Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
London Mayor Livingstone suspended over 'Nazi' jibe
Ken Livingstone was today suspended from office for four weeks by a disciplinary tribunal for likening a Jewish newspaper reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
The three-man adjudication panel of the Standards Board for England said the mayor of London should step down from his duties on March 1.
They ruled that his outburst last February had breached the Greater London authority code and damaged the reputation of his office.
His treatment of Oliver Finegold, a reporter for the London Evening Standard, was "unnecessarily insensitive and offensive", the panel said.
Mr Livingstone had asked the reporter if he was a German war criminal and then, after learning that he was Jewish and had been offended by the question, compared him to a concentration camp guard.
The panel rejected Mr Livingstone's argument that there was a difference between the damage he might have caused to his own reputation and the effect of his actions on his office.
In deciding on a suspension, the panel rejected the alternative sanctions of a censure or an order for Mr Livingstone to undergo training.
The panel's chairman, David Laverick, said it would not have been appropriate to have disqualified Mr Livingstone from office.
"The case tribunal is, however, concerned that the mayor does seem to have failed from the outset of this case to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable, a breach of the code and did damage to the reputation of his office," he said.
"His representative was quite right in saying that matters should not have got as far as this, but it is the mayor who must take responsibility for that.
"It was his comments that started the matter and thereafter his position seems to have become ever more entrenched.
"The case tribunal considers that the appropriate sanction is for the mayor to be suspended for a period of four weeks from March 1."
Mr Livingstone is entitled to appeal against the ruling by making an application to the high court.
Commenting on the ruling, the London Evening Standard editor, Veronica Wadley, renewed calls for the mayor to apologise for his remarks.
"There is no question that he caused offence to many Londoners by his comments, and his stubborn refusal to say sorry aggravated the position," she said.
"Mr Livingstone not only offended London's Jewish community but then he did not show the stature expected of the mayor of London by apologising. As the Standards Board found, our reporter questioned Mr Livingstone in a 'civil tone'.
"Oliver Finegold behaved impeccably and was polite at all times as he questioned Mr Livingstone when he left a civic party. As the tape recording shows, Oliver Finegold did not swear at the mayor, or was in any way hostile."
The complaint against Mr Livingstone was brought by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Jewish groups today sought to draw a line under the controversy, expressing regret that the row had had to be settled by a tribunal.
Karen Pollock, the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said: "It is unfortunate that it had to come to this ... People in positions of responsibility and power have to be particularly sensitive in terms of the language they use. No one wanted it to escalate or lead to this process."
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1717241,00.html
They ruled that his outburst last February had breached the Greater London authority code and damaged the reputation of his office.
His treatment of Oliver Finegold, a reporter for the London Evening Standard, was "unnecessarily insensitive and offensive", the panel said.
Mr Livingstone had asked the reporter if he was a German war criminal and then, after learning that he was Jewish and had been offended by the question, compared him to a concentration camp guard.
The panel rejected Mr Livingstone's argument that there was a difference between the damage he might have caused to his own reputation and the effect of his actions on his office.
In deciding on a suspension, the panel rejected the alternative sanctions of a censure or an order for Mr Livingstone to undergo training.
The panel's chairman, David Laverick, said it would not have been appropriate to have disqualified Mr Livingstone from office.
"The case tribunal is, however, concerned that the mayor does seem to have failed from the outset of this case to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable, a breach of the code and did damage to the reputation of his office," he said.
"His representative was quite right in saying that matters should not have got as far as this, but it is the mayor who must take responsibility for that.
"It was his comments that started the matter and thereafter his position seems to have become ever more entrenched.
"The case tribunal considers that the appropriate sanction is for the mayor to be suspended for a period of four weeks from March 1."
Mr Livingstone is entitled to appeal against the ruling by making an application to the high court.
Commenting on the ruling, the London Evening Standard editor, Veronica Wadley, renewed calls for the mayor to apologise for his remarks.
"There is no question that he caused offence to many Londoners by his comments, and his stubborn refusal to say sorry aggravated the position," she said.
"Mr Livingstone not only offended London's Jewish community but then he did not show the stature expected of the mayor of London by apologising. As the Standards Board found, our reporter questioned Mr Livingstone in a 'civil tone'.
"Oliver Finegold behaved impeccably and was polite at all times as he questioned Mr Livingstone when he left a civic party. As the tape recording shows, Oliver Finegold did not swear at the mayor, or was in any way hostile."
The complaint against Mr Livingstone was brought by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Jewish groups today sought to draw a line under the controversy, expressing regret that the row had had to be settled by a tribunal.
Karen Pollock, the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said: "It is unfortunate that it had to come to this ... People in positions of responsibility and power have to be particularly sensitive in terms of the language they use. No one wanted it to escalate or lead to this process."
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1717241,00.html
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
The London Mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended for four weeks for bringing his officer into disrepute, a disciplinary tribunal ruled today.
The three-man Adjudication Panel for England unanimously ruled that Mr Livingstone had been "unnecessarily insensitive and offensive" to Evening Standard journalist, Oliver Finegold, by comparing him to a Nazi concentration camp guard in February last year.
David Laverick, chairman of the panel sitting in central London, said: " The appropriate sanction is for the mayor to be suspended for a period of four weeks from March 1."
He said the panel was "concerned" that Mr Livingstone had failed to realise the seriousness of his outburst.
Mr Laverick said: "The case tribunal accepts that this is not a situation when it would be appropriate to disqualify the Mayor.
"The Case Tribunal is however concerned that the Mayor does seem to have failed, from the outset of this case, to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable, was a breach of the code (the GLA code of conduct) and did damage to the reputation of his office.
"His representative is quite right in saying, as he did on February 23, that matters should not have got as far as this but it is the Mayor who must take responsibility for this.
"It was his comments that started the matter and thereafter his position seems to have become ever more entrenched."
After the ruling Tony Child, representing Mr Livingstone, said: "This is extremely disappointing. We will be considering our right to appeal to the High Court."
Since Mr Livingstone lost the case he must pay his own costs - estimated to be at more than £80,000.
The matter was referred to the Local Government watchdog, the Standards Board for England after a complaint by the Jewish Board of Deputies.
The Standards Board's costs total approximately £45,000. The greater part of this has been due to complex legal issues raised during the four day case.
It is understood that the costs for the Adjudication Panel are approximately £7,000.
Trouble flared as Mr Livingstone was approached by Mr Finegold as he left a party marking 20 years since former Culture Secretary Chris Smith became Britain's first openly-gay MP.
Mr Livingstone asked Mr Finegold whether he had ever been a "German war criminal".
On hearing that Mr Finegold was Jewish, the Mayor likened him to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
The panel was told Mr Livingstone had been expressing his long and honestly held political view of Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail and Evening Standard.
Mr Livingstone accused Associated Newspapers of a history of anti-Semitism and the Evening Standard of "harassing" the largely gay private reception. The City Hall party had been paid for by public money.
In the storm which arose after his outburst, Mr Livingstone said he had never meant to downplay the horror of the Holocaust or offend the Jewish community.
He refused to apologise despite pressure from the Jewish community, Holocaust survivors and other politicians.
He said he had hit back after a 24-year hate campaign by the media. He said he was using his freedom of expression and that he had been rude to journalists for 25-years and would continue to be so.
The Evening Standard editor Veronica Wadley welcomed the panel's ruling against Mr Livingstone.
She said: "There is no question that he caused offence to many Londoners by his comments, and his stubborn refusal to say sorry aggravated the position.
"Mr Livingstone not only offended London's Jewish community but then he did not show the stature expected of the mayor of London by apologising.
"As the Standards Board found, our reporter questioned Mr Livingstone in a 'civil tone'.
"As the tape recording shows, Oliver Finegold did not swear at the mayor, or was in any way hostile."
She added: "This paper has not always seen eye to eye with Mr Livingstone but we have applauded his work in helping to unite London after 7/7.
"We believe, though, that it is only right that the adjudication panel has now decided that Mr Livingstone acted in a manner that was ill-fitting for the mayor of this great city. Mr Livingstone should now apologise to those he offended."
More
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article347471.ece
Well, they are not.
They care nothing about people-- everything about perception, PR... spin.
Livingstone on the other hand, though not perfect, and certainly thoughtless in his remarks-- lives a life reflected by character, not words.
Those that confuse character with "dress" are doomed to learn nothing from the past-- and real rascism will continue.
If Muslims groups had gotten a newspaper editor fined for cartoons would I be just as worried? I dont know. But if the editor in question were Jewish I probably would be since the immediate reaction would been one of right-wing media outlets smearing the legal ruling on over sensitive Muslims who dont respect Euro-pean free speach norms (which are not apparently really the norm as one can see in rulings in various countries over the past few months)
Since Livingstone lost the case, he must pay his own costs, estimated at more than 80,000 pounds ($175,000). The panel made no recommendation whether his salary should be suspended.
Laverick said the panel was concerned that Livingstone refused to apologize.
"The mayor does seem to have failed, from the outset of this case, to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable, was a breach of the code (the Greater London Authority code of conduct) and did damage to the reputation of his office," Laverick said.
"His representative is quite right in saying, as he did on Feb. 23, that matters should not have got as far as this but it is the mayor who must take responsibility for this."
Livingstone did not attend Friday's session to hear the ruling.
The mayor had told the panel that he had not meant to offend the Jewish community when he asked Evening Standard reporter Oliver Finegold whether he had been a "German war criminal."
Finegold, who had approached the mayor for comment after a reception for the gay and lesbian community in February, replied that he was Jewish.
Livingstone told the reporter he was "just like a concentration camp guard. You're just doing it because you're paid to, aren't you?" He referred to Finegold's employer as "a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots."
That was a reference to Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Evening Standard, the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday.
"The whole point being made was a dislike for Associated Newspapers and their history of supporting policies, which are inconsistent with the policies of the mayor," the mayor's lawyer, Tony Child, argued earlier this week.
"There's a right to be offensive and to express in hyperbolic terms opposition to Associated Newspapers and their policies," Child added.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/687010.html
And so forth.
It's a prison. Why do the British people stand for being treated like prisoners?
But "Islamofasict" is hardly analogous to "concentration camp guard". It may be downright impossible to find an analogous verbal affront due to the very different history Muslims have experienced -- one of victors and conquerors on an imperialistic scale -- from the Jews' (one of significant victimhood and vulnerability).
If Livingstone had apologized the maffair would have ended in all likelihood. Even his lawyer admitted that matters shouldn't have gotten to the point of having a tribunal convene to penalize the mayor.
To date I haven't seen real evidence linking most of those who've pushed for measures against Livingstone as defenders of the anti-Muhammad cartoons. In any rate I doubt most radical leftists would have voiced any concern if the mayor had insulted a Muslim reporter. Not to mention the eternal silence of the left at the face of the incessant appearance of anti-Jewish cartoons in Muslim media the world over. But then again, the Jews are at a mind numbing disadvantage in that they can't but mainly won't threaten lives, won't have hordes of angry mobs in standby ready to burn, loot and physically harm diplomatic staff and citizens originating from any country where a medium published an offensive racist cartoon, not to mention they dont have at their disposal petroldollars to continually bankroll very expensive edia campaigns or purchase shares in media like the Saudis do. Most Jewish millionaires seem to have very little regard for Jewish concerns in their philantropy agendas.
I shouldn't have written that.
This is a transcript of the taped exchange between Ken Livingstone and Oliver Finegold outside City Hall last year
Saturday February 25, 2006
The Guardian
Oliver Finegold: "Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did it ..."
Ken Livingstone: "Oh, how awful for you."
Finegold: "How did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "Have you thought of having treatment?"
Finegold: "How did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "Have you thought of having treatment?"
Finegold: "Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?"
Livingstone: "What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?"
Finegold: "No, I'm Jewish. I wasn't a German war criminal."
Livingstone: "Ah ... right."
Finegold: "I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "Well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard. You're just doing it 'cause you're paid to, aren't you?"
Finegold: "Great. I've you on record for that. So how did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags."
Finegold: "How did tonight go?"
Livingstone: "It's reactionary bigots ..."
Finegold: "I'm a journalist. I'm doing my job."
Livingstone: "... and who supported fascism."
Finegold: "I'm only asking for a simple comment. I'm only asking for a comment."
Livingstone: "Well, work for a paper that isn't ..."
Finegold: "I'm only asking for a comment."
Livingstone: " ... that had a record of supporting fascism."
Finegold: "You've accused me ..."
After the words "You've accused me" there is a gap on the tape followed after five seconds by a sound indistinguishable other than its being a male voice.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1717652,00.html
What a laugh that must have got last night. But the gag makes a serious point: for politicians of Livingstone's generation and ideology, the Daily Mail is, as it were, a blue rag. They call it the "Forger's Gazette" because of the Labour-damaging fake "Zinoviev letter" in the 1920s. They refer constantly - as Livingstone did in the career-interrupting conversation - to the paper's soft line on Hitler in the 1930s and its infamous 1934 "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" headline.
If the reporter had come from the Sun or the Mirror rather than the Mail's London sister paper (which had also previously pursued Livingstone over an incident at a party), the mayor's March engagements would have been carried out as planned.
But Livingstone is the architect of his own idleness in another sense as well. The GLA, picking up on standards pioneered by the mayor's old GLC, can claim to be the most aggressively tolerant, the most violently sensitive, institution in UK history.
In everything from job advertising to workplace practices, the authority has seemed to be seeking the ideal of an offence-free zone, in which discrimination and upset will be eradicated. The only logical explanation for the adjudication panel's draconian overreaction is that they were applying this doctrine of zero tolerance on intolerance towards the mayor himself. Even so, they should have realised that a letter of censure or warning was the only tolerable option.
Because the pensions bod, the statistician and the other one have started Ken's gardening leave on March 1, he will return to office by April 1. This is doubly appropriate. True, the mayor has been a fool, but through its response the adjudication panel has made a fool of British democracy.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1717471,00.html
But love him or hate him, most of the country thought Mr Livingstone handled the suicide attacks of July 7 last year with authority, aplomb and a great deal of genuine moral outrage that the city with which - more than any other politician - he will forever be linked with had been attacked.
If, God forbid, something similar happens between March 1 and April 1, will the city and nation rally round to stand-in Nicky Gavron, once dubbed "the quango queen", in quite the same way. And does she have the experience to be quite as effective?
Essentially the adjudication panel is the final buck-stopping place for complaints about councillors' behaviour made to the Standards Board for England. A separate body, they were both set up just five years ago by the Labour government.
So who are the three-man panel who have left London deprived of its democratically elected mayor?
Step forward David Laverick, chair of the adjudication panel of the Standards Board.
A former solicitor, his daytime job is as the pensions ombudsman, responsible for monitoring complaints about private pensions schemes abuse - running at around 4,000 a year.
His two sidekicks are Darryl Stephenson, who, as you will no doubt remember, is the former chief executive of East Riding council.
The other household name in his own household is Peter Norris, according to the adjudication panel's press officer, a "former civil servant and currently an independent consultant for local authorities and children's charities". He was also - how could you forget? - a member of the department of constitutional affairs committee on appointments to the lay judiciary.
All three are unelected, appointed to the post by the lord chancellor.
Are they entitled to override the wishes the 828,380 voters who put Ken back in city hall for the second time in June 2004?
"That's not something we comment on," says the press officer for the (somewhat strangely) Harrogate-based adjudication panel.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/02/24/setting_the_standard_for_ken.html#more
Except you are forgetting that Livingstone called the guy a Nazi because he was working for a right-wing paper that was proHitler before WWII not be cause he was Jewish. Of course he really called him a Nazi because Livingstone is loyal to Bush's poodle Blair and Labor and hated the paper for being proTory, but if you read the transcipt the tie between the paper and the Nazis was definitely the reason for his choice of words. London is now without a mayor and people are pretty angry about an unelected group of individuals getting rid of an elected mayor because he called a proHitler paper Nazi. The response to this whole ugly fiasco is likely to be an unsurge in antiSemitism; of course you can't blame those who complained because they expected at most a slap on the wrist and maybe an apology(after all Livingston's popularity is after the London's bombing is similar to Gulianis and he seemed a bit untouchable) but you really have to wonder about the agenda of those who came up with this sentence and those who claim to support it since its seems designed to create resentment towards London's Jewish community (especially when you consider its timing vis a vis the racist antiArab cartoons that the European right seems so adament about defending).
He's certainly not anti-semitic, this comment was made in full knowledge that the Journalist works for a company that supported the Nazi's during the war, and is still under the same ownership.
To be accused of hypocrisy whilst showing it in others, and to then be suspended for it is just beyond belief.
Shocking decision.
Chris Rice, Gillingham, Dorset
I do not see that Ken Livingstone has anything to apologise for; there are sections of the media who have persecuted him since he was leader of the GLC. His behaviuor was insensitive, but understandable.
The suspension is inappropriate and will create more ill-feeling.
kathryn Rimmington, portsmouth
Private thoughts and words are just that and not for public use. I do not believe Ken Livingstone has bought his office into disrepute. Ken Livingstone is good for London apart from getting rid of the Routemaster. Any of you who lip read will see far worse from our parliamentarians than what Ken was reported to have said. Witch hunts and inquisitions, should we be put off from saying what we think? So on this basis will Prince Charles be suspended for half a year for his thoughts?
Doug Wells, London, United Kingdom
This will only add more strength to the anti semitic line of reasoning that jews recieve special favour. What a complete waste of time and money,
Mike, London
We have too many verbal no go areas nowadays. Offended people seem to be ruling society, I think that Ken might have actually got less penalty if he had thumped the oversensitive journalist.
Christian Tiburtius, Reading
I'm fed up with this situation of not being able to criticise people because they have a religion to hide behind. If you're Jewish and don't want to be compared to a Nazi then it is your responsibility not to behave like one. Equally, if you're Muslim and want people to respect your religion then you must respect other peoples religions. It's quite simple and it is NOT racist, anti-semitic, islamaphobic or any other term that religious people use to deny the fact that you actually have a point.
Nick, Reading, UK
I don't rate Ken Livingstone at all but even I find myself backing him here. It's blatently obvious that he's not anti-semitic and draconian punishments like this will, if anything, stoke up anti-semitism. Disgraceful.
Greg Elliott McCurday, Dundee
Compared to what some journalists print in their columns, Ken's outbust was mild in the extreme. The journalist in question should grow up. Sticks and stones and all that!
Good on you Ken!
Kenny Clarke, East Kilbride, United Kingdom
Given the chance, I'd say some far worse things to the hacks from Associated Newspapers. The journalist was simply trying to leverage the Mayor into a hole by bawling like a baby. Good on Ken for saying what many of us think. This decision should be revoked.
[Nick_tal], London, United Kingdom
Will somebody tell the PC do-gooders to get over themselves and stop interfering? Ken had clearly had a bit of a drink and the reporter was being a total twerp. What did he expect? AND how the hell was Livingstone supposed to know that this guy was Jewish? Very irritating case.
Adam Johns, Cardiff, United Kingdom
The really offensive thing is the way that Ken Livingstone can get accused of anti-Semitism for some innocuous comments to a bothersome hack.
Tyrone G
Who will benefit from the mayor being suspended for 4 weeks? He commented in anger at a persistant journalist who would not leave him alone. His comment, though sharp, was not offensive to many but it happened to be made to a Jewish reporter. Would a Christian reporter have made such a fuss? I am no fan of Ken Livingstone but I am an opponent of the cult of 'political correctness' which can eventually be used against anyone who speaks their mind.
carson, Cadiz Spain
Utterly ridiculous.
The irony of it being that Associated Newspapers print offensive representations of asylum seekers, gypsies, gays, women etc on an almost daily basis.
What a total waste of time and money.
Kate, London
Absolute rubbish...Political correctness gone mad. Everyone knows (and loves) the fact that Mayor Ken speaks his mind. He'd never have been elected otherwise. More people like Ken...Less like the idiots who brought these charges against him, please.
Stephen Coates, United Kingdom
Outrageous. First someone gets jailed for voicing a controversial idea in 1989 and then my mayor gets suspended for saying something mild to a journalist. As a Muslim, I find that there are double standards being applied here. Muslims are bad-mouthed every single day and yet this is accepted as commom discourse.
Bilal Patel, London, UK
Amazing, the mayor of London suspended. Maybe the reporter was acting like a concentration camp guard, anyone thought of that? One day we will realise that predudices about different cultures will ALWAYS exist, and as for a hard nose reporter taking offence....nonsense!
DD Dave, Farnworth
...
February 11: - Livingstone says he has no intention of apologising to Finegold because journalists who work for the Daily Mail group do not deserve "respect".
...
February 22: Daily Mail admits some of its staff had attended a party wearing German military uniforms.
...
February 24: Livingstone found guilty of bringing his office into disrepute.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1717202,00.html
(Filed: 25/02/2006)
Who on earth do they think they are, these Adjudication Panellists? What gives them the right to set aside the decision of millions of Londoners? This newspaper has been complaining for years about the shift in power from elected representatives to unelected functionaries, but never did we expect to see so blatant a case as this.
Let us be clear: Ken Livingstone has not been found guilty of corruption or criminality. He has not incited hatred or disparaged the memory of the Holocaust. What he did was to be extremely unpleasant to a reporter.
Now we are as quick as any newspaper to deprecate rudeness to journalists. And we are certainly no fans of the mayor of London, whom we find profligate, prolix and an insufferable busybody. But it is for Londoners to sling him out, not for some para-judicial quango to anticipate their wishes.
In a democracy, people should be free to vote for whom they wish, and politicians to act as they please within the law. Controls on councillors' behaviour are at odds with the principle of local accountability.
It is up to local voters to punish bad politicians - as, in this case, we earnestly hope they will.
That's quite a serious assertion you're making. You're suggesting ulterior anti-Jewish motives or an antisemitic agenda by members of the suspending panel. This reeks of conspiracy theory-sm and is almost incredible. Sorry, I need these suspicions to be based on better supported foundations to be convinced.
Chris Tryhorn
Tuesday February 28, 2006
The war of words between Ken Livingstone and the London Evening Standard intensified today as the newspaper accused him of making false claims about the exchange with a journalist that led to his suspension from office.
The London mayor's claims, repeated at his press conference today, that the reporter, Oliver Finegold, swore at him and "barked" questions and that part of the tape of their conversation had been deleted have been disputed by the Standard.
The paper said its position had been backed up by last week's ruling by the Adjudication Panel for England, which decided to suspend Mr Livingstone for four weeks for likening Finegold to a concentration camp guard even after he was told he was Jewish.
But Mr Livingstone said his version of events had been accepted by the investigation carried out by the Standards Board for England.
"The Standards Board investigated whether I had lied and decided in the light of the six-second gap in the tape of our exchange, on the balance of probabilities, that I did not fabricate the allegation that the reporter swore at me," he said in a statement.
The Standard said Mr Livingstone was "absolutely wrong" to say that Finegold swore at him.
"The Adjudication Panel has already found Oliver Finegold did not 'bark' questions at Mr Livingstone and concluded that he behaved professionally and did not harass the mayor," the paper said in a statement.
It said he was also wrong to say that the gap at the end of the tape recording of was deleted, quoting the panel's president, David Laverick, who said: "The tribunal does not regard anything on the tape following these words as relevant."
The mayor's suspension, due to begin tomorrow, was today frozen by the high court, allowing him to continue his legal battle to have it overturned.
Meanwhile, the mayor stepped up his attack on the Standard and its parent company, Associated Newspapers, which is also home to the Daily Mail.
He singled out the editor of the Standard, Veronica Wadley, who penned a rare editorial under her own name after Friday's ruling, for having "an irony bypass".
"The editor of the Evening Standard, Veronica Wadley, complained in her personally written editorial that I had failed to show 'the minimum standard of behaviour that everyone should respect'," Mr Livingstone said.
"She then went on to describe me as a liar, a hypocrite, a coward and arrogant. Clearly Ms Wadley has had an irony by-pass.
"Nor is her venom in this instance untypical. Shortly after she became editor of the Evening Standard on November 21, 2002 she published a profile of me in which I was described as a 'snappy, snarling brute', 'voracious', 'frightening', 'ugly', 'raging' and 'gripped by paranoia'."
Mr Livingstone said he was "not one of those politicians who resorts to the libel courts" when insulted by newspapers.
"I do however find it a bit strange that some journalists have worked themselves up into a frenzy because I exercise my free speech rights to tell journalists what I think of them as well."
He said the ruling against him implicitly gave rise to the allegation that he was anti-semitic, a charge he rejected and turned against Associated Newspapers.
"The truth is I have appointed black, Asian and Jewish people to the highest levels of my administration and waged an unrelenting war on every manifestation of racism, anti-semitism and every other kind of discrimination," he said. "Associated Newspapers have always led the charge against these policies." Returning to an argument he made this time last year when the tape of his exchange with Finegold first came to light, he pointed to Associated Newspapers' "long record of anti-semitism and support for fascism".
"It welcomed the Blackshirts in the 1930s," Mr Livingstone said. "It has admitted that, as recently as the retirement party of the last editor of the Daily Mail, two of its staff dressed in Nazi uniforms and were not asked to leave. Associated Newspapers has never apologised for this or its record of support for fascism."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1720203,00.html
Im sure you thought the same about the Swift Boat Veterans .... politics is dirty... it doesnt take a conspiracy theorist to see that