MP George Galloway Wins Libel Suit vs London Telegraph

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10692
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

MP George Galloway Wins Libel Suit vs London Telegraph

Post by Elfdart »

Remember last year when the Telegraph claimed to have documents proving that George Galloway was on Saddam Hussein's payroll? Well he bitchslapped the paper with a libel suit and because of Britain's excellent libel laws, won £150,000.


http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/s ... t=3&dir=60

Galloway wins Saddam libel battle
By Jan Colley and Cathy Gordon, PA
02 December 2004
George Galloway won £150,000 libel damages from The Daily Telegraph today over allegations that he was in the secret pay of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The 50-year-old MP for Glasgow Kelvin described the High Court ruling by Mr Justice Eady as a "judicial caning" for the newspaper, which has been left facing a costs bill of around £1.2 million.

Mr Galloway, who sued over "outrageous and incredibly damaging" allegations, was present at London's Law Courts for a ruling which he said brought him the "vindication" he sought.

Announcing his decision, the judge said he was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway in respect of the publications and the aggravated features of the defendants' subsequent conduct, and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation".

He added: "I do not think those purposes would be achieved by any award less than £150,000."

The MP's case centred on a series of articles published in April 2003 - following discovery of documents in Iraq by Telegraph reporter David Blair - which he said "claimed that I had made very substantial secret profits from Saddam Hussein and his regime".

Telegraph Group Limited denied libel, claiming that it was responsible journalism and in the public interest for it to publish the contents of documents on which the story was based.

The judge refused the newspaper permission to appeal, but it can apply directly to the Court of Appeal - it wants to challenge both the ruling on liability and the "excessive" damages award.

After the ruling, Mr Galloway, who was accompanied by friends, family and members of his office, said: "I am glad and somewhat humbled to discover that there is at least one corner of the English field which remains uncorrupted and independent and that corner is in this courtroom."

Asked if he had anything to say about the existence of the documents at the centre of the case, the MP said: "The documents are either forgeries or they have been doctored - but they are in any case false."

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

Mr Galloway said: "For the moment the situation in 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 on the way or whilst there."

Asked if he was happy about the level of damages, he replied: "Happiness is not what I am feeling right now. I am extremely angry. 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 be taken away from me, my job would be lost.

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

On behalf of the Telegraph, executive editor Neil Darbyshire said: "We are naturally disappointed by this judgment, which we believe is a blow to the principle of freedom of expression in this country.

"We will be seeking leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

"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.

"If, as we understand the Court to have held, English law offers no real protection to newspapers that publish documents which raise such important questions about the conduct of an elected member of Parliament, then freedom of expression is an illusion."

He said it had never been the newspaper's case to suggest that the allegations contained in the documents were true.

"These documents were published by us because their contents raised very important questions at a crucial stage of the war against Iraq."

Mr Darbyshire said: "When we published the documents, we did so believing that their contents were important, should be made public and would in due course be investigated by the proper authorities."

An allegation that the documents were published as part of a witchhunt against Mr Galloway was "nonsense".

In his lengthy ruling, the judge said that the allegations were "seriously defamatory" of Mr Galloway.

He said: "It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than "neutral reportage" of documents discovered by a reporter in the badly-damaged Foreign Ministry in Baghdad, but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described."

Although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on the afternoon of April 21, he was not given an opportunity to read the Iraqi documents beforehand, and neither were they read to him.

"He did not therefore have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published."

It was not put to Mr Galloway during the interview that the newspaper was proposing to publish any of the allegations to the effect of personal enrichment.

"Again, he did not have a proper opportunity to respond in advance to allegations of such gravity."

He added: "In all the circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendants were under a social or moral duty to make the allegations about Mr Galloway at that time, and without any attempt at verification.

"Accordingly they were not protected by privilege at common law."

He said that none of the allegations was protected by the defence of fair comment.
I wonder if all the hacks who called Galloway a "traitor" will apologize.
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

If they had any sense they would never have run with it. The whole thing smacked of a plant in the first place.

They were fooled, ran with it and they deserve what they're getting now.
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

Not so fast, the Duelfer Report still supports the theory that Galloway was taking bribes from Saddam. Your seditious butt-buddy isn't in the clear yet.
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10692
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Post by Elfdart »

Joe wrote:Not so fast, the Duelfer Report still supports the theory that Galloway was taking bribes from Saddam. Your seditious butt-buddy isn't in the clear yet.
So, it "supports the theory" that Galloway was on the take? :lol: I love it when right-wingers have to reach for the shyster language to support their bullshit points. :roll:
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Keevan_Colton wrote:If they had any sense they would never have run with it. The whole thing smacked of a plant in the first place.

They were fooled, ran with it and they deserve what they're getting now.
It's not like someone else wouldn't have tried anyway. He was a thorn in the gov't's side at the time with his anti-war rhetoric. The story at least looked like it was making him a hypocrite at the time.
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Joe wrote:Not so fast, the Duelfer Report still supports the theory that Galloway was taking bribes from Saddam. Your seditious butt-buddy isn't in the clear yet.
What evidence does it offer for Galloway taking bribes?
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:If they had any sense they would never have run with it. The whole thing smacked of a plant in the first place.

They were fooled, ran with it and they deserve what they're getting now.
It's not like someone else wouldn't have tried anyway. He was a thorn in the gov't's side at the time with his anti-war rhetoric. The story at least looked like it was making him a hypocrite at the time.
You never run a story unless you have an authorative source, preferably two....and I'm afraid that some boxes of papers in a building the bloke down the pub told you were there after the place has been looted already, is not in itself an authorative source.
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

Elfdart wrote:
Joe wrote:Not so fast, the Duelfer Report still supports the theory that Galloway was taking bribes from Saddam. Your seditious butt-buddy isn't in the clear yet.
So, it "supports the theory" that Galloway was on the take? :lol: I love it when right-wingers have to reach for the shyster language to support their bullshit points. :roll:
Concession accepted.
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

What evidence does it offer for Galloway taking bribes?
His name came up several times on a list of foreign officials that received oil vouchers.
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Keevan_Colton wrote:
You never run a story unless you have an authorative source, preferably two....and I'm afraid that some boxes of papers in a building the bloke down the pub told you were there after the place has been looted already, is not in itself an authorative source.
Well, I never said it was a smart move in terms of journalism. But see it from the gov't perspective. You've got a story running that discredits a popular anti-war protester. It'll cause confusion at the least. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if gov't sources helped nudge such a story into the paper's lap.
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Well, I never said it was a smart move in terms of journalism. But see it from the gov't perspective. You've got a story running that discredits a popular anti-war protester. It'll cause confusion at the least. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if gov't sources helped nudge such a story into the paper's lap.
Agreed.
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Sharp-kun
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2993
Joined: 2003-09-10 05:12am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Post by Sharp-kun »

Meh, I'm disapointed. I very much dislike Galloway. Regardless, his name still came up on the list of those who had taken bribes over the oil for food scam.
Admiral Valdemar wrote: Well, I never said it was a smart move in terms of journalism. But see it from the gov't perspective. You've got a story running that discredits a popular anti-war protester. It'll cause confusion at the least. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if gov't sources helped nudge such a story into the paper's lap.
The Torygraph helping Blair? ;)
User avatar
Plekhanov
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3991
Joined: 2004-04-01 11:09pm
Location: Mercia

Post by Plekhanov »

Joe wrote:
What evidence does it offer for Galloway taking bribes?
His name came up several times on a list of foreign officials that received oil vouchers.
Which list is this? Can you please link to it, and whilst you're at it maybe you should forward it to the Telegraph's lawyers as if it actually provides evidence that Galloway was taking bribes like you seem to think it does it should help them in their appeal.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Sharp-kun wrote: The Torygraph helping Blair? ;)
Stranger things have happened. The fact that they ran it is obvious. Civil servants didn't have to personally go to the office and say "run this. It'll sell and it's legit", they just had to go "oops, look at this, we've leaked documents showing Galloway to be a two-faced cocksucker. Hope no one profits from this".

Whether this case exonerates him or not in the public mind doesn't matter. Rape suspects are still remembered for their supposed conviction even if they were innocent. That's just image for you.
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

Plekhanov wrote:
Joe wrote:
What evidence does it offer for Galloway taking bribes?
His name came up several times on a list of foreign officials that received oil vouchers.
Which list is this? Can you please link to it, and whilst you're at it maybe you should forward it to the Telegraph's lawyers as if it actually provides evidence that Galloway was taking bribes like you seem to think it does it should help them in their appeal.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

It's buried somewhere in the Duelfer report. Long download, even longer read.

As for the Telegraph, this probably couldn't have helped their case (ex post facto and all that).
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

More than likely it's going off the very same bullshit documents that accused Galloway in the first place, Joe. I expressed my skepticism that Iraqi documents would just be lying around waiting to be found with the names of anti-war MPs there last year more than once. :lol:
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Joe wrote:http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

It's buried somewhere in the Duelfer report. Long download, even longer read.

As for the Telegraph, this probably couldn't have helped their case (ex post facto and all that).
If it really says he's taken bribes either it's evidence that the Telegraph can use...a statement can only be defamatory if it's false...or, the CIA can join the queue of people Galloway is suing, he's already done over an american paper about it aswell.
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10692
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Post by Elfdart »

The Christian Science Monitor fessed up and settled. It turned out the documents they used were phonier than John O'Neil's toupee. Although they were supposedly memos going back to 1992, ink tests determined that they were written in 2003. :lol:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0620/p01s03-woiq.html
Post Reply