Here is a letter written by Respect MP George Galloway to the editor of The Independent newspaper after its story this morning alleging that George was no longer part of Respect.
=================================

To the editor
The story which you run on Page 17 of The Independent today alleging I have split from Respect is deliberately inaccurate and unless a prominent retraction is printed by you tomorrow I intend to refer it to the Press Complaints Commission.

Your reporter James Macintyre made no attempt to contact me or my office (all of my numbers and those of my colleagues are widely known to your staff and easily obtainable and I had no missed calls on my mobile phone at any time yesterday from whoever James Macintyre is)and it is entirely based on a totally fallacious story which ran,briefly, on the BBC website before being replaced with the accurate version.

I have not split from Respect and have no intention of doing so. It is the anti-democratic Socialist Workers’ Party faction which has left Respect but is trying to claim custody of the party name. The ownership of the name Respect legally resides with my close colleague Linda Smith – as the Electoral Commission can confirm – who is supporting my Greater London Assembly candidature.

The proposal to stand a list broader than Respect in the GLA elections is not new and was first raised by me in an article in the Morning Star last November. The proposal is to have a slate which is not an alternative to Respect but is more than Respect. Respect plus. To achieve such a slate it will, for legal reasons, have to run under a different name.

Splits in Respect do not go back to 2005. The division within Respect came to a head over a letter sent by me to Respect’s National Council last August about the way that National Secretary John Rees was running the organisation. In particular it was over his acceptance of a $10,000 donation from a foreign businessman which I referred to the Electoral Commission who will now decide if it was illegally accepted.

I am not rarely seen at Westminster. I attend my office every day including weekends, as any lobby correspondent can testify. This is a deliberate smear.
All of this would have been made clear to the reporter had he made genuine attempts to contact me or my spokespeople. He preferred, instead, to concoct a totally fabricated tale plagiarised from a fleeting and wrong BBC internet account. I therefore demand an apology and a correction to this smear story.

George Galloway MP

 

9 responses to “George Galloway slams Independent "report"”

  1. Who’s got his knickers in a twist?

    Like

  2. It was shabby inaccurate journalism and we shouldn’t be surprised that the GG we all know and love would send a bblistering reply. Don’t think it got published though. But, my beef, is that after Galloway vowed never to utter the words SWP again, here is writing them. Consistenct please.

    Like

  3. The Indie should be worried. As a journalist friend ruefully put it to me once, “Galloway always sues, and Galloway always wins”.

    Rarely seen in Westminster – that’s gonna cost em.

    Like

  4. It wasn’t a letter for publication. It was a demand to the editor to retract the story.

    Not sure if there’s been any response yet.

    Like

  5. It could not be printed, on account of it’s being full of libel. Passing on an untruth is no excuse. The Indie will not retract on account of the story being accurate. Galloway is the only person who thinks it is possible to set up an electoral alliance that excludes members of his party, and stands against members of his party, but can remain a member of said party. Galloway knows that the reference to not being seen at Westminster had nothing to do with being in the building. It was a reference to his total absence from the floor of the debating chamber, and not casting his vote as his constitutents wanted him to do. The Indie can reasonably explain that their meaning was clear. Virtually all MPs can be seen on the telly every week by millions of voters. But not the gorgeous one.

    Like

  6. This blog has echoed Galloway’s lies. I call on Liam to retract these lies. In case you don’t know what I am refering to, draw your attention to the following:

    “I have not split from Respect and have no intention of doing so. It is the anti-democratic Socialist Workers’ Party faction which has left Respect but is trying to claim custody of the party name.”

    Ok, Liam. You provide space for Galloway to insist that, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite his supporting candidates standing against officially endorsed Respect candidates (Livingstone and god knows how many others), Galloway remains a member of Respect. Galloway and a handful of unelected associates will determine who gets to decide who can and who cannot draw up his slate of alternative GLA candidates. Galloway tells us that the SWP split from Respect. So, Liam, when exactly did this happen? What opportunties were there for SWP members to individually, and as a group, challenge these expulsions? Publish the minutes of the meeting that granted the expelled an opportunity to challenge these disciplinary measures. Galloway is threatening the Independent for publishing the truth. The laws of libel permit Lindsey German, John Rees and hundreds of SWP members to sue you for telling lies. I trust you are aware of this.

    Like

  7. Paul – if you are going to start calling people who disagree with you liars you will quickly outstay your welcome here.

    If you don’t like the comments policy set up your own blog.

    Like

  8. “I call on Liam to retract these lies”

    You are John Rees and I claim my £5.

    Like

  9. “The laws of libel permit Lindsey German, John Rees and hundreds of SWP members to sue you for telling lies. ”

    They can sue all they like, but the laws of libel also have a defence called ‘truth’ and another called ‘fair comment’.

    Like

Leave a reply to tonyc Cancel reply

Trending