George’s twitter meltdown

Apparently George was having a twitter meltdown yesterday.


Whatever could the problem have been?

I have attained some kind of ranking in his list of enemies, as I am blocked from the @georgegalloway twitter account. So, I cannot see what all the fuss is about, and what people are saying about it all. If you are not blocked, feel free to go and have a look. And if you can get an explanation, feel free to share it. I mean, it couldn’t be an antisemitic outburst, could it? Surely not!

Bank on that memory loss

It’s generally accepted that to be a good liar, you need to have a good memory. You cannot rely on records of events, so you need to remember what you represented happened, or was said, or whatever.

Based on the episode of George Galloway, the charge of antisemitism, and the actions of the lawyers acting for him, it seems that practitioners of BDS need a good memory too.

First, a recap, from the Times of Israel:

“A phalanx of lawyers is coming forward on Twitter to offer free legal help after the controversial anti-Israel MP George Galloway threatened to sue upwards of a dozen people over allegations of anti-Semitism. In a letter sent by his lawyers, Galloway has demanded £6,000 ($9280) per person upfront for legal expenses, a threat which one lawyer described as “outrageous.”

Galloway’s lawyers, Chambers and Co, in Bradford, where he is MP for Bradford West, have written to people who used the social media site in the wake of his appearance on BBC’s Question Time last month. The program, which was filmed in Finchley in the heart of north-west London’s Jewish community, erupted when a member of the audience accused Galloway of bearing some responsibility for the rise in anti-Semitism in the UK. Galloway strenuously denied the accusation.

But the fallout from Question Time continued on Twitter with many people attacking Galloway. One was the Guardian journalist Hadley Freeman, who deleted her Tweet on February 10 when Galloway threatened to sue her. However, he is apparently proceeding with his lawsuit and she is now being advised by her newspaper’s lawyers.”

So, Galloway is taking action against those he perceives have called him an antisemite. (I wonder why that might be?) Chambers, his lawyers, rather heavy-handedly (to put it mildly) demanded £6,000 (or possibly £5,000) as expenses. The approach has been drawn to the attention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and it’s going to be very interesting to see the defense put forward.

Meantime, Private Eye has a piece in its latest issue:


Buy the magazine or get a subscription to read the whole thing! For example, there you will see this cracker of a postcript to the article:

“All should boycott the drug launderers HSBC,” Galloway tweeted furiously last summer, during a campaign against the bank for its closure of certain Muslim groups’ accounts and its financial involvement with Israel. The account into which Chambers wants tweeters to pay Galloway’s “costs” of £5,000 is, naturally… at HSBC!

  1. George says boycott HSBC.
  2. George’s lawyers say pay George damages – to HSBC!

Ha bloody ha!

While this episode is not exactly doing anything to enhance the reputation of George Galloway, it may be that the big losers will be his lawyers. It’s difficult to be sympathetic. I may need to rethink that last sentence. Let’s try again: it’s impossible to be sympathetic. Much better!

George wants you to ask him a question

As disclosed by Harry’s Place, George Galloway has put out a call for Twitter users to ask him questions. It appears to be part of his Press TV media work.

The twittersphere (or whatever it has called) has responded  in fine form. For example:


You can see more for yourself – and there is lots of good stuff to see – by going to Twitter and searching on the #AskGalloway tag.

The twitchy tweeter

"George Galloway 2007-02-24, 02" by David Hunt from Warwickshire, UK - Stop The War - 09 - George Galloway. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons -,_02.jpg#mediaviewer/File:George_Galloway_2007-02-24,_02.jpg

George Galloway. Source: David Hunt, Warwickshire, UK , via Wikimedia

Following George Galloway‘s appearance on the UK’s Question Time television program, a Guardian journalist by the name of Hadley Freeman tweeted this:


George’s response was this:


If you do a search for #libelGalloway on Twitter, you may be entertained by the response. Probably not what George wanted.

Ms Freeman deleted the tweet. I’m uncertain if that was cowardice or not, but then again I am not in the firing line and she is. Or was. Or maybe still is. Anyway, the twittersphere and cyberspace is awash with uncomplimentary remarks about George.

There’s good coverage and comment here and here. But I particularly like the Harry’s Place piece which concludes as follows:

When someone maintains friendly relations with notorious antisemites; demonizes Israel and holds it to a different standard from other countries, especially on matters of human rights and self-defense; focuses laser-like on Israel’s crimes and misdeeds (some of which are imaginary or exaggerated, others of which are all too real) while ignoring, excusing, glorifying or doing propaganda for governments of other countries which are far less free and do far worse (see also here, here and here); trivializes the Holocaust by comparing Israel’s actions in Gaza to the systematic starvation to death and ultimate slaughter of more than 300,000 Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto; says that of all the countries in the world, the only one that has no right to exist is the one with a Jewish majority; and when almost half of the world’s Jews live in that state and the great majority of Jews living elsewhere support it– then the burden is not on me to prove that person is antisemitic. Rather the burden is on him to prove that he is not.

The funny thing is, I suspect George believes he is not an anti-semite. But as is the same with many of his other views, he is mistaken. The burden is, indeed, on him to show otherwise.

Off to Bradford!

All credit is due to Bradford Council for the way they have responded to George Galloway’s PR tirade, and the subsequent interest in their policy towards visitors. Following up this post, here is their email (received last week) which is clear enough:


You can almost hear the poor sods swearing under their breath at the aggravation they have had thanks to George’s stunt.

And I see from Facebook, some Israelis duly turned up at Bradford, complete with flag, tested the water and found a hospitable welcome.

Well done, Bradford!

[On the down side, note the daft standard email disclaimer in the last two lines. To follow that, if a family wanted to visit Bradford, each member would need to do his own email inquiry and keep it secret from everyone else!]

Bradford’s off my list of places to visit

George Galloway is the reason why:

“We have declared Bradford an Israel free zone. We don’t want any Israeli goods. We don’t want any Israeli services. We don’t want any Israeli academics, coming to the university or the college. We don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford if any of them had thought of doing so. We reject this illegal, barbarous, savage state that calls itself Israel. And you have to do the same.”

I don’t think he likes us. And I was so looking forward to my visit to the tourist attractions in Bradford…

As seen at Guido Fawkes’ blog.

George generates much heat, little light

Inevitably, the Elder of Ziyon skewers Mr Galloway after his recent debate debacle:

Galloway cannot even put forth a consistent, cohesive position in a simple Facebook post. The reason is clear: when it comes to Israel, he is not liberal nor conservative. The only real consistency he has vis a vis the Middle East is that he hates Israel, Israeli Jews and Jewish nationalism. Everything that can help bring about the destruction of a liberal democracy in a region of misogyny, bigotry, anti-Westernism and religious fundamentalism – anything that opposes Israel – is considered inherently moral by this hypocritical blowhard.

Read it all here.