Dan wrote: ↑
Wed May 23, 2018 12:50 pm
Blair conducted a war based on flawed evidence in which many people were killed.
Livingstone gave his opinion on a historical event.
"Being offended" does not trump "being killed".
Which doesn't explain why certain elements within the Labour Party think it acceptable to hurl abuse at a former PM and the MPs who served under him (including some still sitting in parliament), and to ignore every good thing that was done during that PM's terms in office (for which some of the credit must be given to that ex PM), because IRAQ. Yet these same people are now expecting us to sweep the offensive views and statements of a former boss of London under the carpet because of the good things done for London during his terms in office (for which some of the credit must go to those who served under him) because Good Stuff Done.
Why is it it not acceptable to acknowledge the good done during the Blair years while castigating Blair for the Iraq war* and, similarly, to castigate Livingston for his unacceptable views while acknowledging the good things he did?
Or should I just fuck off and join the Tories
*I was on that Stop the War March in London, as were many of my colleagues
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind