George Galloway

[short_circuit]

Documents the newspaper says were found in a bombed-out building in Baghdad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The documents are false, says Galloway
By Caroline Davies
(Filed: 16/11/2004)

George Galloway clashed with The Daily Telegraph's counsel yesterday over the authenticity of documents the newspaper says were found by its reporter in a bombed-out building in Baghdad.

James Price, QC for the newspaper, told the High Court that what was "striking" about the case was that there was "no issue, no dispute in this case as to the authenticity of the documents published by The Daily Telegraph".

The Scottish MP said he believed the documents were "fake" but was "unable to ascertain whether they are forged, doctored or simply false" because he was unable to go to Baghdad.

Even though he had been advised that the "authenticity" of the documents was not at issue in the case, it was his belief that they "may be forged, may be doctored, but in any case are wrong and false".

His claim came as he was cross-examined in the witness box on the first day of his libel action against The Daily Telegraph.

He told the court: "From a layman's point of view it is hard to stomach the fact that the Telegraph can make the grave and outrageous allegations it has about me, and yet it is not prepared to say they are true.

"I also find it hard to understand how the Telegraph can claim to have acted reasonably and responsibly in publishing such serious allegations, and I do not believe they had a duty to publish".

The newspaper claims there was overriding public interest in publishing the documents, found in the Iraqi Foreign Ministry building in Baghdad following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Mr Price said the documents "suggest and amount to strong evidence" that Mr Galloway was receiving money from the Iraqi regime through the Oil for Food programme for his political campaign, and asking for more.

"If it is strong evidence, why aren't you pleading justification?" asked Mr Galloway.

"Because we have not suggested, or sought to say, that the documents are true. We merely say we have found them," replied Mr Price.

"A blind man in a hurry might have concluded that from your coverage," said Mr Galloway. "Virtually everyone else in the country and the world concluded something quite different - that you were saying they were true, but have not had the guts to plead that in your case."

He said he did not accept that they were found in a burned-out ministry in Baghdad "and I don't know many people that do".

Did he have the guts, asked Mr Price, to challenge that they had not been found in the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.

He had "plenty of guts", replied Mr Galloway, adding: "I find it beyond belief. I have no evidence with which to challenge it".

Mr Galloway, who was expelled from the Labour Party in October last year, said that both the Telegraph and himself would have been better off if the paper had taken a few days before publishing. "I might have had time to carry out some investigations to preclude some of the defamation that is in these articles," he said.

The Daily Telegraph had not offered him copies to examine before asking him to comment on their contents, he said.

Mr Price said that his denials had been printed both on the front page and on page three of the Telegraph on the day the discovery of the documents was published on April 22 last year.

But Mr Galloway said his denials had been "swept away in a blizzard of headlines, editorial comment and reportage which pointed in the entirely opposite direction". His denials had been "singled out in the editorials in particular for ribaldry as though they are ridiculous".

The headline on that first day had made a "flat" assertion that he was in Saddam's pay, he said. He rejected Mr Price's comment that it was "dancing on the head of a pin" to complain about the headline when the thrust of the allegation was so serious.

"It's not a pin for me, or even a nail. It's a dagger, a sword right through my political heart. For me this is much sharper than a pin" he said.

He said the Telegraph had reported that he made his denials from his £250,000 villa on the Algarve in Portugal. It was, he said "an £82,000 cottage on a 100 percent mortgage".

"That's a very different thing. A blind man in a hurry could have spotted the clear imputation that the £250,000 villa was somehow connected to the documents".

Mr Galloway said that his own personal finances were open for inspection, and that a Charity Commission inquiry had looked at financial records of the Mariam Appeal and found no wrong doing.

Earlier, Mr Price had told the court: "If it be accepted, as it now is, that The Daily Telegraph had a right and a duty in the public interest to publish these documents, what is left of the case. We say nothing."

There was no question, he said, at the time of publication, that the subject of war and the international and domestic events that led up to war "were the most significant, the most controversial, the most topical issues of the day".

Mr Galloway's influence as a vocal opponent of war and the sanctions that preceded it "should not be underestimated". He was a newspaper columnist, he had called for British troops to "disobey orders" because the war was illegal, he had addressed "stop the war" marches.

Against that background the British public had every reason to be told of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry files and correspondence with top figures in the regime.

Mr Galloway said he had been a long-standing opponent of Saddam. Unfortunately, he said, during a visit to Iraq in 1994 he was misquoted, saying that he saluted the dictator's "courage, strength and indefatigability", when in fact "I had intended to salute" not Saddam.

"Let me," he told Mr Price, "for the 10,000th time say that I deeply regret the words used on that occasion because they have allowed people like you to misrepresent decades of my opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime".

Mr Galloway had complained of the way the documents had been presented. His counsel, Richard Rampton, QC, said that the newspaper had accompanied its articles with "a great big picture of him smoking a fat cigar, no doubt from Havana, and no doubt brought from the proceeds of Saddam Hussein's regime".

The allegation was one of "personal greed and corruption on the part of Mr Galloway", he said. Yet he had never had a penny of Saddam's money - nor, as it happens did the Mariam campaign,

"The information they conveyed was that Mr Galloway was a greedy crook".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-Galloway.html



I'm not a fool or corrupt, Galloway tells judge
By Caroline Davies
(Filed: 16/11/2004)

George Galloway at the High Court yesterday

George Galloway, the MP, told the High Court yesterday he would have been a "fool, a knave, a thief and corrupt" if he had solicited money from Saddam Hussein for his own enrichment.

On the opening day of his libel action against The Daily Telegraph, he described allegations that he was in the pay of the former Iraqi leader as "a deeply wounding dagger through my political heart".

The MP for Glasgow Kelvin is suing over a series of articles published in April 2003, based on documents the newspaper claims were found in a bombed-out ministry building in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam's regime.

Mr Galloway claims the newspaper did not act responsibly in publishing the documents and that the articles alleged he had "been in the pay of Saddam Hussein and his regime, secretly receiving at least £375,000 a year from it".

He told Mr Justice Eady, hearing the case without a jury, that the articles claimed he had made "very substantial profits" through the "Oil for Food" programme: "Apparently I received 10 to 15 cents per barrel of 3 million barrels of oil every six months."

They also alleged that he had met an Iraqi intelligence officer and asked for "even more" money, and that he had used his "Mariam Appeal" - a campaign fund - as a front to conceal his secret commercial dealings.

Mr Galloway said there was not a "scintilla" of evidence to prove the allegations, which were "incredibly damaging".

The Daily Telegraph denies libel and is claiming a "Reynolds qualified privilege defence".

Named after the case in which it was first developed, involving Albert Reynolds, the former Irish premier, it revolves around whether it was responsible journalism and in the public interest for the newspaper to publish the contents of documents on which the story was based.

James Price QC, for The Daily Telegraph, said a "striking" fact of the case was that there was "no issue, no dispute" as to the authenticity of the documents.

He said that at the time of publication, the facts of the war in Iraq "were of unmatched public importance". He added: "It follows that public interest in being informed on them was of the very highest."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...lls-judge.html

Telegraph hates everything I stand for, says Galloway
By Caroline Davies
(Filed: 17/11/2004)


George Galloway arrives at the High Court

The Telegraph's handling of documents purporting to show that the Iraqi regime had funded George Galloway's political campaigning was influenced by the newspaper's hatred of him, the MP said yesterday.

On the second day of his libel action, the 50-year-old member for Glasgow Kelvin claimed that the Telegraph "hated" him because "I stand for everything they don't".

In a furious outburst Mr Galloway accused James Price, QC, counsel for the Telegraph of calling him anti-Semitic when it was put to him that "responsible journalists" could take the view he was a "well-known apologist for Saddam Hussein".

Mr Galloway replied: "I fully concede that throughout the period of its ownership by Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel (Lord Black's wife), The Telegraph hated everything I believed in about the Middle East".

Did he think, asked Mr Price, that was because Barbara Amiel was Jewish?

Shouting from the witness box, Mr Galloway raged: "If you can libel someone in a court room, that is a very serious libel. That is a clear accusation of anti-Semitisim against me, and I demand you withdraw it. I have never made an anti-Semitic remark in my entire life".

Mr Price said that Mr Galloway, in a letter raising funds for his action, had referred to Lord and Lady Black as "two of Sharon Israel's most vociferous supporters".

But Mr Galloway shouted over him, saying: "This is an outrage. This letter does not mention the word Jewish. I demand you withdraw the allegation of anti-Semitism."

Mr Price replied: "I have not accused you of anti-Semitism."

But Mr Galloway stormed: "You said that in this letter, I referred to Lady Black as Jewish. It's a lie, a lie, a lie."

"All right, I withdraw," said Mr Price, before asking why the MP referred to the couple as being among Israel's most vociferous supporters.

Mr Galloway replied it was for "the very simple fact that they are and they themselves would boast to that effect".

The outburst took place as Mr Galloway completed his cross-examination in the case, held before Mr Justice Eady sitting without a jury.

Mr Galloway claims that the Telegraph libelled him by publishing documents that the newspaper said were found in the burnt out foreign ministry in Baghdad.

He claims that the newspaper had made "outrageous and incredibly damaging" allegations that he took money from Saddam under the commercial cover of the Oil For Food programme.

The newspaper denies libel and is claiming qualified privilege in that publication of the documents was of overwhelming public interest.

Later, in re-examination, his counsel, Richard Rampton, QC referred to the anti-Semitic row as being "regrettable".

"But it will be reported," said Mr Galloway. "It's the kind of mud they like to throw."

No proprietorial couple could be more hands-on than Lord and Lady Black, he added. "It is one of the reasons The Telegraph hates me so much. Because I stand for everything they did not, justice for Palestine, the need to avoid war.

"If people had listened to people like me and not people like Barbara Amiel and Lord Black, we would not be in the mess we are today."

Earlier, Mr Price suggested that people were entitled to view Mr Galloway as an "apologist", even though the MP said he regarded Saddam as a "bestial dictator".

He pointed to a newspaper article written by Mr Galloway about meeting Saddam, in which he referred to the ex-Iraqi leader's "Zen-like calm," and the fact he offered him Quality Street and told him anecdotes about Churchill.

Mr Galloway said he had presented what he found.

"You can go on throwing the epithet apologist at me, and I will go on denying it," he replied.

The hearing continues.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-Galloway.html

MP's claim of vendetta is 'nonsense'
By Caroline Davies
(Filed: 18/11/2004)


George Galloway

Claims that The Telegraph waged a "vendetta" against George Galloway and sought to "terminate" him as a public figure by publishing documents about him found in Iraq were dismissed by the newspaper yesterday.

Neil Darbyshire, the executive editor of The Daily Telegraph, told the High Court that the MP for Glasgow Kelvin was wrong to believe that the newspaper "hated" him.

"Hatred is very corrosive and exhausting. It doesn't work like that. We don't have figures we hate," said Mr Darbyshire, giving evidence on the third day of the libel action brought by Mr Galloway against the newspaper. Mr Galloway, he said, was not a Telegraph "bête noir".

"We wouldn't agree with everything Mr Galloway said but newspapers tend to like political bruisers because they are colourful and provide copy," he said.

Mr Galloway claims that the newspaper made "outrageous and incredibly damaging" allegations that he solicited money from Saddam Hussein based on documents found in Baghdad by David Blair, a Telegraph reporter, after the collapse of the Iraqi regime.

The newspaper denies libel and claims that its publication of documents found in the burnt-out foreign ministry building was of overwhelming public interest.

The court has heard that the documents included a memo from the head of Iraqi intelligence, the Mukhabarat, to Saddam's office indicating that Mr Galloway had received money and had asked for more to continue his political campaigning on behalf of Iraq, an allegation Mr Galloway has vehemently denied.

Rejecting the suggestion by Mr Galloway's counsel, Richard Rampton, QC, that the newspaper had conducted a "witch hunt", Mr Darbyshire told the court: "It would have been a witch hunt if we had gone looking for documents about Mr Galloway. But if these documents had named Charles Kennedy or Michael Howard the coverage would have been exactly the same and we would have run it. This is not about trying to get George Galloway".

The story was not concocted and there was not a vendetta, he said. "I am sure that The Guardian or The Times would have published it."

Mr Rampton, cross-examining, said: "I'm going to suggest you thought that these documents provided you with a heaven-sent opportunity to terminate Mr Galloway as a public figure."

Mr Darbyshire replied: "That is absolute claptrap."

Mr Rampton said: "Far from being a balanced piece of reportage, this was a massive exercise in politically-motivated character assassination on a grand scale."

"Ditto," replied Mr Darbyshire, who was acting editor when the documents were published by The Telegraph. He rejected claims that the paper should have delayed publication to carry out further investigations.

The Iraqi Intelligence memo was "striking", he said, "even now, 18 months later".

He added: "The fact is that looking at this, even though it's through the prism of the Mukhabarat, this is a begging letter to a tyrant from a British MP."

At the time of publication, "I was quite confident that this document was genuine," he said. "And in the public interest it should be published without delay".

The campaign in Iraq was at a volatile stage, and "Mr Galloway was unceasing in his opposition". It was a "tremendously important story" and "I had no doubt that the public had the right to be told about the existence of the documents.

He was asked whether the newspaper should have waited until it could contact Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman named in the documents who was a representative for Mr Galloway's Mariam Campaign in Baghdad. But Mr Darbyshire said the newspaper had contacted Mr Galloway himself.

He told Mr Justice Eady, hearing the case without a jury: "I felt with Mr Galloway's response we had enough to go with. We could have waited until now and we wouldn't be any further forward."

Wasn't the reality that "it was an irresistible scoop and you couldn't bear the thought somebody would get there first?" asked Mr Rampton.

"Scoops are important to newspapers," agreed Mr Darbyshire. But it was "much worse to have a big story" and then find out it was fake.

Mr Justice Eady asked him whether references to "treason" and "taking money from the Oil for Food programme", made in a leader in the newspaper, should have been put to Mr Galloway before publication.

Mr Darbyshire replied that he could not remember any precedent for a leader being put to anyone before publication, but that the Oil for Food allegation had been put to Mr Galloway, and he did not think it necessary to have put the treason reference "specifically" to Mr Galloway because of the caveats in the leader, which stated that "if" the allegations turned out to be true then it was treason.

Charles Moore, who was editor of The Daily Telegraph at the time, said in a witness statement to the court that the documents "created a prima facie case" against Mr Galloway, from the reports given to him.

"It was in the public interest that this story should be printed and I felt, in fact, that it would be entirely wrong for the Telegraph not to print the story".

The case continues.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ense'.html

[short_circuit]

Galloway documents 'a big case to answer'
By Caroline Davies
(Filed: 20/11/2004)

Documents found in Baghdad and published by The Daily Telegraph that purported to show that George Galloway MP had received money from Saddam Hussein's regime provided a "thundering case to answer", the High Court was told yesterday.

The newspaper made "no allegation" about whether Mr Galloway was guilty or not, said James Price, QC, for the Telegraph.

"It is not, and never has been, any part of the Telegraph's intention to suggest guilt or suggest guilt could be established other than by most careful investigation using powers which a newspaper lacks," he said.

"No such investigation has yet taken place," he added. "But it is absolutely plain there is a thundering case to answer here."

Mr Price was making his submissions to Mr Justice Eady, sitting without a jury, on the final day of the week-long libel action brought by Mr Galloway, 50, MP for Glasgow Kelvin, against The Daily Telegraph.

He is suing over "outrageous and incredibly damaging" allegations that he received money from Saddam.

The Daily Telegraph denies libel and claims its publication of documents found in the burned-out foreign ministry in Baghdad that named Mr Galloway as a recipient of money through the Oil for Food programme was overwhelmingly in the public interest.

In terms of "public interest and professional journalism", the publication of the documents was "one of the most important stories of a most important time". The "enterprise, integrity and professionalism of those involved deserve to be recognised in the light of sustained public attack on them".

Mr Price told the judge: "The effect on the claimant's reputation arises from the publication of the documents." They were the "centrepiece and essence" of the Telegraph's reporting. "And that is his problem.

"That is why for weeks his focus was trying to prove that the documents were fake". Mr Price added that this attempt failed once a forensic expert examined the documents on behalf of Mr Galloway.

It was not the "surrounding reporting" that was "essentially peripheral".

Richard Rampton, QC, counsel for Mr Galloway, said: "The main document upon which their [The Telegraph's] massive coverage was based consisted of hearsay, unproved allegations from an unidentified intelligence officer." Authenticity of the document was "not conceded", he added.

The Daily Telegraph's editorial comment and headlines were a "thinly veiled" suggestion that what was in the documents was "probably true", he said. They were a "thinly veiled suggestion that hanging ought to be brought back" so he could be "executed as a traitor".

Privilege was "not a licence for irresponsibility", added Mr Rampton. "The allegation it made against Mr Galloway was at the far end of the very serious." It was "that he was a greedy little traitor".

"If there was a case of giving a dog a bad name and hanging him, this is it.

"Authenticity was an important consideration in the defendant's decision to publish," he said. "And I do not criticise them for that at that stage.

"What I do say is that what they did next was utterly wicked. Not only did they not tell him [Mr Galloway] how and where they found the documents, but they used their supposed belief in authenticity as a platform on which to mock his denials and assertion that the documents may have been forged."

Mr Rampton said: "Freedom of expression is not a licence. It is freedom to convey information in a responsible way." The newspaper had published "irresponsibly" and "for political motives of their own" to "do down one of their betes noires".

If Mr Galloway had not sued "his day is done, his career in ruins, his personal integrity is shot to bits, nobody is going to vote for him or give him the time of day".

Mr Rampton said the newspaper, in its conduct of the case, had added "insult to injury". If there was no defence to this case, it would be one of the "worst libels" he had seen, and "deserving the most substantial compensation".

Mr Justice Eady reserved judgment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...to-answer.html

Watchdog resumes Galloway inquiry
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 15/12/2004)


Sir Philip Mawer suspended his inquiry until the court case finished

Parliament's standards watchdog will resume his inquiry into the allegations that George Galloway received money from Saddam Hussein, it was confirmed yesterday.

Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, said Mr Galloway's victory in his libel case against The Telegraph would not stop him pursuing his own investigation into the affair.

Sir Philip announced his decision after a meeting with the Commons standards and privileges committee, the group of MPs in charge of the parliamentary disciplinary procedure.

Two weeks ago Mr Galloway, MP for Glasgow Kelvin, was awarded £150,000 in damages after successfully suing The Telegraph over articles published last April purporting to show that he received £375,000 a year from Saddam. The newspaper said it was seeking leave to appeal.

Sir Philip received his first complaint about Mr Galloway shortly after the original articles appeared in April last year.

He launched an investigation, but at the end of 2003 said he would suspend his inquiries until the court case was over.

Yesterday a spokesman for Sir Philip said he had decided to resume his inquiry because there was nothing in the court decision to stop him from doing so.

The spokesman explained that was because the judgment "did not relate directly to the truth or otherwise of the allegations against Mr Galloway".

Mr Galloway has always strongly denied the truth of the allegations, which were based on Iraqi intelligence documents found in the foreign ministry in Baghdad shortly after the end of the war.

But in court The Telegraph did not try to prove that the allegations were true.

Instead it argued that it was publishing them in the public interest, and the case revolved around whether or not The Telegraph reported the documents in a responsible way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...y-inquiry.html

Galloway wins libel case over Saddam claims
By Caroline Davies
(Filed: 03/12/2004)


George Galloway outside the court

George Galloway was awarded £150,000 libel damages against The Daily Telegraph yesterday after a High Court judge ruled that he had been "seriously defamed" over the newspaper's coverage of documents naming him and found in Iraq.

Mr Justice Eady said the newspaper had conveyed to reasonable and fair-minded readers that the Glasgow Kelvin MP had been in the pay of Saddam Hussein and diverted monies from the oil-for-food programme, thus depriving the Iraqi people, whose interests he had claimed to represent, of food and medicines.

He said the newspaper had alleged that Mr Galloway, 50, had probably used his Mariam Appeal as a front for personal enrichment, and claimed that what he had done was "tantamount to treason".

Mr Galloway called the ruling a "judicial caning" for the newspaper, and insisted that "the documents are either forgeries or they have been doctored - but they are in any case false".

The newspaper had denied libelling the MP in articles published on April 22 and 23 last year and based on documents found by its foreign correspondent, David Blair, in Baghdad shortly after the fall of Saddam's regime.

Among the documents was one from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam's office purporting to show Mr Galloway had received money from the regime through the oil-for-food programme to fund his political work on behalf of Iraq and that he had requested more money.

The newspaper claimed it was responsible journalism and in the public interest to publish the documents and a right to comment on the contents. It faces £1 million costs.

Mr Galloway strenuously denied the "outrageous and incredibly damaging" allegations that either he or the appeal received or sought any money from Saddam.

The judge strongly criticised the coverage, including the newspaper's news reports, leaders, headlines and use of pictures, saying that the articles were not "neutral reportage" of the documents.

The newspaper had "not merely adopted" the allegations in the documents but had "embraced them with relish and fervour".

Neil Darbyshire, the executive editor of The Daily Telegraph, said the newspaper was "disappointed by this judgment, which we believe is a blow to the principle of freedom of expression in this country".

"The Daily Telegraph published genuine documents that emanated from the highest levels of the Iraqi government and raised questions about the activities of Mr Galloway, a British Member of Parliament.

"While we have no doubt that these documents are authentic, it has never been The Daily Telegraph's case to suggest that we could prove the information contained within them is true." The paper had published them "believing that their contents were important, should be made public and would in due course be investigated by the proper authorities".

The newspaper is considering an appeal.

Mr Galloway said: "I have had to risk total and utter ruin in order to bring this case. If I had lost it, I would be bankrupt, my house would have been taken away from me, my job would be lost.

"I have had to risk absolutely everything to obtain the vindication this judgment brings me. So I do not feel happy. I feel angry that I was forced to do that".

He hoped one day to be able to establish "who was responsible for these documents".

"The situation is Baghdad is such that were I to go there, I am sure the friends of The Daily Telegraph in control of Iraq would like to arrange an accident for me."

The judge found Mr Galloway a "truthful and compelling" witness, and all witnesses to be "impressive and straightforward", but he ruled that the newspaper coverage had not been "neutral".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...am-claims.html

[short_circuit]

George Galloway gobsmacked by Muslim goons - fled London mob with police escort while leaving daughter on sidewalk

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/624

It is worth noting that Galloway's eagerness to save his skin lead him to speed from the meeting and leave his 23 year old daughter outside on the sidewalk, where she had to be helped to safety by police. Galloway's ignominious flight from the Muslims he was courting show that even those who believe "if you cant beat them join then" aren't going to be spared if the Islamists attain power. The headline of the article in the Scotsman, read "Galloway Forced to Flee Meeting after 'Death Threats' and recounted that" he was meeting local in a tenant association's room with his daughter Lucy when a 40 strong group of militants burst in.Locking the door behind them, the mob denounced Mr Galloway as a "false prophet" and declared that the sentence for this was "death"."They said for him that would be the gallows - that was presumably a play on his name."

[short_circuit]

George Galloway



George Galloway, MP (born 16 August 1954) is a British politician noted for his socialist views and rhetorical style. He is currently the Respect Party Member of Parliament (MP) for Bethnal Green and Bow, and was previously elected as a Labour Party MP for Glasgow Hillhead and Glasgow Kelvin.

Galloway is perhaps best known for his vigorous campaign to overturn economic sanctions against Iraq, and for his visits to Saddam Hussein in 1994 and 2002. In October 2003, he was expelled from the Labour Party when a party body ruled that he had brought the party into disrepute over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when he called the Labour government "Tony Blair's lie machine" [1], and stated that British soldiers should "refuse to obey illegal orders" [2].

In January 2004, he teamed up with the Socialist Workers Party, leading members of anti-war movements such as Salma Yaqoob, and other figures on the British left such as film-maker Ken Loach and journalist George Monbiot (who later left), to form RESPECT The Unity Coalition (Respect), a new political party to the left of Labour.

He won his seat in the 2005 general election, standing for his new party. In January 2006 he sparked controversy for taking part in the television series Celebrity Big Brother.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway




Amineh Abu-Zayyad

Dr. Amineh Abu-Zayyad is the Palestinian-born wife of the British Respect party's leader George Galloway. Zayyad is a 39-year-old scientist who married Galloway in 2000. They had met at a political meeting in Glasgow in 1991. "He was my hero," she says. "He did such a lot for the Palestinians."

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Amineh_Abu-Zayyad

Galloway's Jordanian wife, Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad, believed to be a niece of Yasser Arafat.

It has now come out that Galloway’s Jordanian wife, Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad, believed to be a niece of Yasser Arafat, was paid £18,000 ($27,000) out of it for "taking care of Miriam, which she is very qualified to do," Galloway assured skeptics. How being a microbiologist qualifies the degree holder for a nursing job for a leukemia patient is unclear. And Galloway didn’t mention whether his wife had a leave of absence from her important position as a microbiologist at Glasgow University while she was "taking care of Miriam." It also paid for a flight for her to her native Jordan and for some Arabic computers. More importantly, it paid for travel by Galloway himself to such interesting destinations as Jordan, Romania, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and the U.S. And it allegedly provided cover for many a trip to Baghdad. It has now been revealed, at the insistence of the Charities Commission, that the Mariam Appeal received about £800,000 ($1.2m) over a four year period, with more than £500,000 ($750,000) provided by the United Arab Emirates and about £100,000 ($150,000) by Saudi Arabia. The bulk of the remainder was provided by the Jordanian businessman, Fawaz Zureikat, a long-time opponent of sanctions against Iraq and the campaign's chairman. No wonder they never bothered to register it! Why were the governments of Saudi Arabia and the UAE so generous? What did they expect of this British Member of Parliament in return?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=7665

[short_circuit]

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 22, 2005

Battle for Muslim vote in Britain takes an ugly turn

Hasan Suroor


INTERRUPTING PROCEEDINGS: Protesters raise slogans at a press conference held by the Muslim Council of Great Britain at the central Mosque in London on

LONDON: The battle for Britain's one-million strong Muslim vote ahead of next month's general election is facing disruption from an extremist group which claims that it is "un-Islamic'' to vote for "kafirs'' (non-believers).

Activists of the self-styled "Saviour Sect'' caused a mini riot when they stormed a meeting of the pro-Labour Muslim Council of Great Britain in a central London mosque on Tuesday, accusing it of "selling out'' to the Government and warning Muslims that they would burn in "hell fire forever'' if they took part in the elections.

The protesters, some of whom wore masks, called the Council a "mouthpiece of the British Government of Tony Blair and George Bush.'' As the meeting, which had been called by the Council to "educate'' Muslim voters, descended in chaos, police were called in and one man was arrested for allegedly causing criminal damage.

The Council chairman, Iqbal Sacraine, who was abused by protesters, retorted: "This is shame on Islam.'' A leaflet distributed by demonstrators said: "Voting for any political party ... .will take you outside the fold of Islam.'' Mr. Sacraine said they represented a tiny minority and the vast majority of Muslims were moderate and "determined'' to take part in the democratic processes.

"It is important to every member of the Muslim community who is eligible to vote to get out and vote on May 5,'' he said. The Council issued a list of 10 questions which Muslim voters must ask candidates before making up their minds.

Tough fight


In another incident, members of the same group tried to disrupt the election campaign in a predominantly Muslim constituency in East London where the sitting Labour MP, Oona King, is facing a tough fight from her former party colleague George Golloway, contesting on an anti-war platform. Police intervened after Mr. Galloway alleged that he was intimidated by Muslim "fundamentalists.'' They reportedly "gheraoed'' Mr. Galloway saying they were "setting up the gallows'' for him. They also warned Muslim voters that they faced a "death sentence'' if they voted in the elections.

http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/22/stor...2200861700.htm

[short_circuit]

Galloway assault on Capitol Hill
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 18/05/2005)


George Galloway taking an oath before testifying

George Galloway confronted the American senators who have accused him of accepting oil allocations from Saddam Hussein yesterday in one of the most extraordinary and ill-tempered exchanges seen on Capitol Hill.

At one point the newly elected MP for Bethnal Green and Bow was accused of "evasion" and of choosing to ignore the questions that were being put to him.

Mr Galloway vehemently repeated his denials of having done anything wrong. He launched into a fierce attack on a series of individuals and institutions, including Sen Norm Coleman, the chairman of the sub-committee that is investigating him, the Republican party, the Senate, the US and British governments and unnamed forgers in Baghdad.

The session began with the Senate sub-committee adding new details to the charges against Mr Galloway, which prompted him to volunteer to travel to Washington. Senate staff said they had checked with former members of the Saddam regime to confirm their interpretation of Iraqi documents.

Mr Galloway told the hearing room packed with 300 people: "You have nothing on me … other than my name on lists." Many of the lists had been "drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad", he said.

In a bass voice rising with indignation to fill the august chamber, Mr Galloway insisted that he had been "an opponent of Saddam when British and American governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas".

"Who paid me hundreds of thousand of dollars?" he asked. "The answer is nobody."

The 15-minute performance came a week after the Senate sub-committee on investigations issued a report accusing Mr Galloway, Charles Pasqua, the former French interior minister, and the Russian nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky of accepting lucrative oil allocations from Saddam.

The MP, who described himself as "the leader of the British anti-war movement" when he arrived in Washington, linked himself to Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, and President Jacques Chirac of France. If the world had listened to the three of them, he said, disaster in Iraq would have been averted.

Sen Coleman and his Democratic counterpart, Carl Levin, listened to Mr Galloway's onslaught with weary smiles, at times cupping their chins in their hands.

Their questioning was calm at first. But it soon became heated when, to their evident irritation, Mr Galloway refused to answer direct questions.

The MP's most difficult moments came at the hands of Sen Levin. He repeatedly asked whether Mr Galloway would be troubled if it emerged that his friend, the Jordanian oil trader Fawaz Zureikat, had paid illegal surcharges to Saddam.

Mr Zureikat was a chairman of the Mariam Appeal, founded by Mr Galloway to help a four-year-old Iraqi girl, Mariam Hamza, who suffered from leukaemia. It later became known that Mr Zureikat, who had close ties to the Iraqi regime, had also funded the Mariam Appeal.

Mr Galloway at first refused to say that he was troubled by his friend's alleged illegal actions. Instead he chose to emphasise the suffering of Iraqi children under UN sanctions.

That brought a swift rebuke from Sen Levin, a former civil rights lawyer.

Would he be troubled by that? the professorial senator asked again. "That is a very simple question."

When Mr Galloway appeared to evade the issue again, Sen Levin interrupted. To laughter, he said: "I know other things trouble you but can you just give us a straightforward answer?

"You give us a long explanation of other things that trouble you, which is your right. Now I am asking whether [Mr Zureikat's alleged illegal behaviour] troubles you."

The MP said he was troubled by the thought that Mr Zureikat, whose best man he was, might face prosecution.

The hearing had begun with a lengthy explanation from the sub-committee's investigators of how Saddam perverted the oil-for-food programme, which was designed to provide food and medicine to Iraq. Mr Galloway sat silent, sighing occasionally, as the detailed case against him was laid out.

The investigators alleged that many captured Iraqi documents and interviews with former leaders in the regime showed that Saddam allocated to Mr Galloway profits from the sale of 20 million barrels of oil, a possible total of $600,000 to $6 million.

Mark Greenblatt, who is in charge of the investigative team, detailed oil contracts M/9/23, M/11/04 and M/12/14, three of six contracts that named Mr Galloway as the beneficiary of the oil allocations. The contracts also named Mr Zureikat and the Mariam Appeal as involved in the alleged scheme.

Mr Greenblatt said: "It appears that George Galloway used the children's cancer charity foundation to conceal his oil allocations."

The investigators disclosed that they had spoken again to an unnamed senior regime official on Monday to check that references to oil allocations being granted to Mr Galloway were genuine.

The Iraqi was asked: "Does the name George Galloway [on the oil allocation approval document] mean that this allocation was granted to George Galloway?" The man said yes. He also authenticated the oil minister's signature on the allocations.

Mr Galloway said he had never seen the documents before and had been pronounced guilty without being asked for his defence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...18/wgall18.xml

Funds for Galloway charity to be checked
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 19/05/2005)

The Charity Commission will investigate claims that George Galloway's Mariam Appeal received funds from the Iraqi oil-for-food programme, it announced yesterday.

It will study the evidence collected by the US Senate sub-committee purportedly showing that allocations for millions of barrels of oil were awarded to Mr Galloway and the Mariam Appeal by Saddam Hussein's regime.

The commission made its announcement after the Respect MP vehemently denied the allegations when he appeared before the sub-committee on Capitol Hill.

Kenneth Dibble, the director of legal services for the commission, said that as a regulatory authority his organisation had a duty to look into the claims, even though the Mariam Appeal had been wound up in 2002.

Mr Galloway told the senators that the commission had investigated the Mariam Appeal, that they had "recovered all money in and all money out" and that they had found "no impropriety".

Yesterday, when asked if this was an accurate description of the conclusions of the commission's 2004 inquiry, Mr Dibble said: "Not precisely." He confirmed that the commission had inspected the appeal's various bank statements in the UK, but it was not able to access other books and records that had been sent to Jordan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...19/ngall19.xml

Galloway's wife 'received £100,000 from Iraqis'
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 25/10/2005)

The Palestinian-born wife of George Galloway, the Respect MP, is accused today of receiving $149,980 (about £100,000) derived from the United Nations Iraqi oil-for-food programme.

A report by an investigative committee of the United States Senate says the money was sent to the personal account of Amineh Abu Zayyad in August 2000.

The report, compiled by Republican and Democratic staff, contains detailed information gleaned from Iraqi archives and bank accounts in Britain and Jordan.

The investigators concluded that Mr Galloway knew about the payments and that "through his wife was personally enriched" by them. They say that he "knowingly made false or misleading statements under oath before [a Senate] sub-committee".

Mr Galloway appeared before senators five months ago and assailed them for suggesting that he had a business relationship with Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. He told the chairman, Sen Norm Coleman: "You have nothing on me, senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq."

Later he added: "What counts is not the names on the paper; what counts is where's the money, senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today."

The report includes bank records showing a paper trail from Saddam's ministries to Mrs Galloway. It states that the Iraqis handed several lucrative oil-for-food contracts to the Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat, an old friend of the Galloways. A month later, on Aug 3, 2000, Mr Zureikat allegedly paid $150,000 minus a bank commission of $20 from his Citibank account number 500190207 into Mrs Galloway's account at the Arab Bank in Amman.

The senate team also says that a $15,666 payment had been made on the same date to a Bank of Scotland account belonging to Mr Galloway's spokesman, Ron McKay. Last night Mr McKay said he had no recollection of the alleged payment.

The oil-for-food programme was designed to help Iraq's needy but was misused by Saddam to reward friends and allies. Mrs Galloway, 51, was asked by the Senate committee whether she or her husband had benefited from Iraqi oil sales. She replied: "I have never solicited or received from Iraq or anyone else any proceeds of any oil deals, either for myself or for my former husband." Mrs Galloway started divorce proceedings this year.

Mr Galloway would not appear before the sub-committee again but responded to 44 written questions. He again said that he had not benefited from Saddam's largesse. Asked whether Mr Zureikat had transferred oil profits to his account, he said: "No". Asked whether his wife or his associates, including Mr McKay, had received any oil profits, Mr Galloway said: "I have no knowledge of Mr Zureikat's business affairs."

Senate staff said at a press conference yesterday that they would send their report to Britain and Jordan for possible action against the Galloways and Mr Zureikat.

Three senior Iraqis in American custody, including the former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, told the Senate investigators that the oil-for-food contracts were intended to benefit the British MP's political campaigns.

Mr Aziz, who met Mr Galloway on the MP's "Big Ben to Baghdad" bus tour in 1999, said: "The proceeds from the sale benefited the cause and Mr Galloway."

The report says: "Aziz recalled that Galloway requested the Iraqi government to provide financial support for the Mariam Appeal [to send medicines to Iraq] to defray the expenses associated with conducting the campaign. Aziz recalls that Galloway said he had also asked for money from the governments of the other countries through which his procession had passed."

Mr Galloway has always admitted receiving help from senior Arabs and Middle Eastern governments but denies doing so from Saddam.

In April 2003 The Daily Telegraph found documents in Baghdad stating that Iraq had been supplying funds to him. Mr Galloway won the resulting libel trial. The case is being considered by the Court of Appeal.

Sen Coleman urged Mr Galloway to allow investigators to see "other account information" to which they had been unable to gain access.

Speaking at a press conference last night, he was asked whether Mr Galloway would be prosecuted for perjury. He responded: "We will forward matters relating to Mr Galloway's false and misleading testimony to the authorities here and in Great Britain."

Mr Galloway's riposte was: "I'll see you in court."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...25/wgall25.xml

[short_circuit]

George Galloway begins fight to clear his name.
(Filed: 28/10/2005)


George Galloway has begun the fight to clear his name after further allegations emerged last night about his involvement in Saddam Hussein's oil-for-food programme.

The new claims came in a United Nations report which alleged that Mr Galloway's wife, Dr Amineh Abu Zayyad, received more than $120,000 (£80,000) into her personal bank account.

The investigation also alleged that he received more than 18 million barrels of oil both directly and indirectly and that 11 million were allocated in his name.

The UN Iraqi oil-for-food programme was designed to help Iraq's neediest people.

The development comes a few days after a US Senate Committee accused Mr Galloway of lying about the oil allocations under oath.

The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow has reacted angrily to the fresh allegations.

"How many times must I repeat this: I've never had a penny through oil deals and no one has produced a shred of evidence that I have," he said.

Mr Galloway is currently in Paris for meetings with lawyers representing Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister.

Mr Aziz allegedly told investigators linked to both reports that Mr Galloway had requested oil allocations in the name of Mr Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman and good friend of the MP.

According to Mr Galloway, Mr Aziz has now issued a rebuttal, denying that he implicated the MP in any way.

"I have never asked anyone to act for me - as Fawaz Zureikat, who is alleged to be my intermediary, has said repeatedly," Mr Galloway said.

"This is all a tissue of lies and a lie doesn't become a truth through repetition."

Mr Galloway added that Mr Aziz's statement was central to the recent Senate reports, and without them there would only be "anonymous sources" to back up the allegations against him.

The MP also denied the allegation that his former wife Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad had received more than $120,000 through the scheme via a company called Delta Services.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

$120,000 paid to Galloway's wife, says UN
By Francis Harris at the United Nations
(Filed: 28/10/2005)


Amineh Abu Zayyad

United Nations investigators accused the wife of George Galloway last night of receiving more than $120,000 (£80,000) into her personal bank account, the second such revelation in less than a week.

On Tuesday, a US Senate inquiry alleged that Dr Amineh Abu Zayyad, the Respect MP's wife, received almost $150,000 in August 2000 from a Jordanian businessman.

All $270,000 is said to have come from contracts secretly awarded to Mr Galloway by Saddam Hussein's regime under the oil-for-food programme, which was designed to help Iraq's neediest people.

Mr Galloway strongly denied the charges in a letter to the UN investigators, saying he had not taken any money and nor had his wife. "I should inform you that Dr Abu Zayyad says she has never received $120,000," he said.

Investigators cited evidence from the Lloyds TSB bank account of a firm called Delta Services, the vehicle of a British-based businessman called Burhan Chalabi. Each time Delta received a payment from a Finnish oil firm trading under the oil-for-food scheme, it sent funds to Mrs Galloway's account, the report said.

The UN cited three payments to her in 2000. Mr and Mrs Galloway married in February of that year and are now divorcing.

Last night the Bethnal Green and Bow MP angrily denied the new allegations. "How many times must I repeat this: I've never had a penny through oil deals and no one has produced a shred of evidence that I have," he said.

Scores of prominent people and powerful organisations were also accused in the UN report. They included Jean-Bernard Merimee, a former French ambassador to the UN, Fr Jean-Marie Benjamin, who formerly worked in the Vatican, President Vladimir Putin's former chief-of-staff Alexander Voloshin, and the Russian Communist Party. All deny the accusation.

Saddam handed tradeable oil contracts to those "perceived as being able to influence public opinion in favour of Iraq" and to boost his campaign against sanctions, according to the report.

It offered evidence that Mr Galloway was one of the beneficiaries. UN investigators cited Iraqi oil contracts, letters in Iraqi archives, interviews with Iraqi officials and bank records to make their case.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...28/wgall28.xml

Galloway tells senator 'put up or shut up' over oil cash
By Caroline Davies
(Filed: 26/10/2005)



George Galloway, the Respect MP, yesterday denied claims by United States senators that he solicited money from Saddam Hussein's oil-for-food programme and had lied about it on oath. He also denied any knowledge of an alleged $150,000 (£83,000) payment to his Palestinian-born wife said to have derived from Iraqi oil money.

Responding to a report published by an investigative committee of the US Senate on Monday he challenged senators to either charge him with perjury, or drop the allegations. "I am demanding prosecution. I'm begging prosecution. If I have lied under oath to the Senate, that's a criminal offence. Charge me and I'll head for the airport right now" he said yesterday.

The committee's report accuses the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow of personally soliciting and being granted eight oil allocations worth a total of 23 million barrels from Saddam's regime between 1999 and 2003.

It claims to have traced bank records showing that Mr Galloway's wife Amineh Abu-Zayyad, with whom he then lived but from whom he is now estranged, received approximately $150,000 in connection with one allocation of oil paid into her account by the Jordanian businessman and close friend of the couple Fawaz Zureikat.

It further alleges that Mr Galloway's political campaign, the Mariam Appeal, received at least $446,000 in connection with the oil allocations granted to Mr Galloway. And it accuses him of knowingly making false or misleading statements under oath when he gave evidence to the committee in May.

Mr Galloway yesterday cancelled a planned lecture in Ormskirk, Lancs on the subject of media manipulation to give a series of interviews in which he repeated denials that he had received any money from Iraqi oil, and challenged the chairman of the committee, the Republican senator Norm Coleman, to "put up or shut up".

He told Radio 4's Today programme that he had "absolutely no idea" about the alleged payment to his wife in August 2000 by Mr Zureikat, who was the chairman of the Mariam Appeal and at whose wedding Mr Galloway was best man. "I am not responsible for my wife. I am not party to Mr Zureikat's business arrangements. I am completely bemused," he said.

He added his wife had worked as an independent scientific researcher in Iraq and Jordan on the issue of depleted uranium and childhood cancers and was "herself now a cancer patient, possibly as a result".

He said: "I knew she had funding for that research. I did not know she had received money from Mr Zureikat, if she indeed had". Neither did he know of an alleged payment of $15,666 on the same day made by Mr Zureikat to Mr Galloway's spokesman Ron McKay. Mr McKay had said he has no recollection of the payment.

Dr Abu-Zayyad, 51, is quoted in the senate report specifically denying she "solicited or received'' any money from Iraq or oil deals "either for myself or my former husband".

Mr Galloway said nobody had ever given him "one thin dime" from an oil deal or any other deal, and accused "this lick-spittle Sen Norm Coleman" of orchestrating a "sneak revenge attack" because he had "publicly humiliated him in the Senate in May. "

The report cites testimony from the former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, who allegedly told investigators that Mr Galloway had requested oil allocations in the name of Mr Zureikat, and former Iraqi vice president Taha Tasin Ramadan, who is quoted as saying the MP was granted oil allocations "because of his opinions about Iraq".

But, on the Respect website yesterday Mr Galloway said: "On the one hand the US government accuses these men of being homicidal maniacs, on the other they assert that their coerced testimony is utterly trustworthy.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...26/ngall26.xml

[short_circuit]

Real-Ass-Hole.Com

A hard pill to sallow, suffer an overdose of crap.

doesnt he make golf clubs?

[short_circuit]

Originally Posted by Nyar

doesnt he make golf clubs?

Not unless you want corruption in the golf club market?