View Full Version : The MP for Glasgow and Palestine...

Training Risky
2nd Dec 2004, 11:58
Looks like the 'honourable' member for Glasgow and Palestine has covered his tracks again...


What an utter quisling.

I wonder if he's scuttled back to his Spanish mansion.

Dave Martin
2nd Dec 2004, 12:20
Damn fine result I say - pity he didn't get more.

2nd Dec 2004, 12:27
"It has never been the Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true," Nuff said, just wondering what a certain Clown has to say to that.... :E

What an utter quisling. So Training Risky, how would you call Mr.Black, the former owner of the Daily Telegraph, who robbed his emperium and its shareholders hundreds of millions?

Send Clowns
2nd Dec 2004, 13:19
And I would like to know what a certain report on corruption in the oil-for-food programme would have to say about that. Everyone else (including perhaps Kofi Anan's son, it seems) who was a Hussein supporter seems to have had an allocation. In the unlikely event Galloway didn't, perhaps he has a genuine grievance, after his loyal support of a viscious mass murderer. You seem rather supportive of his position, in turn in support of said mass murderer.

Personally, I'd rather be wrong about this one thing than express any level of support for anyone who had betrayed his country in the way the dishonorable member did. People used to be hanged for what he undoubtedly did do, not given money.

Your court Kaos. You really plan to offer support this creature Galloway?

2nd Dec 2004, 14:32
No support from me Clowns, since Galloway seems to get a nice side supply from libel cases such as this one and the one against the Christian Science Monitor. Now as a vivid Telegraph reader, go back to my post, read the quote and then pls revert again.

And, since I've never heard any comments from your side on the dishonorable actions of Mr.Black, you might shine your light one that as you do with the same determination on Mr.Galloway and certain UN members, or did you got that from the Telegraph as well?

Send Clowns
2nd Dec 2004, 15:40
Kaos, you have commented on Galloway before.

On the other hand, you heard nothing from me either way in the case of Black. I therefore don't have a side, and your comment is meaningless. I didn't comment on the case of that Martha Stewart. In fact there have been a lot of alleged corporate scandals I haven't commented on, and very few I have, usually for a good reason either way - perhaps the fact that I have something to add about it or that I don't have anythng to add. Or, of course, whether it has any relevance at all to a thread. You might consider that one occasionally, eh?

2nd Dec 2004, 16:40
Just a wee bit of advice Clowns, be careful what you write. Considering that the judge stated that the allegations were "seriously defamatory" of Mr Galloway.

He said readers of the Telegraph claims may have understood them to mean:

1. Mr Galloway had been in Saddam's pay, secretly receiving about 375,000 a year.

2. He diverted monies from the oil-for-food programme, thus depriving the Iraqi people of food and medicines.

3. He probably used the Mariam Appeal, a campaign Mr Galloway launched to raise money for an Iraqi girl with leukaemia, as a front for personal enrichment.

4. What he had done was tantamount to treason.

From your two above postings it would appear you are now claiming that points 1, 2 and 4 are true. I put it to you Clowns that you are now defaming Mr. Galloway. I also put it to you that you are by extension defaming Capt. Kaos.

Send Clowns
2nd Dec 2004, 18:02
Ah, the usual people willing to defend the indefensible. Using, as usual, his own misreading of his post. I did not say 1 or 2 were true.

As for 4, he called for people to try and kill my friends, one of whom was, in fact, killed along with other servicemen. He did so openly, and has not denied doing so. If you don't think that's treason, then I shan't be replying. If that is the case, then you disgust me utterly, and I consider you beneath contempt let alone response. Same for anyone else who doesn't, for that matter, including the judge. If that was his considered opinion, then his "judgement" is clearly not very sound.

2nd Dec 2004, 18:24
I don`t suppose that I should like Mr galloway, were I to meet him, nor would I support many of his views (save his opposition to the illegal attack on Iraq and its subsequent occupation)

However, a court of law has decided that a national newspaper went out of its way to suggest a number of things which may well be untrue. The man deserves justice (however demonised he may be)....as do we all.

West Coast
2nd Dec 2004, 18:32
"save his opposition to the illegal attack on Iraq"

Your opinion only as to the legality.

El Grifo
2nd Dec 2004, 18:46
Aaaaand they'r off - - - - -

:cool: :ok:

2nd Dec 2004, 20:17
West Coast:

You can delete "illegal" if it makes you feel better...you seem to be able to turn a blind eye to many other things, so it shouldn`t be too difficult for you.

Fact remains that the man was against it (like the 1.25 million people who took to the streets to protest , me included). For being a reasonably high profile character who adopted this position, Mr Galloway had opprobrium heaped upon him by the media.

2nd Dec 2004, 21:05
Galloway is an odious little tosser, but that does not negate the fact that he was libelled by the Torygraph.

Interestingly it was Galloway's decision for the case to be heard by a judge not a jury - presumably because he rightly assumed a jury would be heavily biased against him and the judge would decide the case on the facts.

The Telegraph's case was not that what they said was true, they relied on the defence of 'qualified privelege' which meant they would not have had to prove the authenticity of their source or that what they were saying was true if it was in the public interest.

The defence fails if it can be proved that the publication was malicious which this clearly was. It was also 'seriously defamatory' as the judge put it.

2nd Dec 2004, 21:14
I bet he reads the Guardian....

3rd Dec 2004, 14:02
Send CLowns, it is a very far throw from supporting Saddam Hussein to be supportive of someone unjustifiably libelled by a national newspaper. If you really believe that, you have a perhaps rather over-simplified view of the world.

4th Dec 2004, 08:43
It would be interesting to know if the documents found in Baghdad were forged and if so who planted them there. I wonder how the reporter knew where to look?

4th Dec 2004, 09:29
Clowns, presume you're saving some vitriol for Rumsfeld, the CIA and good old Blighty for arming Hussein in the first place. The Middle East is a mess of our own making and what a spectacularly good job we've done of it.

Interesting also to see how effective the demonisation of Galloway, not just by the Telegraph but a whole host of media, has been - particularly as much of that media has shown such little interest in explaining to their readers the historical context of conflict in the region.

Much as I'm enjoying the dialogue, why has a Galloway baiting thread been started on an aviation forum site. I refer the honourable gentleman Training Risky to the rules of engagement for the Jet Blast forum:

"The focus of this board is aviation. You're welcome to participate even if you don't aviate, but do not abuse the courtesy extended to you by the board's principal users. Aviation related subjects that don't fit the other forums is the aim here."

PS. It's his Portugese not Spanish mansion

4th Dec 2004, 09:54
Clowns is flying a kite - that's the aviation connection. His lack of sympathy for anyone to the left of John Wayne may have something to do with his position. It's quite true that Galloway has won his libel action against the Torygraph, and astonishing that any reporter could have found a particular set of documents in the chaos of that region; let's not forget, however, that the libel laws of this country are - how can we be kind? - not as straightforward as the common folk might believe or wish.

4th Dec 2004, 12:30
the libel laws of this country are - how can we be kind? - not as straightforward as the common folk might believe or wish.

And a good thing too! We can't have ordinary folk understanding the law, there'd be no need for lawyers. ;)

The central test for a defamatory statement is that it must 'lower the reputation of the person in the minds of right-thinking members of society'.

And how do you define a 'right-thinking member of society'? Answers on a postcard please.

flying scotsman
5th Dec 2004, 00:05
NOT george galloway (IMHO) would be a good start.

Any man that heeps praise on sadam whilst wearing a white safari suit doesn't send a good signal about the people we elect to represent us........

but elect him we did. and defend him we must. at least that's something we can be proud of.

but still not convinced his souls as white as those suits he wears. the wee nyaff.