What does this actually mean?
[web]https://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 62,00.html[/web]
Mariam Appeal....
What this so called report really is about is that if you cannot prove or substantiate any wrong doing by showing convincing or indeed any evidence, then you employ weasel terminology to try and cover up your dismay failure to prove your case, and in the process of course smear the individual concerned (yet again).
“George Galloway may have known” – Note the “MAY”, a meaningless comment as anybody could say that anybody else may or may have know about something. Pure drivel.
“received at least £230,000 in improper donations” – Note that the term “improper” is not defined or substantiated, which makes this accusation also meaningless.
“The commission found that the Mariam trustees failed to "properly discharge their duty of care" by checking the source of the funding.” – This is their best but also very desperate shot, which would have had some merit if;
a) Most Charities/political organizations or political parties even, scrupulously verified the source of all their donations/funding to the nth degree (exceeding ironic in view of the current investigation into New Labour’s cash for honours) .
b) If there was evidence or strong suspicion that Mr. Zureikat was a dishonest crook, rather that a really successful well known & respected businessman.
“George Galloway may have known” – Note the “MAY”, a meaningless comment as anybody could say that anybody else may or may have know about something. Pure drivel.
“received at least £230,000 in improper donations” – Note that the term “improper” is not defined or substantiated, which makes this accusation also meaningless.
“The commission found that the Mariam trustees failed to "properly discharge their duty of care" by checking the source of the funding.” – This is their best but also very desperate shot, which would have had some merit if;
a) Most Charities/political organizations or political parties even, scrupulously verified the source of all their donations/funding to the nth degree (exceeding ironic in view of the current investigation into New Labour’s cash for honours) .
b) If there was evidence or strong suspicion that Mr. Zureikat was a dishonest crook, rather that a really successful well known & respected businessman.
The Sky headline is also totally misleading .. the BBC & Guardian both report this .. but the Sky header is the most misleading.
p.s. It is impractical to ask a person to prove where a specific donation was "earned". Imagine you earn £100 for "x", and £100 from "y", and borrow £100 from a bank, and then make a £50 donation to "z" .. where did £50 come from ?
p.s. It is impractical to ask a person to prove where a specific donation was "earned". Imagine you earn £100 for "x", and £100 from "y", and borrow £100 from a bank, and then make a £50 donation to "z" .. where did £50 come from ?
There is a legal result in Scottish jury cases of 'not proven', but I didn't think they'd brought that in in England and Wales...- while I know Galloway gets up a lot of power-peoples' noses I didn't think he did that enough for them to make their own system look stupid and unjust.
While I'm here - wasn't the girl's name Maryam rather than Mariam?
While I'm here - wasn't the girl's name Maryam rather than Mariam?
No surprise that the mainstream media have not only made this non-news “report” a top headline, but also a dishonestly misleading headline at that. Following the recent Guardian attack on Respect, the media’s obsessive frenzy into trying to discredit Galloway is truly pathetic; you would have thought they would have learnt a few lessons, especially regarding this particular story, but obviously not. Despite the shamelessness of the instigators of such attacks, I’m being to feel very embarrassed for them & their dismal straw-clutching attempts.
Faceless, in a deep way it’s more than just about Galloway. In seeking to discredit him, they seek to discredit the Anti-War Movement, and everybody who agrees that the attack on Iraq was an illegal act. They seek to discredit the man not only because of the views he holds, but also because of his ability & success in convincing people of the truth of his views, from Iraq to Israel to domestic issues. If they succeed in bringing him down, then all those who share his political views will be easier to dismiss, ridicule/marginalize, rather than have to confront with rational arguments.
Faceless, in a deep way it’s more than just about Galloway. In seeking to discredit him, they seek to discredit the Anti-War Movement, and everybody who agrees that the attack on Iraq was an illegal act. They seek to discredit the man not only because of the views he holds, but also because of his ability & success in convincing people of the truth of his views, from Iraq to Israel to domestic issues. If they succeed in bringing him down, then all those who share his political views will be easier to dismiss, ridicule/marginalize, rather than have to confront with rational arguments.
The anti-war movement is not one person though. What about Bruce Kent? Maybe he needs to get a radio show and start getting more public support - he's a brilliant speaker with a lot of knowledge and power behind him and I doubt very much that there's the slightest hint of anything untoward in his history, or the papers would have been on it as far back as the 60s.mickyv wrote:Faceless, in a deep way it’s more than just about Galloway. In seeking to discredit him, they seek to discredit the Anti-War Movement, and everybody who agrees that the attack on Iraq was an illegal act. They seek to discredit the man not only because of the views he holds, but also because of his ability & success in convincing people of the truth of his views, from Iraq to Israel to domestic issues. If they succeed in bringing him down, then all those who share his political views will be easier to dismiss, ridicule/marginalize, rather than have to confront with rational arguments.
Yes of course the anti-war movement is not just George Galloway; it is made up of millions of ordinary people. Ordinary being the operative word, such as the ordinary people who took to the street in their millions, but were & are so easily ignored both by those in power & by the media. Every movement needs leaders, especially articulate & charismatic ones, and although Bruce Kent is definitely the former, he is not exactly the latter, which is also sadly true of the great Tony Benn.
Andrew Hind of the chaity commission says this
https://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... w=bb&mp=rm
https://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... w=bb&mp=rm
I respectfully suggest that it's not primarily his anti-war position that makes Galloway such a lightning rod. It's his anti-Zionist position. Iraq is old news and it can't be undone; those who wanted to see the West entangled in a war with Islam have already got what they wanted. No one today gets punished for criticizing the war in Iraq -- it's the flavor of the month. Criticism of Israel on the other hand is ALWAYS met with violent resistance. Zionists know that they are very vulnerable to anyone shining a light on what's going on over there.
Check out the backgrounds of those attacking Galloway -- from Norm Coleman and Lord Goldsmith to the commenters on YouTube -- and you almost always find a Zionist. I'm sure plenty of people disagree with him about all kinds of things like immigration and hospital privatization, but these aren't the ones who see him as a mortal threat that must be eliminated.
Check out the backgrounds of those attacking Galloway -- from Norm Coleman and Lord Goldsmith to the commenters on YouTube -- and you almost always find a Zionist. I'm sure plenty of people disagree with him about all kinds of things like immigration and hospital privatization, but these aren't the ones who see him as a mortal threat that must be eliminated.
Although I agree that an overwhelming majority of criticism of Galloway is Zionist inspired & motivated, I don’t believe that Iraq is old news or indeed unrelated to the Zionist agenda (as GG frequently says, Israel is after all the only country to have profited from the destruction of Iraq). The repercussions for those responsible for the illegal attack on Iraq will continue to threaten those involved, especially for key players like Blair, who will shortly lose Parliamentary immunity.
However brace yourself for the inevitable barrage of accusations of racism & anti-Semitism, which is the stock response of both those critics of Galloway who have hidden Zionist agendas, and also sadly from those who haven’t yet realized the real impetus for the ever on-going character assignations of GG.
However brace yourself for the inevitable barrage of accusations of racism & anti-Semitism, which is the stock response of both those critics of Galloway who have hidden Zionist agendas, and also sadly from those who haven’t yet realized the real impetus for the ever on-going character assignations of GG.
I think, it was Norman Finkelstein who said somehting like this -i'm just parapharsing- if you keep saying the same lies all the time, at one time, people will start believing it.
This is the same trick that lot of people used in the past to climatise the people, e.g., bush and blair on WMD, Hitler, Franko et al
This is the same trick that lot of people used in the past to climatise the people, e.g., bush and blair on WMD, Hitler, Franko et al