Ken Livingstone

[BBS]

Xman, I'm not trying to defend Ken or any of his policies, I am just pointing out that it concerns me that ANY duly elected mayor of London can be suspended over a relatively trivial manner by an unelected committee.

My street will just (100 metres) inside the extended congestion charge zone, I voiced by opposition to the extension during the consultation and I will be getting rid of my car when it comes in.

Morbyd, I don't think the CC works like that when you live within it. If you live within the zone, you get a 90% discount.

 

[djchewie]

has public transport improved since the introduction of the charge?

 

[x-amount]

Ok, but surely he knew about the fact that it was within the committee's power before his candidacy or whenever, and should have voiced his concerns then.

I do see what you're saying, but then although they weren't directly elected, they are probably (I don't know) within the delegated realm of the Mayors offices' decisions. Similar to the extension of the congestion charge.

 

[Morbyd]

X-man - my point was that he was democratically elected... not sure how that's lost on you.

As for Russia, yes, in Russia a democratically-elected mayor or governor could be suspended under the current regime... not unlike what's happened to Mayor Ken!

BBS - thanks. got it. (and how is it that everyone goes after me when I was agreeing with YOUR initial point!? )

 

[BBS]

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA8288901140777516A0000?source=PA%20Feed&ct=5

Brief but interesting

 

[Buckley]

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA8288901140777516A0000?source=PA%20Feed&ct=5

Brief but interesting

"..unless he appeals..."

Surely it's a given he will?

 

[x-amount]

I'm with BBS.

Don't like him? Don't elect him, but how can you suspend an elected official who didn't break the law? (or is crudely insulting an obnoxious journalist from an obnoxious newspaper considered illegal?)

At the end of the day, did he know it was in the powers of this comittee before he comitted the act? Yes.

Did he break one of the "rules" as held down by the comitees luist of offences? (Hell) Yes.

Ergo, aside from the fact the decision has gone against him, he has no legal leg to stand on, and is nothing compared to the sneaky, duplicitous stuff he's done over the years.

And I still don't see what my fellow (misguided) Londoners (great marketing from a self publicising martyrdom pro pehaps) voting has to do with my opinion of him?