seemed then to be some uncertainty about what he actually said - but if it's as below then, I can see he's in big trouble and rightly so

?Let?s remember, when Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism.?


Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/ken-livingstone-wilfully-twisted-real-story-hitler-zionism/

I reckon that if someone made comments as deliberately inflammatory as Ken's but about black people, the left would be falling over themselves to call them racist (and quite rightly so, in my view). It's amazing how many apologists there are out there when it comes to anti Semitism. There's also double standards - for example, some of the apologists for anti semitism would be the first to say how awful it is that Brexit has caused an upsurge in overt racism and wouldn't seem to recognise there was any sort of a contradiction there.

I still don't see this as being 'antisemetic' as such. He expressed a view on history. Maybe not quite historically correct, and maybe not completely correct. Certainly not politically correct. But was it actually abusive? Where does an allowable, different view on history end and antisemitism start? It's not as if he has denied the Holocaust happened.


I don't agree with Ken at all, but I have to go with Voltaire and ask: what ever happened to freedom of speech?? And, to quote the usual response to this, this is hardly shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.


The caveat here is that Ken has actually said some rather unpleasant stuff about Jews in the past.

Then that puts you in a small minority, I think, Loz.


I think any proper objective view of what he said and the context in which he said it, leads to only one conclusion.


Oh, and the fact that you say he has said some rather unpleasant things about Jews in the past doesn't in any way affect your view of the context?


On the question of context - he was speaking in defence of Naz Shah and what she said. The yet further problem is that Naz Shah came out and profusely apologised (fair play to her) and accepted she made anti semitic remarks and had failed to understand anti Semitism and its effect. She was still suspended but is now back and speaks out against anti Semitism.

Well, I generally prefer to examine what was actually said, rather than who they are. Play the ball and not the man, so to speak.


Many people say stuff to entirely for effect and to get people offended, quite a few of them in the Labour party (and other parties, of course). Not a pleasant personality trait, but hardly unusual. It's a basic 'skill' for just about every newspaper columnist and many political campaigners on both the left and the right.


But as you asked before, robbin, had he said similar remarks about other groups, what would have been the reaction? You asked about black people? But what about Americans? Irish? Essex white van drivers? I suspect there would be wildly differing reactions, very much dependent on the group in question. What makes some worthy of Twitter outrage and some not?

The fact is, Jews suffered something totally unique in halocaust. There have been genocides, but the number of people that were systematically slaughtered in death camps is unlike anything else.


To suggest that the architect of that slaughter had gone mad, but before that was some sort of friend and supporter to the Jews is staggeringly insensitive.


And even now he will not back down one step, and this shows that he is a nasty little toad that needs shutting down.

I too am looking for someone other than Labour that I can get behind. Still a member, and there are good people trying to do things at a local level, but the leadership is a joke.


However, at least Corbyn has stepped in now over this


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39499640

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact is, Jews suffered something totally

> unique in halocaust. There have been genocides,

> but the number of people that were systematically

> slaughtered in death camps is unlike anything

> else.

>

> To suggest that the architect of that slaughter

> had gone mad, but before that was some sort of

> friend and supporter to the Jews is staggeringly

> insensitive.

>

> And even now he will not back down one step, and

> this shows that he is a nasty little toad that

> needs shutting down.


I am not defending Livingstone, but I don't think it's true that he said Hitler 'was a friend and supporter to the jews'. He suggested that Hitler supported, at one time, the relocation of German Jewish communities to Israel. I don't know, but I suspect this was what he was trying to get at.. that support for the idea of Zionism doesn't necessarily indicate support of Jewish people,their rights and freedoms, in the same way that being critical of Zionism, the policies of Israel, or the continued expansion of the state into modern day Palestine (through the expansion of illegal settlements) is necessarily antisemitic.

What happened to the Jews, gypsies & others considered undesirable by Hitler & his thugs, living in Germany, Poland, Hungary etc during WWII was horrific [an understatement]. Six million Jews and five million Slavs, Roma, disabled, Jehovah?s Witnesses, homosexuals, and political and religious dissidents were killed during the WWII Holocaust in Hitler's campaign for a Final Solution to wipe out these innocents.


...but there have been many holocausts just as horrific throughout the world - it matters not whether they died by fire, gas, starvation or bullets or whether it was because of religion, ethnicity or whatever - millions have been wiped out by vile hatred & indifference. More than one million Irish died during the Potato Famine at a time when their crops were exported to feed England. About another one million left Ireland to escape starvation - few cared. The great American dream was fashioned partly by a land plantation and it is estimated that over nine million Natives died from violent conflict or disease during that great land grab. The Ottoman regime is estimated to have killed more than 1 million ethnic Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks between 1915 and 1923. The Khmer Rouge between 1.7 and 2 million Cambodians in the Khmer Rouge?s "Killing Fields.


We have had modern day holocausts - Bangladesh, Congo, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur - the list could go on. Stalin murdered millions who he disagreed with or whom he declared an enemy of the people - estimated between 20 million & 60 million including about 7.5 million Ukranians through induced famine. Mao Ze Dong was probably responsible for even more death during his reign of terror.


Today ISIS is engaged in a very modern-day holocaust - designed to wipe out any other human being that doesn't ascribe to their harsh ideology & Assad appears to be on a genocidal trajectory of his own. The world seems unable to prevent these happenings.


Some [not all] Jewish people leverage the WWII Holocaust to justify genocidal actions of their own and this is lamentable; but that does not justify demonizing the Jewish people in general for this.


I don't know why Livingstone keeps his discussion going about Hitler & Zionism - it is contemptible that he would use such a reference in any manner to illustrate some political point. The people who have been affected by any genocide/holocaust may never experience closure on their suffering but we owe it to them not to use their painful history as tool to make some point or other.


The Labour party ought to insist that he expresses a sincere apology and if he fails to do so, then he ought to be booted out without further discussion.


Evil DOES prevail when good men do nothing.

The state of Israel does some really bad stuff. It is not anti semitic or anti zionist to say that (some would disagree, but they're wrong), it's just fact.


Bit Livingstone has picked about yhe most sensitive part of history to jewish people he could possibly pick, he has vastly exaggerated some history, and added some out and out fiction


And in saying that Hitler then "went mad" he is suggesting that at one point he was perfectly reasonable and sane.


It's intentionally inflammatory, and his insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is intentionally antagonising people.


I've never liked him, I've always felt hos self intereat was top priority, and I suspect he lined his pockets very well whilst mayor. But now he has just shown himself up as the absolute scum that he is.

He's wrong anyway IMHO


Hitler wouldn't have said 'deport them because I support the creation of a jewish state' he'd have said 'deport them because they aren't our people and i want rid of them' and he didn't then proceed from sane to mad - he continued on the path he was already on and had written about.


from http://ww2history.com/key_moments/Holocaust/Hitler_talks_of_Jewish_annihilation


"Indeed, in Mein Kampf, written in the early 1920s, Hitler explicitly linked the imagined deceit of the Jews in the First World War with the need for their destruction, saying that the ?sacrifice of millions at the front? would have been prevented if ?twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas."

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's intentionally inflammatory, and his insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is

> intentionally antagonising people.


I don't think there is any doubt he is being intentionally antagonising, my question is whether that is a punishable offence.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's intentionally inflammatory, and his

> insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is

> > intentionally antagonising people.

>

> I don't think there is any doubt he is being

> intentionally antagonising, my question is whether

> that is a punishable offence.


Not only ought it be a punishable offence but the media ought to deny him airtime for a long, long time. Just choke him off.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The state of Israel does some really bad stuff. It

> is not anti semitic or anti zionist to say that

> (some would disagree, but they're wrong), it's

> just fact.

>

> Bit Livingstone has picked about yhe most

> sensitive part of history to jewish people he

> could possibly pick, he has vastly exaggerated

> some history, and added some out and out fiction

>

> And in saying that Hitler then "went mad" he is

> suggesting that at one point he was perfectly

> reasonable and sane.

>

> It's intentionally inflammatory, and his

> insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is

> intentionally antagonising people.

>

> I've never liked him, I've always felt hos self

> intereat was top priority, and I suspect he lined

> his pockets very well whilst mayor. But now he has

> just shown himself up as the absolute scum that he

> is.


Yeah, totally agree with that.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...