"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Since everything Ken does is shot down by the evening standard (such as
the congestion charge, tube and bus prices, etc.) he probably feels
that someone in the Standard has a grudge against him. The
concentration camps were set up because Hitler had a grudge against
Jewish people. Lets compare an Evening Standard reporter to a
Concentration camp guard. Now do you see why he said it?

Poor judgment? Ignorance? Stupidity? Self-importance? Not being able to
tell the difference between the organized slaughter of millions and some
hatchet jobs in a newspaper? You tell me.

Probably a bit harsh but when the newspaper with the monopoly on
evening reading in London is always against anything you do you must be
able to see how he feels

I'm not defending anything or anyone here, but there's a massive difference
between a cog and the machine it goes in. Unless he compared that person to
Hitler, and not a guard, then your analogy is somewhat erroneous.

He is a public official, and I expect more. Even from Ken.
--
Michael Hoffman

d wrote:

I'm not defending anything or anyone here, but there's a massive difference
between a cog and the machine it goes in. Unless he compared that person to
Hitler, and not a guard, then your analogy is somewhat erroneous.

It would be if I agreed with your inherent assumption that the guards
were "just following orders" and had no moral responsibility to stop what
they were doing.
--
Michael Hoffman

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
As far as I can make out he simply used the camp guard jibe as a
comparator because the reporter (who hasn't been criticised AFAIK) was
"only following orders". What is "racist" about that?

I don't think it's necessarily racist, though coming from a man who
champions political correctness to extreme it's more than a little
hypocritical.

But the thing that strikes me most is what an odd thing it was to say. If I
felt I was being harassed by a reporter, I can think of many things I might
do or say, but I really can't imagine the subject of concentration camps
coming into my head.

But only London would elect such an incompetent oddball as Ken Livingstone!

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:02:41 -0000, David Splett wrote:

But only London would elect ... Ken Livingstone!

That may be because only London could. It *is* where he stood...

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767311.html
(Class 455 unit 5743 masquerading as unit 5750 at Wimbledon in 1991
because Wimbledon Depot had just received BS5750 certification)

David Splett wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
As far as I can make out he simply used the camp guard jibe as a
comparator because the reporter (who hasn't been criticised AFAIK)
was "only following orders". What is "racist" about that?

I don't think it's necessarily racist, though coming from a man who
champions political correctness to extreme it's more than a little
hypocritical.

But the thing that strikes me most is what an odd thing it was to
say. If I felt I was being harassed by a reporter, I can think of
many things I might do or say, but I really can't imagine the subject
of concentration camps coming into my head.

But only London would elect such an incompetent oddball as Ken
Livingstone!

Just in case you're not aware one of the excuses used by concentration camp
guards for their behaviour, and disallowed by the Nuremburg Trials, was that
they were "only following orders".

Given that the reporter in question was questioning Livingstone at the time
and place that he was, was in compliance with orders from his superior, what
is the difference?

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:06:01 +0000 (UTC), Brimstone
wrote:

David Splett wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
As far as I can make out he simply used the camp guard jibe as a
comparator because the reporter (who hasn't been criticised AFAIK)
was "only following orders". What is "racist" about that?

I don't think it's necessarily racist, though coming from a man who
champions political correctness to extreme it's more than a little
hypocritical.

But the thing that strikes me most is what an odd thing it was to
say. If I felt I was being harassed by a reporter, I can think of
many things I might do or say, but I really can't imagine the subject
of concentration camps coming into my head.

But only London would elect such an incompetent oddball as Ken
Livingstone!

Just in case you're not aware one of the excuses used by concentration
camp
guards for their behaviour, and disallowed by the Nuremburg Trials, was
that
they were "only following orders".

Given that the reporter in question was questioning Livingstone at the
time
and place that he was, was in compliance with orders from his superior,
what
is the difference?

He didn't use that as justification for his actions.

And he didn't kill anyone, in case that evaded your attention.

Brimstone wrote:

Given that the reporter in question was questioning Livingstone at the time
and place that he was, was in compliance with orders from his superior, what
is the difference?

You can't tell the difference? Be serious.
--
Michael Hoffman

James Farrar wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:06:01 +0000 (UTC), Brimstone
wrote:

David Splett wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
As far as I can make out he simply used the camp guard jibe as a
comparator because the reporter (who hasn't been criticised AFAIK)
was "only following orders". What is "racist" about that?

I don't think it's necessarily racist, though coming from a man who
champions political correctness to extreme it's more than a little
hypocritical.

But the thing that strikes me most is what an odd thing it was to
say. If I felt I was being harassed by a reporter, I can think of
many things I might do or say, but I really can't imagine the
subject of concentration camps coming into my head.

But only London would elect such an incompetent oddball as Ken
Livingstone!

Just in case you're not aware one of the excuses used by
concentration camp
guards for their behaviour, and disallowed by the Nuremburg Trials,
was that
they were "only following orders".

Given that the reporter in question was questioning Livingstone at
the time
and place that he was, was in compliance with orders from his
superior, what
is the difference?

He didn't use that as justification for his actions.

And he didn't kill anyone, in case that evaded your attention.

Killing people is irrelevant, the excuse that one is "only following orders"
is and is not sufficient excuse for behaving in an unreasonable manner to
another person. If the reporter wasn't out to get a story against
Livingstone why did he break it? He could have simply let it pass.

Brimstone wrote:

Killing people is irrelevant,

That shows a lack of respect for human life.

the excuse that one is "only following orders" is and is not
sufficient excuse for behaving in an unreasonable manner to
another person.

You think the systematic slaughter of millions is simply
"behaving in an unreasonable manner" and is on the order of
magnitude of a few unfair articles? Get real.
--
Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Killing people is irrelevant,

That shows a lack of respect for human life.

It's irrelevant to the discussion.


the excuse that one is "only following orders" is and is not
sufficient excuse for behaving in an unreasonable manner to
another person.

You think the systematic slaughter of millions is simply
"behaving in an unreasonable manner" and is on the order of
magnitude of a few unfair articles? Get real.

I didn't say it was of the same magnitude. Go back and read what I said, not
what you think I said , but to do that it looks as if you'll have to get rid
of your prejudices.