11. On 22 February 2006, the appellant made a further statement. In it, he repeated his views of the Mail Group. He said:“What was the motive of the Mail Group in whipping up this media fire storm? If insulted why did the Daily Mail Group journalist or the editor of the Evening Standard not get in touch and say they thought I had gone too far? If the Daily Mail Group journalist had expressed regret for his behaviour on the street I would have been happy to withdraw my comments and assure him I bore him no hard feelings.” Later in the statement, he said:“Over the last two weeks my main concern has been that many Jewish Londoners have been disturbed by this whipped up row. I do not equate the actions of one reporter with the total abdication of responsibility shown by those who were complicit to whatever degree in the horrors of the holocaust. But I do believe that abdicating responsibility for one’s actions by the excuse that ‘I am only doing my job’ is the thin end of the immoral wedge that at its other extreme leads to the crimes and horrors of Auschwitz, Rwanda and Bosnia. I have been deeply affected by the concern of Jewish people in particular that my comments downplayed the horror and magnitude of the holocaust. I wish to say to those Londoners that my words were not intended to cause such offence and that my view remains that the holocaust against the Jews is the greatest racial crime of the 20th century.” 12. The Assembly resolution recognised the role played by the appellant in opposing racism and anti-Semitism. It could not sensibly be suggested that he is or ever has been antiSemitic. He has not approved of some of the activities of the State of Israel and has made his views about that clear. But that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. However, the Board of Deputies in a letter of 26 April 2005 to the ESO expressed concern at the effect on holocaust survivors in particular of his remarks and referred to ‘a spate of anti-Semitic incidents that followed the events of 8 February and the objections raised to Mr Livingstone’s comments’ including abusive e-mails. Sadly, those irrational and unpleasant characters who indulge in anti-Semitic activities will use any or no excuse to display their views. 13. Before considering how the Tribunal dealt with the complaint, I should set out the statutory procedure. The Respondent came into existence under Part III of the 2000 Act, which was conceived to regulate the conduct of local government members and employees. The model Code of Conduct which has been established pursuant to the Act is based on a 1986 report of a Committee chaired by David Widdicombe, Q.C. (Cmnd 9797) and a 1997 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life chaired by Lord Nolan (Cm.3702-1). The Code came into existence following an extensive consultation exercise. It followed Regulations which set out the general principles to govern the conduct of members which were made under s.49(1) of the 2000 Act, which enabled the Secretary of State ‘by order [to] specify the principles which are to govern the conduct of members and co-opted members of relevant authorities in England …’ S.50(1) went on to enable him ‘by order [to] issue a model code as regards the conduct which is expected of members and co-opted members of relevant authorities in England …’ S.50(4) provides:-