Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Respect

“Misogynistic, vitriolic, very dangerous” – George Galloway as described in Naz Shah’s Maiden Speech.

with 31 comments

Just out: “Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) (Maiden Speech House of Commons)

It is customary to say a few pleasant words about my predecessor—[Laughter.] I have many words, but sadly only a few pleasant ones.

My predecessor was, I am told, a great orator.

The sad truth is that the only words he ever directed towards me were misogynistic, vitriolic, very dangerous and, to quote him, “only ever had a fleeting relationship with the truth”.

However, it would be most unwise of me not to compliment him on his sensational acting abilities, not forgetting, as demonstrated in “Big Brother”, his taste for red leotards and black hats. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his actions, which united the people of Bradford West. Their patience—and, indeed, mine—certainly paid off when we handed him his P45 on 8 May.

The Spandex Cat has truly left the building.”

Thanks DT.

Ha, Ha Ha!

Good on you Naz!

George Galloway Announces Twitter Amnesty as Facebook Page Reaches 110 Likes and 4 People Ready to Attend Mayor Rally.

with 17 comments

The Man with a Nifty Hat Books Brockway Room (seating capacity – 70).

As George Galloway’s Facebook Page, Galloway for London Mayor, reaches an amazing 110 members, and the George Galloway London Mayor Rally Page has 4 people going we learn that,

George Galloway Announces Twitter Amnesty For Thousands Of Users.

Huffington Post.

George Galloway has announced he has “kind of given up on blocking” people on Twitter and invited people who feel he blocked them “unfairly” to get in touch.

The London Mayoral hopeful and former Respect MP, who is well known for his habit of blocking people, told listeners on LBC that if tweeters felt they had been blocked unfairly they should let him know to be in with a chance of being reinstated.

Cue obvious jokes about how people couldn’t contact Galloway precisely because they had been blocked.

The execrable Max Keiser will be at the ‘rally’. No doubt with his grinning ninny side-kick.


Update: we are informed that Keiser is Galloway’s economic “adviser”.

‘If I’m London mayor, Max Keiser will be economic advisor’ – George Galloway June the 5th.


Keiser: “November 2012, he predicted that the UK pound was about to collapse.”

“In a 2013 interview with Bradford MP George Galloway, Keiser stated that if he had financial control over the City of London he would base the entire economy on the Bitcoin digital currency.In January 2014, Keiser launched a cryptocurrency called “MaxCoin”, which was created by two Computer Science students from the University of Bristol. MaxCoin was launched during episode 555 of the Keiser Report.[n June 2014, Keiser launched a cryptocurrency called “StartCOIN” for use as the main currency for crowd-funding site StartJOIN.

“Currently a max(Coin) is worth 1/1500th of a bit coin and the value is steadily dropping…” As of April 2015, the Maxcoin is valued 1/12,500 of a bit coin and is long overdue for a reverse max-split.”


Galloway’s last firm friends: Speaking at the Stop the War Coalition Conference, 6th of June

Support George Galloway for London Mayor!

with 15 comments

Galloway at Recent Rally.




A group to share views, raise support, exchange opinion and affect change to elect George Galloway as Mayor of London for the 2016 mayoral vote.
Saurav Dutt's photo.
Saurav Dutt's photo.



Written by Andrew Coates

May 30, 2015 at 2:13 pm

George Galloway – Who Once Endorsed Richard Mawrey QC – Says Lutfur Conviction for Fraud and Illegal Practices “Shameful”.

with 24 comments

March 2007. Socialist Worker.

“George Galloway, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green & Bow, spoke in the House of Commons on Monday night during a debate on public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. Here is the full text of his speech, extracted from Hansard, the official report of parliamentary proceedings (© Parliamentary Copyright 2007).”

In Tower Hamlets last May, we witnessed the most corrupt election held in Britain since 1872. Hundreds of votes were purloined by crooks applying for postal votes and getting them redirected to an address sometimes just doors away from the registered address of the voter. Whole blocks of flats woke up to discover that every one of their residents had applied for a postal vote to be redirected to another address without their knowledge. Some 2,800 postal vote applications were delivered to the town hall in Tower Hamlets in the last hours of the last day, and many were brought in by sitting councillors. A total of 18,732 postal votes were registered in Tower Hamlets: a vast increase on the vast increase that had occurred at the general election the year before. Almost 15 percent of those were delivered on the last afternoon. A total of 946 postal votes were redirected to addresses that were not the registered address of the voter, with considerably more as a percentage in the wards where new Labour councillors were under pressure.

For the entertainment of the chamber, let me say that, despite all this, our party defeated the Labour mayor, the Labour deputy mayor, the Labour leader, the Labour deputy leader, the Labour housing convenor, the Labour deputy housing convenor – I could go on, but the house would lose patience. In one ward, New Labour councillor Bill Turner, who won by just 38 votes, himself had postal votes redirected to the address at which he said that he was living. The system is so utterly without basic democratic protection that it is virtually impossible to detect fraud with a sufficient degree of proof to bring the matter successfully before an election court, where, as might not be known, one must demonstrate that the fraud would have changed the result of the election. Fraud can therefore be demonstrated on a significant scale, but if it is not enough to change the course of the election, the matter is simply thrown out.

Two petitions were accepted, and were prayed in aid by Labour members. But we were only allowed to have the postal votes for the winning Labour candidate examined, and the only check that we could carry out was a forensic examination and comparison of the signature. None the less, the handwriting expert agreed by all sides in the petition identified 30 percent of the postal votes as questionable, and believed that the signatures were probably from different hands in almost half those votes – and that was just sampling 300 postal votes out of almost 19,000.

It continues,

On top of that – this is where the issue of complacency arises – a major police investigation into voting fraud in Tower Hamlets is ongoing, and has engaged four police officers full-time for the past ten months. No charges have yet been brought – I do not know if they will be, as it is so easy to subvert the system – but Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman has already commented, on the basis of that investigation, that postal votes are particularly susceptible to fraud. Despite all the talk of there not being many prosecutions, the Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that 390 cases of alleged electoral offences have occurred over the past seven years, and not all in inner cities. In Reading, only two of 46 postal vote applications examined were found to be authentic. Richard Mawrey QC *, who has been much quoted this evening, looked at ballots in the Birmingham city wards of Aston and nearby Bordesley Green. He said that there were at least 1,000 forged votes in Aston and 1,500 to 2,000 in Bordesley Green. The system of postal voting on demand is leading to a banana republic perception.

Like the minister, I am a former Labour Party official. I have been fighting elections for almost 40 years, almost always on the winning side. I know about elections. Now, for the first time in my political life, people ask me, ‘How do we know that they are counting these votes fairly? How do we know they are not rigging the election?’ I am not saying that that is happening, but there is a systematic undermining of confidence in the electoral process, caused largely by postal vote fraud.

Galloway observes,

Councils share the responsibility with government. Richard Mawrey QC considered our two petitions – the only two that we could get in front of the election court. I hope that the minister, who is laughing, will listen to what he said about a New Labour council just a few miles from Westminster, held by one seat that was only secured by this type of corruption. In response to our petitions, Richard Mawrey QC declared that the evidence that we presented showed ‘disturbing’ and ‘suspicious’ signs of ‘classic postal voting fraud’. He went on to say that a regime that allows electors to acquire postal voting ballots ‘on demand’ has been ‘an open invitation to fraud’, which has proved to be ‘distressingly easy’.

Yet in the wake of those comments by a Queen’s counsel, Tower Hamlets council, with its Labour majority of one, issued a press release that was such a falsification that Andrew Gilligan – remember him? The minister shakes her head. He was the only journalist to tell us the truth about the government’s lies on Iraq. He said in the Evening Standard that the council’s press release was a pack of lies. Who presided over all this? A woman called Christine Gilbert, whose intimate connections to New Labour are so personal that I would not like to go down that route. Suffice it to say that her reward for presiding over the tower of corruption in Tower Hamlets was to be made the chief inspector of schools at Ofsted. God save our children. God save the integrity of their examination results.”

Galloway is still fond of the electoral law.

Galloway refers Labour leaflet to the Director of Public Prosecutions

Posted by on Friday, April 24, 2015

A Labour election leaflet from candidate Naz Shah in Bradford West which is being delivered to every household in the constituency has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions because it contains alleged false statements aimed at affecting the election result.

Respect candidate George Galloway has made his second referral to the DPP under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The complaint concerns an extremely critical statement about Galloway attributed to a local businessman, a pharmacist, in the Heaton Ward of the constituency, which the man denies making.

“This was brought to my attention by a senior consultant at the Bradford Royal Infirmary, who works closely with the pharmacist,” Galloway says. “I have made inquiries and I am satisfied that the man, a highly respectable man, did not say what he is quoted as saying. These quotes were printed alongside his photograph. He is shocked and angry and claims that Labour have failed to respond to his complaint. The quotes appear to have been invented and then included in Shah’s leaflet which is now being distributed by Royal Mail to every house in Bradford West. It is an absolutely despicable and desperate act by Shah and her team, but sadly absolutely typical.”

A defence under Section 106 of the act, False Statements As To Candidates, is that the statements made are believed to be true, “There cannot be a ‘reasonable grounds’ defence when statements are invented,” Galloway added. “I am urging the DPP to urgently investigate this blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the election.

But how times change when it comes to Tower Hamlets.

Meanwhile Nick Cohen comments: Tower Hamlets: how a dictatorship flourished in the East End.

See also this claim that Richard Mawrey QC was not “qualified” to pass judgement, and hinting that he had a “particular interest” in Muslims (see above!!!).  “sitting in judgment was one man only – not a qualified judge, only a barrister (assumed by the media and even myself, to be a Judge) – who has demonstrated previously a peculiar interest in Muslims and elections. This man found Lutfur Rahman guilty of multiple offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983.” “Jen Izaakson asserts in contempt of the judgement that “. Law is, explicitly, to be applied differently to Muslims than as it applied to the ‘agnostic metropolitan elite’, whoever they are (is this the bankers in East London?).”

Here: A review of the judgement in the Lutfur Rahman case.

We learn with no surprise that Izaakson is closely linked to Richard Seymour – the ally of the militant wing of post-colonial studies, the racist and homophobic Indigènes de la République.

This is how he describes his politics,

Jen Izaakson

Jen Izaakson @Izaakson

Rootless cosmopolitan. Anti-humanist. Historical Materialist. LSE grad. PhD.

Izaakson’s ‘demolition’ of the judgement is laughable.

This incontinent drivel states,

In court one particular afternoon I watched as five Muslim witnesses were repeatedly asked, “did you say it was haram to not vote for brother Lutfur?”, as if these people were religious scholars in any position to do so. Within Islam there is a debate about whether to vote at all in elections, not about which candidate is the godly choice! To make such a claim, to decide god’s will and choose a specific man above another as more fated by god, I imagine, though I’m no sheik, would be sacrilegious.

No you are not a sheik, or a scholar or a gentleman.

Obviously the electioneering of the Muslim Brotherhood’s various branches from North Africa, Egypt and elsewhere,  has not come to the writer’s attention, to cite just one case amongst hundreds.

If Rahman was indicated as the only right ‘Muslim’ candidate is this not a problem?

If the Labour ‘Zionist’ Party was not ‘Muslim’, then is this not a problem?

Is there anything wrong with religiously motivated campaigning?

Apparently not.

There is a lot worse in this torrent of dissembling.

Just take one example,

Postal Vote Fraud

The evidence for these claims was the testimony of Andrew Gilligan, a right-wing Telegraph journalist linked to cronyism claims that has hounded Lutfur for years. Gilligan simply stated that two Tower Hamlets councilors had two addresses. To be clear: it was found that Rahman was guilty of this claim due to it simply being thought that Gilligan’s testimony was ‘credible’ (believable), without any proof. All that was believed is that two councilors had two addresses and then Gilligan’s assumption they therefore must’ve voted twice was agreed with.

See above for Gilligan’s past.

All Izaaskson demonstrates that the judge accepted the truth of a witness statement.

Has he any other alternative ‘proof’ that it was not?

No he has none.

The rest of the criticism, on organised religious pressure (see our previous post) is equally airily dismissed as the action of ” exuberant groups” – and whatabout Labour supporters own enthusiasm!

We wonder why there was a trial at all, Seymour, Rees and Izaakson could simply look at this “natural” enthusiasm with a wry smile.

Because they too backed Lutfur and wanted him to win.

* Richard Mawrey QC,“The judge who disqualified Lutfur Rahman is one of the country’s leading electoral law practitioners and has handed down previous, scathing judgments resulting in councillors being removed from office. Richard Mawrey QC, a deputy high court judge, specialises in election cases and has developed an acute awareness of voter fraud in his experience as an election commissioner – although there have been calls to improve the way the court operates.” Guardian. Wikipedia.

George Galloway Welcomed with Joy in Palestine and Across the World – as he Follows Ian Donovan.

with 10 comments

I think Netanyahu and the entire Zionist movement wants me to lose; don’t you? #BradfordWestRising #CityOfGold.

Rosie says most of what us lot have to say, “Why aren’t the gutters of Bradford running with streams of urine as people double over hooting at the bombast and sheer grossness of this garbage?”.

Galloway remains worried….

Henry Trojan Hoax Jackson Society have simple agenda; witch-hunt Muslims and defend Israel. They have two horses in Bradford.

From Twitter.


But Galloway has one new friend:

George Galloway followed . 12hr.

Editor Communist Explorations – journal/website. Long-time Marxist and left-wing activist. RESPECT member and advocate of principled…


Donovan had 32 followers.

Now he has 33.

The Weekly Worker, 18.9.2014.

The September 14 meeting of Left Unity’s Communist Platform saw a parting of the ways with a member of its steering committee, Ian Donovan. This followed comrade Donovan’s espousal of views that can only be described as anti-Semitic: in his opinion, there is a Jewish “pan-national bourgeoisie”, which has constituted itself as ruling class “vanguard” in key imperialist countries, and it is this that accounts for US support for Israel. Donovan says he intends to write a book laying out this ‘theory’ in detail.

Once this line of thinking had been fully revealed to other members of the steering committee, they urged him to step down from the CP. When he refused, the September 14 members’ meeting was called, which had before it a motion from comrades Jack Conrad and Moshé Machover stating that anti-Semitism is “incompatible with membership of the Communist Platform”.

 If you really want to see first-hand how mad Galloway’s new best friend, Ian Donovan, is read (or skim) this:

Weekly Worker still refuses to condemn Galloway assault: bans criticism.

Phil Kent (19 March), trying to fill in for the failure of more substantial figures such as Jack Conrad to justify the Jewish-Zionist chauvinism that pervades the CPGB’s practice, indulges in religious fetishism. He writes that I am blinded by ‘red mist’, so angry at the slaughter and abuse of the Palestinians as to excuse ‘holocaust deniers’. It’s much worse than that, Phil. Thanks to the use of the Nazi genocide (a.k.a. “Holocaust”) as a propaganda trump card to justify murder and ethnic cleaning of Arabs by Jews, large numbers of Arabs and a minority of principled anti-racists of Jewish origin, are so angered that they are inclined to disbelieve not only the instrumentalism of the genocide, but the event itself.

“Throwing the baby out with the bathwater” is a common mistake in instances where a poisonous mixture of truth and lies about history is used to justify contemporary crimes. The reaction of many to Stalinism is a case in point. It is a commonplace that such things need to be debated fearlessly. But Phil opposes this for Israel and the genocide. He regards the latter as like the Holy Grail.

This is because of his pro-Zionist chauvinism, which he learned from his guru Jack Conrad.  JC, understanding little of the Middle East and the Jewish Question, defers to would-be ‘Marxist’ promoters of identity politics (Jewish identity as something ‘progressive’ in a transcendental sense), such as Machover and Greenstein. These people vote with their feet against the CPGB’s ‘party project’ – simply by failing to join it or any other ‘Leninist’ party. Thus the ‘party’ has no independent view of the Middle East, possibly the most strategic conflict in the world today, but depends on nebulous ‘sympathisers’. Lenin would have been quite scathing about this.

Phil is saying : ‘Don’t get too angry about Arabs being massacred by Jews, because Jews are more important than Arabs in the scheme of things anyway. If you get too angry about Arabs dying, that is a terrible thing, that leads to ‘anti-semitism”, and questioning of the holocaust.”

And so it goes, including attacks on Moshe Machover for having a “Harry’s Place style Jewish chauvinist position.”

 Update: Galloway Supporters Go for Glory!

Via Harry’ s (Jackson) Place.

Embedded image permalink


Galloway in Fight for Dear Life as Mudslinging at Naz Shah Backfires.

with 81 comments

It’s all go in Bradford for Britain’s 3rd Highest Outside Earning Parliamentarian.

The BBC reports,

A hustings in the seat of Bradford West has started trending online – because of a claim by George Galloway about his opponent’s forced marriage.

The hashtag #BradfordWest has been retweeted more than 2,000 times after an exchange between the Respect candidate George Galloway and the Labour candidate Naz Shah.

After she was selected as Labour candidate, Shah published an open letter which outlined her extraordinary upbringing. She said she had grown up in severe poverty after her father eloped with a neighbour. She was then sent to Pakistan to escape her mother’s abusive partner and while there, aged 15, she says she was forced to marry. Her mother eventually killed her abusive partner and was jailed, which meant that Shah had to care for two younger siblings. She left her husband in 1992, and became active in politics after her mother’s imprisonment.

But George Galloway of the Respect Party, whom she is running against for the seat, has attacked her claim that she was forced into a marriage at 15 – or at least, that part of his hustings speech is what picked up the most attention on social media when aclip of Galloway’s speech found its way onto YouTube. Shah maintains that her version of events is true.

Galloway, we recall has an “interesting” relation to the truth.

Then comes the decisive point,

Galloway claims that Shah has “only a passing acquaintance with the truth, you claimed and gullible journalists believed you that you were subject to a forced marriage at the age of 15 but you were not 15. You were 16 and a half.” He then produces a document which he claims is Shah’s nikah (a marriage certificate produced when people are wed under Shariah law). The Guardian’s Northern Editor Helen Pidd, who attended the hustings and who was live tweeting throughout the event reported that Shah “utterly refuted the allegations and said she had the documentation to prove it.” Shah accused Galloway of sending someone to Pakistan to impersonate her dead father in order to obtain her “nikah” and vowed to sue Galloway after the general election.

The Guardian’s live tweeting of the hustings started to attract attention on Twitter, but unusually given the parties involved, Conservative commentators were among the first ones to leap to Shah’s defence online. The former Conservative MP Louise Mensch was the first to take up the issue. “HOW DID YOU OBTAIN NAZ SHAH’S PRIVATE RELIGIOUS DOCUMENTATION” she asked on Twitter. “I’m not a Labour supporter,” Mensch tweeted. “But I am a feminist. And if anyone thinks they can smear @NazShahBfd to influence an election they are mistaken.”

Yup, this is what the Guardian says, George Galloway says his Labour opponent tried to join his party

Respect MP claims Naz Shah formerly asked to represent his party, but she accuses him of ordering someone to impersonate her dead father.

Galloway said Shah made the request to represent Respect the day after initially failing to be selected by Labour, coming last in a vote by local party members. She was only chosen after the original winner, London Labour councillor Amina Ali,abruptly quit, citing childcare issues.

Shah, who has admitted she voted and campaigned for Galloway in the 2012 byelection, said she had been making a joke and could produce a conversation on messaging app Whatsapp to prove it.

She then accused Galloway of ordering someone to go to Pakistan and pretend to be her dead father in order to obtain her Islamic marriage certificate, the nikah. Galloway had earlier told hustings that Shah had lied about being forced into marriage aged 15, producing the nikah from his jacket pocket, to gasps from one half of the 200-strong audience at the Carlisle Business Centre and cheers from the other. He said the certificate proved she had in fact been 16 and a half.

Shah said she “absolutely refuted” the allegation that she had lied, insisting she had the documentation to prove it, asking Galloway: “What has my nikah got to do with Bradford West? What have your four marriages got to do with Bradford West?” She then pledged to sue Galloway after the general election.

Labour List says,

Shah has said this took place when she was 15, but Galloway went to extreme lengths last night to produce a “nikah” (an Islamic marriage certificate) from Pakistan (which Shah says was obtained by someone pretending to be her deceased father).

They comment,

Regardless, we’re not sure what difference it makes whether someone was forced into an arranged marriage at 15 or 16 – surely it’s unacceptable either way Mr Galloway?

There are claims that Galloway has broken electoral law.

This is not the first such charge.

A few days ago there was this,

George Galloway is on the campaign trail as a candidate now that Parliament has been dissolved – he is not an MP. Yet he persistently breaks electoral law by handing out leaflets which refer to him as an MP as well as failing to notify his website’s visitors that he is now no longer an elected representative.

Here is the latest Bradford West Life leaflet, currently being distributed by George Galloway for the election.

Note the line: “Monthly newsletter of George Galloway MP”


Written by Andrew Coates

April 9, 2015 at 5:49 pm

George Galloway Says: Hello Ladies! Hello Libel Law Débâcle!

with 15 comments

 Hello Ladies!  Go on say it, you know you want to!

We recently heard about George Galloway when he mysteriously disappeared from Socialist Worker’s list of top MP outside “earners” – he was number 3.

Thanks to the prompt action of Tendance Coatesy the SWP’s accidental oversight was swiftly corrected.

Now we learn that he may need every penny he snaffles from Russia Today, Press TV (Iran’s pro-regime broadcaster), not to mention two appearances on the Edinburgh Fringe (Register of Members’ Interests).

The old todger is now in yet another row:

Complaints to solicitors’ regulator over libel demands from Galloway’s lawyers.

Complaints have been sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority by Twitter users who have received £6,000 libel demands from solicitors working for the MP George Galloway.

The bitter legal dispute, which has erupted over accusations of antisemitism, has become more complex after Galloway’s office said the money would only be used to cover his law firm’s expenses and the Respect party leader would not “receive a penny”.

Reports the Guardian.

Ho ho!

It’s only losers that are prosecuted.

A less respectful (geddit) report than the Guardian’s says the following,

George Galloway’s high street firm faces rough ride as media law big guns back twitterati in libel row

Top media lawyers have implored the profession’s watchdog to investigate George Galloway’s law firm over its handling of the MP’s defamation claims against Twitter users.

The backlash against Bradford high street outfit Chambers Solicitors — which is best known for immigration work — began earlier this week after the emergence of a Twitter account called @SuedByGalloway, which implores:

“If you’re being sued by Galloway/Chambers Solicitors/ don’t worry — follow us so we can help you.”

Since then, several media law big guns have been working with the account to assist those threatened by Galloway. Legal Cheek can confirm that at least three well-known London libel lawyers are currently helping the tweeters fight the MP rather than pay demands for up to £5,000.

They include Mark Lewis, the leading media lawyer from the News of the World phone hacking saga, and defamation doyen Mark Stephens.

Lewis, of London law firm Seddons, told Legal Cheek that the costs figure “could never be justified” and that a complaint will be sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The saga began when Chambers Solicitors — acting for the firebrand Respect Party MP for Bradford West — sent at least a dozen tweeters demands that they settle or face defamation proceedings.

Galloway — who was famously expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 following his vocal opposition to the second Iraq invasion before going on to appear on Celebrity Big Brother three years later — alleges that those receiving the claims labelled him anti-Semitic on the social media site.

Responding to the Bradford law firm’s tactics, Lewis told Legal Cheek:

“A lawyer’s duty is to stand up for people who cannot otherwise defend themselves from very threatening demands. Mr Galloway’s solicitors claimed £5,000 plus VAT for standard letters on top of damages. That is horrific and brings the solicitor’s profession into disrepute. Mr Galloway’s spokesman says that the letters weren’t shown to the client before they were sent. That is a matter of practise and the SRA must investigate.”

More on Legal Cheek.

Meanwhile the Huffington Post (Sarah C Nelson) looks at the previous story,

George Galloway ‘Anti- Semitism’ Lawyers To Be Reported To Regulator

A legal firm acting for Respect MP George Galloway will be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), it has emerged.

The development comes as a number of people reported receiving letters written by Chambers Solicitors acting on behalf of Galloway, demanding up to £5,000 libel costs + VAT and requesting public apologies for allegedly calling him anti-semitic.

As the letters began to arrive, a Twitter account was set up to offer free legal advice for the recipients – which has since gained the backing of several high profile lawyers including solicitor and libel expert Mark Stephens and Mark Lewis.

Lewis, who was a leading figure in the News of the World hacking scandal confirmed to the Huffington Post UK that he would be making a complaint to the SRA on behalf of three clients on Wednesday.

Informing Legal Cheek the costs demanded in the letters “could never be justified”, he said: “A lawyer’s duty is to stand up for people who cannot otherwise defend themselves from very threatening demands. Mr Galloway’s solicitors claimed £5,000 plus VAT for standard letters on top of damages. That is horrific and brings the solicitor’s profession into disrepute.

“Mr Galloway’s spokesman says that the letters weren’t shown to the client before they were sent. This is a matter of practice and the SRA must investigate.”

In an earlier conversation with HuffPost UK, Lewis added: “By all means defend a reputation where it is proper to do so but do not go back to the days of chilling people from speaking out.”

As Galloway would no doubt reply, “I’m demanding that they be prosecuted. I’m begging them to be prosecuted for perjury.”