| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Galloway wins Saddam libel case |
| 2004-12-02 |
| Posted by:Howard UK |
| #10 In other words, this verdict does not dispute that Galloway is named as one of Saddam's pimps, just that the Telegraph wasn't nice to Galloway and didn't play fair by British journalistic standards. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-02 5:29:49 PM |
| #9 In the US, the truth is an absolute defense against libel or slander. If I remember right, in the UK (and Europe), that is not the case. |
| Posted by: jackal 2004-12-02 5:09:31 PM |
| #8 Seems a long long way from our standard of reckless, knowing [?] and malicious disregard of the truth." Whatever the precise phrasing, it would seem under any legal standard that it's the journalist's relation to the truth, not to his subject, that should determine the outcome here. Very strange. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-02 12:53:57 PM |
| #7 I'm not expert on libel law, or law in general, but that bit raised my eyebrows too, lex. Suggests to me that the judge does in fact sit on one side of the political fence. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-12-02 12:51:25 PM |
| #6 Britain's libel laws clearly are far more restrictive of press freedom than ours. This line of reasoning from the judge is strange: The judge said that although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on 21 April, he was not given an opportunity to read the Iraqi documents beforehand, and neither were they read to him. The reporter who contacted him, Andrew Sparrow, only summarised the claims relating to funding of the Mariam Appeal, but did not tell him the newspaper was planning to publish claims about personal enrichment, the judge said. "[Mr Galloway] did not therefore have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published." Are reporters really required to reveal the contents of their stories to politicians prior to publication? Did Woodward and Bernstein contact the White House prior to their scoop? |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-02 12:48:15 PM |
| #5 In the USA, you have to show that the defendent had, at least, a reckless disregard for the truth. In Britain the standard is obviously much different. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-12-02 10:46:14 AM |
| #4 Like Archer before, Galloway may have won this battle but he won't win the war. I find it amazing that the veracity of the documents themselves haven't been more of an issue. The onus may have been on the Telegraph to provide evidence to back up their allegations, but they had such evidence and its authenticity still hasn't been seriously disputed. In order to win a case of libel, Galloway ought to have been obliged to prove that the evidence the Telegraph had was false, or insufficient. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-12-02 10:37:40 AM |
| #3 Un-fooking-beleivable . He's a sick weasel . His track record stinks more than a skunks arse . Sad sad day for British folk everywhere :( as phil_b says , i hope his days are numbered . grrrrrrr |
| Posted by: MacNails 2004-12-02 9:19:33 AM |
| #2 Horse hockey. This had to be a commie judge. Someone please just beat the holey heck out of George for me please. He is such a over dramatic over the top commie punk. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-02 8:22:27 AM |
| #1 This smells like a political fix. Let us hope conclusive proof is forthcoming and Mr. G gets his just desserts. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-12-02 8:01:22 AM |