George Galloway 'on trial' during interview

[luke]

George Galloway 'on trial' during interview

Former MP George Galloway warned opponents of Syrian president Basher al-Assad to be careful what they wished for as he discussed Middle East politics with Andrew Neil.

As the interview progressed, the former Respect MP grew unhappy with some of the questions put to him about his work for an Iranian television station and said he felt like he was "on trial".



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13858712

full half hour show at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0126634/The_Daily_Politics_21_06_2011/

[faceless]

nice one Luke, I forgot about that.

[faceless]

A response to Andrew Neil's BBC "Daily Politics" show interview
George Galloway
23 June 2011 at 13:46
facebook

Despite his political views and occasional lapses in taste I like Andrew Neil, my fellow countryman, indeed fellow broadcaster. I've known him a long time, at least 25 years. That's the answer to those of you encouraging me to make an official complaint about his behaviour towards me on the Daily Politics show on June 21 2011 - about which more later - I won't, though I could and probably should.

I'm writing this though, because I don't want his Ahmadinijad canard to go un-answered, but mainly because I feel the episode shows how the media comprador around our political system don't even know they're doing it when their reflexes kick in, and out.

Somebody called Locklin booked me for the Daily Politics Show that day and he insisted in a face to face call to talk me through the topics. All of them. I was glad about that - because there's then no excuse for an ambush, unless of course there's breaking news which obviously has to be made an exception. He was very clear about the topics and indeed the main one was obvious enough. Syria. The bloody events there have had too little analysis (as opposed to hack reporting from neighbouring countries and spoon-fed propaganda from opposition groups and hostile intelligence agencies) and I was looking forward to the opportunity to provide some, from the perspective of a friend of Syria and early believer that President Bashar would be a "breath of fresh air".

I knew of course that this belief would come under challenge - indeed I have had to challenge it within myself - and that supportive statements I made five years ago would of course be brought up by Andrew Neil. He wouldn't be doing his job otherwise. But the interview was an opportunity to explore my current (as opposed to five years ago) thinking about the Syrian situation which would certainly have been of interest to those who follow these things, not least in Syria. Unfortunately, we never got to that.

Mr Locklin explained that the other issues would be the "U-Turn" by the government on sentencing policy (joined by Rt Hon David Davies MP), class (joined by the Dowager Mary Ann Sieghart of The Independent) and dogs in parliament (the four-legged variety, joined by the new Tory MP for Hendon). I took the precaution (I'm careful about these things) of asking for confirmation that there would be no other guest in the Syria segment and Mr Locklin told me there would not. Moreover he agreed to revert to me should that situation change.

Eagle-eyed readers will have spotted that at no time did the BBC indicate that actually the "Syria" item would be scarcely about Syria at all but largely about me and a) my attitude to Israel's "right to exist", to the "two-state solution" to the Israel-Palestine question and to my work for Press TV (or the TV "outfit" as Andrew put it - neither the BBC nor Fox his former employer are deserving of the epithet "outfit" of course) and a little edited something off YouTube between me and Ahmedinijad.

It was an opportunity wasted, of course, but it showed what has become of the so-called "standards" at the BBC TV "outfit" these days. For that at least it may remembered.

Whether or not I believe Israel "has a right to exist" is of course nobody's idea of "breaking news" and its hard to see the justification for the question in the context of the interview. I'm happy of course to schedule an interview on this any time though I doubt such an opportunity will come along soon. Equally my support or otherwise for the "two-state solution" must just count as wasted time in a short interview. My views are well-enough known on both these questions but of little moment and certainly not on the programme's agenda that day.

Even further distant from the topic was a video from last year punted on YouTube by the Iranian opposition relating to me, and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. But that took the lions share of the interview and provided more heat than light.

Let me lay out the facts. I have never "supported the election" of Ahmedinijad. Whatever that would mean. I am virtually unknown in Iran. I haven't spent more than a week there in my life (mostly since his election). I was on a speaking tour of the USA when his election happened. During his election I said not a single word in his " support", neither written or spoken in private or in public. In my Press TV work at the time (all on YouTube) I followed the "outfit"s line in not leaning towards any of the presidential candidates ( indeed one of the reasons for considering the elections a real contest was the obvious internal Press TV uncertainty about who would win). What I did say, many times, was that I believed that Ahmedinijad WOULD win because of the demographic pattern of his support base. I was right about that.

After the elections of course a great deal of controversy arose about the veracity of the result. Now of course I was not present in the counting houses to verify the results of the elections, any more than anyone else from rival "outfits" in the media was.

But I believed and believe still that Ahmedinijad was the actual winner of the election. That millions had voted against him, but not as many millions as voted for him.

I based that belief upon my accurate prediction that the more religious sectors and the mass of the rural poor had voted for (and continue to turn out for) the president. And because that well-known organ of Iranian propaganda, America's ABC Television (outfit) conducted an opinion poll in the final few days of the campaign which predicted the official result of the election to WITHIN ONE PERCENTAGE POINT.

By expressing my "support" for the "outcome" of the election I became, overnight, the target of death threats, harrassment (even in parliament) and had to have assistance from the police to protect me from elements of the Iranian opposition.

It is to that series of events that I allude in my interview with Ahmedinijad.

Now, on the Daily Politics show Andrew Neil appeared to be quite "shocked" ( a bit like the Claude Reynes character in Casablanca upon discovering gambling going on in the, er, gambling salon at Rick's Place) at me prefacing a question to Ahmedinijad with that story so he would "know where I'm coming from". What kind of statement is that from an "impartial" interviewer. It would never happen on the BBC he said.

There are two things to say to that. First where did Andrew Neil get the idea that I was "impartial"? Any more than he is! Is Neil "impartial" between capitalism and socialism? Is he "impartial" about our country, at war even? If he is I must have blinked and missed that episode. He may be "impartial" between this supporter of war, privatisation and globalised capitalism and that supporter, between Tweedledee and Tweedledum between this or that cheek of the same backside, yes.

But on systemic questions, on the big questions neither he nor the "outfit" he works for are impartial at all.

Lastly, I told Ahmedijad where I was "coming from" because I was about to pop the question to him. The question that if Iran stoned to death the woman prisoner then recently convicted of involvement in her husband's murder the country would be become simply undefendable in the wider world. I asked him to allow the woman safe passage to Brazil where then President Lula was prepared to receive her and give her asylum. I pressed him hard on this. The Iranian "outfit" which edited this interview has censored the full exchange. But the woman never was executed though not alas allowed to go to Brazil. I was determined to try and help save this woman's life. I'm glad that I was able to help and pray that she is freed without further suffering.

George Galloway
London
June 23 2011