I have a suspicion that this is all going to backfire on Parliament. Many of my friends, some of whom are outwardly hostile to George, are now coming out in support of him. I'm hearing phrases like "The only MP who tells the truth and isn't frightened of the implications" and "It's amazing to hear an MP who gives a direct answer to a direct question"
It may not seem like it right now, but I reckon this, in time, could generate a whole new group of supporters for him, many of whom wouldn't have given him the time of day up til now.
The Sunday Times article (Galloway suspended)
George Galloway may face criminal inquiry
By Andrew Pierce and Richard Edwards
2:12am 18/07/2007
www.telegraph.co.uk
Scotland yard is to take the first steps toward a possible criminal investigation against George Galloway, who faces an 18-day suspension from the Commons over his financial links to Saddam Hussein's regime, The Daily Telegraph can disclose today. Detectives are to seek documents from the Serious Fraud Office, which carried out a previous investigation, to establish whether there are grounds to prosecute Mr Galloway.
The police may seek his bank accounts after a report by Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Standards Commisioner, concluded yesterday that Mr Galloway's Mariam Appeal charity received large sums from Saddam's manipulation of the United Nations oil-for-food programme. Sir Philip said: "Mr Galloway has consistently denied, prevaricated and fudged in relation to the now undeniable evidence that the Mariam Appeal, and he indirectly through it, received money derived, via the Oil for Food programme, from the Iraqi regime."
He added: "Mr Galloway through his controlling position in the appeal, benefited from those monies, in terms of furtherance of his political objectives." He went on: "He [Mr Galloway] had received such support at least recklessly or negligently, and probably knowingly." But Sir Philip said there was no evidence that Mr Galloway had benefited personally from the programme or that any funds had entered his personal bank account.
The 181-page report said that the Respect MP had "consistently failed to live up to the expectation of openness and straightforwardness". The Commons standards and privileges committee, in recommending the 18-day ban, said Mr Galloway had been "complicit" in the concealment of the true source of funds for the Mariam Appeal. MPs will vote on the ban which will begin when Parliament resumes after the summer recess.
Mr Galloway called the inquiry a "politicised tribunal". Speaking outside the Commons, he said: "I challenged everything that Sir Humphrey and Sir Bufton and Sir Tufton put to me because the points they were putting to me were false. I will not allow people to make false allegations against me. I am not a punchbag. If you aim low blows at me I will fight back. That's what I've done and that's what I've been suspended for. I was campaigning against sanctions and war on Iraq. If these people behind me had listened to me, hundreds of thousands of people now dead would still be alive and Britain would not be in peril, here at home and around the world. They should be striking a medal for me for my work on Iraq, not suspending me."
The investigation was triggered by The Daily Telegraph in April 2003 when David Blair, a foreign correspondent, discovered documents purporting to be about Mr Galloway in the Iraqi foreign ministry in Baghdad shortly after Saddam's overthrow. The papers claimed to show that he received funds from Saddam's regime for the Mariam Appeal. The committee report demands that Mr Galloway apologise to Blair, who he accused of perjury, and to the Commons. In December 2004 The Daily Telegraph lost a libel action brought by Mr Galloway who was paid £150,000 in damages.
Detectives are studying the section of the report where Sir Philip referred to Mr Galloway's bank accounts which he had not seen. The report said: "I have not pressed for access to bank accounts . . . primarily because I believe that embarking on such action could take me into matters more properly within the jurisdiction of other agencies."
There have been several investigations into the oil-for-food programme, including one in the United States, to which Mr Galloway gave evidence. The SFO in turn launched an investigation into the programme and a four-strong team from the office returned from America in January last year having been given access to thousands of documents, including bank records, relating to the affair. They concluded in March that Mr Galloway would not face action. But a senior Scotland Yard source said officers would seek the SFO's papers to ascertain if there is evidence to launch another inquiry. The source said: "There are several steps to go through before we can see if there are grounds to launch an investigation. You can assume it is something we are looking at."
At Westminster the committee emphatically rejected Mr Galloway's claim that the oil-for-food programme could not be considered Iraqi government funding. "This is purely a matter of semantics: those selling oil under the programme first required options granted by the Iraqi government. Mr Galloway's conduct aimed at concealing the true source of Iraqi funding of the Mariam Appeal, his conduct towards Mr David Blair and others in this inquiry, his unwillingness to co-operate fully with the commissioner, and his calling into question of the commissioner's and our own integrity have, in our view, damaged the reputation of the House. We recommend that he apologise to the House, and be suspended for a period of 18 actual sitting days."
Mr Galloway was "irresponsible" for not verifying the source of some of the donations and his failure to declare an interest in the Commons. "In acting as he did Mr Galloway breached the advocacy rule and damaged the reputation of the House. We believe he was complicit in the concealment of the true source of the funds for the Mariam Appeal."
---------------
That's enough abu-se, George
July 18, 2007
www.thesun.co.uk
GEORGE Galloway, his right hand held high, morphs into hook-handed Abu Hamza in our mock-up pictures. The fiery Scotsman believes an attack by suicide bombers on former PM Tony Blair is morally justified — as does Hamza. Greasy Galloway, 52, is an apologist for Islamic extremism — as is the cleric Hamza. And both believe Our Boys out in Iraq are legitimate targets.
We could not ignore how much the pair have in common — so we put together these pictures to show the similarities. Hamza, 49, is serving seven years in Belmarsh jail for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred. But Galloway will serve just 18 days — in his ban from Parliament.
-----------------------
I'm sure that saying he's an apologist for Islamic extremism must be libellous...
the graphic is bastard terrible I have to say. what kind of monkey did they get to do that morphing? I could do better even if I had a hook for a hand....
Mark Steel: Why should Galloway be the only fall guy?
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk
At last a politician has been suspended for their role in the Iraq war. You'd have thought it would have happened before now, and you might have thought when it finally happened, it wouldn't be the politician most prominently against the war. Suspending George Galloway for his conduct in Iraq is as if last week's trial of those failed suicide bombers ended with the judge saying "This was a monstrous crime. So I'm going to let you off, and jail the bloke who chased you through the Underground."
The main reason given for the suspension is that some of the money for Galloway's charity came from a dodgy Jordanian businessman. Is this the normal attitude with charities, that no donation should be accepted without the donor being investigated? Maybe it's a new culture, and in next year's "Children in Need", Terry Wogan will say: "And how about this? We've had a grand donation of £25 from Mrs Wimthorpe in Derby. Well I've got one thing to say - who the hell are you, Wimthorpe, and what's your game? We're going to go through you with a microscope and if you've put one finger out of line you can keep your dirty money you old scallywag, spina bifida doesn't need you."
Another source of friction is that Galloway's charity, The Mariam Appeal, which assisted sick Iraqis who were suffering from the effects of sanctions against their country, was political in that it was against those sanctions. In other words, it was against the thing causing the suffering. And that's wrong, apparently. So presumably there will also be investigations into appeals for victims of earthquakes. How dare these people oppose earthquakes in the name of charity? At least they should be balanced, and allow space for supporters of earthquakes to present their side of the story.
The original investigation into Galloway's dealings in Iraq came when The Daily Telegraph accused him of taking money from Saddam, an allegation that cost them £150,000 when they lost the libel case. Now, despite their acceptance he didn't take a penny for himself, the parliamentary committee says his charity "damaged the reputation of the house". So there's the explanation - the full report probably went: "You mean you weren't on the take? How the bloody hell does that make the rest of us look, you bastard?"
Somehow, however, the diligent committee seems to have missed other possible examples of the house being brought into disrepute, such as a Prime Minister taking the country into war because "I have no doubt that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction - absolutely no doubt, no doubt whatsoever."
And insisting we could be attacked in 45 minutes when he knew this was bollocks; and ignoring his own intelligence that this would make us targets for terrorism; and ignoring the UN and the weapons inspectors, so assisting in the creation of mass carnage, while he swans off to make millions from his memoirs.
If they want to investigate corruption in the Middle East, they could look at the $300m taken in cash from the Central Bank in Iraq, and secretly flown to Beirut in a chartered jet to buy arms, organised by the Iraqi Defence Minister whom we helped put in place. This led to his colleague, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie saying: "I am sorry to say that the corruption is worse now than in the Saddam era." No wonder Blair resigned - how do you top helping to make Iraq more corrupt than under Saddam? In his new job, is he planning to make Afghanistan less keen on heavy metal and women's football than under the Taliban?
Or the committee could glance at the billion pounds in illegal payments made to Saudi Arabia in order to secure arms deals for British Aerospace. Unlike Galloway's crime, parliament decided this matter was too trivial to warrant an inquiry. And if they did find them guilty, they'd have probably ordered them to pay it back at one dollar a week.
But instead, the person suspended is the one who opposed these things. The only explanation is the Commons procedures were originally taken from a chapter in Alice in Wonderland, in which you get charged by the authorities for being an un-criminal. And maybe that's the plan for our whole legal system, so you'll be sent to prison for being an un-corrupt arms dealer, or an un-robber, while liberal types complain that prison doesn't work because most un-criminals re-offend, and if you lock someone up for not stealing a car, when they're released they'll do something even worse such as not rob a bank.
Meanwhile robbers and murderers will be allowed to stay free, but only if they remember to ask you to draw a line under robbery and murder, and accept that, hand on heart, you thought that robbery and murder was right at the time.
---------------
Excellent.
BLAME SHEEP, NOT SCAPEGOAT GEORGE
Brian Reade 19/07/2007
www.mirror.co.uk
HOW could your faith in democracy fail to be restored on learning that an MP had finally been thrown out of the House for shaming us all over Iraq? How could pride not surge from your brain as you pictured politicians holding up their hands and admitting they voted for the illegal war which turned the streets of Baghdad crimson? Simple really. By hearing that the member facing suspension for disgracing our name was the most vociferous anti-war MP of the lot, George Galloway. Which is a bit like a judge hearing a gang of armed robbers had burgled a house and murdered the inhabitants as the cops arrived, then jailing the chairman of the Neighbourhood Watch scheme for raising the alarm.
The sight of the Respect MP on a TV in your living-room may be as welcome as a nest of cockroaches behind the settee, but how outrageous is this assertion by the parliamentary standards committee that if one MP has brought politics into disrepute over Iraq, it is Galloway. Donning a red leotard and miaowing into Rula Lenska's hand when you should be representing your constituents in the House? Yes. That lowers Westminster's esteem. But setting up a charity to help sick Iraqi children denied medical treatment, even if it was a front for a campaign to lift sanctions. How does that demean us? Especially when it was part of a wider aim to head off a futile war. Especially when Galloway's accusers admit there is no proof he personally profited from it.
And especially when the only serious crime they accuse him of is turning a blind eye to the personal integrity of some of the donors. This, as Galloway points out, from people whose parties are funded by convicted fraudsters, thieves, and rapists, some of whom were rewarded with honours. Who allow felons like Jeffrey Archer and Conrad Black to sit in the House of Lords. Whose policies have allowed the biggest gap between the rich and poor to develop for 40 years, with private equity bosses paying less tax than their cleaners.
Galloway may well be an egomaniac who committed the moral crime of sucking up to a vile dictator, but the majority of Britons support his views on the criminality of the second Gulf War. Critics will never forgive him for saying our troops were legitimate targets for Iraqi insurgents. Yet who made them targets? The same MPs who now censure Galloway. Those cowardly stooges who voted for the war to keep their cushy careers on track. Convictionless sheep complicit in making Iraq more bloody and corrupt than it was under Saddam.
Blind hypocrites who vote themselves inflation-busting pay rises, immunity from expenses scrutiny and gold-plated pensions, which they deny the vast majority of their constituents. Yet it is Galloway the maverick, not the compliant swine who keep their heads down in the trough, who is thrown out of the House for shaming its good name. Maybe they should go away and reflect on whether Galloway is alone in debasing Westminster. It's not as though they haven't got the time.
When they throw themselves out of the House next week, they've given themselves a summer holiday which will last until October 8.
------------------
Brian Reade 19/07/2007
www.mirror.co.uk
HOW could your faith in democracy fail to be restored on learning that an MP had finally been thrown out of the House for shaming us all over Iraq? How could pride not surge from your brain as you pictured politicians holding up their hands and admitting they voted for the illegal war which turned the streets of Baghdad crimson? Simple really. By hearing that the member facing suspension for disgracing our name was the most vociferous anti-war MP of the lot, George Galloway. Which is a bit like a judge hearing a gang of armed robbers had burgled a house and murdered the inhabitants as the cops arrived, then jailing the chairman of the Neighbourhood Watch scheme for raising the alarm.
The sight of the Respect MP on a TV in your living-room may be as welcome as a nest of cockroaches behind the settee, but how outrageous is this assertion by the parliamentary standards committee that if one MP has brought politics into disrepute over Iraq, it is Galloway. Donning a red leotard and miaowing into Rula Lenska's hand when you should be representing your constituents in the House? Yes. That lowers Westminster's esteem. But setting up a charity to help sick Iraqi children denied medical treatment, even if it was a front for a campaign to lift sanctions. How does that demean us? Especially when it was part of a wider aim to head off a futile war. Especially when Galloway's accusers admit there is no proof he personally profited from it.
And especially when the only serious crime they accuse him of is turning a blind eye to the personal integrity of some of the donors. This, as Galloway points out, from people whose parties are funded by convicted fraudsters, thieves, and rapists, some of whom were rewarded with honours. Who allow felons like Jeffrey Archer and Conrad Black to sit in the House of Lords. Whose policies have allowed the biggest gap between the rich and poor to develop for 40 years, with private equity bosses paying less tax than their cleaners.
Galloway may well be an egomaniac who committed the moral crime of sucking up to a vile dictator, but the majority of Britons support his views on the criminality of the second Gulf War. Critics will never forgive him for saying our troops were legitimate targets for Iraqi insurgents. Yet who made them targets? The same MPs who now censure Galloway. Those cowardly stooges who voted for the war to keep their cushy careers on track. Convictionless sheep complicit in making Iraq more bloody and corrupt than it was under Saddam.
Blind hypocrites who vote themselves inflation-busting pay rises, immunity from expenses scrutiny and gold-plated pensions, which they deny the vast majority of their constituents. Yet it is Galloway the maverick, not the compliant swine who keep their heads down in the trough, who is thrown out of the House for shaming its good name. Maybe they should go away and reflect on whether Galloway is alone in debasing Westminster. It's not as though they haven't got the time.
When they throw themselves out of the House next week, they've given themselves a summer holiday which will last until October 8.
------------------
I looked up the Quentin Letts column that was mentioned on the last show. It's actually quite good, I thought 
[web]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... hor_id=228[/web]
[web]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... hor_id=228[/web]
George Galloway MP has today written to the Speaker of the House of Commons alerting him to possible moves by the government to prevent the Respect MP from defending himself in Monday’s debate on his suspension from the House.
Galloway drew Speaker Martin’s attention to a call by Rupert Murdoch’s Sun in an editorial yesterday for the government to silence him in the debate, which is scheduled for 3.30pm on Monday 23 July.
“Given the intimacy of the connection between New Labour and Murdoch - finally revealed today, thanks to Eric Avebury – there is every reason to believe that the Sun’s call to gag me was issued in concert with government insiders,” says Galloway. “I have alerted the speaker to this threat to free speech in Parliament and asked for his protection.”
Galloway intends to refute the allegations against him and to rebut the claim that he has brought Parliament into disrepute in a speech that will be as memorable as his performance in front of the US Senate two years ago.
The Committee says its report is “unprecedented in length and complexity”.
Galloway says, “The only difference between my speech on Monday and what I said in the Senate is that it will respond in kind to the unprecedented length of the Committee’s four year inquiry.”
Letter included below:
Press: For further comment contact Kevin Ovenden on 020 7219 2874 or 07930 532 952
Letter to Speaker Martin:
19 July 2007
Dear Mr Speaker,
You will have seen, with I hope as much alarm as me, the editorial in yesterday’s Sun newspaper, which – in a challenge to Parliamentary privilege I suggest – calls on the government to curtail my rights as a Member of Parliament in the debate on Monday on the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Whilst I have every reason to believe that you will not allow me to be gagged in any way in my detailed defence against what is, in their own words, a debate on an inquiry of “unprecedented length and complexity” I am less confident about the conduct of the government whips.
I am seeking your protection, Mr Speaker, from any attempt to censor me in the important speech I intend to make, which will be watched and read by many people in our own country and abroad.
I do hope I can count on it. For if I were to be so censored in a debate on my exclusion from the House, in which I have sat for 20 years and from which I have never been excluded for any reason before, this would not only heap an injustice upon an injustice, it would plunge Parliament into the ninth circle of disrepute, earning it contempt from large numbers of people who wish to hear what I have to say in response to this report.
In view of the importance of this matter I am making this letter public.
Yours sincerely,
George Galloway MP
From Respect Site
Presuming that GG is not gagged I'm almost regretting that I'll be away on holiday next week ! I trust that his performance will be available here when I return in two week ?!
Galloway drew Speaker Martin’s attention to a call by Rupert Murdoch’s Sun in an editorial yesterday for the government to silence him in the debate, which is scheduled for 3.30pm on Monday 23 July.
“Given the intimacy of the connection between New Labour and Murdoch - finally revealed today, thanks to Eric Avebury – there is every reason to believe that the Sun’s call to gag me was issued in concert with government insiders,” says Galloway. “I have alerted the speaker to this threat to free speech in Parliament and asked for his protection.”
Galloway intends to refute the allegations against him and to rebut the claim that he has brought Parliament into disrepute in a speech that will be as memorable as his performance in front of the US Senate two years ago.
The Committee says its report is “unprecedented in length and complexity”.
Galloway says, “The only difference between my speech on Monday and what I said in the Senate is that it will respond in kind to the unprecedented length of the Committee’s four year inquiry.”
Letter included below:
Press: For further comment contact Kevin Ovenden on 020 7219 2874 or 07930 532 952
Letter to Speaker Martin:
19 July 2007
Dear Mr Speaker,
You will have seen, with I hope as much alarm as me, the editorial in yesterday’s Sun newspaper, which – in a challenge to Parliamentary privilege I suggest – calls on the government to curtail my rights as a Member of Parliament in the debate on Monday on the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Whilst I have every reason to believe that you will not allow me to be gagged in any way in my detailed defence against what is, in their own words, a debate on an inquiry of “unprecedented length and complexity” I am less confident about the conduct of the government whips.
I am seeking your protection, Mr Speaker, from any attempt to censor me in the important speech I intend to make, which will be watched and read by many people in our own country and abroad.
I do hope I can count on it. For if I were to be so censored in a debate on my exclusion from the House, in which I have sat for 20 years and from which I have never been excluded for any reason before, this would not only heap an injustice upon an injustice, it would plunge Parliament into the ninth circle of disrepute, earning it contempt from large numbers of people who wish to hear what I have to say in response to this report.
In view of the importance of this matter I am making this letter public.
Yours sincerely,
George Galloway MP
From Respect Site
Presuming that GG is not gagged I'm almost regretting that I'll be away on holiday next week ! I trust that his performance will be available here when I return in two week ?!
The Sun had this game on their website as some kind of 'cool' thing... I've changed the graphic from Galloway to Murdoch...
What a shit game eh? haha
What a shit game eh? haha
- Attachments
-
- TheSun-ShootMurdoch.swf
- (47.79 KiB) Downloaded 11144 times
"firing" (or throwing) cans of anything onto a person in real life would be assault.
I wonder if this was any other MP being "targeted" whether it would ever be released on a major media web site, and even whether the police would have been called in since it might incite others to actually commit the offense in real-life (almost like the games which purport to shoot a real person)
I wonder if this was any other MP being "targeted" whether it would ever be released on a major media web site, and even whether the police would have been called in since it might incite others to actually commit the offense in real-life (almost like the games which purport to shoot a real person)
Hehe, that looks like someone threw it together in about 5 minutes. Maybe it was the same work-experience kid who made the Abu Hamza picture...faceless wrote:The Sun had this game on their website as some kind of 'cool' thing... I've changed the graphic from Galloway to Murdoch...
What a shit game eh? haha
Are you serious? Have you ever seen websites such as newgrounds.com? There are literally thousands of tacky games like this around on every conceivable tasteless subject and based on every conceivable tasteless comedic premise. Surely you're not implying that you want things like that to be against the law, or subject to police investigation? That would be one shit world to live in!Mandy wrote:"firing" (or throwing) cans of anything onto a person in real life would be assault.
I wonder if this was any other MP being "targeted" whether it would ever be released on a major media web site, and even whether the police would have been called in since it might incite others to actually commit the offense in real-life (almost like the games which purport to shoot a real person)
No, I am not suggesting that. I was highlighting possible hypocrisy as to what the Sun would have said if GG created a game about "shooting" another MP. They would call him a terrorist sympathiser (or worse, encouraging terrorism).
My comment was also about it being in a major web site, run by someone v. close to the establishment (or PM at the time)
Faceless, I don't use Adobe Macromedia {or whatever utility to create flash files}, but were you able to see the "source code" of the game ? did they not password protect it ?
p.s. Talking about "sick games", "Spear Britney" https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/5223 does seem pretty bad, almost as bad as Sony releasing a shoot-me-up in a church. I wonder if the laxer rules in the US allow this (under freedom of speech), but the UK's rules might be tighter.
My comment was also about it being in a major web site, run by someone v. close to the establishment (or PM at the time)
Faceless, I don't use Adobe Macromedia {or whatever utility to create flash files}, but were you able to see the "source code" of the game ? did they not password protect it ?
p.s. Talking about "sick games", "Spear Britney" https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/5223 does seem pretty bad, almost as bad as Sony releasing a shoot-me-up in a church. I wonder if the laxer rules in the US allow this (under freedom of speech), but the UK's rules might be tighter.