The Election In Bradford West Has Been Hopelessly Tainted

Gallowayism smears again j

I believe that the orchestrated campaign of smears on the character of Nas Shah, Labour candidate for Bradford West, mean that the election has been hopelessly tainted by George Galloway and the Respect Party. Should Mr. Galloway “win” on May 7th where the electorate has been so thoroughly compromised, I cannot see how an election court could allow that result to stand. In this blog I will lay out evidence of this orchestrated and long-running smear campaign.

The smears that have been taped at the Bradford West hustings – where no cameras were supposed to be allowed – have already caused the Labour party to tell Respect that they are making a complaint under the Act. However, their complaint thus far is limited to the smears on Ms. Shah at the hustings. However, Respect have so maligned the character of this rape victim, and for so long, that I believe that according to section 106 there is no way this election can be held in a free and impartial manner if Mr. Galloway is the candidate.

Before I found the video of the Bradford West hustings on the Twitter feed of the rabid anti-semite Amar Rafiq, a friend of Mr. Galloway’s – in which Galloway waved Naz Shah’s nikkah and called her a liar over the age at which she was raped, it had received precisely 11 views on YouTube. I am grateful to BBC Trending for crediting me for breaking the story – other papers did not do so. I am proud of my work as an investigative journalist on this matter in the public interest, and would appreciate it if fellow journalists using evidence provided here would credit it.

This blog is necessarily long as it involves production of a large amount of evidence. But I believe the misogynistic abuse of a woman standing for office, based on slurs around her private life and to influence an election, is wholly illegal, and that as a feminist, a journalist, and a citizen, it is my duty to investigate and expose it. I do not support Ms. Shah’s candidacy as a private person – I am a supporter of the Conservatives and I hope George Grant wins Bradford West. However, that is completely irrelevant. I believe election law has been broken to such an extent that no free and fair election can now take place on May 7th in the Bradford West Constituency.

The abuse of Ms. Shah’s character is exactly what section 106 of the Representation of the People Act is supposed to prevent.

In 2010, Phil Woolas won the seat of Saddleworth and Oldham. His victory was overturned because an election court found him to have smeared the character of his opponent.

In this instance, the smearing of Ms. Shah is done in the textbook way that a Judicial Review of the Saddleworth Case determined was necessary, under Section 106, to invalidate an election result. In particular:

  1. In our view, the starting point for the construction of s.106 must be the distinction which it is plain from the statutory language that Parliament intended to draw between statements as to the political conduct or character or position of a candidate and statements as to his personal character or conduct. It was as self evident in 1895 as it is today, given the practical experience of politics in a democracy, that unfounded allegations will be made about the political position of candidates in an election. The statutory language makes it clear that Parliament plainly did not intend the 1895 Act to apply to such statements; it trusted the good sense of the electorate to discount them. However statements as to the personal character of a candidate were seen to be quite different. The good sense of the electorate would be unable to discern whether such statements which might be highly damaging were untrue; a remedy under the ordinary law in the middle of an election would be difficult to obtain. Thus the distinction was drawn in the 1895 Act which is re-enacted in s.106 and which is reflected in the decisions to which we have referred a paragraph 87.ii).
  2. In our judgment, as Parliament clearly intended that such a distinction be made, a court has to make that distinction and decide whether the statement is one as to the personal character or conduct or a statement as to the political position or character of the candidate. It cannot be both.
  3. Statements about a candidate which relate, for example, to his family, religion, sexual conduct, business or finances are generally likely to relate to the personal character of a candidate.

You will note that the Judicial Review states that “a remedy…. in the middle of an election would be difficult to obtain.”

The Electoral Commission guidance on personal character smears, made in order to influence an election, is also clear:

1.49 It is an offence to make or publish a false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate in order to affect the return of a candidate at an election.

At the Bradford West hustings, Mr. Galloway produced a document that he claimed was the Nikkah of Nas Shah. Ms. Shah was forced into marriage, and therefore raped, when she was a teenager. He later admitted sending a supporter to Pakistan to obtain this document. He also said she had ‘only a passing acquaintance with the truth’ because ‘you were not fifteen. You were sixteen and a half.’

His claim was that Ms. Shah was a liar and unfit to be an MP because she entered into her marriage at 16 and a half instead of at 15.

He later claimed that Ms. Shah’s marriage was not forced, as she says, because it was arranged by her parents. Forced marriages are, in almost every case, arranged by her parents.

News reports have, in my view regrettably, concentrated on the fact that Ms. Shah does have an earlier nikkah from the age of 15. This is not material to a slur on her character under section 106. Whether or not Ms. Shah was raped at 15 or 16 does not matter; the essence of her story is that she was forced into marriage. Her family removed her from school at the age of 12 years old.

Mr. Galloway stated the following things about Ms. Shah, at the election hustings and afterwards: that she is a liar; that she lied about her rape in order to win votes; and that she did so for a racist purpose, in order to ‘slander of her own community‘. He made the latter accusation, that Ms. Shah was being a racist, (the tweet linked to there shows men watching at the Bradford West hustings) and that she invented the story of her rape in order to smear Muslim men, several times on Twitter.

it wasn’t she wasn’t it is slander of her own family community and city. We won’t have it. Might have impressed you but none locally


Respect: we’ll allow no-one to slander people of Bradford West or peddle their racist stereotypes

Her squalid sorry life was put front and centre of her campaign by her not me. And people of Bradford West are sick of it.

Asked whether Galloway disputed Shah’s claim to have been forced into a violent marriage as a teenager – be that at 15 or 16 and a half – and was repeatedly raped in that marriage, McKay said: “In what sense was it a forced marriage? Her mother attended the marriage in 1990 as well as other family members and many witnesses did also, signing and giving fingerprints, so if it was forced presumably her mother and the others were part of that coercion?”

The government’s Forced Marriage Unit makes clear that parents are often the instigators of forced marriage, coercing their offspring to marry against their will.

McKay said that if Shah’s first husband had been violent to her, “then as a British citizen in Pakistan she could have jumped on a plane and left him behind, although I do appreciate that is often extremely difficult. If he was violent to her here – I’m not aware when they came back to Britain – then she could have gone to the police, social services, an imam or whatever. I am not aware, are you, of any such report by her to anyone, here or there?”

Ron McKay, the Respect Party spokesperson told Urban Echo, “Naz Shah has claimed in all the media she has trailed her story across – Times, Telegraph, Mirror, Mail and Guardian, and of course Urban Echo – that she was fifteen when she married. This narrative plays into the racist line of Pakistani men grooming/sexually abusing under-age girls.

“Recently when I pointed out to a Guardian reporter the true date of the marriage, based on Supreme Court evidence that her mother had gone to Pakistan in May 1990 for the wedding, Naz Shah’s response was to add a further lie, that her mother’s visit was for the wedding celebration – some 18 months at least after the alleged wedding! Naseem Shah has deliberately and cynically bent the truth in order to manipulate people’s emotions in an attempt to win personal support for her candidature. She is unfit to represent Labour or, heaven forfend, the people of Bradford West,” he concludes.

Note the reference to the Supreme Court and her mother’s case.
The Urban Echo piece, with its accusation that Naz Shah not only lied, but used the story of her rape for racist purposes  – two personal character slurs that Ron McKay stated should influence electors, during an election period – was also directly RTed by Mr. Galloway, and by his official “Team George Galloway”, when tweeted out by the personal account behind @TeamGeorgeG – it has thus been directly promoted by the candidate.
Urban echo RTed by George
All of that is on the record smears about the personal character of Nas Shah, promoted during an election period, by a candidate, and by his agent, in order to influence the election. It is more than enough to make any election result in Bradford West in which she is defeated, unsafe.
Having followed Mr. Galloway and Respect’s accounts on this matter for some time, incidentally, I have yet to discover even one tweet or attack on Naseem Shah from them that is policy based.
More than enough direct evidence appears of an attack on personal character to violate section 106 of the Representation of the People Act in the precise way the Judicial Review found should invalidate an election:
  1. Statements about a candidate which relate, for example, to his family, religion, sexual conduct, business or finances are generally likely to relate to the personal character of a candidate.
However, there is, unfortunately, more.
Part Two: Smear Accounts, blogs, and sock puppets
For weeks, a vicious, anonymous blog, tweeted and shared by several anonymous, pretending to be Naz Shah twitter accounts and fake Facebook accounts, has been circulated around Bradford West. It is incredibly vicious and it is libelous to the personal character of Naz Shah. It smears Ms. Shah’s mother, even her brother and sister. It calls her every name under the sun.
NS ss 1After the Labour party made a complaint under section 106, some sock puppets took their site links down, but others left them up. [EDIT – as I am composing this, all the links to the smear site with all the urls have been removed. As of last night, they were still live. Somebody removed the last of them just yesterday night. ] I should say that I have copies of the site in full, in screenshots, and copies of all known URLs for the website. Taking it down will be pointless. The site links back to this Urban Echo blog and quotes Mr. McKay:
NS ss 2 Ron McKay j
The link in the above screenshot led back to the Urban echo post.
Under the Urban echo blog story you find more Respect-supporting sock puppets directing you to the smear site:

P Simmons

11 days ago

I have been shocked at the untruths Labour’s Naz Shah, the Respect Party’s rival for the Bradford West seat, has been spreading in order to be selected for the constituency, gain publicity, attract sympathy from gullible people, and ultimately to try to win votes.
We all have a duty to spread the truth and not let crookedry infiltrate British politics. Please refer folk to this website on Naz Shah so they can find out what she really is all about! It exposes how she ended up getting selected when she polled by far the lowest number of votes in her local constituency’s Labour Party membership ballot.


P Simmons

11 days ago

The link to the website is here: – a must read and highly shocking!


P Simmons

11 days ago

Lies indeed as Urban Echo reports.
With the UK election campaigning period officially launching today, an exclusive exposé of the ‪Labour‬ Party’s candidate for Bradford West, ‪NazShah is being published‬. Researchers have spent weeks trawling through two decades of legal documents and interviewing Naz Shah’s family as well as grassroots Labour Party members in Bradford to reveal Naz Shah is a highly duplicitous character who has spun a fraudulent account of her life and her mother’s controversial past to a trusting media and Labour Party hierarchy.
Read the new, exclusive exposé – the first report ever to counter nearly 20 years of lies by ‪NazShahBfd‬ – here:
Spread the truth. Please refer people to the website!


Update: In my haste to take screenshots of the links, and similarities, to and from the smear site and official Respect party sources, I missed the significance of the content of the above sock puppet’s comment. I draw Labour party lawyers to this now:
Researchers have spent weeks trawling through two decades of legal documents and interviewing Naz Shah’s family
Two decades of legal documents. The “legal documents” “court” line is taken up in the smear site BUT IT IS ALSO TAKEN UP BY MR. GALLOWAY AND RESPECT THEMSELVES.
Surely it beggars belief that these two things are a co-incidence. Again and again, “court documents” referred to in the smear site are referred to by officials of Respect. Mr. McKay says, on the record, in his interview with urban echo, that Respect attempted to “prove” a sixteen year old had given her consent to being trafficked abroad and forced into rape by looking at the testimony in the trial of her mother. That said testimony is referred to over and over in the smear blog. More importantly the sock puppet “P Simmons” says his smear site researchers have “spent weeks…. interviewing Naz Shah’s family”. On the record, Respect tell the Guardian and Helen Pidd that:
Asked where and how Galloway had obtained the nikah he waved around at the hustings, McKay said: “We were first given a copy of the nikah by a close family member in this country. We wanted to verify that it was authentic so we arranged for a person in Mirpur to obtain a copy directly from the registry office.
he said Respect was in contact with Shah’s first husband
Well then – Mr. McKay’s on the record comments have identical research claims to the P Simmons sock puppet underneath the Urban Echo blog (in which McKay first adduces the nikkah – you can see it on that blog) – and the P Simmons sock directs us to the smear site – which quotes Mr. McKay and directs the reader back to McKay’s interview in, er, the Urban Echo blog.
As Private Eye might say – could they possibly be related?
Update Ends – more Updated material below
These identical lines are taken up across the board by smearing sock puppets who RT the official respect accounts too. Language used in the smear blog is used to attack Ms Shah on Facebook and Twitter. For example Ms. Shah is said to have had a “chavvish obsession” with “washing her family’s dirty laundry from twenty years ago” and a big picture of the Jeremy Kyle show is used, with a gif:
Jeremy Kyle NS ss
This line about Jeremy Kyle is used by Respect supporters smearing her on Facebook, like one “Aky Ali”. The Facebook address on his profile uses the name Riaz Mahmood.
Aky Ali Jeremy Kyle NS
The Aky Ali account also makes the smear site references to her “murderer mother” as do the fake twitter accounts.
Aky Aki mother FB Naz Shah
Sometimes Respect party thug supporters like Amar Rafiq openly smear Ms. Shah under their own names: more often they use sock puppets. Here is the fake Facebook page created in her name. The contact details were a link to the smear site, now deleted; of course, I have screenshots. The fake “Jane White” also links to the smear site – the avatar is one of Ms. Shah’s face.
I hope the police will investigate very thoroughly, with a raid on computers, the explicit link to the court case described with lawyer-like referencing at the bottom of the smear site. Respect and George Galloway called – as a shoddy and obvious smokescreen – for Ms. Shah to prosecuted for perjury. The case of her poor mother is dissected all over the Naz Shah smear site in legal terms again and again. Look at the link “Jane White” makes in her post of four hours ago:

‪#‎NazShah‬ is extremely unwise to continually drag out her past, as she has been doing for well over a decade now. I confess it does help win over sensitive and gullible folk, as her story seems to be tragic. But politics should be contested on policies. This is not the Jeremy Kyle show.

Unfortunately Naz Shah has spent weeks relaying an inaccurate sob story to the press and barely touched up mentioning policies until recently.

The comprehensive report at provides empirical evidence of her deceitfulness – including lying infront of the courts, a very serious offence as per today’s Respect Party announcement – and the best thing for Naz Shah to now do would be to give up on the campaign and, at the age of 42 try to be begin a respectful life.

Information about Naz Shah, Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Bradford West
The Respect Party announcement tweeted by Galloway is here.
Compare to the lawyerly nature of the smear site’s postings about Ms. Shah’s mother: there is more, these are just two excerpts.
NS ss mother court 1 NS ss mother court 2
Various smearing twitter accounts have tried to change their names. The @Bfdwest2015 smear site changed its name to “Strawmankiller.”
Beeks = Bfdwest2015


  1. Jimmy jones · April 11, 2015

    I don’t understand this blog post at all. Naz Shah has fought the election by revealing the details of her past as an apparent indication of her suitability for office. Her opposition therefore are justified in questioning it if they know her comments to be inaccurate.

    With regards the sock puppets, yes I agree it distasteful whoever is doing it, but I’m unclear why the writer is so angry! Some politicians face these things; interestingly, Galloway is usually a victim of this himself!

    • Dylan · April 12, 2015

      Shah revealing her private life herself is one thing, being accused of lies and deceit is another.

      From what I’ve seen, and from what Louise Mensch has reported, Galloway & his party have no evidence that Shah has lied about her life, just accusations and thin speculation. That is why it’s a smear campaign, that is why it’s slanderous & libellous… they do not know Shah’s comments on her life to be inaccurate, nor could they possibly know, yet they persist with calling her a liar, racist, and other damaging things.

      • Anon · April 12, 2015

        Naz Shah lied about her private life. She lied in court about her mother. Four judges said she perjured herself. She needs to go on Jeremy Kyle rather than fight an election. George has given Bradford its pride back.

  2. Jimmy jones · April 11, 2015

    The more I read it the stranger it seems. Cosmetically the blog post looks good: it’s full of links and screenshots. But there is no substance, and has an edge of mania about it. I have a feeling she’ll regret this.

  3. Mavis Trumps (@LibelThis) · April 11, 2015

    Most excellent One had to put ones knitting down just to focus on the details and evidence thus portrayed. As for ‘no substance’ ‘edge of mania’ ‘I have feeling she’ll regret this (hopefully not a threat?), well best to let the lawyers and courts decide that one.

    • No Name · April 12, 2015

      Naz came bottom of the Labour vote to decide a candidate for Bradford West and was imposed on the people when Amina Ali quit. The establishment media support Naz because she’s an establishment candidate and a mainstream careerist. She’s the banality of evil, whereas George soars above the rest.

    • That was so obviously not a threat,bet it will get a screenshot anyway lol.

  4. Jimmy jones · April 11, 2015

    Of courses it’s not a threat you plum! The irony!

    It’s just really hard to sum up in two or three clear points what the blog is getting at…

    That Galloway smeared Shah’s name? But he just challenged her stories re her past.
    That there are sock puppet accounts smearing Shah’s name? No, there are sock puppet accounts challenging her stories ‘re her past.

    Can anyone else sum it up clearly and succinctly?

    • Mason · April 12, 2015

      Even more succinctly: Naz is a liar, was exposed as a liar, and is now supported by the Tories because she’s Tory-lite rather than real-left like Galloway

  5. Jimmy jones · April 11, 2015

    Latest from the author…

    The only thing @NazShahBfd should do is not lower herself to respond to attacks on her character and fight a policy-based election.”

    You should have told her that before she travelled round the press talking only about her family life and nothing about policy!

  6. Malcolm · April 11, 2015


    It seems like the Naz Shah website URL has changed to [deleted – moderator] . I have just spent a good hour carefully reading this website and am struggling to see what your concerns are? It is extremely well-referenced and includes details about where the information has been obtained from. The facts presented can be easily verified elsewhere online – and they present a very unflattering portrayal of Naz Shah.

    It is unfortunate that perhaps over four-fifths of the every interview that Naz Shah gave to the press when she was selected was about her personal life. She constantly chose to bring personality into her politics and has therefore brought this on herself. As the famous saying goes, you don’t wash your dirty laundry in public.

    It seems like Naz Shah has been successfully giving a one-sided account of her and her mother’s life for many a moon, without anybody countering what she’s uttered, and she felt she could continue to ride that horse during her campaign. The fact that her claims have now been challenged for the first time ever in a concerted manner as far as I can see, and that she and her supporters can’t now accept a single piece of fact-filled journalism that counters the dubious assertions she makes about her and her mother’s lives beggars belief IMHO.

    • John · April 12, 2015

      Louise and Naz delete links to the site because they’re scared of the voters hearing the truth about Naz’s dodgy private life.

  7. tartantights · April 11, 2015

    Louise Mensch I salute you and I never ever thought I would say that to a Conservative especially as a card carrying member of the SNP.

    Politically we may be polls apart but on this issue we can unite. Personally I hope the Green candidate if one is standing wins this seat but this is one Labour victory I would cheer. Mr Galloway and his party which has the most ironic name in politics since they never show anyone any Respect, need to be brought down a peg or fifty. Thank you for uncovering this slander. There is no room for people like that in British politics.

    It is perhaps the final delicious irony of my post that the woman I once wrongly believed to be a Tory attention seeker and yes I am always prepared to admit when I’m wrong has now gained a place in my heart as this compassionate face of a more caring conservatism. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still not my kind of politics but I can live with that especially when it comes from someone who is prepared to fight for feminism and and against the injustice of dirty politics. Scotland, Britain and humanity stand proud of you tonight.

    Best Wishes
    Gayle X

    • Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) · April 12, 2015

      Thank you so much Gayle. I’m not logged in but this is Louise

    • Mr Stevens · April 12, 2015

      Typical tartan Tory, opposing real socialists like Galloway and supporting Conservatives.

    • Derek · April 12, 2015

      Hi Louise,

      Just to make sure that a man is also seen to be aware of the feminist importance of what seems to be happening in Bradford West I want to reiterate what Gayle has just said. As it happens, I also am a card carrying member of the SNP and I also am poles apart from your own political point of view, considering myself a strong anarcho-socialist. I have no political reason to stick my neck out and support you. However I must be honest and express my admiration for the principled effort you are making to stand up for what is right here. The misogyny on display by the Respect Party and George Galloway is absolutely shocking. I cannot believe that during the Iraq War there was a time when I felt positively about George Galloway. I only hope that justice is seen to be done and the results of the upcoming election in Bradford West annulled. It is entirely unacceptable, regardless of the finer details about Naz Shah’s account, that a women indisputably subject to a forced marriage can have her word baselessly disregarded in an claim as serious as that of rape. The attempts to disprove that it ever was a forced marriage are a disgusting assault on a women’s right to choose freely who she marries and attempts to take the feminist cause back to the dark ages.

      With best regards for what you are doing here,
      Derek Lewis.

      • louisemensch · April 15, 2015

        Thank you so much Derek. I really appreciate it. Of course the smear site smears every aspect of Naz Shah’s character over and above rubbishing her on rape.

  8. Jimmy jones · April 11, 2015

    @LouiseMensch Hopefully he’ll lose and you won’t have to have the election courts examining Bradford West

    @HintonKath Either way is fine by me.”

    Think we can see the motivation for the blog now! This is what A Conservative Feminist looks like: Galloway losing is all that actually matters. You should care more about The Truth and what is Right, Louise!

  9. Maggie Preston (@maggiesden) · April 11, 2015

    I am horrified at the blatant disregard for the law by George and his followers! It’s nothing new for him but demeans the people of Bradford West!

    • Judge Judy · April 12, 2015

      George hasn’t broken the law but four judges said Naz committed perjury.

  10. Jimmy jones · April 11, 2015

    Maggie, where is the disregard for the law from Galloway or his followers? Can you point to any, cos Louise sure failed!

    Also, if it’s disregard for the law you’re concerned about, how about Naz Shah lying in court?…

  11. jamesakirkcaldy · April 11, 2015

    This article is an argument for candidate exclusion not cancellation. Some of us are genuine, such as me, the green candidate and I think the lib dem.

  12. jamesakirkcaldy · April 11, 2015

    Reblogged this on Independent Bradford and commented:
    This is an argument for candidate exclusion and not cancellation of the election or a disregard of the vote unless it is proven fraudulent. Surely?

    • louisemensch · April 16, 2015

      Hi James I am sorry I never replied to this right away. The thing is under the law, as one candidate has been smeared, if she loses, any other candidate (yes the Tory included) would have benefited from trashing her reputation. So that’s why the Woolas judicial review said no remedy was possible in an eelection period

  13. Maggie Preston (@maggiesden) · April 11, 2015

    seems Jimmy that you are another of Georges mouthpieces He is far from the truth and playing to the muslim vote as always

    • Mavis Trumps (@LibelThis) · April 11, 2015

      Yes maggie I believe old Jimmy may be one of Georges ‘Legal’ friends Chambers Hint Hint.

    • jamesakirkcaldy · April 12, 2015

      Me? Nope, I have been very much against the Respect agenda and an identity based politics.

    • Anti-Islamophobia · April 12, 2015

      A Muslim vote is worth as much as a non-Muslim vote. You’re an Islamophobe.

  14. Jimmy jones · April 11, 2015

    Maggie, again, where is the “disregard for the law” you mentioned? Louise shouted ‘fire’ and you’ve panicked without thinking!

    I’m happy for you to dislike Galloway and his politics, but I just need to know what you think Louise is getting at in the first place!

  15. tony · April 11, 2015

    Galloway is an arse that’s is the facts, there is no more to say

    • Grammar Nazi · April 12, 2015

      “that’s is the facts”

      Galloway is lucky because his opponents are dumb as rocks.

  16. Jimmy jones · April 11, 2015

    Tony, you’ve essentially made the same point as Louise but more succinctly and without the mania! Thumbs up!

  17. Caitlin · April 11, 2015

    Louise has clearly got too much time on her hands. She accuses Respect of running a smear campaign and then launches her own smear campaign in response.

    If what Respect have accused Naz Shah of doing (lying about her past to gain sympathy and votes) is true, then how is it a ‘smear’? If it’s true, then Galloway & co have every right to point it out to the voters in this constituency. As the old saying goes, ‘if it’s true, it ain’t libel”.

    As has been pointed out in other comments, Naz Shah chose to make her personal experiences the main thrust of her election strategy, so she can hardly complain if her opponents discuss it as well.

    Louise is allowing her personal dislike of Galloway to cloud her judgement and has written nothing more than a long rant that allows her to lash out at a man she clearly hates. It’s not really about Naz Shah at all, it’s a convenient way of attacking Galloway.

    I don’t care who wins in Bradford West, though I do hope that whoever wins shows more commitment to their constituents than Louise Mensch did when she was an MP. She was elected, with much fanfare, but spent just two years in the job before she decided she’d had enough and then quit, dumped her constituents, and left the country to live her luxurious life in New York. She now spends her time ‘writing’ chick lit drivel, the odd newspaper column, and tweets 24/7.

    She should try getting a real job and then she might find something useful to do with her time.

    • Mavis Trumps (@LibelThis) · April 11, 2015

      Point being we all have a right to an opinion Yes even (Respect Party Activists). Our opinions mean little compared to a possible court judgement on the matter. I believe my opinion looking at the Phil Woolas court Judgement and the Judicial Review Conclusion that George Galloway is for the High Jump. Will he win the Election Yes I believe he will. Will he be removed by a Court Judgement. Yes I believe he will. For instance George Galloway stated that Forced Marriage and Forced Sex was a lie. Now unless George Galloway was present at every occasion in the life of Naz Shah he cannot state this and say that Naz Shah is lying about this. Therefore he has affected the voters opinion based on what can only be determined by George Galloway as a lie to cause a negative view of Naz Shah. Now that is only two points a Court would have to determine on. So George sooner or later is fooked. Happy days!

  18. Anonymous · April 11, 2015

    Sounds like the work of spectacular c#nts. Well done in exposing this!

  19. Neither a Labour not a Tory supporter · April 11, 2015

    Here’s the thing: Yes Naz Shah did talk about her personal life BEFORE the hustings. Not only is that perfectly normal for someone who’s a complete unknown, but it’s also totally appropriate to talk about in the press if she wants to. It’s her background, it’s her story, it’s up to her, and if she hadn’t done it then I’d put money on someone from Respect doing it instead as though to unmask her in some way.
    What’s not ok is bringing that up at hustings to try and score points against her in any kind of political capacity, it was completely invasive, inappropriate and distasteful and I’m relieved to hear that it’s also technically illegal. The fact that they’re using it to label her a racist is completely out there.
    If she’d started the hustings by talking about her tragic past then maybe it would have been up for debate but she ONLY talked policy at the hustings, and by contrast the very first thing George Galloway did was to bring out what he claimed was her marriage certificate, like that was ok.
    The fact that George and his campaign manager are in the press now talking about the finer details of her marriage and whether her parents were present and what that meant or didn’t mean, and how old she was – as though there are any details that COULD emerge about it all that would make this tactic ok – is a special kind of messed up.

    • louisemensch · April 15, 2015

      could not agree more. Also, everybody focuses on whether her rape story is true or not; they libel her worse than that when they RT the smear site; it hurls accusations at every part of her personality, unprovable character smears. It’s disgusting.

  20. An ominous · April 11, 2015

    Louise has set the legal position out clearly. Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act is contravened if there is abuse of a candidate’s character. If the allegations have similar characteristics as in the Saddleworth case then the consequences will be the same as in that case.

  21. Adrian Yalland · April 11, 2015

    1. It is usually a ‘civil offence’ to libel someone.

    2. However, when the person being libelled is a General Election candidate in the period leading up to a general election, the libel becomes a criminal offence under s106 of the Representation of the People Act [1986]

    3. To accuse someone of being a ‘liar’ can be libelous: To defend yourself against a claim of defemation, you have to prove the person you have accused of being a ‘liar’ has a character that is generally dishonest. It is not sufficient to simply probe she has lied by demonstrating a single incident. In this case, unless Galloway can prove his opponent has a generally dishonest charactor, he could have been found to have libelled her, even if she has ‘lied’. Of course – the burden of proof rests upon Galloway to prove. If his opponent has the earlier Marriage Certificate, it would be hard to see how Galloway can demonstrate the generally dishonest charactor of his opponent.

    4. There is (in my estimation) sufficient to suspect that, unless Galloway can demonstrate the truth of his allegation about his opponent, that he has libelled her (he could also have committed the Tort of malicious falsehood by seeking to cause pecuniary loss).

    5. As the woman he has libelled is a candidate in the General Election, then Galloway would not only be found to have made statements which would warrant a civil remedy through damages, they would open him up to criminal sanctions.

    • Anonymous · April 11, 2015

      Yes I agree. The Tort would also as you stated be assumed and appropriate.

  22. Phillipa Leeds · April 11, 2015

    I couldn’t have said it better than the Caitlin:

    “Louise has clearly got too much time on her hands. She accuses Respect of running a smear campaign and then launches her own smear campaign in response.

    If what Respect have accused Naz Shah of doing (lying about her past to gain sympathy and votes) is true, then how is it a ‘smear’? If it’s true, then Galloway & co have every right to point it out to the voters in this constituency. As the old saying goes, ‘if it’s true, it ain’t libel”.

    As has been pointed out in other comments, Naz Shah chose to make her personal experiences the main thrust of her election strategy, so she can hardly complain if her opponents discuss it as well.

    Louise is allowing her personal dislike of Galloway to cloud her judgement and has written nothing more than a long rant that allows her to lash out at a man she clearly hates. It’s not really about Naz Shah at all, it’s a convenient way of attacking Galloway.

    I don’t care who wins in Bradford West, though I do hope that whoever wins shows more commitment to their constituents than Louise Mensch did when she was an MP. She was elected, with much fanfare, but spent just two years in the job before she decided she’d had enough and then quit, dumped her constituents, and left the country to live her luxurious life in New York. She now spends her time ‘writing’ chick lit drivel, the odd newspaper column, and tweets 24/7.

    She should try getting a real job and then she might find something useful to do with her time.”

    I wholeheartedly agree with these comments.
    I have taken a look at the website Louise links to ( deleted – moderator ) and can’t find anything whatsoever that is a “smear”. It is very well presented; a logical construction, chockablock full of fully annotated evidence. Naz Shah is clearly not fit for public life with her very shady past and questionable utterances.

    The fact that Louise hasn’t provided one piece of evidence to counter the evidence produced on that website speaks volumes; screaming loudly against something that doesn’t fit in with your (extremely prejudiced) world view doesn’t make it untrue.

    All Louise has done is mash together a blog post full of screenshots from the internet, that anybody with one GCSE could have done. Nothing of worth or value has been presented. Louise should stick to tweeting 24/7 as she seems to live her idle life doing, as intellectual debate is clearly out of her forte; the blog post above is but a mish-mash of screenshots.

    • Lamia · April 12, 2015

      “If what Respect have accused Naz Shah of doing (lying about her past to gain sympathy and votes) is true, then how is it a ‘smear’?”

      You are assuming that Respect’s accusations are true. The contention is that its accusations are false, and that Naz Shah has the evidence to prove this. The Guardian has reported that it has seen a copy of the earlier marriage certificate. If Galloway and co have themselves produced false evidence, they could be in big trouble. We shall see.

      • Mavis Trumps (@LibelThis) · April 12, 2015

        Totally agree Lamia ‘We shall see’ the Respect Activists are trying their level best to rubbish this blog but its intention I am sure is to highlight serious concern of activities which are the norm (for years now) of the Respect Party and its activists and in my opinion condoned by Galloway. The Electoral Commission needs to act on this and bring some lawful sanity back to British Electoral Politics. It is time for them to make a lawful stand before more and more people distance themselves away from politics. This is whole issue more than Louise Mensch, Naz Sha or George Galloway.

      • Caitlin · April 12, 2015

        Thank you Phillipa. I really can’t see Louise’s blog as anything other than her seizing the opportunity to attack Galloway. I don’t think she gives two hoots for Naz Shah or electoral etiquette.

        To the others, well we shall indeed see what happens. If Naz Shah has been lying then she hasn’t got a leg to stand on and the Galloway haters will end up disappointed.

    • Caitlin · April 12, 2015

      Thank you Phillipa. I really can’t see Louise’s blog as anything other than her seizing the opportunity to attack Galloway. I don’t think she gives two hoots for Naz Shah or electoral etiquette.

  23. Clarence beaks · April 11, 2015

    What a load of rubbish.

  24. Pingback: A Link to the Past 12/04/2015 | In Defence of Liberty
  25. · April 12, 2015

    Hmmmm… the comments here are almost all unanimous that Mensch’s blog above says nothing of worth and, while the screenshots may look “sensational” on a superficial level to the more easily excited, doesn’t add anything of worth or value.

    Mensch has been stalking and criticising George Galloway via Twitter as her mission in life for eons now and she has been attacking him in a vulgar way several times a day for weeks (does she not have anything else to do in life?)… this blog is little more than a continuation of Mensch’s long-term sordid smear campaign against Galloway.

    Unlike the report at [deleted – moderator] which Mensch links to (well worth a read for those that haven’t seen it — my eyes opened to what a mischievous character Naz Shah is — no wonder she got the lowest votes in the Bradford West Labour Party’s selection voting!), I don’t see one tiddly bit of evidence presented by Mensch that disproves any of the thoroughly-researched and referenced points, many from court legal papers (available online), presented in that study.

    The simple fact is Naz Shah and her unofficial campaign manager Mensch have realised that Shah’s past has finally been exposed to be quite different to what she has been brandishing it to be to all and sundry, and both are now running scared, hence the desperate emotional and slanderous accusations above.

    As many people have asserted, I’m bewildered why Mensch is so obsessed by Galloway. But, as others have said, as a lady born in extreme affluence with mummy and daddy’s support to always have access to and now that she herself doesn’t have any job or responsibilities in life, I suppose she’s got the idle time to spend all day every day tweeting from her luxury pad in New York attacking a politician who won his parliamentary seat with a majority of many thousands.

    I’d humbly suggest Ms Mensch considers doing something more productive with her life than tweeting all day about a parliamentary seat and a discredited Labour Party candidate both thousands of miles from where she resides which she clearly knows very little about.

  26. Tom yizner · April 12, 2015

    It does seem like a lot of blush and little evidence, if 4 high court judges have also call shah a liar; who are we to argue with high court judges. My guess is that it won’t make a difference to the outcome of the election. Naz has to beat a 10 thousand majority, which most (including the bookies) think won’t happen. Galloway is not stupid. This is where Louise is going wrong…..

    • Anonymous · April 12, 2015

      Wow a lot of Respect Party Activists on here. Clearly Loiuse you have Galloway and his puppies yelping scared. Can’t wait if he wins the election to have it ripped from his claws by a court of law.

  27. RabbiGoldberg · April 12, 2015

    Naz is sure to win if she has the support of Islamophobic Tories like Louise and war-crazed neocons like Khalid Mahmoud from the Henry Jackson Society.

  28. Caitlin · April 12, 2015

    Funny how some making comments here assume that anyone who hasn’t fawned over Louise’s lengthy, tedious rant must be a Respect activist!

    I have nothing to do with Respect, never met anyone from the party, never voted for them, in fact I don’t think there has even been a Respect candidate in any constituency I’ve lived in. I certainly don’t remember one and there isn’t one standing in the forthcoming election in my area.

    I don’t agree with everything Galloway has ever said and done, however I’d rather him in parliament than a hundred Louise Mensch types. Spoiled rich kids are ten a penny in our political system unfortunately, although few show as little concern for their commitment to their constituents as she did.

    We shall see what happens in the forthcoming election but I think its just a little early for Louise & chums to celebrate bringing down Galloway. Even if there is some kind of legal action taken, Galloway is a canny operator with many years experience of defeating his political rivals in elections and in the courtroom.

    I do find Louise’s ridiculous vendetta against Galloway amusing though. It’s a shame she didn’t display the same passion when she was an MP, then maybe she wouldn’t have shown such casual disregard for her responsibilities to her constituents.

    • Mavis Trumps (@LibelThis) · April 13, 2015

      Caitlin “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”

      • Caitlin · April 15, 2015 which bit do you think I’m lying about?

        Strange how those who are kicking up a fuss about this apparent ‘smear’ campaign are very quick to imply others are being dishonest without any evidence at all.

        Everything i have written is true, you can like it or lump it.

  29. whatamievenlookingat · April 12, 2015

    What an unreadable mess this is. Is this supposed to convince someone of something?

    • Mavis Trumps (@LibelThis) · April 13, 2015

      Another Respect Party Troll…………… The more you come here and declare Louise’s blog article is a ‘mess, no evidence, rubbish, blah blah blah’; it convinces everyone on this earth that has an ounce of common sense that George Galloway is running scared (he may have not confided in you but he knows or at least feels their is a strong possibility that even if he ‘wins he will lose’) woolas v parliamentary election court)). Do us intelligent balanced educated people a favor and accept Mr George Galloway has lost the election even if he wins it (woolas v parliamentary election court)……….. Let’s sing along……..’OH HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN……….

  30. Rennie · April 13, 2015

    I have been shocked at the lies Labour’s Naz Shah, the Respect Party’s rival for the Bradford West seat, has been spreading in order to gain publicity, attract sympathy from gullible people, and ultimately to win votes. And she has sucked Louise Mensch in hook, line and sinker.
    We all have a duty to stick to the truth and not let crookedry infiltrate British politics.
    I have been looking into this issue today and what Louise Mensch says above is not based on the evidence out there about Naz Shah. Please refer folk to this fact-filled website on Naz Shah so they can find out what she really is all about: [removed by moderator]

    • Mavis Trumps (@LibelThis) · April 13, 2015

      Respect Troll Rennie eh. Again posting lies. No member of the public should take any notice of this Rennie link. Louise Mensch has willingly put her name for exposure of this present blog The Election ‘In Bradford West Has Been Hopelessly Tainted by louisemensch’. The web page and blog has no legitimate author on your claimed site Rennie. Therefore any Muslim who reads it and spreads the words within it clearly creates a devastating long term consequential SIN that they will have to answer at death. BACKBITING is one of the most grave sins possible for a Muslim (so I believe). That sin can be reduced or diminished if the author of the article comes forward and places his or her name on the article and is willing to defend their position about Naz Shah even if it means a court of law. Rennie you know as well as any decent person that no one will come forward and admit to the libel written. Therefore no one who loves Allah SWT or the Truth should insist the author comes forward or better still disregard it as the gutter snipe blog it is. It is most amazing that a person such as Louise Mensch a Jewish person by decent has more guts and courage to place her name on her work but the author of what you promote hides and trembles at the idea of exposure.

      • Caitlin · April 15, 2015

        “It is most amazing that a person such as Louise Mensch a Jewish person by decent has more guts and courage to place her name on her work but the author of what you promote hides and trembles at the idea of exposure.”

        That is a very strange comment. Why would Louise’s religious views have anything to do with this? She isn’t Jewish anyway, She is a Catholic.

  31. Marcus · April 15, 2015

    Shocked to see that Louise Mensch can’t stop attacking, bullying and censoring people she disagrees with. This is not a fascist dictatorship where, because she’s from the affluent ‘high and mighty’ class, she can ram her erratic views down people’s throats.

  32. Carl · April 15, 2015

    I have just taken a detailed look at the court papers for the trial you refer to. They are available online. I’m not sure if you would allow me to link to them or not, so I won’t.

    The Judge calls Naz Shah and her mother extremely unreliable witnesses and not to be believed (Lord Justice Kennedy of The Court of Appeal: “a most unsatisfactory witness and her evidence to be not capable of belief” (R v Shah [1998]: 59).

    Nobody gets prison sentences totaling a massive nearly-40 YEARS after a six week long trial and then ALSO loses the appeal if they are a goodie-two-shoes!

    There is no smoke without fire and Naz Shah and her mother clearly have a very questionnable past. As others have commented, she has made a strategic mistake by constantly harping on about her past.

    I live in Bradford and recently received Naz Shah’s leaflet through my letterbox in which she once again highlights her past rather than policies. Politics ought to be about policies.

    I confess such tactics may work in sucking in some people who will side with anybody who bleats a victim’s story, but not with more rational elements who are willing to study the evidence.

    I’ve also looked at the ’10 Facts About Naz Shah’ website you refer to in your other post. I won’t link to it as I’ve noticed you’ve censored the links previously as you’re not willing to countenance any information that contradicts your polemic. It refers to the court papers and points out:

    “She was also found to have lied under oath in Her Majesty’s Court Case in front of Lord Justice Judge Kennedy and a jury of twelve, an act of perjury.”

    ‘Naz Shah’s beloved mother, Zoora Shah, was given very hefty sentences due to the seriousness of her premeditated crimes and her repeated, wilful attempts to circumvent justice.

    “On 21st December 1993 in the Crown Court, after a six week trial, Zoora Shah was convicted of four offences, namely forgery, soliciting to murder, attempted murder and murder, and received sentences of 7 years, 10 years, 12 years and life imprisonment – all sentences being ordered to be served concurrently” [extract from R v SHAH [1998] LTL AC8800193].’

  33. Pingback: The Madness of Queen Louise | gallowayism
  34. Doug · April 16, 2015

    I kept being tantalised by Louise and others references to the famous Naz Shah Facts website but couldn’t find it anywhere! 🙂 It took it fair amount of digging, but I finally managed to track it down here: [edited – moderator].
    It is an intriguing read.
    IMHO I can’t see anything wrong with it? Seems to a perfectly reasonable presentation of facts about a prospective parliamentary candidate who has gone out of her way to make her personal life the focus of her campaign in every interview she gives?
    One can be a passionate supporter of Naz Shah but it doesn’t mean having to freakishly crush other points of view does it? Everyone has the right to freedom of speech in this country and, just like Louise may have the right to have a go at Galloway as her 24/7 vocation, surely others have the right to disagree and present the opposite point of view?? That’s democracy surely.

  35. Not George Galloway · April 17, 2015

    Louise mensch blog.

    If you disagree = Respect Troll
    Agree= personal thanks from Louise.

    Hmmm interesting.

    Meanwhile. Napoleon Once said Allegedly: “Never interrupt your enemies when they’re making mistakes”


  36. The madness of King George. · April 18, 2015

    Section 106 makes it illegal to publish any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing that statement to be true. 

    In September 2007 Miranda Grell was found guilty under this section when she made allegations of paedophilia and having sex with teenage boys against her gay opponent during the United Kingdom local elections, 2006.

     Convictions under this law are so rare that this was thought to be the first.

    This seems to be a terrible, shocking and disgusting case indeed. No surprises it was from a labour candidate.

    Grell was elected in the May 2006 local elections for the Leyton ward of Waltham Forest. In a close result, Grell won by 28 votes, but gained the seat via an unexpectedly large swing from the Liberal Democrats in a split result. However, in September 2007, she went on trial on charges under theRepresentation of the People Act 1983 of making a false statement of fact about a candidate’s personal character or conduct for electoral advantage, specifically that she made allegations of paedophilia against her gay Liberal Democrat opponent, Barry Smith. In addition to losing his seat Smith was verbally abused in the street, spat at and was forced to relocate to the North of England as a result of the false allegations, fearing for his life.

    Witnesses against Grell included a Labour voter and also another Labour candidate for her ward,Nicholas Russell. Grell admitted to outing her opponent and falsely claiming he had a 19-year-old Thai boyfriend (his partner was actually 39 and Malaysian), though she denied making the false allegations of paedophilia to four residents. On 21 September 2007, she was found guilty on two counts fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 towards the prosecution costs.

    Ouch just a fine….no jail total disgrace.

  37. Sarah · May 7, 2015

    Why should I vote for a murderer? Ms Shah should not have been released from prison for fraud, attempted fraud and murder. See Regina vs Shah

    Why did Ms Shah commit fraud to steal a house from her landlord?

    She has never worked a day in her life – benefit scrounger – single mum on benefits with multiple kids – her court cases and prison has cost us taxpayers £5million+!!!!!!!!!!!

    It’s the feminist brigade that has now resulted in millions of women like her being left on the scrap heap after they stop ovulating at 35 – shame on you guys!

  38. John · May 7, 2015

    *itches and hoes

  39. · July 4, 2015

    click here for the top upper lip wrinkle treatments info anywhere

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s