GALLOWAY

Some things are worth reiterating. The libel verdict won by Saddam-supporter George Galloway does not depend on the notion that Galloway’s ties to Saddam were disproven. They haven’t been. Nor was this case decided by a jury. The case was won because, in the judge’s view, the Telegraph had not given Galloway sufficient time or space to respond to the charges:

Mr Justice Eady said Mr Galloway was not given sufficient opportunity to refute the claims in the Telegraph that he had received up to $375,000 a year from Saddam.
The judge noted that Mr Galloway had a 35-minute conversation with Andrew Sparrow, the paper’s Westminster correspondent, but was not sent the documents or told that the Telegraph was intending to publish a story. “Although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on the afternoon of April 21, he was not given the opportunity of reading the Iraqi documents beforehand; nor were they read to him,” said the judge. “He did not, therefore, have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published.”

Such a judgment wouldn’t stand a chance in an American court – but then Britain’s libel laws are far tougher than America’s; and there’s far less freedom of speech in the UK than in the U.S. Here’s the Telegraph’s official response. It’s deeply depressing. The verdict stands regardless of whether the story is proven true or not.

MORE ON SLEEP: How important is REM sleep? Here’s an interesting PDF piece. My CPAP machine should be delivered next week. I’ll keep you posted.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL: Here’s a helpful debate on proposed reforms between Frederick Rawski and Ruth Wedgwood.