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."

Galloway took money from Saddam...As did friends of France, Germany, Russia and Kofi.

BTW...Kofi is the answer to the question you seem to want to avoid like the plague.

I had already answered "Kofi" so thanks for wasting my time. Don't blame me, don't blame Annan, blame Volcker - US citizen, conservative, and - it appears - scum(?).

So, are you now concerned that the UK courts didn't do their job correctly? That they incorrectly ruled it was libel against Galloway?

Actually, what you're doing again is not fact checking before posting, which is ironic given you have criticised me as lacking credibility. Take, for instance, further comments from that guy above:

The "defence" of the Telegraph was, in essence, that they should be free to bring such things to the world's attention without checking their veracity. Should we give the Telegraph a pass on this one? Does that mean Dan Rather's ok now too?

Remember that the defence for libel is usually that it is true.

So what did the judge say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4063455.stm

Ironic that this thread had a trip through "liberal bias in the media" land, no?

Looks like that article was written (in the Telegraph, in April 2003) before the court case which Galloway won. I reckon the court considered that.

Your fact checking sucks.

Two different sets of documents.

No matter how you slice it Galloway is a pro-Saddam communist.

"I am 100 per cent certain that this document is genuine," he said, his eyes still fixed on the letter. "As soon as I saw the document I knew it was Habbush's handwriting because it is so distinctive and unusual. This is not ordinary writing. The words are very big, just like sculptures. He writes very well."

These documents were deemed authentic.

Oh whatever. Deemed authentic by some guy, but not the court or the Telegraph's lawyers, who couldn't mount the "truth" defence against libel.

Oh, and in Galloway's words (I can't believe I am bothering to be an apologist for the guy), it is a bit of a stretch to call him "pro-Saddam" although dude is definitely a socialist (by any definition):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616578,00.html

Further comment - I don't even like Galloway - he falls into the category of people who I think take away from humanity more than they give (its not really a very big list). I probably hold Bush in higher regard than Galloway - it seems that in pursuing his political goals Galloway will stoop pretty damn low.

But I don't think he is guilty of the things he won the libel cases for.

He wasn't just "some guy"...

Saddam Hussein's former head of protocol said yesterday that the document found by The Daily Telegraph saying that George Galloway received substantial payments from the Iraqi regime was "100 per cent genuine".

Haitham Rashid Wihaib, who fled to Britain with his family eight years ago after death threats, said he had no doubt that the handwritten confidential memorandum addressed to the dictator's office apparently detailing how the Labour MP benefited from Iraq's oil sales was authentic....

Salon

Now, you could make the case that you cannot trust liberal media...You would be right, but not this bit of information...After all, who would know better but an ex Saddam loyalist...The letters, further, were authenticated by experts.

But back to the substance of Kofi being a crook...Some very shady crap went down on the backs of starving Iraqis, Kofi orchestrated the scam of "oil for food"...Add to that the human rights abuses in the Congo (rape of little girls) and the fact that Kofi has active human rights villains on the so-called "Human Rights Commission", and I think the picture quite accurately reflects a man that should not only step-down, but face some good ole' fashioned African justice like the necklace.

Amazing the leftist disconnect from reality...We have one of history's biggest scam artists (if not biggest) and he gets a free pass, nay, lifted on the collective leftist shoulders.

Really telling of the character of the left..."Rwanda?...whatchoo talkin' bout?"..."Sudan?...whatchoo talkin' bout?"..."Congo?...whatchoo talkin' about?"..."North Korea?...whatchoo talkin' bout?"..."Saddam?....whatchoo talkin' bout?"

"Whatchoo talking about willis?" (for full effect, play this clip on loop while reading the last couple pages)

"China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, no longer in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lybia"
Well, you've provided a list now how about looking at the other side of the coin - namely every other country in the world.

So from what I can understand, all your complaints about liberal bias stem from the above countries only. If these countries make up 'the rest of the world' then you have a very different perception of the world to me.

"Rupert is a drop in the media bucket"
News Corporation selected holdings
The U.S. Fox broadcasting network;
Twenty-two U.S. television stations, the largest U.S. station group,
covering over 40 percent of U.S. TV households;
Fox News Channel;
A 50 percent stake (with TCI's Liberty Media) in several U.S. and
global cable networks, including fx, fxM and Fox Sports
Net;
50 percent stake in Fox Kids Worldwide, production studio and owner
of U.S. cable Family Channel;
Ownership or major interests in satellite services reaching Europe,
U.S., Asia, and Latin America, often under the Sky Broadcasting brand;
Twentieth Century Fox, a major film, television and video production
center, which has a library of over 2,000 films to exploit;
Some 132 newspapers (primarily in Australia, Britain and the United
States, including the London Times and the New York Post),
making it one of the three largest newspaper groups in the world;
Twenty-five magazines, most notably TV Guide;
Book publishing interests, including HarperCollins;

This list is now out of date but I think it serves as a fair example of this 'drop in the bucket'. I can't be bothered looking for an exact figure of market share/circulation (would be a fairly rubbery figure anyway) but whichever way you slice it - it's not an insignificant share/exposure.

Now, other than that you've given six peoples opinions about the ABC, BBC and New York Times. As I've previously stated - I'm not up for an opinion on these networks as I don't know them. Maybe you're right - maybe you're not. However, your statement of the rest of the world bias is baseless - unless you're only considering China Cuba etc.

Ok, this is what I've observed.

Mulholland makes up his mind and that's it. It doesn't matter if evidence contradicts what he's decided.....it falls under "conspiacy."

So, for example, he knows Kofi was involved, has nothing to prove this, so that falls under conspiracy. He knows Delay is innocent, has nothing to prove this, so that falls under conspiracy. (sidenote, I cannot claim either way on Delay, I have not seen evidence, so I am not claiming guilt or innocence either way, this is just an obvservation on how Mul's mind works.) If Delay is innocent, he'll be vindicated, if Delay is guilty, it'll be a conspiracy. The media reports something he does not like, it's a lying conspiracy. Bush makes a poor decision, it's a conspiracy, he really made a good decision, but it's some conspiracy.

Sounds like "facts fixed around policy." He makes a conclusion, and will fit "conspiracy" where needed as a way to "substantatiate" this conclusion. I sure hope you're not a scientist Mul.

Mul, the whole world is not some sort of conspiracy out to get you my friend...

Chicky...who orchestrated the investigation of Kofi?...The UN's endemic corruption precludes them from honestly investigating themselves.

Incorrigible...You see right where there is wrong and wrong where there is right...Alice in Pelican Land...The estrogen perhaps?

I was shooting from the hip here...You can bet their medias are at the very least heavily coerced by the dictatorships in which they fluorish...I would doubt that many countries truly have a "free-press," and even if they did (which they do not) there is something about the liberal mind that gravitates toward wanting to write history (like in American media)…I hate to say this, but Michael Moore agrees with me…

"We're the only country in the whole world without dominant state-controlled media. In a democracy, the state is supposed to be the people. So if it's truly the people, I'd rather run the risk of a government truly run by the people than a corporation doing it."… "All my stuff lately has been funded from Europe," he says. "The TV show was from the BBC and Channel 4. The film I'm working on is from a German studio. Canadians funded the last season of "The Awful Truth. … Other cultures that haven't had the Moral Majority suppression have moved their culture forward. We haven't." – Michael Moore

Pretty compelling case Mooreon makes for me, isn’t it?

Why single out Fox News and other holdings of Mr. Murdoch?...The only holdings that Murdoch has, that have a right-tilt, are his FoxNews and a couple papers...A drop in the media bucket.

Again, I ask, why do you single out Murdoch?

I don't think they were authenticated - I think you're making that up too.

Let's say they were authenticated to a standard of legal proof. If so, would not the first step of the Telegraph's legal team have been to avoid several million pounds worth of cost by using the "truth" defence to libel?

But they didn't do this, because the letter was not authenticated.

Re: Kofi Annan - I don't think he is competent, but I think the failures are due to human error (compounding) and greed, but not maliciousness, spread throughout the UN. This is pretty much what the report found. I think all the nations in the UN need a renewed and genuine commitment to it.

Virtually everything Murdoch owns which is capable of having a tilt has a right wing one (prove me wrong!). And Michael Moore is wrong too, unless "media" is another way of saying "tv".

Interesting how Dan Rather still stands behind the story that his Bush documents were real, although they were forgeries, yet we have an exiled refugee from Saddam's inner sanctum and he confirms the document's authenticity, yet he cannot be trusted.

Saddam Hussein's former head of protocol said yesterday that the document found by The Daily Telegraph saying that George Galloway received substantial payments from the Iraqi regime was "100 per cent genuine".

Haitham Rashid Wihaib, who fled to Britain with his family eight years ago after death threats, said he had no doubt that the handwritten confidential memorandum addressed to the dictator's office apparently detailing how the Labour MP benefited from Iraq's oil sales was authentic....

link above

Galloway has had proven forgeries levelled against him too (Christian Science Monitor), so you could call it even.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that Haitham Rashid Wihaib's "authentication" is clearly not up to any standard of legal proof?

He is an eyewitness testimony, living in a place he can easily be targeted for assassination (England), who authenticates documents that had the appearance of being genuine.

Galloway is a notorious friend of Islam (Palestinian apologist/anti-Semite) and pretty much a communist...Neither of these predelictions would suggest honesty at any level.

I believe that eyewitness would mean someone who saw the document created or signed.

Look, I'm done with this. Find some proof (not opinion) that Galloway did it and you'll get somewhere. Consistently repeating the opinion of Wihaib from 6 months before the judgement against the Telegraph is not going to convince me.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1128385056.jpg

Oh, that's right, he was. No involvement.