The high court ruled today that the Daily Telegraph had defamed Mr Galloway when it published a report claiming documents found in Baghdad during the Iraq war last year alleged he was in the pay of Saddam Hussein, reports Guardian Unlimited.
As Johann Hari commented at the time the Telegraph ran the articles: There are two possible motives for [saluting Saddam Hussein’s “courage, strength and indefatigability”, as Galloway did]: admiration for Saddam, or gratitude for his cash. Both options stink: either he was paid by Saddam, or Saddam didn’t need to offer him cash. I for one will think better of Galloway if he is a crook. If he was just doing this for the old, foul motive of an extra $375,000 a year, he is a bit less immoral than if he backs Saddam’s atrocities sincerely. As the French left said when Chirac faced Le Pen in the presidential elections last year: “Better a crook than a fascist.”
Well now we know.
Johann has some other thoughts on today’s verdict over on his site.
Back to today’s news:
Mr Justice Eady said he was “obliged to compensate Mr Galloway in respect of the publications and the aggravated features of the defendants’ subsequent conduct, and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation”.
In a packed court he added: “I do not think those purposes would be achieved by any award less than £150,000.”
So GG has £150,000 quid to spend on ‘restoring his reputation’. Any suggestions how he might do that?