Twitter Updates

Kent Livingston anti-Semitic defence on LBC radio interview. What did Benjamin Netanyahu really say ?

ken_livingson_netanyahuIn his interview on LBC on Saturday 30 May 2016, former London mayor Ken Levingston claimed that his alleged anti-Semitic comments that Hitler was in fact a Zionist and that Hitler had never intended to exterminate the Jews until one day he “went mad” were backed by similar comments by Israeli primes minister (and historian) Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ken Levingston repeated his claim about Benjamin Netanyahu at least 12 times during the radio interview. This was his unchallenged line of defence to the charge that he was anti-Semite.

So did Ken Levingston tell the truth about Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech or did he bent it in an attempt to rewrite history all over again?

Was Ken Levingston being honest with LBC’s listeners in relation to Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech or did he deliberately mislead them to avoid a charge that he was anti-Semite?

Judge for yourself.

Here is a link to the full transcript of the speech by Benjamin Netanyahu,  which was referred to in Ken Levingston’s radio interview on LBC. http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Speeches/Pages/speechcongress201015.aspx.

To put things in context, Benjamin Netanyahu gave that speech to the 37th Zionist Congress on 20 October 2015. The section of the speech referred to by Ken Levingston was aimed to emphasis the active part played by the Mufti (Mayor) of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, in the formation of Hitler’s final solution.

Haj Amin al-Husseini is considered by many as the forefather of the Palestinian nation so the point Benjamin Netanyahu was making was that Palestinian terrorism is not only motivated by nationalism but largely by deep routed anti-semitism.

The transcript of the paragraph of Benjamin Netanyahu speech referred to by Ken Levingston in aid of defending the charge that he was an anti-Semite is produced in full below:

And this attack and other attacks on the Jewish community in 1920, 1921, 1929, were instigated by a call of the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was later sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials because he had a central role in fomenting the final solution. He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, “If you expel them, they’ll all come here.” “So what should I do with them?” he asked. He said, “Burn them.” And he was sought in, during the Nuremberg trials for prosecution. He escaped it and later died of cancer, after the war, died of cancer in Cairo.”

Reading Netanyahu’s words, it is clear that Ken Livingstone purposefully misstated what he had said.  Hitler wanted to get rid of all the Jews.  He did not care where they went. The Mufti convinced him that expelling them from Germany was not a good solution as they would come to Palestine instead.  According to Mr Netanyahu it was the Mufti (clearly not insanity) which caused Hitler’s change of plans.

Did Benjamin Netanyahu say in his speech that Hitler was a Zionist as Ken Livingstone implied?

Clearly not. Netanyahu did not even mention the word Zionism in the relevant paragraph.

Did Benjamin Netanyahu say in his speech that it was insanity that drove Hitler to exterminate the Jews rather than a cold blooded plan? Definitely not.

There is clearly nothing in Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to even suggest that Hitler’s desire to expel the Jews from Europe was motivated by Zionism and it is clear from the speech that the Mufti influence the Hitler’s final solution. Not a word about insanity.

The only part that in Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech that Ken Levingston might have correctly quoted is Netanyahu’s suggestion that Hitler had not formed the final solution until 1929 after he met with the Mufti.

It is clear from reading Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech and from listening to Ken Livingstone’s interview that Ken Livingstone did not tell the truth when he claimed repeatedly that his comments were backed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This was his only line of defence. “The Truth”, he said, which we can see he falsely claimed was backed by an acting Israeli Prime Minister.

Bulk Personal Datasets collected by UK government includes solicitor client privileged information

Bulk Personal Data collection by UK security agencies.

The bulk personal datasets collected by British intelligence agencies is reminiscent of dark days and dark regimes, Yair Cohen, of the London-based law firm Cohen Davis Solicitors. Bulk data collection by UK security agencies is breaching solicitor client privileged. Read full story  and view secret intelligence services secret documents authorising the processing of personal data pertaining to lawyer-client communication.

Source: Bulk Personal Datasets collected by UK government includes solicitor client privileged information

TalkTalk data breach can I leave TalkTalk?

TalkTalk breach of data. Leaving TalkTalk without paying a fine

TalkTalk breach of data. Leaving TalkTalk without paying a fine

TalkTalk data breach.  Can I leave Talk following the data breach without paying a penalty. What does my contract with talk talk says about breach of data protection …

Source: TalkTalk data breach can I leave TalkTalk?

New Internet Trolls Law

Internet Law Experts

New internet trolls laws New internet trolls laws

Chris Grayling’s announcement of 2 years jail term for internet trolls is inconsistent with the ministry of justice’ reluctance to prosecute internet trolls. In 2013 the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) published clear guidance to prosecutors under which communications that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false but deficient in detail (as most tweets are) will be unlikely to be prosecuted. This means that offences involving twitter in particular are subject to a high threshold and that in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest. Whenever prosecution is not in the public interest, police is unlikely to waste time investigating the offence in the first place. On the ground, it is clear that unless the police is given direction and resources to enable it to start investigate anti-social behaviour on social media, the imposition of longer maximum jail terms to internet…

View original post 130 more words

You posted what? Online reputation legal issues

TECH-TAX: WITH DGIT

Yair Cohen speaker at Google Campus

Yair Cohen Google Campus

So you’ve founded a start-up, now what?!  You’ve had your big idea, you’ve researched your market, and you’ve taken the leap into the unknown… then what? Then, in amongst the long hours, the pursuit of the dream, the networking, the free beers and the pizza – suddenly there’s a tax return, a legal battle, a key team member gone…

Tax, talent and navigating online law will all feature in this event full of advice. Hear from the specialists that can help stop your mole hills becoming mountains!

Even information: http://london.techhub.com/events/techtax-with-dgit/

Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Media Websites

Social media lawCorporate social responsibility might no longer be a term that refers to saving the rain forest or to paying coffee farmers a minimum wage. It could soon mean much more.

Social media users are like the coffee farmers but only in the sense that they work extremely hard in return for very little. Social media users work for the social media corporation by producing never-ending internet content and  by falsifying friendship and relationships. Social media users dance and sing before their masters and often strip themselves off the rights to privacy and basic dignity. Social media sites will not exist without the hard labour of users in the same way that coffee chains will not survive without an army of coffee farmers. Read the full article: Social Media Sites and Corporate Social Responsibility

By: Yair Cohen

Social Media lawyer

Lord Rennard possible grounds for legal action against the Liberal Democrats Party

Lord Rennard Legal Case

Lord Rennard Legal Case

Lord Rennard’s lawyers are still considering grounds for legal action against the Liberal Democrats Party following his suspension from the party and the announcement that a second investigation into his conduct is to commence.

The lawyers are expected to have an interesting time preparing their case. There are plenty of evidence and good legal material to play with. Professionally, they are like kids in a toy shop.

So has Lord Rennard got a reasonably good case?  It seems he has.

So on what grounds may Lord Rennard win a judicial review?

Under UK law, there are only three circumstances where a Court might declare administrative decisions unlawful. Read more  on Lord Rennard legal case here

http://www.internetlawexperts.net/2014/01/lord-rennards-potential-grounds-for.html

 

By: Yair Cohen

Cohen Davis Solicitors

Social media lawyers
%d bloggers like this: