George Galloway blasts the Senate

When the original documents were shown to be forged, the Telegraph's defense was public interest. The court found otherwise. I would think a US court, examining the same evidence, would likely find the same way.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

It is true, as Setanta has stated, that Galloway sued the Daily Telegraph for libel and won. I am not familiar with the facts of the case, but do know that British libel laws are more protective of public figures than are ours, which put more emphasis on free speech.

I'm familiar with that case (I'd thought everyone else as well: how do you discuss it, if you don't know it?), however not so thaught in comparison of Britsh and US libel laws, especially re protection of public figures.

The Telegraph - you certainly remember - used the so-called Reynolds defence: that defence relies on journalists having a "qualified privilege", meaning that in certain circumstances they can report allegations of a serious nature without having to prove that they are true.

0 Replies

Tico says :- "Actually, I'm not saying either. "

Well, unless you know something about other evidence, it has to be one thing or the other.

If it's not....what ARE you saying, exactly?

0 Replies

True Steve. But I speak in the USA where we have greater freedoms with respect to speech than do you.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
It is true, as Setanta has stated, that Galloway sued the Daily Telegraph for libel and won. I am not familiar with the facts of the case, but do know that British libel laws are more protective of public figures than are ours, which put more emphasis on free speech.

I'm familiar with that case (I'd thought everyone else as well: how do you discuss it, if you don't know it?), however not so thaught in comparison of Britsh and US libel laws, especially re protection of public figures.

The Telegraph - you certainly remember - used the so-called Reynolds defence: that defence relies on journalists having a "qualified privilege", meaning that in certain circumstances they can report allegations of a serious nature without having to prove that they are true.

Yes, but didnt Reynolds win his case? He was awarded 1p if I remember.

Three years after that case, the House of Lords changed the Law so that Newspapers could claim "qualified priviledge" if a number of critical factors applied.

It does not necessarily follow, however, that a paper can print defamatory information even if it believes there is public interest reasons to do so at the time.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

True Steve. But I speak in the USA where we have greater freedoms with respect to speech than do you.

Now I've heard everything!

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Usually, I don't look for "cases" to be made except in the courtroom, after charges have been brought. Your several references to the Daily Telegraph case lead me to believe you suspect there is no additional evidence to be brought against Galloway, when in fact I think neither you nor I can make the claim that we know what evidence exists to support an allegation against him. At least I don't make that claim. So as to your point which you feel I'm ignoring -- the obvious point that no one has made a case against Galloway being complicit in a kickback scheme -- be advised that I don't give a whit, and it has no bearing on my remarks. Should Galloway file suit over here, perhaps we'll know what goods they might have on him.

As for what you wish to be lead to believe, i refer you to your own remark, below. I have been concerned all along with the allegations to date. The position of georgeob1 has been a "where there's smoke, there's fire" position, and i have been pointing out that this is more a case of smoke and mirrors on the part of Galloway's accusers. Nothing in what i have written for a moment suggests that i know, or purport to know, what evidence may be alleged against Mr. Galloway in future. As we so far have only evidence discredited by the successful lawsuit in which legal counsel stipulated the inaccuracy and the retraction of The Christian Science Monitor on the basis of of having found the evidence which it had previously used to be false--i have not intended to nor have i speculated on what may be adduced against him in future. Again, you continue to attempt to use my criticism of georgeob1's position as a launching point for an irrelevant discussion of what may be alleged against Mr. Galloway in future. That was not my point, and it is something in which i have no interest. I'll burn that bridge when i've crossed it.

Quote:

Actually, I thought I was having my own discussion, apart from georgeob1's. And to take a page from your playbook, I'll thank you for not assuming what my intent may or may not be, because you don't know anything about me.

How very ironic, given the number of assertions you have made in the course of this discussion at cross-purposes about what i was or was not saying, and what i was or was not in a position to know or assert.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
True Steve. But I speak in the USA where we have greater freedoms with respect to speech than do you.

Now I've heard everything!

I had better qualify this statement......you didnt specify whether this was greater freedom of speech by law, or by action.

Law, I dont know enough to comment on.

Action....well, from what I've seen happening over there, at this moment in time, I would say that you are a long way behind us as far as open debate is concerned, and News reporting.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'm familiar with that case (I'd thought everyone else as well: how do you discuss it, if you don't know it?), however not so thaught in comparison of Britsh and US libel laws, especially re protection of public figures.

The Telegraph - you certainly remember - used the so-called Reynolds defence: that defence relies on journalists having a "qualified privilege", meaning that in certain circumstances they can report allegations of a serious nature without having to prove that they are true.

I wasn't discussing the libel case at all. I merely acknowledged Setanta's references to it and added the observation that the result of this case doesn't prove anything, one way of the other with respect to the subject at hand. Beyond that I believe I was quite clear on the distinction between what I know to be true and what I believe to be true.

I'm not sure I understood your reference to the differences in British and U.S. laws with respect to libel protection for public figures. My understanding is that public figures have a good deal more legal protection in the UK. Here they have almost none - one must prove both malicious intent and eoither knowing falsehood or willful neglegence to get a favorable judgement here - almost impossible to prove.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Yes, but didnt Reynolds win his case? He was awarded 1p if I remember.

Three years after that case, the House of Lords changed the Law so that Newspapers could claim "qualified priviledge" if a number of critical factors applied.

It does not necessarily follow, however, that a paper can print defamatory information even if it believes there is public interest reasons to do so at the time.

Well, the Telegraph lost here, when I remember correctly :wink:

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Tico says :- "Actually, I'm not saying either. "

Well, unless you know something about other evidence, it has to be one thing or the other.

If it's not....what ARE you saying, exactly?

I'm not saying that you know all the evidence, that the Senators acted with malace, or that they are dumb.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

When the original documents were shown to be forged, the Telegraph's defense was public interest. The court found otherwise. I would think a US court, examining the same evidence, would likely find the same way.

Well, when you say so ...

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...

Nothing in what i have written for a moment suggests that i know, or purport to know, what evidence may be alleged against Mr. Galloway in future.

Then I don't understand why you keep acting as if that is indeed what you are suggesting.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Hang on.....I keep hearing this stuff about "we dont know what else they have against him". Wasnt ALL of the supposed "evidence" contained in their dossier?

Am I missing something?

Casual observers of proceedings should not assume they know what all the evidence is until it is formally presented in court. As I've said, you folks may feel you know all the evidence that exists against Galloway, but I choose to not make that assumption.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Casual observers of proceedings should not assume they know what all the evidence is until it is formally presented in court. As I've said, you folks may feel you know all the evidence that exists against Galloway, but I choose to not make that assumption.

So there is already a court trial terminated?

0 Replies

That's my point Walter, a newspaper must fulfil certain criteria when they publish, in order to defend themselves using Qualified priviledge. The Telegraph obviously did not fulfil the required conditions.

Qualified privilege was crucial for the Telegraph's defence against Mr Galloway because it was unable to claim justification, that is, to prove the truth of its allegations that the MP was in the pay of Saddam Hussein.

The paper argued that its article was based on documents - unearthed from the ruined foreign ministry in Baghdad - that it was in the public interest to reveal.

Mr Justice Eady said Mr Galloway was not given sufficient opportunity to refute the claims in the Telegraph that he had received up to £375,000 a year from Saddam.

The judge noted that Mr Galloway had a 35-minute conversation with Andrew Sparrow, the paper's Westminster correspondent, but was not sent the documents or told that the Telegraph was intending to publish a story.

"Although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on the afternoon of April 21, he was not given the opportunity of reading the Iraqi documents beforehand; nor were they read to him," said the judge.

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

He said any reasonable-minded reader of the Telegraph would have concluded that Mr Galloway was in the pay of Saddam after reading the report.

0 Replies

"But I speak in the USA where we have greater freedoms with respect to speech than do you."

You are probably right there George but can't quite think what they might be. I would be interested to find out.

0 Replies

Lord E - are there two suits brought by Galloway, or is the one you just mentioned the one that Hitchens describes as a 'temporary' win (since it's being appealed)?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
When the original documents were shown to be forged, the Telegraph's defense was public interest. The court found otherwise. I would think a US court, examining the same evidence, would likely find the same way.

Well, when you say so ...

you have a winning way with words Walter

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Lord Ellpus wrote:
Hang on.....I keep hearing this stuff about "we dont know what else they have against him". Wasnt ALL of the supposed "evidence" contained in their dossier?

Am I missing something?

Casual observers of proceedings should not assume they know what all the evidence is until it is formally presented in court. As I've said, you folks may feel you know all the evidence that exists against Galloway, but I choose to not make that assumption.

Are you trying to tell me that a Full Senate enquiry dossier does not contain all of the facts? It is a joke (or maybe that's the way the US works in these matters) to think that bombshell cast iron evidence would not have been fired at him during his "Interview". If only for the wonderful Press coverage by Fox that evening.
Coleman was building his career on that "Interview" and would have dearly loved to fire a cannon shell at Galloway.
And if he wasnt allowed to disclose the details of the "supposed" extra evidence....he (Coleman) would certainly have given a little tantaliser to the Press conference after receiving such a mauling.
If there IS any further evidence such as documents from Iraq, I certainly hope that the ink is dry before Galloways trial date.

0 Replies

George Galloway blasts the Senate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know