The Sunday Times article (Galloway suspended)

[mickyv]

"Mr Galloway: The first point that has to be made in relation to that question is this. Were we a charity or were we a political organisation? The State in its various forms wants to have it both ways. Lord Goldsmith instructed the Charity Commission to investigate us as a charity. The Parliamentary Commissioner has found that we were a political organisation. That is why I say in my reply "Permit me a wry smile at this point". We are called a charity so the Charity Commission can investigate us, but now we are a political campaign when the Parliamentary Commissioner is investigating us. My position is we were never a charity.

We were made a charity after we ceased to exist and years after the registered office, so to speak, moved out of this country to the Middle East. We were never a charity. We were not required to obey charity law during our lifetime. We obeyed the laws governing unincorporated associations just like any other political campaign. After we were no longer in existence we were decreed to be a charity so the Charity Commissioner could get access to our material. I was not a signatory and neither was he. I am pretty sure he had never been met or heard of when the Mariam Appeal was founded.

However, I take the point that you are making which is that Zureikat was not the biggest benefactor, but he was the most active supporter. Obviously the Kings of Arabia were not out marching with us or helping our campaign. My point remains the same. You can, as many have done, especially on the Left, criticise the raising of funds from kings and businessmen. That is a legitimate political criticism, but it is not a crime and I defend it and have done on the basis that needs must. We had to raise funds for this campaign and, in the case of the King of Saudi Arabia, we had to save a child's life who was days from death. You may recall the pictures of her when she came to Britain. I can justify that in my conscience and on Judgment Day I will answer for it.

There are people who think that that sort of fundraising should not be done. As I have said many times, political fundraising is seldom a pretty sight as all of us know. My point is that you cannot ask me to investigate the source of the wealth of people donating to us. If you are going to, by logical implication, you have to ask me to investigate the source of the King of Saudi Arabia as well and when you put it that way it just seems laughable."

Apparently from the House of Commons printed report.

Also I read somewhere, but can't find it now, that Galloway proved the impartiality of the Committee, by reporting that some Respect Council members in Tower Hamlets were approached some days ages by a senior Labour figure and urged to deflect because of what was about to happen to Galloway.

[nekokate]

here's the full speech from News24 in downloadable form


CLICK

Thanks!

If I were to put this video on my YouTube account, who should I credit for the cap?

[faceless]

no mention really needed, as it didn't take much effort to rip it from the bbc site, but a wee link back is always good.

[nekokate]

no mention really needed, as it didn't take much effort to rip it from the bbc site, but a wee link back is always good.

OK, I'll mention this site. I was just wondering since it's hosted on Mandy's site if it was her cap or yours

[Mandy]

no mention really needed, as it didn't take much effort to rip it from the bbc site, but a wee link back is always good.

Thanks faceless. I have given credit "Thanks to https://couchtripper.com" on the video link on https://SpideredNews.com

[Mandy]

GG seem to believe that his apparently impending suspension was due to "bringing Parliament into disrepute", mainly for calling Blair a War Criminal, but this article makes no mention of this, but states that the reason for the suspension is because GG "failed properly to declare his links to a charitable appeal".

So a different reason entirely; I wonder why GG thought it was about disrepute & calling TB a War Criminal ?

The following extract from the Guardian confirms GG's view :

https://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/ ... ss&feed=19

The mammoth three-volume report has more than 20 conclusions, but only two recommendations - that Mr Galloway's use of parliamentary resources to aid the Mariam Appeal was "unreasonable" and would have resulted in a call for an apology.

However, the report states that because of Mr Galloway's unwillingness to cooperate with their inquiry, and his attitude and "calling into question of the commissioner's and our own integrity", the MP had damaged the reputation of the House of Commons and should be suspended for 18 sitting days.

Sounds like he was being punished for not being a good house slave who should just kneel down and accept his master's authority

[Ash]

What if George simply disregards this? Will it have any serious consequences? I really don't get it- how can this recommendation (!) stand when George has been cleared by other govt bodies?

[Mandy]

What if George simply disregards this? Will it have any serious consequences? I really don't get it- how can this recommendation (!) stand when George has been cleared by other govt bodies?

There is a financial implication of losing a month's salary, when there are parliamentary and constituency staff to pay, as well as office expenses, as well as still needing to meet constituents during that month.

Is this telling George's constituents that for 1 month they will have no representation in Parliament ? Talk about disenfranchising whole parts of inner-cities.

This will also be used as a stick in future for any MP who dares "challenges" the power of the majority party in Parliament.

[nekokate]

What if George simply disregards this? Will it have any serious consequences? I really don't get it- how can this recommendation (!) stand when George has been cleared by other govt bodies?

There is a financial implication of losing a month's salary, when there are parliamentary and constituency staff to pay, as well as office expenses, as well as still needing to meet constituents during that month.

Is this telling George's constituents that for 1 month they will have no representation in Parliament ? Talk about disenfranchising whole parts of inner-cities.

This will also be used as a stick in future for any MP who dares "challenges" the power of the majority party in Parliament.

I agree with all of that, but it has to be acknowledged that George will have no problem in absorbing the cost of his staff's wages, since MP's pay their staff from a governmental expense account, not from their own wages.

[mickyv]

I'm intrigued by this apparent "unwillingness to cooperate", but not intrigued enough to search through the 3 volume report ! It does not ring true to me, as GG always comes across as always willing exactly because he has nothing to hide.

So you get 18 days for questioning the Commissioner's & the Committee member's integrity (probably 17 days for calling Blair a War Criminal and 1 day for the others!), so I wonder how many days you would get for bringing the British Parliament into permanent disrepute by voting for an illegal & immoral war, and then again bringing the British Parliament into permanent disrepute by giving a standing ovation for the departing Blair, a person who most of the World rightly view as a War Criminal.

[Mandy]

I think the biggest reason for the suspension is "calling into question of the commissioner's and our own integrity"

It is like punishing someone who is found not guilty for putting up a spirited defence, like not promoting the lawyers who aggressively
defended the Guantanamo inmates. If the tables were reversed, the defence would be applauded for upholding the rule of law, and you are assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt by a person's UNBIASED peers.

I believe a suspension will just act as a rallying call and will bring the whole parliament's integrity into question. Thus it is the commissioners who should be suspended, not George.

[faceless]

Coleman: Suspension of British lawmaker validates investigation
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press - Tuesday, July 17, 2007
WASHINGTON

Sen. Norm Coleman said Tuesday that a report by a British House of Commons committee about lawmaker George Galloway validated Coleman's investigation into Galloway's financial dealings with Saddam Hussein's government. On Tuesday, the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee called for Galloway's suspension for 18 days, concluding that he had concealed the true source of the funds for a charity he set up.

Coleman, R-Minn., held a hearing in 2005 in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in which he alleged that Galloway profited from the U.N. oil-for-food program. Galloway, appearing at that hearing, denied the allegation at a feisty session, telling Coleman, "Now, I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you're remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice." He said that Coleman was using the oil-for-food investigation to hide failed U.S. policies in Iraq.

On Tuesday, Coleman seized on a transcript of a conversation involving Galloway, Saddam and deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, included in the British committee's report. In that meeting, Galloway is quoted as saying, "we are now suffering from the problem of the price of oil which has resulted in a reduction in our income and delay in receiving our dues."

"This document confirms what we've known all along: Galloway was neck-deep in the Oil-for-Food deals, he kowtowed to Saddam Hussein, and his bombastic denials were nothing more than a web of misleading statements," Coleman said in a statement. "This report clearly shows he was trying to mislead the subcommittee in his 2005 testimony and tried to create the impression that he did not benefit in any way from any Iraqi oil deals."

In a telephone interview, Coleman called the report a "validation" of his subcommittee's investigation. He said that Tuesday's report, combined with documents uncovered by his panel's investigation, amounted to "an avalanche of evidence" against Galloway.

The British committee report describes the transcript as a "document which purports to be a record of this meeting," adding, "According to this record, Mr. Galloway made remarks which implied that some of his activities in support of the Iraqi regime may have been financed through an oil-related mechanism."

Although Galloway challenged the authenticity of the transcript, maintaining no one was present at the meeting to record it, the committee concluded that it was authentic.

Galloway did not return an e-mail message on Tuesday. Earlier, in response to the committee's report, he complained, "The committee appear utterly oblivious to the grotesque irony of a pro-sanctions and pro-war committee of a pro-sanctions and pro-war Parliament passing judgment on the work of their opponents, especially in the light of the bloody march of events in Iraq since this inquiry began four years ago."

The committee said there was "strong circumstantial evidence that the oil-for-food program was used by the Iraqi government, with Mr. Galloway's connivance, to fund the campaigning activities of the Mariam Appeal," which Galloway set up in 1998 to help a 4-year-old Iraqi girl with leukemia and to fight the sanctions. "In acting as he did, Mr. Galloway breached the advocacy rule and damaged the reputation of the house."

Parliament's advocacy rule bans lobbying for reward or special consideration.

Galloway's suspension is subject to a vote in the House of Commons. Last month, a charity watchdog, the Charity Commission, said the Mariam Appeal received money diverted by Saddam Hussein, taking in at least $376,000 in improper donations. Galloway said the commission's findings were false.
--------------

[Ash]

It is so infuriating that i have lost my appetite of using sober language

that colman scum is the real deal..he looks like he could use some sun tanning, perhaps in Iraq, outside the green zone

[popinjay]

Coleman mustn't have read the report. It cleared Galloway of everything Coleman accused him of.

[harry perkins]

Coleman comes across as sad and pathetic now, obsessed with an opposition politician from a client state, hard to think now thatr until May '05 he had Presidential ambitions and saw oil for food as his big chance