flimsier said:
No, I've said that the context in which he was talking is not clear, and I believe him when he makes his defence, because his accusers have not shown the context.
I could put it a different way, but I'm saying the same thing
The accusation is that GG was saluting Saddam Hussein. If someone wants to make that accusation, I'd like them to provide some evidence, including context. Otherwise don't make the accusation. Your assertion that he should prove he wasn't saluting Saddam Hussein is ridiculous. You place the burden of proof on him! Even not in a court of law, such as accusation is one that needs some decent evidence.
He's defended himself, and provided the means (ie it's clear how to) to refute his defence. No-one has chosen to refute the defence. I reckon that's good enough.
A bit like Jezza then says in his 'chapter and verse' on the Tony Benn quote. I agree with him. I'd like to see the entire context of what Benn was saying. Why doesn't Jezza demand that of Galloway before making a judgement.
No, you're rather ignoring the footage
we do have. Footage that makes the explantion singularly unconvincing. The footage in the evidence that people are going on - you simnplt just cannot dismiss it out of hand and sat that it doesn't count in this case, and all that can snd should count is everything else. That's not the way to deal with this.
And no, i'm not demanding that GG do ma damn thing, i'm not saying that burden of proof is on him, what
i am saying is that he
should, if as he and you believe that it's so easy and straightforwrd to remove this damaging claim,
do so. The fact that he hasn't or can't, despite being well known for being concerned with his public image and for filiming and benefiting from the meetings ad interviews he arranged with Saddam makes me doubt very much that he can. And that it's an excuse rather designed more to dismiss the claims arter than get to the bottom, of them. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book as you should know full well.
And to be frank, you're pretty much demolishing your own case as you go along - you demand that others provide context, but admit that you yourself do not know the context and have no proof at all other than your own suspicions. You're demanding different standards from those you disagree with than those you've chosen to apply to yourself.
Let's face it, your whole position boils down to 'I believe Galloway' - nothing else, so these quasi-legal interrogations are a waste of both our time. I, and others, don't because he has a long record of poltical twisting, out-and-out lying, attempting to alter the historical record and supporting dictatorships etc. No need for all this tortorous stuff. On the evidence we have, we come to diff conclusions - but you're calling in other evidence to support your claim, evidence that you've not seen, not examined and that's not availible to anyone else (except maybe GG). And that's not really a sustainable foundation for a serious case.
), but that's balls. firstly, the nuLab establishment are NOT quaking in their boots at the thought of GG addressing another anti-war meeting - if anything, he & RESPECT help tjhem, in that they can point at them and say to Mr & Mrs exmaggiefan of 52, acacia avenue, Chelmsford "them be loony left! look how safe, how normal we are, by comparison". On the true scale of things, he's an irritation.
