Love him or loathe him, there's no denying that the world is taking notice of George Galloway.

I don't particularly like Mr Galloway. When I see the TV pictures of him shaking Saddam Hussein's hand it makes my skin crawl. And there's a part of me that questions what the real Mr Galloway is all about. Is he simply an opportunist who gets high on the oxygen of publicity, or does he speak out for the repressed as a conscience for the nation?

However, when I heard the first reports of the US Senate committee denouncing him for supposedly accepting millions of dollars worth of oil from Saddam I must admit I shook my head. To broadcast accusations like that before giving someone a chance to defend their name is a disgrace.

So when Mr Galloway flew out to the States and demanded to be allowed to give his side of the story a bit of me was hoping he'd teach them a lesson. He didn't disappoint.

It was a sensational performance and it was good to see a maverick socking it to the establishment. Because I firmly believe it is the "establishment", not the Government, that is behind the bizarre recent sequence on events surrounding Mr Galloway.

There is a distinct difference between the two.

The Government and Parliament are made up of politicians who are elected, accountable and have their every move open to scrutiny.

The establishment comprises, in the main, senior civil servants with a distinct view of how the world should be and which operates like a puppeteer in the shadows.

When the first documents emerged suggesting Mr Galloway had profited from the Saddam regime, they were said to have been found by a Daily Telegraph reporter in the ruins of Iraq. Now, what are the chances of that happening?

The Telegraph has subsequently paid for its rush to print. But that didn't stop the same kind of supposed evidence being recycled by the US Senate in their hatchet job on Galloway.

Now Mr Galloway is trying to muster a million people to march on Edinburgh to protest at the G8 summit. No doubt some documents implicating him in the Saddam regime will be found on the Royal Mile.

Many people felt Galloway was wrong to stand as an Independent in the General Election against Labour's Oona King - one of the few black female candidates. But, in a democracy, he was perfectly entitled to do so and to turn over a 10,000 majority was some feat.

Which brings us to Jeremy Paxman who, it seems to me, regards himself more like Jonathon Ross than a serious public service journalist. Interviewing Galloway within minutes of his election night victory, Paxman didn't even have the grace to congratulate him. Instead, he clumsily lunged in, virtually berating Galloway for having the temerity to stand against a black woman.

Perhaps Paxman was simply tired after a long night or perhaps he has become part of the establishment in whose world mavericks like George Galloway have no place.

Both Paxman and the US Senate should reflect on the fact that, whatever your personal opinion of someone, it is free elections, free speech and fairness that distinguish democracies from dictatorships.