Short summary for those not inclined to click: the documents that indicated that Labor MP George Galloway was taking bribes from Saddam Hussein have been proven to be pretty blatant forgeries - multiple misspellings of crucial official names (including Saddam's son Qusay) and Galloway's signature bears no resemblance to his real signature.
Ironically, under British libel laws, Galloway stands to get a shitload of money out of this when he sues the British and American papers who dubbed him a traitor.
Since last post: 4652 days Last activity: 4594 days
#5 Posted on 20.5.03 0558.33 Reposted on: 20.5.10 0559.01
The whole newspaper industry over has a real problem in that they are forgetting to use words like 'alleged' and presume guilt. At the moment, a lot of papers are going to be out of pocket thanks to the Galloway allegations and the case of John Leslie - a TV presenter accused of rape who has just been told he will face no charges. This follows a case two years ago when a trial of two footballers collapsed due to a newspaper printing a story accusing the 'attackers' of racist intent in the assault. The problem is also extending to our politicians, with the Home Secretary, David Blunkett in potential trouble over the trail of a 'terrorist cell'. The day of the arrest, he appeared on radio and basically said that these mean were definitely Al-Qaeda and now they may escape trail due to the prejudiced nature of his comments.
I would like a few cases of this nature to make the media pay attention to this so that justice can be delivered by the courts and not the opinion of a few editors and/or a old Aussie racist.
Posts: 2259/17003 EXP: 164116155 For next: 1486655
Since: 9.12.01 From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 1 day
#6 Posted on 20.5.03 0724.01 Reposted on: 20.5.10 0725.07
I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying "barely anybody outside the UK sees this story on their radar...especially anybody on this board."
Still, there was this from the Christian Science Monitor:
The Mail said its investigation "cast serious doubts" over the Monitor's April 25 report that it had official Iraqi documents authorizing more than $10 million in payments to Mr. Galloway between 1992 and 2003.
The Mail has apparently purchased a different set of documents from the ones used in the Monitor story. The Monitor documents do not contain Galloway's signature. The Monitor did not pay for any of the Iraqi documents in its possession, nor was any payment ever discussed. The Monitor is continuing to examine the documents and has found nothing yet to cast doubt on their authenticity.