Friday, February 22, 2008
Livingstone: Christie Clarification Provokes More Questions
This story about Linford Christie being asked by Ken Livingstone to be one of the Olympic torchbearers gets odder and odder. Livingstone now denies asking Christie to do it, yet Christie's agent has a signed letter from Livingstone inviting Christie to take part. The Mayor is developing a track record for making a statement and then immediately having to backtrack once the truth is established. His reputation for political sure-footedness is taking a bit of a battering at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Go Boris !!!
Oh, come on Ken, be magnanimous and let Boris carry it on his bike.
A lunchpack of lies?
Typical Labour, reward cheats.
Whatever happened, it is racist, must be - it's Leninslime's sole defence against any attack.
Maybe Ken should "take more water with his medicine" - especially when he "allegedly" does/does not sign or agree to anything? - Maybe the poor man is suffering some sort of "old timers" disease brought on my his daily intake of liquid medication? - I am of course not an expert on these things - just an interested member of the voting masses...
josephine (my real name is not anonymous)
A bit of Ken bashing - how quaint.
It does seem that those on the right will do anything, or try to warp any scenario to get to Ken ( This is known as Spin ).
Livingstone did not personally invite Linford to carry the torch. That is what you are insinuating.
The mayoral office produced a list of 80 people, inviting themto carry the Olympic torch, and as Ken is Mayor it has his signature on it.
Anyway if ken did personally invite him so what . Because of his drug past perhaps…..shhhhhhhhh don’t mention drug..nudge nudge.
Now all of a sudden, according to Iain, Ken has a reputation for political sure-footedness.
Don’t mention Boris supporting the NatWest 3. All convicted and sentenced today in the States..ssshhhhhhhhhhh..
Oh well.. with such a gaffe-prone Labour candidate for mayor, the Tories must sure be glad to have a safe pair of hands like, er.....
:)
Is Mr Livingstone a alcoholic? He is showing all the signs and characteristics!
If so then his friends, rather than ignore it, should give the man the help he needs. Also he should be advised to resign whilst he still has some of his reputation left. Else he will become a greater laughing stock and the Labour Party. The great Labour Party will be denied the opportunity to continue running London as effectively as it has so far.
Stop kicking the man he is obviously ill!
Next thing you know, he'll come out of the closet and turn into a Tory blogger.
@ Jimbo
So, you're entirely happy that Britons should be forcibly extradited to face American 'Justice' - and without any reciprocal arrangements? Since when did American Federal or State Law mean anything here?
How do you feel about Guantanamo then? Is this the kind of Justice you approve of?
So why don't you emigrate to the States?
Don’t mention Boris supporting the NatWest 3. All convicted and sentenced today in the States..ssshhhhhhhhhhh..
The spin masters attempts at trying to damage Ken have now reached rock bottom. Is this the best you can do. Linking Ken to an Olympic champion.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Bozzer actively trying to recruit crack head dope fiend Amy Whitehouse to his campaign….Don’t quite remember any shadow minister being as rancorous in there objections to this, as Shadow sports minister Hugh Robertson has been to Linford.
Its not easy being surefooted when you have too much to drink.
Don't mention Lee Jasper ssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Don't mention Erroll Walters ssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Don't mention Diversity International ssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Don't mention Rosemary Emodi ssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Don't mention Hugo Chavez ssshhhhhhhhhh
Oh, and let's not restrict accusations of racism to Boris, eh?
Don't mention Oliver Feingold sssshhhhhhhhhhh
Don't mention The Barclay Brothers ssssshhhhhh
In fact, Jimbo / qwerty / Ken, why don't you stop 'mentioning' things full stop.
Go back to your scotch. It's almost the weekend.
To Unsworth 3:10PM
The Natwest three conspired with former executives in collapsed US energy firm Enron over the sale of part of the company in 2000, which made them a total of $7.3m (£4.2m). They committed fraud against a US company in the US.
All 3 protested their innocence. The Tories and Boris in particular backed the 3, one of which is, or was , Boris’s neighbour. Boris campaigned to help the natwest 3. However all 3 has since confessed to the crime and will now do the time.
I’d start questioning Boris’s judgement and his associations, not Ken Livingstones regarding inviting Christie to hold a torch.
Jimbo, another untruth. Boris (and I for that matter) supported them not over the accusations, but because of the way the extradition was handled. It was completely outrageous for them to be extradited that way, as many Labour MPs said at the time too. So don't try and be clever when it is so clearly beyond you.
To
uiop[]
I think you will find that all your sssshhhhhhh have in fact all been mentioned.
Its the whisky what done it!
Not trying to be clever Iain. Here you are trying to score some rather pathetic points against Ken Livingstone, in the most pathetic attempt at point scoring in spin history.
So what if Christie was on a list of 80 celebs. Are you and Guido going to get the full list and delve into the past all the recipients of the letter, then feverously try and find some tit bit to try and embarrass ken. I bet you are doing so as we speak.
Facts remain the same You and Boris and the Tories were defending 3 fraudsters. They committed a crime in the US and the US had them extradited; its as simple as that.
There is a very clear pattern emerging here. No matter what happens in the news, Tory spinners are desperate to find the negative spin to each story. Three crooks get shipped of to the state --- Spin Angle --- “Blair Poodle to States”.
Ken has list of 80 celebs --- Spin Angle --- “Ken In Cahoots With Drug Cheat”
Now that the Natwest Three Crooks are behind bars, I shut up defending your position.
Not trying to be clever Iain. Here you are trying to score some rather pathetic points against Ken Livingstone, in the most pathetic attempt at point scoring in spin history.
So what if Christie was on a list of 80 celebs. Are you and Guido going to get the full list and delve into the past all the recipients of the letter, then feverously try and find some tit bit to try and embarrass ken. I bet you are doing so as we speak.
Facts remain the same You and Boris and the Tories were defending 3 fraudsters. They committed a crime in the US and the US had them extradited; its as simple as that.
There is a very clear pattern emerging here. No matter what happens in the news, Tory spinners are desperate to find the negative spin to each story. Three crooks get shipped of to the state --- Spin Angle --- “Blair Poodle to States”.
Ken has list of 80 celebs --- Spin Angle --- “Ken In Cahoots With Drug Cheat”
Now that the Natwest Three Crooks are behind bars, I shut up defending your position.
Iain,
Important this one. What is the Conservative Party Policy towards a Referendum??
Look what happened:-
In the EU when amendment 34 was voted upon???
Amendment 34 read:-
Firmly believes that, since the choice involved will have a profound impact on the future, a European treaty should be ratified in all the Member States by means of a referendum, following a pluralist debate on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake"
This is pretty uncontroversial amongst those parties that profess to believe in a referendum in the UK, so how did the votes go?
Yes: 85
No: 526
Abstain: 53
And who amongst the Brits voted which way?
Yes:
Batten, Booth, Clark, Farage, Knapman, Nattrass, Titford, Whittaker, Wise, Allister, Mote, Lucas
So that is UKIP, one Green, the former DUP and Ashley Mote,
No:
Attwooll, Bowles, Davies, Duff, Hall, Ludford, Lynne, Newton Dunn,
Wallis, Watson, Atkins, Beazley, Chichester, Karim, Nicholson, Purvis, Cashman,
Corbett, Ford, Gill, Honeyball, Howitt, Hughes, Kinnock, McAvan, Martin David,
Moraes, Morgan, Simpson, Skinner, Stihler, Titley, Willmott, Smith
So that is the Lib/Dems, Labour, the Ulster Unionist, one of the two SNP and five Tories including the delegation leader Giles Chichester!!!
Abstain:
de Br�n, Hannan, Helmer, Ashworth, Bowis, Bradbourn, Bushill-Matthews, Callanan, Deva, Dover, Evans Jonathan, Harbour, Jackson, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Parish, Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Tannock, Van Orden, Evans Jill, Hudghton
Here we have Sinn Fein, and the Tories - barring those who voted against one Green and the other SNP.
It isn't rocket science, this was a simple demand that there should be a referendum.
Five Tories! Including the delegation leader! Go on, count them. The thought that the rest of that shower, including sadly Hannan and Helmer abstained on what I thought was their party policy is an absolute disgrace. I am not sure how they will be able to face their hustings and party membership.
WHAT WILL CAMERON Do, Iain?
Unsworth said...
"So, you're entirely happy that Britons should be forcibly extradited to face American 'Justice' - and without any reciprocal arrangements?"
The reciprocal agreement has been ratified by the US Senate.
@ Jimbo
Do please pay attention. Once again - are you happy that such one-sided arrangements exist? Are you happy that British citizens are extradited, without a similar arrangment with regard to Americans?
As to one of them being a 'neighbour', well so bleeding what? Does that make any difference to the principles of natural justice? But maybe in your particular case it does...
As to Livingstone, we shall see. This apparently dipsomaniac Mayor is at last being exposed for what he is - a complete fraud.
anonymous said"The reciprocal agreement has been ratified by the US Senate."
Reciprocal does not mean equivalent.
Try accusinga US citizen without a complete case and you'll get short shrift.
The law is one sided.. and you either know it and are dissembling or ignorant.
Personally I don't care about the 3 bankers ... but to use a convicted drug taker for the Games?
You could not make it up!
'His reputation for political sure-footedness is taking a bit of a battering at the moment.'
Wot and Boris is going to defeat him?
Iain Dale said...
Jimbo, another untruth. Boris (and I for that matter) supported them not over the accusations, but because of the way the extradition was handled. It was completely outrageous for them to be extradited that way, as many Labour MPs said at the time too. So don't try and be clever when it is so clearly beyond you.
February 22, 2008 3:54 PM
***********
Very magnanimous, but unfortunately horse manure.
Of course Iain if the 3 villains had been paedophiles, murderers, rapists, or even simple drug dealers, you and Boris would have been out campaigning with the same vigour …..errrrr nope I don’t think so.
The Natwest three are 3 white, upper class businessmen. If they had been 3 white, working class brickies form Henley, who tried to fiddle some cash from a US corporation, I can safely say yourself and Boris wouldn’t have been seen for dust.
Your opposition to the treatment of the Natwest 3 is born solely from political expediency, ie The 3 men are classic Tory types, and it also gave you the opportunity to bash Blair about his relationship with the USA.
But as it turns out that Blair was right, and you and Boris are now left defending the rights of three men who lied lied and lied about their involvement in a major fraud, and have now been rightly convicted.
Still looks like Dave's Auschwitz comment could let Ken off the hook in North London.
Anonymous 4:24
Yes the Senate did ratify the agreement. Unfortunately for your argument, for the UK to extradite someone from the US, the UK still has to make a prima facie case: to get extradition from the UK, all the US has to do is send a demand note: no prima facie case has to be demonstrated: the agreement is not an equivalent 2-way street since the standards of proof required to obtain extradition are not the same and are severely to our disadvantage.
One of the NatWest 3 was Boris's neighbour and so this means the Tories were in cahoots with their activities?
You forgot to mention that one of them was a Labour MSPs son.
Or that one of their biggest defenders against being extradited under the present agreement was Tommy Sheridan.
Or that the LibDems were the most active in Westminster on getting the issue of extradition discussed.
Or that many Labour backbenchers were also speaking out against the extradition.
Or that the issue was about the extradition agreement and not about their guilt or innocence.
But then you probably knew that all along.
S'funny - "But there was never an invitation in the first place!" is *exactly* the same lie rolled out earlier this week by the Chinese ambassador over the Stephen Spielberg Olympic thing.
I know you are poorly, but get your laptop and blog.
Cameron has gotten himself into a fix with this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/22/ncameron122.xml
Apparently he has (compress story to make it more absurd)
"dismissed funding to send schoolchildren to visit Auschwitz as "a gimmick".
I am with Cameron. It is a gimmick. Its the ministry of truth trying to educate everybody.
If you have to visit Auschwitz to understand the meaning of evil, you are too far gone to care. Evil is evil. Visiting a concentration camp may focus the mind, but what is really evil here, and lets make no bones about it, is Labour's attempt to propagandize every child in this country.
Cameron is wrong, it's not a gimmick, it's an act of oppression and abuse against freedom of thought.
Itsh not true. None of itsh true.
Oh dear Jimbo. The Scottish news is reporting that Gary Mulgrew is the son of a LABOUR MSP.
And judging by her comments she seems to be saying that he had to plea bargain because they run out off money for lawyers.
So waddya say to that?
A Labour MSP does not seem to share your conclusion that he's bang to rights.
Re Natwest 3, if you're unhappy with how the extradition was handled, take it up with HMG. The Americans simply used the agreement as signed.
It's a good thing they did as the record of the SFO in getting convictions is pitiful, either the prosecution can't explain the charges or the juries are too stupid or both. I suspect the Home Office was glad to see them go.
I love the spin in UK papers that they plea-bargained to shorten sentences etc, couldn't possibly be that they saw the evidence against them and wet their pants could it ?!
Anyway, what's it got to do with Ken & the Olympic black hole, nothing.
Come on. Cameron and Auschwitz. Let's have it, Meisterblogger.
Auschwitz ist zu vermeiden.
Ich wiederhole:
Auschwitz is zu vermeiden.
Anonymous said...
"Is Mr Livingstone a alcoholic? He is showing all the signs and characteristics!"
I saw him on tv the other night and I wondered that very thing.
Perhaps he is only a politician by mistake. Perhaps he should really be a journalist - they're all dribbling inadequates.
Post a Comment