Galloway's suspension

I am neither naïve nor squeamish concerning parliamentarians' conduct, but this report is extraordinary. Let me direct your attention in particular to paragraph 345:

Mr Galloway has consistently denied, prevaricated and fudged in relation to the now undeniable evidence that the Mariam Appeal, and he indirectly through it, received money derived, via the Oil for Food Programme, from the former Iraqi regime...

For the man to make a feeble joke sooner than acknowledge the implications of that conclusion is testament to a shamelessness entirely outwith my experience of discredited MPs.

UPDATE: It's only fair to add a link to Galloway's response to the report and the Select Committee's recommendation that he be suspended. This is what he has to say:

The committee appear utterly oblivious to the grotesque irony of a pro-sanctions and pro-war committee of a pro-sanctions and pro-war parliament passing judgment on the work of their opponents, especially in the light of the bloody march of events in Iraq since this inquiry began four years ago.

They describe that as questioning their integrity and bringing parliament into disrepute. The house would do well to honestly calibrate exactly how its reputation on all matters concerning the war in Iraq stands with the public before deciding who precisely has brought it into disrepute.

The only sense I can make of these remarks - and I can genuinely see no other way of interpreting them - is that Galloway believes his conduct is justified because he holds a particular set of political opinions. I may be on my own here, but I don't find that a strong defence.

Incidentally, note too the report's observation (paragraph 347):

In the course of its life the Mariam Appeal enjoyed a total income of over £1.4 million, mainly derived from 3 overseas sources. No audited accounts were ever produced by the Appeal, but of this, it seems likely, on the information available to me, that up to £100,000 was expended on the care of Mariam Hamza herself. The great bulk of the Appeal's expenditure went on its campaigning activities. The propriety of this expenditure is not a matter for me: it is for the Charity Commission and the Appeal's trustees. I simply make the point that the sums of money involved in the Appeal were substantial, indeed way beyond those involved in most political campaigns run by Members. The issues involved are serious. The matter of Mr Galloway's conduct in relation to the Appeal cannot simply be dismissed as in his words "… a spat over the funding of political campaigns".

In 2003, Galloway was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman for Newsnight, where this exchange about the Mariam Appeal took place:

JEREMY PAXMAN: Will you open the accounts?

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Yes.

I point this out specifically for the benefit of political reporters such as, but not only, Nick Assinder of BBC News Online. Rather than marvelling that (in the words of Mr Assinder, who is easily impressed) "this controversial, much-criticised MP is a performer who gives great value for money", they might care to ask Mr Galloway why no audited accounts were ever produced that would have allowed an informed judgement on what "value for money" had been realised by the Mariam Appeal.