Galloway and the Mariam Appeal
Sue Mei | 28.12.2005 11:25
The Mariam Appeal
The Mariam Appeal was established in 1998. The objects of the Appeal as stated in its Constitution were: "to provide medicines, medical equipment and medical assistance to the people of Iraq; to highlight the causes and results of the cancer epidemic in Iraq and to arrange for the medical treatment of a number of Iraqi children outside Iraq".
Part of the Appeal's activities were to bring a young child, Mariam Hamza, to the UK to receive treatment for Leukaemia, a cancer which the founders of the Appeal
claimed to have been caused by the programme of sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the use of weapons containing depleted uranium during and since the 1991 Gulf War.
However, by not registering the appeal as a charity Galloway relieved himself of Charity Commision oversight, the need to publish accounts and restriction by charity guidelines which ban political campaigning.
The Times reported that Mr Galloway started the Mariam Appeal with a plea on House of Commons notepaper to potential donors, accompanied by a postcard of Mariam Hamza, 4, an Iraqi girl whose leukaemia was blamed by the MP on uranium-tipped weapons used by the allies in the first Gulf War.
"The Mariam Appeal has had to guarantee the costs of her treatment which could cost up to £50,000. The appeal's target is £100,000 with the balance being sent back to Iraq in medicines and medical supplies for the children she has had to leave behind," Mr Galloway wrote.
Apart from public donations it was established that the major funders of the Appeal were the United Arab Emirates, a donor from Saudi Arabia and a Jordanian Businessman Fawaz Zuriekat . Galloway has admitted receiving in excess of £900,000 from Zuriekat in contributions.
The campaign won Galloway press coverage, first positive then increasingly negative, as allegations arose that funds were being misappropriated and used to pay his wife and driver, plus lavish spending on Galloway's regular trips to the Middle East , including first class travel, luxury hotel accommodation, and consumption of expensive champagne and caviar.
"Appeal" fails to give leukemia patient agreed £65 _PER_MONTH_
In april 2003 the Daily Telegraph reported that for three months the "Appeal" hadn't even given the leukemia patient it was founded to support her monthly £65 allowance for food and travel expenses -- while the charity spent more than £800,000 on political campaigns and expenses, including £18,000 to Galloway's Palestinian wife.
Under increasing media scruity Galloway told the BBC that the appeal was in no way a charitable exercise. "It is not a charity. It is a political campaign, and it always has been."
Galloway, however, denied that he had misused any funds raised for the Mariam Appeal and pointed out that it was not unreasonable for money from a campaign fund to be used to pay for the travel expenses of campaigners.
Charity Commission complaint
In April 2003 the Charity Commission received a complaint that had been presented to the Attorney General in response to a newspaper article. The complainant was concerned that the funds held by the Mariam Appeal were held for purposes which
were, or were capable of being, charitable, and that these funds (like the War-On-Want funds) had been used for non-charitable purposes, including the funding of visits abroad.
The MPs' register of interests shows that altogether the appeal paid for 14 overseas trips by the Glasgow MP between September 1999 and January 2002, during which time he visited Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Iraq.
Commission unable to obtain accounts
The Commission concluded that "the Appeal [...] should have been registered with the Commission and placed on the Register of Charities", but was unable to obtain all the books and records of the Appeal to make more detailed enquires.
Mr Galloway, the first Chairman of the Appeal, has stated that this documentation is no longer under the control of the original trustees of the Appeal and cannot be located by them. Galloway cliams this documentation was, convieniently, sent to Amman and Baghdad in 2001 when Fawaz Zuriekat became Chairman of the Appeal.
Despite 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 the Commission established that Galloways wife, Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad, and Stuart Halford, two of the other original trustees, received unauthorised benefits in the form of salary payments from the Appeal's funds.
The Charity Commission has confirmed that it was considering a fresh probe into a "appeal" in light of the Coleman/Levin congressional investivation findings.
for more scandal contant
http://www.hanggalloway.co.uk/
The Mariam Appeal was established in 1998. The objects of the Appeal as stated in its Constitution were: "to provide medicines, medical equipment and medical assistance to the people of Iraq; to highlight the causes and results of the cancer epidemic in Iraq and to arrange for the medical treatment of a number of Iraqi children outside Iraq".
Part of the Appeal's activities were to bring a young child, Mariam Hamza, to the UK to receive treatment for Leukaemia, a cancer which the founders of the Appeal
claimed to have been caused by the programme of sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the use of weapons containing depleted uranium during and since the 1991 Gulf War.
However, by not registering the appeal as a charity Galloway relieved himself of Charity Commision oversight, the need to publish accounts and restriction by charity guidelines which ban political campaigning.
The Times reported that Mr Galloway started the Mariam Appeal with a plea on House of Commons notepaper to potential donors, accompanied by a postcard of Mariam Hamza, 4, an Iraqi girl whose leukaemia was blamed by the MP on uranium-tipped weapons used by the allies in the first Gulf War.
"The Mariam Appeal has had to guarantee the costs of her treatment which could cost up to £50,000. The appeal's target is £100,000 with the balance being sent back to Iraq in medicines and medical supplies for the children she has had to leave behind," Mr Galloway wrote.
Apart from public donations it was established that the major funders of the Appeal were the United Arab Emirates, a donor from Saudi Arabia and a Jordanian Businessman Fawaz Zuriekat . Galloway has admitted receiving in excess of £900,000 from Zuriekat in contributions.
The campaign won Galloway press coverage, first positive then increasingly negative, as allegations arose that funds were being misappropriated and used to pay his wife and driver, plus lavish spending on Galloway's regular trips to the Middle East , including first class travel, luxury hotel accommodation, and consumption of expensive champagne and caviar.
"Appeal" fails to give leukemia patient agreed £65 _PER_MONTH_
In april 2003 the Daily Telegraph reported that for three months the "Appeal" hadn't even given the leukemia patient it was founded to support her monthly £65 allowance for food and travel expenses -- while the charity spent more than £800,000 on political campaigns and expenses, including £18,000 to Galloway's Palestinian wife.
Under increasing media scruity Galloway told the BBC that the appeal was in no way a charitable exercise. "It is not a charity. It is a political campaign, and it always has been."
Galloway, however, denied that he had misused any funds raised for the Mariam Appeal and pointed out that it was not unreasonable for money from a campaign fund to be used to pay for the travel expenses of campaigners.
Charity Commission complaint
In April 2003 the Charity Commission received a complaint that had been presented to the Attorney General in response to a newspaper article. The complainant was concerned that the funds held by the Mariam Appeal were held for purposes which
were, or were capable of being, charitable, and that these funds (like the War-On-Want funds) had been used for non-charitable purposes, including the funding of visits abroad.
The MPs' register of interests shows that altogether the appeal paid for 14 overseas trips by the Glasgow MP between September 1999 and January 2002, during which time he visited Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Iraq.
Commission unable to obtain accounts
The Commission concluded that "the Appeal [...] should have been registered with the Commission and placed on the Register of Charities", but was unable to obtain all the books and records of the Appeal to make more detailed enquires.
Mr Galloway, the first Chairman of the Appeal, has stated that this documentation is no longer under the control of the original trustees of the Appeal and cannot be located by them. Galloway cliams this documentation was, convieniently, sent to Amman and Baghdad in 2001 when Fawaz Zuriekat became Chairman of the Appeal.
Despite 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 the Commission established that Galloways wife, Dr Amineh Abu-Zayyad, and Stuart Halford, two of the other original trustees, received unauthorised benefits in the form of salary payments from the Appeal's funds.
The Charity Commission has confirmed that it was considering a fresh probe into a "appeal" in light of the Coleman/Levin congressional investivation findings.
for more scandal contant
http://www.hanggalloway.co.uk/
Sue Mei
Comments
Hide the following 14 comments
'Hang Galloway' indeed!
28.12.2005 12:46
For all his numerous faults Galloway at least has the guts to speak out against war and corruption - if you want to see real profits being made from the misery of ordinary Iraqis then take a gander at the contracts handing over that country's oil wealth to US firms and the notorious Halliburton contracts.
Hang Galloway my arse. You are trying to divert attention from the *truly* powerful and murderous and should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.
Beyond Belief
Hang them high!
28.12.2005 14:48
Also over 50% of the oil stolen or smuggled out off Iraq ended up in America. These are facts.
Haliburton may have also benefited illegally from the oil for food program.
As for Galloway, if he is guilty of some corrupt practices I don't see why he should escape from justice just because he stood up to the gormless senate committee. If he is guilty of using the oil for food program to enrich himself then he must be exposed for the brass-necked chancer that he is, and be hung alongside all the immoral criminals and conmen.
The anti-war movement will thrive without the liability that is George Galloway.
Judge Roy
Paltry sum says Ron
28.12.2005 15:12
* Galloway personally solicited and was granted eight oil allocations totaling 23 million barrels from the Hussein government from 1999 through 2003;
* Galloway’s wife, Dr. Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received approximately $150,000 in connection with one allocation of oil;
* Galloway’s political campaign, the Mariam Appeal, received at least $446,000 in connection with several allocations granted under the Oil-for-Food Program;
* Illegal “surcharge” payments in excess of $1.6 million were paid to the Hussein regime in connection with the oil allocations granted to Galloway and the Mariam Appeal; and
* Galloway knowingly made false or misleading statements under oath before the Subcommittee at its hearing on May 17, 2005.
The findings revealed in the Subcommittee’s report have been substantiated by personal interviews with high-level members of the Hussein regime, oil traders with personal knowledge of Galloway’s involvement, and extensive bank records that provide a conclusive paper trail and corroborate Galloway’s personal knowledge and involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal.
Galloway is denying these charges:
Mr Galloway said last night: "There is not a shred of truth in any of these allegations. There has been no impropriety and I have not received even one thin dime from the oil-for-food programme."
For some reason, The Daily Telegraph is going big on this story:
For the first time we have some details of bank account movements:
Between Aug 31 and Oct 21 2000, five shipments of oil totalling 2,645,068 barrels were "lifted" by Taurus.
A month before the shipments began, the Swiss firm had transferred $740,000 to Mr Zureikat's Citibank account as a commission payment. It arrived on July 27.
A week after the Taurus payment, Mr Zureikat allegedly initiated a series of large payments around the world.
On Aug 3 2000, he sent $340,000 to the Mariam Appeal, a charity established to help an Iraqi girl suffering from cancer but which later became a radical campaigning organisation. It was established by Mr Galloway, employed his wife and later involved Mr Zureikat.
On the same day he paid $150,000 to Mrs Galloway's account with the Arab Bank in the Jordanian capital Amman. After commission, she received $149,980.
A week later, on August 11, Mrs Galloway transferred $24,950 to her Co-Operative Bank account in London.
The report notes that of the $848,000 in Mr Zureikat's Citibank account, more than $810,000 came from oil-for-food profits and concludes: "[The] transfer to Galloway's wife must have contained oil-for-food related money. The overwhelming balance of that balance was directly related to oil transactions."
Asked whether she had benefited in any way from oil sales, Mrs Galloway told the Senate she had "never solicited or received" any proceeds of oil sales on her own behalf or her husband's.
Other payments allegedly made by Mr Zureikat on Aug 3 2000 included $15,000 to the Bank of Scotland account of Mr Galloway's spokesman Ron McKay.
Here is McKay's response:
Speaking from Mr Galloway's office in London, Mr McKay said: "Let me make it clear, I have never received, solicited or had any benefits from oil dealings, neither have I acted as a conduit or go-between in any siphoning of money."
He described the figure of $15,666 transferred by Fawaz Zureikat to a Bank of Scotland account in the name of Ron McKay, as a "paltry" sum. He said he was not aware of the alleged payment, adding: "It doesn't ring any bells".
However, he confirmed that he had been involved in "various business dealings" with Mr Zureikat.
Jeff
A message to the anti-Blair fanatics
28.12.2005 15:39
All people like George Galloway and Micheal Moore have done is try to sabotage the war on terrorism from day one when the hijacked airliners struck the World Trade Centre in 2001. Tony Blair and George Bush meanwhile have tackled the difficult and thorny issue of fighting international terrorism and dealing with despotic rogue dictators like Saddam Hussein who posed a serious threat to world peace. The decision to go to war in Iraq was a very difficult one, but absolutly correct.
Concerned
George Gallolway is a humanitarian
28.12.2005 15:57
Here is what John Pilger said about the incident: First, let's look back to Saddam's most famous victim, the British journalist Farzad Bazoft, who was hanged in 1990 for "spying", a bogus trial following a bogus charge. Those of us who protested at his murder did so in the teeth of a smear campaign by the British government and a press determined to cover for Britain's favourite tyrant.
The Sun smeared Bazoft by publishing his conviction for stealing when he was a student - information supplied by MI5 on behalf of the Thatcher government, which was then seeking any excuse not to suspend its lucrative business and arms deals with the Iraqi dictator. The Mail and Today suggested that Saddam was right - that Bazoft was a spy. In a memorable editorial, the Sunday Telegraph equated investigative journalism with criminal espionage. Defending Saddam, not his victim, was clearly preferable.
What did Tony Blair say about this outrage? I can find nothing. Did Blair join those of us who protested, on the streets and in print, at the fact that ministers such as Douglas Turd ...oops Hurd were commuting to Baghdad, with Hurd going especially to celebrate the anniversary of the coming to power of the dictator I described as "renowned as the interrogator and torturer of Qasr-al-Nihayyah, the 'Palace of the End'"?
There is no record of Blair saying anything substantive about Saddam Hussein's atrocities until after 11 September 2001 when the Americans, having failed to catch Osama Bin Laden, declared Saddam their number one enemy. As for Blair's assertion that there have been "no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly under his rule", the answer is straightforward.
Galloway is a criminal? That's a laugh -how about the first Gulf war when 88,500 tons of bombs were dropped on a defenceless country by an asshole called Bush senior. The followed 13 years of Brutal sanctions which killed over a million people followed by the dropping of 30,000 more bombs and missiles on an already devastated country - all the on the basis of lies - this time by the real criminal Bush junior and his gang of crazies.
How about these assholes?
Paul O'Hanlon
e-mail:
o_hanlon@hotmail.com
LOL!
28.12.2005 16:39
You are clearly living in some alternative reality or parallel universe to the rest of us.
Why don't you try reading up on the issues at hand, and come back when you've actually learned something.
There's a good boy.
Pilgrim
get the facts straight
28.12.2005 17:33
whats wrong with that?
freddie
Much ado about very little indeed
28.12.2005 23:12
Ergo: smear Galloway.
sam
Homepage:
http://www.respectcoalition.org/
desperate to smear Galloway are we Jeff?
29.12.2005 00:08
For some reason, The Daily Telegraph is going big on this story: '
Maybe the reason is the rightwing Daily T wants to recoup the money it had to pay Galloway for libel.
Also, Jeff, you dont provide documentation for your libellous claims...wonder why that is?
brian
Have a anti-gay day Mr Galloway
29.12.2005 10:41
GALLOWAY'S PARTY FACES 'CASH FOR POWER' QUESTIONS
Senior Respect leader is spokesperson for Islamist party that backs the death penalty for gays and lesbians
London – 25 November 2005
A top Respect party leader, parliamentary candidate and major financier - Dr Mohammed Naseem – has been revealed as a senior official of the Islamic Party of Britain, which advocates the banning of gay organisations and the execution of homosexuals.
Respect MP George Galloway is now being asked to explain why his party promoted Dr Naseem to its national council and accepted from him thousands of pounds in donations.
Dr Naseem was Respect's largest election campaign donor, funding nearly a third of the party's total general election expenditure earlier this year.
‘Cash for influence' queries
“Did Dr Naseem buy his way into power and influence within Respect, following his pledges of huge financial support?” queried Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights group OutRage!
“Was financial support from Dr Naseem instrumental in persuading the Respect leadership to exclude gay rights from its general election manifesto?
“Did Dr Naseem's large monetary donations help him secure nomination as Respect's parliamentary candidate for Birmingham Perry Barr in the 2005 general election?
“Proof of the homophobic rot at the heart of Respect is the party's open embrace of people and organisations that support the death penalty for homosexuality. Respect not only takes money from people involved in far right Islamist groups that want to ban gay organisations and kill lesbians and gays, it puts these people on its national council and makes them parliamentary candidates.
“We stand in solidarity with the Muslim community against prejudice and discrimination. Our objection is to the fundament ali st, anti-human rights wing of Islam, which threatens Muslims here and worldwide. Instead of allying with fundament ali sts, Respect should be linking up with liberal, progressive Muslims, and defending Muslims who are victimised by the fundament ali sts.
“Respect defends only Muslims who are persecuted by neo-Nazis and by the British and US governments. It does not run campaigns in defence of Muslims who are persecuted by fundament ali st Islam. The double standards of the Respect leaders is breath-taking. They have abandoned any commitment to universal human rights. They have failed to show solidarity with the struggles of Muslims who are fighting Islamist fundament ali sm,” said Mr Tatchell.
Research by Brett Lock of OutRage! shows that Dr Mohammed Naseem is a member of Respect's national council and is the party's major funder. He was also the Respect parliamentary candidate for Birmingham Perry Barr in the 2005 general election.
“Dr Naseem is on the executive of the Islamic Party of Britain (IPB) and he acts its home affairs spokesperson, with direct responsibility for issues such as homosexuality,” said Mr Lock.
According to the Islamic Party of Britain's website: “People afflicted with unnatural conditions like homosexuality or pedophilia (sic) need treatment, not encouragement.”
The IPB's home affairs policy would “safeguard public decency by preventing any public advocacy for homosexuality”. A violation of this law would fall under “public incitement”. For “public displays of lewdness witnessed by several people”, the “death penalty” would apply.
“As the IPB's home affairs spokesperson, Dr Naseem is their Shadow Home Secretary. If he were Home Secretary, Dr Naseem would apparently ban gay organisations, books, newspapers, films and television programmes. A gay person witnessed having sex in a park or toilet would be executed.
“It appears Dr Naseem supports criminal sanctions against gay rights advocates like Sir Ian McKellen and Lord Chris Smith, and would endorse the death penalty for gay pop stars George Michael and Jimmy Somerville who were caught in sexually compromising situations.
“According to the Electoral Commission, to which all registered political parties are obliged to submit their financial statements, the single largest donor to Respect's 2005 election war-chest was Dr Naseem.
“He paid £15,457.00 towards Respect's election campaign, a whopping 29% of the total campaign budget of £53,486.67.
“Dr Naseem's donation was more than 50 percent greater than the next largest single donor, and three times what George Galloway contributed,” reported Mr Lock.
These facts and figures can be checked on the Electoral Commission's website. Just select “Respect” from the drop-down:
Dr Naseem was the Respect parliamentary candidate for Birmingham Perry Barr:
Dr Naseem is a member of Respect's National Council:
Dr Naseem is an active Respect Party campaigner:
Dr Naseem is chair of the Birmingham Central Mosque:
Dr Naseem is also on the executive of the Islamic Party of Britain (IPB):
Dr Naseem is the IPB's Home Affairs spokesperson:
As such, laws concerning homosexuality fall under his remit.
So what is the IPB's position on homosexuality? The IPB outlines its stance in response to a specific question submitted by a member of the public:
Of course, the IPB exhibits the standard right-wing religious fundamentalist hallmarks, linking homosexuality to paedophilia and saying both are “a danger to society”. They view the campaign for gay human rights as a conspiracy:
Dr Naseem doesn't stop here. As Home Secretary, he would ban gay organisations, or to put it in his Party's words, would “safeguard public decency by preventing any public advocacy for homosexuality”. Any violation of this law would fall under “public incitement”. For public displays of “lewdness witnessed by several people”, the penalty would be “death.”
Respect claim on their website (although it is rare to see it in their printed material not specifically aimed at the gay community) that they support LGBT rights:
“Their proclaimed support for LGBT rights is belied by the fact that Respect seems happy to have as a leading donor, national council member and candidate a man who leads an Islamist party promoting the death penalty for public displays of homosexuality,” said Mr Lock.
Jeb the uninhaler
In whose interests?
29.12.2005 12:00
By that you actually mean "the interests of the ruling class of the UK and USA", you sad twat.
It was NOT in the interests of the people of either of these countries to attack Iraq, especially those citizens that have been killed and their families.
Shame on you, fuckwit Freddie.
Drown out the pro-war propaganda
Galloway supports the terrorist insurgents in Iraq
29.12.2005 13:40
Concerned
dear Concerned
30.12.2005 23:56
Concerned
=====================================
what make you believe that Iraq has a democratic govt? When the country is under US/UK illegal occupation...
as Bush memorably said about elections in Lebanon:
' "How fair an election can Lebanon hold if the troops are there to intimidate voters, people running for election, or people now in office?"
brian
I thought he was an MP?
06.01.2006 15:46
More to the point of this discussion: George Galloway is not the man I want to be leading the anti-war arguments. Don't get me wrong - I am in agreement with many of his arguments. However, not only do allegations of his 'dodgy dealings' (true or otherwise) besmirch the arguments but his headline grabbing antics show a complete obsession with self-promotion.
I was a constituent of his when he kindly and graciously saved Miriam by getting her treatment for cancer. In MY constituency where the people who elected him were struggling for space in cancer therapy institutions. My heart goes out to that poor girl, but it was not his place to 'fix' the problem. It was even acknowledged by him to be a political move. Not in my name thank you.
He now sides with ANYONE willing to fight against the UK or US governments. I don't particularly like Blair, but I wouldn't associate myself with Dr Mohammed 'hang the gays' Naseem for that one aim.
As if his egoism needed further proof he is now begging for votes on Big Brother! Please. Give us a chance at helping Iraqis with sensible movements towards getting out troops out and leaving some semblance of a country. Let's not allow the war-mongering rantings of Mr Galloway to wreck the process for the sake of his beatification.
Chris
e-mail:
cdmurphy@talk21.com