A strange line of argument
There is something of a flaw in this argument. The Adjudication Panel was set up in 2000 by statute to adjudicate on the conduct of publically elected officials. To complain that following its statutory duty is undemocratic is odd to say the least. And to take the argument to its logical conclusion, if Livingstone had cut out the middle man and just murdered Finegold (or, to be reasonable, pushed him over a wall or punched him or something - not that Ken would ever do a thing like that) are Gavron and assorted numpties really saying that any criminal investigation would be undemocratic since the police wern't elected and the Mayor was?
I dislike Livingstone profoundly, from his obnoxious personality to his toxic politics. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see him handed down a trouncing at the ballot. If he were to catch fire in a bizarre newt-related accident a flicker of a smile might even play along my lips. But I think he has a right to be surprised by this ruling. If inviting a bigoted murderous old bastard to London not just once (as with Qaradawi) but frequently, with the identity of the bastards morphing over the decades from Irish terrorists to Islamist apologists for terror doesn't count as bringing his office into disrepute, why should making unpleasant, anti-semetic remarks?