Is Galloway A Crook?

No, that's just your opinion.

Er... that's nice. *Newsflash: Defendant is innocent in his opinion*


There's plenty of evidence. The US, the UN, The Telegraph have all provided documents, the US and the UN have testimony from formerly high-ranking Iraqi officials. All of this is in the public domain.


Maybe you're a millionaire, but $150,000 sounds a lot to me. And it's not really alleged to have appeared, it did appear.


You're really not up on the complexities of the case, are you?
The money came from a friend of Galloway's, who is the one accused of directly dealing with the oil allocations etc. on behalf of Galloway.


Indeed they do, they also passionately plead their own innocence in front of the media and from the witness stand. I think you'll find that most defendants are kind of passionate about not being found guilty. Is this really the best you can produce?


When the justice system starts running on the basis of whether or not the guy looks innocent or guilty, give me a ring.


So? That lends even more credence to the contention that they're genuine pieces of evidence, does it not?


The evidence (US and UN reports) are largely in the public domain, you don't have to "wait" you could go start examining it now. And I'm sorry, if the US and UN both come to the same conclusion, why do you insist this is just more attempts at "smear" if they separately come to the same conclusions, does that not give you an inkling that there might be something to them?


He won his case on the grounds that he was not given adequate opportunity to respond to accusations. You do know that his lawyers never challenged the authenticity of the documents used, right...

And all those statements are repeats from his original statements. Indeed, I did not copy/paste you his full initial statements earlier, but merely some of them, the full lot are available easily on the net.
If you'd really looked at and watched what he said as many times as you claim, you'd know that all 4 of those statements are repeats of things in his opening. But you didn't know that...
It was a little trap. And you fell in it.

Whatever happened to sub judice? We weren't allowed to discuss the Michael Jackson case on TSR until the case was not proven.

Sub Judice doesn't apply as the matter we are discussing is not "under judgment" by any legal system at the moment. Allegations cannot be subject to that rule, for obvious reasons. Anyway, it's not like private discussion can be stopped even if the rule is in force, people will always talk.

I thought Galloway had been accused and was about to be found guilty - at least, according to you!

You are wrong that sub judice cannot be applied on TSR.

You are at liberty to carry on this discussion by pm if you wish, but it is decidely dodgy to do so in any other circumstances, unless your preface or suffix your accusations with the word 'allegedly'.

Don't cover up your failure to think your point through. Sub Judice doesn't apply, whatever you may think about anything.


I didn't say it couldn't be applied. Read what I said, I was talking about "private discussion" and in a very general sense, at that.


Stop trying to enforce your own warped idea of legal principles on me. Sub Judice does not apply at this point in time, and if the administratve team of this board had any complaints about this topic, they'd be either warning people not to say things or closing the topic. The fact they have done NEITHER of these things is indicative of the fact that it is a valid and viable subject for discussion. People around here accuse people and governments of crimes of all natures, all the time, why are you trying to stifle debate in this topic?

I'm jumping the gun? What the hell are you on about.

I've drawn my conclusions.

As I said, you've decided he's guilty on the basis of evidence that is highly likely to have been forged.

umm....when we talk about prisoners making damning statements we have to take into account that these statements have, and often still are, made under duress and intimidation.

To discount the possibilty could be considered somewhat naive.

Why do you continuously assert things that cannot be proven one way or the other? You don't know that the statements were made under duress, you have not had access to the prisoner, you're merely asserting yet another idea that you've had. And the fact that the UN investigation also has the same statements, would indicate that they at least approve of the method by which they were gained.


And to assert that it's true, based on no evidence, would be false.