| |
|
I didn't say you were hiding anything, fridge, I said your figures were. The latter period is also significantly shorter a timespan that the former - about eighteen months compared to four years - hence the lower number of votes. The first period shows over 50% attendance - however, there were more votes crammed into that second eighteen month period, and he attended less than a third. It indicates a pattern of falling attendance to me, which is what I was referring to. His record almost vanishes after Iraq, but it had been 'tailing off', as you put it, for a while beforehand.
So you are, in fact, justifying this on the basis of "no smoke without fire"? He must be some sort of astounding political escape artist to get round all of these allegations without having any of them proved at all.
Ok, I'll give you an example. He got away by the skin of his teeth when the Charities Commission investigated the Mariam Appeal. Essentially, if you've ever read the report from the Charities Commission on the Appeal, it says:
* that the Mariam appeal should have been registered as a charity, as it was presented in literature and to the public as having charitable purposes - to get medical aid and treatment to Iraqi children suffering from cancer, and to establish causes of cancer in Iraq - and clearly did have charitable purposes.
Apparently Galloway et al 'received poor legal advice' that made them believe that the Appeal's constitution did not create a charity. The Commission, however, let them off because they claimed not to know that the Appeal should have been registered. This despite the fact that Appeal would have been infinitely better off financially if it had been registered as a charity (the massive tax write-offs, protected by law, etc). The only major drawbacks to doing so would have been a) the transparency the books would have needed - they would have had to have been available to been inspected at any point, and kept according to rigid rules, and b) the possibility of problems cropping up with some of the more political activities the Appeal was funding.
* after forcing the Appeal's books open (with S8-9 Of the Charities Act 1993), that "the major funders of the Appeal were the United Arab Emirates, a donor from Saudi Arabia and a Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zuriekat."
* that they were "unable to obtain all the books and records of the Appeal. Mr Galloway, the first Chairman of the Appeal, has stated that this documentation was sent to Amman and Baghdad in 2001 when Fawaz Zuriekat became Chairman of the Appeal. Mr Galloway has informed the Commission that this documentation is no longer under the control of the original trustees of the Appeal and cannot be located by them. Mr Galloway confirmed that the Appeal did not produce annual profit and loss accounts or balance sheets."
Effectively, then, they didn't keep proper records of financial transactions, even to the extent that an ordinary business would, and what little they did vanished when one of their major contributors became Chairman of the Appeal.
* Certain trustees (including Galloway's wife) received unauthorised payments from the Appeal. Again, the trustees were let off by the Commission because they claimed not to know that they payments had been unauthorised.
His wife, Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received around £18,000 from the appeal - apparently for 'looking after Mariam', which she was qualified to do according to Galloway, though as more than one person has stated, it's difficult to see how a microbiologist is wonderfully qualified to look after a sick child, and how she could take sufficient time away from her post at Glasgow University to do so. Why not hire an actual nurse for a similar sum?
* that they "received assurances from Mr Galloway that the monies received by him from the Appeal related to expenses incurred in his duties as Chairman of the Appeal."
Again, the Commission took Galloway's word for it.
* that the it would not be proportionate to pursue enquiries further, given that the Appeal was now closed and the books had gone missing.
In other words, what records had existed had been removed, so the Commission was forced to accept everyone at their word that there had been no wrongdoing, no misuse of funds, and that it had all been a big mistake.
I have a question. What kind of lawyer, upon being asked for advice on whether a campaign to help sick children would constitute a charity, replies in the negative? Unless, of course, rather than the political activities of the Appeal being ancillary to the main purpose of the appeal, to further getting treatment to sick children (as the Commission concluded), it was actually the other way around. I have another question, one slightly more whimsical one which touches on the issues that might have been raised had Galloway and the Appeal been investigated for money laundering, but since it's clear that a highly principled far left wing political figure like George Galloway would never dream of taking money from Middle Eastern big business and government to pay for his and their political campaigning in the UK and abroad, and since it's obvious that Galloway's financial affairs are above reproach, to do so would be simply foolishness. |
|
|
