# Sheridan perjury trial opens on Monday



## Fullyplumped (Oct 3, 2010)

In case people had forgotten about this - The Scotsman reports that the perjury trial of former SSP leader Tommy Sheridan and his wife Gail opens on Monday 4th October at the High Court in Glasgow. 



> WITH more than 200 witnesses, sex allegations and a drawn-out clash of legal titans that could cost more than £1 million, the perjury trial of Scotland's most high-profile political couple opens tomorrow and promises to be one of the nation's biggest courtroom sensations of the 21st century.
> 
> Four years after Tommy Sheridan won a £200,000 damages claim against the News of the World, the former Scottish Socialist Party leader and his wife Gail face criminal charges of lying under oath in that defamation case.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 3, 2010)

I see that someone's set up a blog - http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/ - which will be posting live updates and analysis from the perjury trial of Tommy and Gail Sheridan from the 4th October 2010.

They've started by setting out the full indictment against Tommy and Gail Sheridan.

Other blogs which look like taking an informed interest include Lallands Peat Worrier and Love & Garbage.


----------



## JHE (Oct 3, 2010)

Sheridan is a vain, selfish, lying, treacherous man, who wrecked the SSP and slandered his comrades.

For his perjury, he deserves the same fate as Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer, but I won’t be cheering when he goes down (as some cheered when Archer and Aitken went down).  The trial is bound to reinvigorate enmities between Squalidarity and the remnants of the SSP and I just wish the whole wretched business could be over and done with sooner.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 3, 2010)

JHE said:


> The trial is bound to reinvigorate enmities between Squalidarity and the remnants of the SSP and I just wish the whole wretched business could be over and done with sooner.


 
This


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 4, 2010)

Just thought I'd share...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

id love to watch that (the front image looks awesome) but unfortunatley im at work and i dont think the sounds of ranting scottish lefties would go down that well


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

JHE said:


> The trial is bound to reinvigorate enmities between Squalidarity and the remnants of the SSP and I just wish the whole wretched business could be over and done with sooner.


same here - it's been _awful_, to watch the damage done to progressive politics in Scotland by this. My sympathies are with fedayn and other SSPers who've had to live through this, close-up


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> same here - it's been _awful_, to watch the damage done to progressive politics in Scotland by this. My sympathies are with fedayn and other SSPers who've had to live through this, close-up


 
It's gonna get 'worse'. 1 witness was heard today, there's 181 witnesses on the list. I'd hazard a guess that a quarter are (hostile) SSP witnesses. It's well past an internecine dispute.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> It's gonna get 'worse'. 1 witness was heard today, there's 181 witnesses on the list. I'd hazard a guess that a quarter are (hostile) SSP witnesses. It's well past an internecine dispute.


oh holy bloody christ - what an awful mess.
and how fucking unfair on all those people who'd done so much unsung hard work to build a socialist movement inb Scotland, to see it dragged through the mire due to one man's vanity


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh holy bloody christ - what an awful mess.
> and how fucking unfair on all those people who'd done so much unsung hard work to build a socialist movement inb Scotland, to see it dragged through the mire due to one man's vanity


 
I don't want to stick my oar in, and it is indeed a shame all round, but I'm not sure it can all be attributed to 'one man's vanity'. Always two sides and all that.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't want to stick my oar in, and it is indeed a shame all round, but I'm not sure it can all be attributed to 'one man's vanity'. Always two sides and all that.



Oh how quaint..... 

I think thre's a few people who should look at themselves. But it's pretty obvious that if one man didn't take the monumentously indeed staggeringly stupid decision of launching a defamation action against the NotW then none of this would have happened. After all, even those people who might not be too proud of themselves over this would have been irrelevant as nothing would be therr to get involved in.


----------



## rioted (Oct 4, 2010)

Two faces, more like.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Oh how quaint.....
> 
> I think thre's a few people who should look at themselves. But it's pretty obvious that if one man didn't take the monumentously indeed staggeringly stupid decision of launching a defamation action against the NotW then none of this would have happened. After all, even those people who might not be too proud of themselves over this would have been irrelevant as nothing would be therr to get involved in.


 
I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying the shit state of scottish socialism is down to more than just Sheridan's (alleged) perjury.

Anyway, you're far better placed than me to make a judgement. I have no desire to get embroiled in it all. But, however it has turned out, Sheridan's political career has not lacked merit throughout. Shame that all this had to be conducted so bitterly and publicly, and I'm sceptical that it can all be attributed to one fella. Basically, it's a fucking shame all round.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying the shit state of scottish socialism is down to more than just Sheridan's (alleged) perjury.
> 
> Anyway, you're far better placed than me to make a judgement. I have no desire to get embroiled in it all. But, however it has turned out, Sheridan's political career has not lacked merit throughout. Shame that all this had to be conducted so bitterly and publicly, and I'm sceptical that it can all be attributed to one fella. Basically, it's a fucking shame all round.



I am not necessarily better placed simply because of my geography I know that much. 

Of course his political activity has had merit, massive amounts of it. That however doesn't detract from his monumental stupidity nor that fundamentally he and only he started and could have stopped this. It's more than a tragedy it's a fucking disgrace, no doubt some on ehre will agree but with differnt targets, however the idiocy of that decision has got us to where we are.....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I am not necessarily better placed simply because of my geography I know that much.
> 
> Of course his political activity has had merit, massive amounts of it. That however doesn't detract from his monumental stupidity nor that fundamentally he and only he started and could have stopped this. It's more than a tragedy it's a fucking disgrace, no doubt some on ehre will agree but with differnt targets, however the idiocy of that decision has got us to where we are.....


 
I mean because you are in the SSP not because you are in Scotland.

He hasn't been found guilty yet has he? I'm also far from convinced that the comfy relationship between _some people_ and Murdoch can really be justified under any circumstances. A lot of people come out of this looking like cunts, not just Sheridan.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I mean because you are in the SSP not because you are in Scotland.
> 
> He hasn't been found guilty yet has he? I'm also far from convinced that the comfy relationship between _some people_ and Murdoch can really be justified under any circumstances. A lot of people come out of this looking like cunts, not just Sheridan.


 
I'm not in the SSP, haven't been for over 2 years, always good to be up-to-date I find. Hmmmm.... 'comfy relationship'? They were cited as witnesses by Sheridan you know. Comfy is a rather CWI-esque remark frankly.... And not nearly as comfy as Sheridans paid relationship with the Daily Record. 

I, like hundreds of current and former SSP members, haven't been comfy with any of this, not nearly as comfy with all too many who egged Tommy on and who relished, indeed argued for, and welcomed the split.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But, however it has turned out, Sheridan's political career has not lacked merit throughout.


true - but you can apply the same reasoning to Jimmy Reed - and look what a wanker he turned into


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Oct 4, 2010)

I've read lots about this over the years but I still don't quite get what it's all about  What is the SSP? Is that the Scottish version of the Socialist Party? And are they anti or pro Sheridan?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

officialy (I think), the sp in england is pro sheridan, i dont know much about it and prefer to stay out of it frankly !


----------



## Geri (Oct 4, 2010)

My friends who are still in the SP in England seem pretty clueless about the whole thing.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 4, 2010)

From what I have been hearing it seems very likely they will lose the case and be found guilty of perjury. I wonder what the sentence will be?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I'm not in the SSP, haven't been for over 2 years, always good to be up-to-date I find.



Fair enough, I was just going off somebody elses post above.



> Hmmmm.... 'comfy relationship'? They were cited as witnesses by Sheridan you know. Comfy is a rather CWI-esque remark frankly.... And not nearly as comfy as Sheridans paid relationship with the Daily Record.
> 
> I, like hundreds of current and former SSP members, haven't been comfy with any of this, not nearly as comfy with all too many who egged Tommy on and who relished, indeed argued for, and welcomed the split.


 
Well, you and I both know the arguments on either side, so probably not much point going over them again. However, I resent the implication that I'm trotting out some text book CWI line. I'm hardly a party fucking hack. You can read my posts, stating the party line isn't really my bag. I just think that neither the SSP nor Solidarity, nor most of the individuals involved, come out of this looking good. Ego masquerading as politics all round imo.


----------



## JHE (Oct 4, 2010)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I've read lots about this over the years but I still don't quite get what it's all about  What is the SSP? Is that the Scottish version of the Socialist Party? And are they anti or pro Sheridan?


 
In Scotland, Scottish Militant Labour (as I think they were called at the time, having given up on trying to remain in the Labour Party) were at the centre of putting together an alliance of the far left and the Scottish Socialist Alliance (as i think it was called) was formed.  It included various Trot and Trottish factions, though early on it did not include the Social Workers Party.  The factions in the SSA got on well enough and the Alliance solidified into a party, the SSP.  The new party had  factions of course, and the Social Workers, not wanting to miss out on the action, joined.  In the process of fusing into a party, the Militant Labourites agreed to give up their 'democratic centralist' grouping.  The Miltant Labourites in England and the international grouping to which they belong, the CWI, disapproved of this 'liquidationism' and told off the Scots.  Scottish Militant Labour (or whatever they were called at the time) then split, with the smaller faction remaining loyal to the CWI and the larger faction leaving.  The ex-Millies - including Big Tommy - were the most important faction in the SSP, I believe, and the SSP became more Scots nationalist than the Millies had been.

In the later dispute about Tommy's defamation action and so on, the CWI people (Socialist Party in England and Wales) and the Social Workers sided with Sheridan and as far as I know they still pretend, albeit rather half-heartedly, that Big Tommy is right and that the socialists he shat all over are scabs in the pay of Murdoch.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fair enough, I was just going off somebody elses post above.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you and I both know the arguments on either side, so probably not much point going over them again. However, I resent the implication that I'm trotting out some text book CWI line. I'm hardly a party fucking hack. You can read my posts, stating the party line isn't really my bag. I just think that neither the SSP nor Solidarity, nor most of the individuals involved, come out of this looking good. Ego masquerading as politics all round imo.



I left because I don't agree with their direction. Funnily enough I prefer the CWI position on union disputes like Lindsay and the national Question-than I do the SSP.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Fundamenntally whether folk look good or bad the tragedy, and farce that flows from this is there to see.... A gigantic ego, deeming itself more important than pro-working class politics, not caring for the disastrous consequences and then trousering money from a paper, the Daily Record, that made a far more dishonest and downright lie of a claim against him just a few years before.... 

And by the way, Sadly Tommy made the ermark that his win in 2006, was the equivalent of Gretna beating Real madrid on penaltioes. That season Real (sadly) won the primera Liga and Gretna went out of business a few seasons later....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> And by the way, Sadly Tommy made the ermark that his win in 2002, was the equivalent of Gretna beating Real madrid on penaltioes. That season Real (sadly) won the primera Liga and Gretna went out of business a few seasons later....


 
A fairly prophetic analogy then


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> A fairly prophetic analogy then


 
Perhaps perhaps not.


----------



## Sue (Oct 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Oh how quaint.....
> 
> But it's pretty obvious that if one man didn't take the monumentously indeed staggeringly stupid decision of launching a defamation action against the NotW then none of this would have happened. After all, even those people who might not be too proud of themselves over this would have been irrelevant as nothing would be therr to get involved in.



Let's not forget Tommy won (I imagine) because people hate the News of the World and still remember the poll tax/warrant sale stuff he was involved in and those in the jury thought 'Fuck it.' It was obvious it was going to end with one side or the other in the dock as someone had to be lying through their teeth.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Sue said:


> Let's not forget Tommy won (I imagine) because people hate the News of the World and still remember the poll tax/warrant sale stuff he was involved in and those in the jury thought 'Fuck it.' It was obvious it was going to end with one side or the other in the dock as someone had to be lying through their teeth.


 
I think it undoubted that there was an element of that in the defamation trial. This is a different kettle of fish though. Given the number of witnesses it's gone way beyond what was an essentially internecine 'war' within the Left up here. That's long past, we're into different territory with way more witnesses, alleged tapes etc etc....


----------



## Sue (Oct 4, 2010)

Yep. And what a fucking mess it's going to be.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Sue said:


> Yep. And what a fucking mess it's going to be.


 
yes


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 4, 2010)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I've read lots about this over the years but I still don't quite get what it's all about  What is the SSP? Is that the Scottish version of the Socialist Party? And are they anti or pro Sheridan?



A potted history (which is hopefully not libellous and as balanced as I can be)

In 2004, the NotW ran a story about an unnamed MSP who had visited a sex club.  At an emergency SSP exec mtg it was alleged that Sheridan had said that it was him.  A few days later, Sheridan resigned as convenor of the SSP citing personal reasons (expecting a sprog).  Following that a story appeared in the NotW alleging that Sheridan was having an affair with a woman called Fiona McGuire.

Sheridan decided to sue the NotW for 200K over the story.  In the meantime, Sheridan alleges that his car was bugged.  The minutes of the SSP exec were supenored (sp?).  The SSP refused to hand them over and an exec member was gaoled.  At a horrible horrible, bitter twisted meeting that wrecked the left in Scotland for a generation, it was decided to hand over the minutes.

At the trial, SSP exec members were cited, the majority said that the minutes were accurate, a minority said that they were not.  Anver Khan the subject of the initial story testified that she had been to a sex club with Sheridan, Fiona McGuire testified that she had an affair with Sheridan, another female comrade testified that she had also had an affair with Sheridan and two women claimed to be present at a sex party with Sheridan, a footballer and a woman who was paid to have sex.  Sheridan claimed that these allegations were all untrue and his wife and wider family testified that they could provide alibis for the dates in question.

Sheridan won the case and left the SSP to establish Solidarity.  Solidarity members then attempted to bankrupt the SSP by freezing bank accounts and claiming the assets of the party.  Sheridan (and Rosemary Byrne then MSP, co-convenor of Solidarity) then refused to pay the wages of the staff that were employed to work for him at the parliament.

Allegations of perjury came from both sides and an investigation was launched.   The NotW then published a videotape which it claims is Sheridan confessing to visiting sex clubs and having an affair and announced its decision to appeal the verdict.  In the end 7 people were charged with perjury and the appeal was delayed until after the perjury investigation was concluded.  Allegations of witness intimidation were also investigated

This is the perjury trial related to the first court case for the Sheridans.

PS the SSP is/was a socialist party in scotland which brought together all the major factions including the CWI (which is the international org of the SP) and the SWP.  Both the CWI and the SWP left with Sheridan.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 4, 2010)

A little reminder that there is a blog giving quite detailed daily coverage of the events in court and witness testimony, this afternoon from the minutes secretary. Barbara Scott. http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> A little reminder that there is a blog giving quite detailed daily coverage of the events in court and witness testimony, this afternoon from the minutes secretary. Barbara Scott. http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/


 
A blog by former SWP full timer Frank Dolman.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> A little reminder that there is a blog giving quite detailed daily coverage of the events in court and witness testimony, this afternoon from the minutes secretary. Barbara Scott. http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/


 
A blog by former SWP full timer Frank Dolman.


----------



## where to (Oct 5, 2010)

> She further informed the court that, three or so days after Tommy Sheridan's victory in the libel trial, she took the original notes to Fettes Police station in Edinburgh and told the police she had evidence that a crime, ie perjury, had been committed by Mr Sheridan. She did this, she claims to "clear her name" and when asked confirmed that she was accompanied to the Police station by then MSPs Caroline Leckie and Rosie Kane.



hmm, that's where right and wrong start to get very blurred for me.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 5, 2010)

where to said:


> hmm, that's where right and wrong start to get very blurred for me.


 
I'm not very comfortable with it myself. The irony is that those defending Sheridan claim it's perfectly ok for him to drag his former comrades through the courts to denigrate them, discuss their sex lives in court in a bid to 'clear his name' and yet they fulminate when other people us legal methods to clear their name....


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 5, 2010)

I did not know till now that Tommy Sheridan has his own blog, in which he gives his own "100% unedited, 100% unflinching" point of view. 

http://tommysheridan.wordpress.com/


Also worth looking at is Love and Garbage written by a Scots lawyer who explains some of the technical aspects of the Scottish system of criminal law.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 5, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> I did not know till now that Tommy Sheridan has his own blog, in which he gives his own "100% unedited, 100% unflinching" point of view.
> http://tommysheridan.wordpress.com/





> As I watched coverage of the first day of our trial today I waited in vain for the key point to be highlighted.
> That is that the witness, and indeed the majority of political witnesses, have already given their evidence in Edinburgh four years ago and were rejected by a jury of ordinary folk who listened to the whole case over a 5 week period.
> 
> In other words the evidence today was re-hashed testimony that has already been assessed and rejected before.


As regards the first days, there's no new evidence as such, probably a few to come in a similar vein, so in this regard he's spot on. But that's neither the point nor the reality of what's happening. This is way past the, in comparison to this trial, wee internecine spat that took place in August 2006. Barbara Scott is the first witness, there's 180 more in the list, given that there was only 1/3rd of that number of witnesses at the original trial compared to the current one I'm not convinced that it's all going to be 're-hashed testimony'. Tommy is, rather understandably, keen to make people think it's just a rehash, nothing else to hear, move along now…. Sadly, for the Left up here and wider, there's much, much more to come…..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 5, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I'm not very comfortable with it myself.



"Not very comfortable with it"? That's comforting to know I suppose. 

That voluntary visit to the copshop to accuse Sheridan of a serious crime is the defining moment of those three people's lives and it is the defining moment of the existence of the rump SSP.


----------



## JHE (Oct 5, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "Not very comfortable with it"? That's comforting to know I suppose.
> 
> That voluntary visit to the copshop to accuse Sheridan of a serious crime is the defining moment of those three people's lives and it is the defining moment of the existence of the rump SSP.


 
No doubt they were indignant at Big Tommy's slanders.

What defines Squalidarity?  Not a distinct political programme, but loyalty to the highly disloyal Big Tommy and his lies, slanders, treachery and vain stupidity in insisting on sueing the News of the Screws in the first place.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 5, 2010)

Shouldn't you be off somewhere posting bigoted drivel about Muslims?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 5, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "Not very comfortable with it"? That's comforting to know I suppose.
> 
> That voluntary visit to the copshop to accuse Sheridan of a serious crime is the defining moment of those three people's lives and it is the defining moment of the existence of the rump SSP.


 
I'm sure there'll be several defining moments over the next few months. Whether they will be as significant as the original treacherous pathetic decision to drag people into court to defend a lie will no doubt be revealed.


----------



## JHE (Oct 5, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Shouldn't you be off somewhere posting bigoted drivel about Muslims?


 
It's lucky for Tommy that he lives in a society in which the punishment for his tedious sexual antics is just a prurient gossipy article in the News of the Screws.  Under Islamoshite rule, he'd be lucky to survive the flogging - and as for the the unfortunate women involved...


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 5, 2010)

Fuck sake... Only you could drag this onto your favourite obsession!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

Geri said:


> My friends who are still in the SP in England seem pretty clueless about the whole thing.


 
To be honest, they're just clueless full stop. Their politics revolves around going on union courses. 

edit: talking _bristol_ here me dears.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 7, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> A little reminder that there is a blog giving quite detailed daily coverage of the events in court and witness testimony, this afternoon from the minutes secretary. Barbara Scott. http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/





Fedayn said:


> A blog by former SWP full timer Frank Dolman.



An amendment, Frank wasn't an SWP full-timer he worked in the SWP printshop, ie he wasn't a 'political' full-timer.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

JHE and Nigel; could you please do the rest of us a favour and either a) get a room or b) take it to another thread/place, please? Tragic and utterly depressing tho' the whole Sheridan affair is, this thread is too important to be terminally derailed


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "Not very comfortable with it"? That's comforting to know I suppose.
> 
> That voluntary visit to the copshop to accuse Sheridan of a serious crime is the defining moment of those three people's lives and it is the defining moment of the existence of the rump SSP.


when someone calls himself 'comrade', then dumps over you, why should you feel you owe him solidarity?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 7, 2010)

Sue said:


> Yep. And what a fucking mess it's going to be.



I wonder if (and if so when...) we find out if (and if so who...) the state played any central role in this. Not as a the 'neutral' court but if any of the player(s) involved in this farce conciously helped to create. The hatred and and bile on all sides means it is understandable if the 'tit for tat' has simply got out of control - but could all of these characters be quite so stupid about the damage being done?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 7, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> JHE and Nigel; could you please do the rest of us a favour and either a) get a room or b) take it to another thread/place, please? Tragic and utterly depressing tho' the whole Sheridan affair is, this thread is too important to be terminally derailed



Lick my balls.


----------



## where to (Oct 8, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Lick my balls.


 
ffs.  its that sort of talk that created this mess in the 1st place.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 8, 2010)

where to said:


> ffs.  its that sort of talk that created this mess in the 1st place.


----------



## laptop (Oct 11, 2010)

And he's sacked his brief. 

Again.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2010)

Hmm...seeing the way it's going and falling back on his oratorical skills? This a jury trial isn't it?


----------



## laptop (Oct 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hmm...seeing the way it's going and falling back on his oratorical skills? This a jury trial isn't it?


 
Yes, and as yer Scottish lawyer referenced earlier explains, the verdict's on a simple majority of 15. 

I never knew that. Actually, it's not exactly right: the trial can continue if up to 3 jurors drop out; conviction requires 8 votes. [Says the Scottish government].

So in England he'd have to convince 3: in Scotland he'll have either to convince 7 or have 3 to drop out and convince 4.

I think we can expect the trial to go on, and on.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 11, 2010)

Good lord.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2010)

It worked the last time around.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 11, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Lick my balls.


charming


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2010)

This'll pretty much finish off the Scottish Left for some time.

Now...when will the phone hacking be mentioned?  You wonder if the murdochs got something on Fox et al to make them do this, because they caused this by not sticking together.  I changed my voting shortly after all of this.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 11, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> This'll pretty much finish off the Scottish Left for some time.
> 
> Now...when will the phone hacking be mentioned?  You wonder if the murdochs got something on Fox et al to make them do this, because they caused this by not sticking together.  I changed my voting shortly after all of this.


 

Interested to see what Andy Coulson will say under oath.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2010)

Anything he wants?


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Now...when will the phone hacking be mentioned?  You wonder if the murdochs got something on Fox et al to make them do this, because they caused this by not sticking together.



Hmm, I'd say Tommy and his ego caused all this but there you go.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2010)

I'd say it was all caused by the relentless right-wing agenda of the murdoch empire constantly attacking the left, both political and media-based, in Scotland and the rest of the UK.


----------



## Sue (Oct 11, 2010)

Oh, they had a small part to play I'll grant you but it was Tommy who ill-advisedly launched the libel action and got himself and his colleagues into this mess. Bit much to be blaming them for Tommy's actions.

Anyway, the rights and wrongs have been debated at great length. Have to agree to disagree.


----------



## where to (Oct 11, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It worked the last time around.


 
revealing comment.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 11, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't want to stick my oar in, and it is indeed a shame all round, but I'm not sure it can all be attributed to 'one man's vanity'. Always two sides and all that.


 
This is true. The SSP was dependent on Sheridan's celebrity status and couldn't just remove the fucker from all positions of responsibility. How the SSP lost contact with it's working class base is the real question. As the Sheridan affair kicked off the SSP could win MSP seats but couldn't hack winning council seats. They'd become a sort of sexy protest vehicle for fashionable Scots who thought that the only reason Scotland wasn't socialist was because the English wouldn't allow it. Their success wasn't based on solid working class foundations. As soon as the figurehead started playing silly buggers, the whole thing collapsed.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2010)

where to said:


> revealing comment.


 
Only in your imagination.

He represented himself the last time and won. Ordinarily it's a very bad idea to represent yourself in a significant Court case, but Sheridan is 1-0.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Oct 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> This is true. The SSP was dependent on Sheridan's celebrity status and couldn't just remove the fucker from all positions of responsibility. How the SSP lost contact with it's working class base is the real question. As the Sheridan affair kicked off the SSP could win MSP seats but couldn't hack winning council seats. They'd become a sort of sexy protest vehicle for fashionable Scots who thought that the only reason Scotland wasn't socialist was because the English wouldn't allow it. Their success wasn't based on solid working class foundations. As soon as the figurehead started playing silly buggers, the whole thing collapsed.


 
PR might have had something to do with the SSP winning MSP seats but not council seats ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Sheridan denounced as liar in showdown with ex-MSP


----------



## laptop (Oct 18, 2010)

Ah, the dramaturgy of defending himself is getting clearer:



> Mr Sheridan was given permission by the trial judge, Lord Bracadale, to come out of the dock to cross-examine witnesses.
> 
> He told the jury he had listened to submissions from Mr Sheridan and had decided to let him use the same lectern used by the advocate depute Alex Prentice QC.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11565042


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

> Mr Sheridan told Miss Kane: "Duncan Rowan never told you 'Tommy has taken his girlfriend away'. You made that up to make me look even worse.
> 
> "It's another example of the fantasy and smear you have been producing for years.
> 
> ...



The next bit is what he will jump on (if he's any brains)



> "I never lied then and I'm not lying now. You'll have to forgive me if I can't remember every dot and comma, but the overriding truth remains the overriding truth."


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The next bit is what he will jump on (if he's any brains)
> 
> 
> 
> > "I never lied then and I'm not lying now. You'll have to forgive me if I can't remember every dot and comma, but the overriding truth remains the overriding truth."



Surely the very fact he went to court in the first place makes clear he's not got any brains.......


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

_Tommy! Tommy! Tommy!_

is, i suspect, what it look like in his brain.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

Kane's testimony as reported on the Sheridan Trial blog (assuming it's accurate) has been some of the most interesting since the early accounts of three SSP leaders going to the cops to make a complaint against Sheridan.

She has contradicted some of the other prosecution witnesses on the issue of the ratification of the alleged minutes and whether people objected to their ratification.

More interestingly, she has claimed that McCombes gave the infamous affidavit to the Sunday Herald at the same time he was going to jail to protect the SSP's right to confidentiality. Other SSP witnesses for the prosecution have denied knowing who made the affidavit.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

You have some links for this?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

Account of her evidence on the affidavit issue:

http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/day-8-morning-session_18.html

Account of her evidence on the alleged minute:

http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/rosie-kanes-testimony-part-2.html

It's always possible that the blog has something wrong, but its various reports have yet to be contradicted by the mainstream media reporting. The affidavit related evidence was this morning. If accurate it certainly puts an interesting gloss on McCombes' "strategy of defiance".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

If i had written 'various reports have yet to be contradicted by the mainstream media reporting' i'd be  - rightly - laughed out.

Basically you're just saying that this blog says. What other sources are you using to establish credibility? Who does this blog?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

The blog consists of twice daily reports from someone at the trial. It's already been mentioned a few times in this thread and so far the main difference between its reports and the mainstream media reports have been that it is updated on the same day and contain more detail. I specifically said in my initial post that this information was from a blog and that it could concievably be inaccurate.

What are you saying you don't believe? That Kane named McCombes as the person who gave the affidavit to the Sunday Herald? It will be in the papers tomorrow, unless the person writing the blog is a complete lunatic and has just started making things up. And that would be a bizarre thing to just make up, when the lie would be disproved in about 14 hours when the papers come out.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

I asked 



> What other sources are you using to establish credibility? Who does this blog?



Not interested in why you choose to use it. (I think we both know why). Nor your juvenile 'who are you calling a liar?' tactics. I'm asking you what you're using to establish it's credibility. And your answer is?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I
> 
> Not interested in why you choose to use it. (I think we both know why). Nor your juvenile 'who are you calling a liar?' tactics. I'm asking you what you're using to establish it's credibility. And your answer is?



Did someone shit in your cornflakes this morning?

The blog is clearly by somebody at the trial, called James Doleman. Fedayn said earlier in the thread that he thinks Doleman is ex-SWP. Read the blog for yourself. So far its session by session accounts have been in keeping with the later mainstream reports of the same evidence, although with more detail. That gives it at least a basic level of credibility - not necessarily in its interpretations but as a rough indication of what was said. It would be fairly bizarre for the blogger to just invent the whole Kane/McCombes/Affidavit thing, although it being a blog it is of course conceivable.

If you read the comments, you'll find people arguing back and forth over the rights and wrongs of the affidavit issue, but nobody is claiming that the blogger just invented the evidence. Is that what you are implying? You think it's just made up and that Kane didn't say that? If so, I suppose we'll find out if the blogger is lying in the morning.

As for corroboration, nowhere else has a report of today's evidence yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

I've not once mentioned the content. I asked you what you're using to establish it's credibility. The answer is? Itself, apparently.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

On an issue where left-wingers are calling each other liars in public, in court, i think you need to be a bit more thorough frankly.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I've not once mentioned the content. I asked you what you're using to establish it's credibility. The answer is? Itself, apparently.



I said from the start that the information is from a blog and prefaced every one of my statements with words along the lines of "If the blog is accurate". That should serve as enough of a health warning.

Do you believe that Kane said that McCombes gave the affidavit to the Sunday Herald or not?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

I'm not after a health warning. Critical thinking should be standard. I'm asking you what critical thinking you've employed in your reliance on this blog. 

The content is irrelevant. I'm asking about your methodology.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

My "methodology" is to note something of interest said on a blog, while pointing out that the source is a blog.

The blog by the way is now crawling with comments, not one of which disputes the claim that Kane named McCombes as the person who gave an affidavit to the Sunday Herald. It could, of course, be a fantasy on the part of the blogger, who first lured everyone into a false sense of security by reporting in an apparently accurate manner on the first eight days of the trial and then slipped in the "big lie", but that seems pretty unlikely to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

Lucky that i didn't either then, that i, in fact, made of point of not doing so. We're all a little clearer now though aren't we? Tommy! Tommy! Tommy! is the methodology. Pick a side, fine, please don't give us this neutral observer guff.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lucky that i didn't either then, that i, in fact, made of point of not doing so. We're all a little clearer now though aren't we? Tommy! Tommy! Tommy! is the methodology. Pick a side, fine, please don't give us this neutral observer guff.


 
Have you lost it entirely? You didn't either what?

I never claimed to be a neutral observer.

Either the report in the blog is credible or it isn't. I tend to believe it is, based on (a) how bizarre it would be to lie on the subject and how easily found out a lie of that nature would be, (b) the lack of any factual dispute in the dozens of quite contentious and bickering-filled comments and (c) the relative accuracy of the reporting to date. I'm not sure whether you find the report incredible or just object to me mentioning it for some odd reason of your own.

If Kane did not indeed say what she is reported as saying, then I'll certainly admit to having been gullible.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

Didn't dispute the claim. 

Sorry, your pious neutral _act_ is a bit disgusting.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Didn't dispute the claim.
> 
> Sorry, your pious neutral _act_ is a bit disgusting.


 
What neutral act?

I hope Sheridan is acquitted. I've never been anything other than clear on that. You are inventing a spurious "neutrality" on my behalf and then whining that it's fake.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

No i'm not. I'm questioning what your posts are based on. Fuck all - as is now pretty clear.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No i'm not. I'm questioning what your posts are based on. Fuck all - as is now pretty clear.


 
One post of mine was based on a blog report. As that post stated. Repeatedly. 

Your investigative skills aren't really that impressive it seems. A half-dozen posts of blustering and whining from you later, we're still at exactly the same stage.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

They don't need to be - there's nothing else to investigate. That's all there is. That's the point.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They don't need to be - there's nothing else to investigate. That's all there is. That's the point.


 
Yes. As I said right from the start before you started blustering about "neutral acts" and the like. The report is from a blog.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

And that was, of course, your first and only post about Sheridan.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> And that was, of course, your first and only post about Sheridan.


 
No. It wasn't.

Do you have a point? Are you still whining that I'm not "neutral", when I've never once claimed to be?


----------



## where to (Oct 18, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What neutral act?
> 
> I hope Sheridan is acquitted. I've never been anything other than clear on that. You are inventing a spurious "neutrality" on my behalf and then whining that it's fake.


 
do you think Sheridan is guilty or perjury?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2010)

where to said:


> do you think Sheridan is guilty or perjury?


 
I don't think expressing views on the guilt or innocence of an accused while the trial is ongoing is a very good idea.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> On an issue where left-wingers are calling each other liars in public, in court, i think you need to be a bit more thorough frankly.


 
From what I've heard from people who have attended the blog is largely accurate (if in their opinion selective)


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 18, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I hope Sheridan is acquitted.





Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think expressing views on the guilt or innocence of an accused while the trial is ongoing is a very good idea.



Are you hoping that Sheridan is aquitted regardless of his guilt or innocence, or are you hoping that the evidence will prove Sheridan innocent so that he can be aquitted?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 19, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think expressing views on the guilt or innocence of an accused while the trial is ongoing is a very good idea.


 
Why not? The CWI have certainly made their views clear, as have various of Sheridans supporters. Do you think their remarks are a bad idea?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 19, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The blog is clearly by somebody at the trial, called James Doleman. Fedayn said earlier in the thread that he thinks Doleman is ex-SWP.


 
Frank Doleman, I don't think he's ex SWP, I know he is. He's a former SW print shop worker. Not a bad fella as it goes. Doing the blog as he wants to get into journalism so wants to write on contemporary stuff. It's a fairly good blog.

As for inventing, well Jim Monaghan has been inventing things as regards this trial for a fair few years so it would hardly be out of the ordinary frankly.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 19, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Frank Doleman, I don't think he's ex SWP, I know he is. He's a former SW print shop worker. Not a bad fella as it goes. Doing the blog as he wants to get into journalism so wants to write on contemporary stuff. It's a fairly good blog.



Would this guy have been in the Kelvin branch of the SSP a few years back?

On another note, here are some mainstream reports of Kane giving evidence that McCombes gave the Sunday Herald the famous affidavit:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/sheridan-was-a-kamikaze-says-witness-1.1062389
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Mystery-man39s-identity-revealed.6587816.jp

According to the Scotsman, Kane gave evidence that McCombes told her in the last couple of weeks that he'd given an affidavit outlining his version of events to the Sunday Herald. As I said when the blog reported the same thing yesterday, assuming Kane is telling the truth it puts an interesting gloss on the "strategy of defiance".

And finally, according to the Telegraph, Katrin Trolle gave evidence today describing events that would raise a few eyebrows amongst even the most jaded:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...d-three-in-a-bed-sex-with-brother-in-law.html


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 19, 2010)

For me the McCombes revelation was staggering.  He went to jail and went to the papers as well?

There's a lot more dirt to come, you feel...all over the fucking place.   They're so...I don't know...but none of it's impressive.   Every one of them except perhaps Gail, so far looks...well...unworthy of public office to say the least.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 19, 2010)

ugh, at the whole thing, but today's proceedings particularly


----------



## where to (Oct 19, 2010)




----------



## Neutron (Oct 20, 2010)

Why did Sheridan try and lie about wanting to fuck other women?

The Big Brother thing was about showing off his well-endowed manly physique, tempered with nauseating speeches to photographs of his wife and children.

If we were all 6ft tall with big dicks then I suppose a bit of prison time would be less of a chore/torture.

The Scottish left is fucked - and fuck them.

Even the barren wizened husk of Nicola Sturgeon is better than the sickening feminist scum of the SSP, or the Sheridan cock suckers.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 20, 2010)

Neutron said:


> Why did Sheridan try and lie about wanting to fuck other women?
> 
> The Big Brother thing was about showing off his well-endowed manly physique, tempered with nauseating speeches to photographs of his wife and children.
> 
> ...



Nah. You'd need to come down off the fence and take a side mate...

and 'sickening feminist scum' might need teased out a little... for clarity, like.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 21, 2010)

So...if I remember correctly...and I do....some of you lot were extolling the wonderful virtues of Ms Trolle during the last case about what an honest, decent and upstanding person she was.....anyone care to....hmmm....clarify that?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 21, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> So...if I remember correctly...and I do....some of you lot were extolling the wonderful virtues of Ms Trolle during the last case about what an honest, decent and upstanding person she was.....anyone care to....hmmm....clarify that?


 
Maybe so of some - but looking at what is happening back in the real world today who gives a fuck about this farce?


----------



## Knotted (Oct 21, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> So...if I remember correctly...and I do....some of you lot were extolling the wonderful virtues of Ms Trolle during the last case about what an honest, decent and upstanding person she was.....anyone care to....hmmm....clarify that?


 
God I hate Sheridanistas. Scum. Just scum.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Oct 21, 2010)

Foe a bunch of ugly cunts they seem to have been shagging each other more than fighting for the socialist republic. SSP/Solidarity full of midnights, brussels and assorted scumbags.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 21, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> Foe a bunch of ugly cunts they seem to have been shagging each other more than fighting for the socialist republic. SSP/Solidarity full of midnights, brussels and assorted scumbags.


 
You can fuck off as well.


----------



## where to (Oct 21, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Maybe so of some - but looking at what is happening back in the real world today who gives a fuck about this farce?


 
100% agree.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 21, 2010)

Knotted said:


> God I hate Sheridanistas. Scum. Just scum.


Are you talking about me?  Scum?

Classy.   See a lot of your type on these threads.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 21, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Are you talking about me?  Scum?
> 
> Classy.   See a lot of your type on these threads.


 
Maybe I'll deal with you later, but I think you know what you are saying and what it means. That makes you scum. Not worth the time of day.


----------



## where to (Oct 21, 2010)

you're wasting your time and energy on worthless history.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 21, 2010)

Agreed.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 21, 2010)

where to said:


> you're wasting your time and energy on worthless history.


 
No, I'm wasting my time on worthless scum. Do you not know that everyone who testified in the original case is under investigation for perjury? They maybe just yesterday's people to you, but I don't like seeing them dragged through the courts again. This isn't just some game. The only thing Katrine Trolle ever did was screw around with Tommy. She shouldn't have to be pressured into commiting perjury. She shouldn't be called a liar in court by Tommy. She doesn't deserve that. I don't know what sort of socialists Solidarity are supposed to be, but they are not the type of socialists who care about the individual. It's mafiosi solidarity not socialist solidarity - we're look out for you but if you embarrass the godfather then we'll rub you out.

To be honest I'm not even following the trial. I'm just sickened by some on here who are using it as an opportunity to snipe at various witnesses. Dear leader is going down and they just want to see the maximum harm done to the opposition. Mafiosi logic.


----------



## where to (Oct 21, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Agreed.


 
that was directed at you too.


----------



## where to (Oct 21, 2010)

Knotted said:


> No, I'm wasting my time on worthless scum. Do you not know that everyone who testified in the original case is under investigation for perjury? They maybe just yesterday's people to you, but I don't like seeing them dragged through the courts again. This isn't just some game. The only thing Katrine Trolle ever did was screw around with Tommy. She shouldn't have to be pressured into commiting perjury. She shouldn't be called a liar in court by Tommy. She doesn't deserve that. I don't know what sort of socialists Solidarity are supposed to be, but they are not the type of socialists who care about the individual. It's mafiosi solidarity not socialist solidarity - we're look out for you but if you embarrass the godfather then we'll rub you out.
> 
> To be honest I'm not even following the trial. I'm just sickened by some on here who are using it as an opportunity to snipe at various witnesses. Dear leader is going down and they just want to see the maximum harm done to the opposition. Mafiosi logic.


 
not yesterdays people to me at all.  arguing about this on a messageboard achieves nothing.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 21, 2010)

where to said:


> not yesterdays people to me at all.  arguing about this on a messageboard achieves nothing.


 
Well, I think you're wrong about that. We can learn from our mistakes. We can remind ourselves of our basic values.

I know what you are really trying to say, and that's that we should be diplomatic about it all for the sake of rebuilding the left in Scotland. But I'm not in Scotland and I'm no good at diplomacy anyway. The SSP shattered not because of TS, but because it took it's success for granted. It got far too comfortable, far too repectable amongst bourgeois nationalists. It's no good rebuilding the SSP mark 2 and waiting for that to collapse. A solididly based working class party will not collapse because of one sex scandal involving one leading member. It's ludicrous. If Solidarity members haven't learnt the lesson, it's no good rebuilding with them. It's important to get your principles right.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 21, 2010)

> Its no good rebuilding the SSP mark 2 and waiting for that to collapse. A solididly based working class party will not collapse because of one sex scandal involving one leading member.



Who says we;ve collapsed.  Biding our time more like.  We have a first class yoof network, a fantastic paper and a brilliant womens section.  We;ve been in worse shape - (we've been in worse shape when we had 6 MSPs), we have a good foundation and hell thatch is nearly dead.  

Things have been worse.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 22, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Maybe so of some - but looking at what is happening back in the real world today who gives a fuck about this farce?


 
Perhaps let the leadership of the CWI up here know that then? Always ready with their 'support flooding in for Tommy' quotes, which in reality meant leading CWIers in Britain and a few beyond telling Tommy to stick it to 'em. This farce is the logical conclusion to the idiocy TS started, aided, abetted and cheered from the sidelines by the CWI up here and elsewhere.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 22, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> So...if I remember correctly...and I do....some of you lot were extolling the wonderful virtues of Ms Trolle during the last case about what an *honest, decent and upstanding person she was*.....anyone care to....hmmm....clarify that?


 
Not been watching this car crash the past few days, what was it she said that irked you so? Ironic by the way, given the biggest liar is in the dock.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 22, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> Foe a bunch of ugly cunts they seem to have been shagging each other more than fighting for the socialist republic. SSP/Solidarity full of midnights, brussels and assorted scumbags.


 
And yet you were more than happy to be an SSP parliamentary candidate were you not? Indeed a candidate in a fairly high profile by-election?!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 22, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Who says we;ve collapsed.


 
Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to your near-moribund rump organisation.

Of course, the other half of the split is just as fucked.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 22, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Who says we;ve collapsed.  Biding our time more like.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Not been watching this car crash the past few days, what was it she said that irked you so? Ironic by the way, given the biggest liar is in the dock.


 
The way she talked about fucking Sheridan in his bed, having 3-somes with him, fucking others, going to the swingers bar and fucking people there, going away and fucking them elsewhere...whilst married (,divorced now, obviously).

I've never made any moral judgement on her and I still am not, but others have held her up as a beacon of virtue and saying that her honour is above that of others.

Makes me scum


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to your near-moribund rump organisation.
> 
> Of course, the other half of the split is just as fucked.



Depend what measures you use.  Electorially, yes you're right.  Back in the real world, our anti-fash work has seen the SDL and the BNP kicked off the streets every time they've showed their mugs; we have held v. sucessful demos against the drug laws, opposed Trump in Aberdeen last weekend and are gearing up for the anti-cuts work that is likely to dominate the political agenda for the next few years.  

Once this whole horrible carcrash of a mess is over, and we've patched up all the people who have been dragged through court and had their lives turned upside down through Sheridan and his stupidity, all the happycats can collectively pounce


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Depend what measures you use.  Electorially, yes you're right.  Back in the real world, our anti-fash work has seen the SDL and the BNP kicked off the streets every time they've showed their mugs; we have held v. sucessful demos against the drug laws, opposed Trump in Aberdeen last weekend and are gearing up for the anti-cuts work that is likely to dominate the political agenda for the next few years.
> 
> Once this whole horrible carcrash of a mess is over, and we've patched up all the people who have been dragged through court and had their lives turned upside down through Sheridan and his stupidity, all the happycats can collectively pounce


 
Don't be so stupid. The SSP has been reduced to an embittered and tiny sect.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Don't be so stupid. The SSP has been reduced to an embittered and tiny sect.



Have they - news to me.

Raphie de Santos, our economics spokesbod has just brought out a 
major new collaboration on the recession.

Our paper Scottish Socialist Voice is still going strong with special issues created for freshers week and the budget.  While we also publish two journals Frontline and "Emancipation and Liberation" (produced by one of our platforms).

The SSY paper is relaunched, invigorated and quite frankly brilliant while their blog goes from strength to strength.

We're nowhere near as big as we were in the early 2000s that much is true, but then we dont have the SWP nipping our heids, we've got rid of ba'heid and our finances are in a much healthier state than they have been since the SSP was set up and we have built up considerable links with other socialists internationally, including Basque activists and have hosted talks by Farooq Tariq of the Pakistan Labour party and Hugo Blanco - an indigenous rights activist from Peru, as well as sending international delegations to Cuba.

There is bitterness - that much is true - how can there not be when we watch our comrades getting dragged through the courts day after day, but its really not our main focus, far from - most of the SSP just want the whole thing over as quickly as possible.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Have they - news to me.
> 
> Raphie de Santos, our economics spokesbod has just brought out a
> major new collaboration on the recession.
> ...


 
Jesus fucking Christ. You produce a paper and a magazine? And that distinguishes you from a tiny and embittered sect how exactly? You have international links? Just like every other grouplet, although you have less of them than most. You have a blog? You don't even have to be a grouplet for that.

Here are the facts: The SSP has lost all of its electoral support, almost all of its paper membership and a huge majority of its active membership. It no longer has any sway in working class communities and it has no influence of note in the trade union movement. It's a doomed organisation - one that will be stubborn enough to keep a slowly dwindling residual organisation going for some years to come, but one which has zero prospects of any kind of comeback.

As for watching your members "dragged through the courts", three of your leaders have given evidence that they went to the cops of their own volition, presented them with what they claimed was evidence of perjury and demanded an investigation of Sheridan. You don't get to do that and also claim to be in Court involuntarily.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 23, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Have they - news to me.
> 
> Raphie de Santos, our economics spokesbod has just brought out a
> major new collaboration on the recession.
> ...


 
I remember the days when the SSP used to laugh at the SWP and the "Brit left" for saying things like the above. The truth is that the SSP lost its solid base in working class communities and this happened before Sheridan's shenanigans. Sheridan and Solidarity are an irrelavance and the SSP will be an irrelavance as well if it judges it's success in terms of paper sales, international connections, high profile campaigns and its war chest. The only way for the left to succeed is building a strong grass roots organisation from the bottom up. In my opinion, this was the lesson of the SSP's original success and it's collapse.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2010)

Oh...and she gave her home address in Denmark (or wherever) to a policeman here so he could go and fuck her as well.  She can fuck who she likes as far as I'm concerned but there were some here who were holding her up as a paragon of virtue.  I've not seen any paragons of virtue on the stand yet.

They'll never recover from this.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 23, 2010)

Are you still here?


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 23, 2010)

Knotted said:


> I remember the days when the SSP used to laugh at the SWP and the "Brit left" for saying things like the above. The truth is that the SSP lost its solid base in working class communities and this happened before Sheridan's shenanigans. Sheridan and Solidarity are an irrelavance and the SSP will be an irrelavance as well if it judges it's success in terms of paper sales, international connections, high profile campaigns and its war chest. The only way for the left to succeed is building a strong grass roots organisation from the bottom up. In my opinion, this was the lesson of the SSP's original success and it's collapse.



Yes and no.  There were problems with SSP prior to the Sheridan disaster - we had become overly focused on electoral sucess and once we achieved that, on parliamentary activities.  

We got into a state where the party was sustaining our parliamentary work at the expense of our street work and all our resources were being diverted.  That was partly through nievity and partly through being overwhelmed with our sudden sucess.  Its a mistake that we wont repeat  - mainly it has to be said as we;re unlikely to get the chance to repeat it in the near future - although by 2015, I would expect us to be in a much stronger position to contest the Scottish Elections.

In terms of papers and journals, you are right to some extent that paper sales arent the be all and end all - and certainly our voice sales have taken an enormous hit, but if you are attempting to compare the Socialist Worker with Leftfield then you are on a bit of a hiding to nothing.

In terms of grassroots work, I think we have lost the arrogence that we had with uniting all the main socialist factions within Scotland in one organisation, realising that some of the best activists dont want to be a member of a party and some activists with whom we have a lot of similar aims dont identify as socialists - which has lead us into new ways of working with community groups, environmental groups, anarchist groups and womens groups.  

We also realised that some who identify as socialists simply dont share the values and principles of the majority of the SSP - that honesty, integrity, comradeship and respect for womens rights, some of them wanted equality but only on their terms - so having people's sex lives displayed all over the tabloids was not ok if it was their dear leader - worth splitting the party over, but perfectly OK for the rest of the party.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Oh...and she gave her home address in Denmark (or wherever) to a policeman here so he could go and fuck her as well.  She can fuck who she likes as far as I'm concerned but there were some here who were holding her up as a paragon of virtue.  I've not seen any paragons of virtue on the stand yet.


 
That is a very unpleasant thing to say about someone you presumably don't know. Is there some new kind of socialist virtue developed by academic and trotskyite theorists we should know about? Or are you just an embittered misogynist? This young woman seem like an excellent sort to me with a healthy and uncomplicated set of attitudes. And I like what she's done with her hair.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 23, 2010)

I like what you say there, qwerty. I hope it translates into good work.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Don't be so stupid. The SSP has been reduced to an embittered and tiny sect.


 
I personally don't agree with the SSP, or what is left of them, but I see no need to be so grumpy. They have a legitimate place in Scottish political life and there is no reason to wish them anything but the best. 

Except in elections, obviously.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> but there were some here who were holding her up as a paragon of virtue.


 
I think I read all of the relevant threads at the time (although I refrained from commenting) and I don't remember anybody doing this. Not only that it's an improbable claim. Are you sure you are not making this up so as to excuse your ghoulish obsession with this woman's sex life.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> I personally don't agree with the SSP, or what is left of them, but I see no need to be so grumpy. They have a legitimate place in Scottish political life and there is no reason to wish them anything but the best.
> 
> Except in elections, obviously.


 
Good for you QWERTY, you have the respect of this New Labourite.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Good for you QWERTY, you have the respect of this New Labourite.


 
And I am sure that she or he will be suitably appreciative and nonsectarian, and will eschew the bitterness and rancour that you have displayed.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> That is a very unpleasant thing to say about someone you presumably don't know. Is there some new kind of socialist virtue developed by academic and trotskyite theorists we should know about? Or are you just an embittered misogynist? This young woman seem like an excellent sort to me with a healthy and uncomplicated set of attitudes. And I like what she's done with her hair.


If you read what I said, I care nought about her sex life.  I said nothing about her at all, in fact and made no judgement about her or her sex life.

I said that others here were making a big thing of it during the first trial.  I merely point out that she is as bad as anyone else in this laughable episode.



Knotted said:


> I think I read all of the relevant threads at the time (although I refrained from commenting) and I don't remember anybody doing this. Not only that it's an improbable claim. Are you sure you are not making this up so as to excuse your ghoulish obsession with this woman's sex life.


 
So first I'm scum and now I'm a pervert and a ghoul.  Are you 15 years old?  Do you think that your shock-value posts have any effect on me other than thinking less of you each time you post?

I've no idea who you are, never talked to you.   Unless you have something worth discussing, you'll agree it's staying that way.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> So first I'm scum and now I'm a pervert and a ghoul.  Are you 15 years old?  Do you think that your shock-value posts have any effect on me other than thinking less of you each time you post?
> 
> I've no idea who you are, never talked to you.   Unless you have something worth discussing, you'll agree it's staying that way.


 
I don't expect to have any effect on you, but it's worth highlighting your revoluting posts just in case others miss it.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 23, 2010)

For the record I don't think you have a perverted interest in Katrine Trolle's sex life. I suspect it's more a case of envy.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 23, 2010)

DexterTCN - If I and others have wrongly concluded from your recent comments that you are an outrageous misogynist who thinks he should be able to dictate how women ought to behave towards men, whether senior politicians or police officers, and you say we were wrong, then I am happy to accept your denial and I for one apologise.

Though if you reflect on your remarks you might see why we came to that conclusion.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2010)

You jump in with your boots on, obviously having neither read my posts correctly nor considered them...accuse me of being an embittered woman hater...and ask _me_ to consider my remarks.

Although the sheridan/murdoch stuff is always if interest to me...urban very rarely gives any quality discussion on the subjects.


----------



## Geri (Oct 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I said nothing about her at all, in fact and made no judgement about her or her sex life.


 
er...



DexterTCN said:


> Oh...and she gave her home address in Denmark (or wherever) to a policeman here so he could go and fuck her as well.


----------



## ymu (Oct 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> If you read what I said, I care nought about her sex life.  I said nothing about her at all, in fact and made no judgement about her or her sex life.
> 
> I said that others here were making a big thing of it during the first trial.  I merely point out that she is as bad as anyone else in this laughable episode.


What's she done wrong? I'm no aficionado of this case, but as far as I can tell she has:

- had an active sex life

- given evidence under oath in court when subpoenaed as a witness

Which of those things are "as bad as everyone else"? Are you saying she committed perjury? Or is promiscuity a crime now? For men as well as women, or just women?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2010)

Well ladies...like I said, I don't care about her sex life, there's no judgement or sly insinuation in my posts.

Trolle was held up to be better than Sheridan in the original case a few years ago with some saying it was disgraceful for him to drag her through it....a decent married woman.  The allegation being that he is morally worse than her.

This current case, however, is all about sex, back-stabbing and lying.  And Trolle, it is plain now, was doing a lot it as well.   They all were.

Any time she's brought up though...  I'm scum, I'm perverted.  A misogynist, embittered.

Looks like it's more of the same from you.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 23, 2010)

So if a woman isn't particularly chaste then she must be a liar and a back-stabber.

That's the misogyny.

For me you are scum for an additional reason. Tommy Sheridan's defence involves character assassination of his former comrades. It's no doubt his best strategy legally speaking, but it's ugly stuff. It's the fact that you are so gleeful in your support of Sheridan's tactics that makes you scum. At least the CWI apparchiks are embarrassed by the whole thing.


----------



## Geri (Oct 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Trolle was held up to be better than Sheridan in the original case a few years ago with some saying it was disgraceful for him to drag her through it....a decent married woman.  The allegation being that he is morally worse than her..


 
She was not married.


----------



## ymu (Oct 23, 2010)

I'm just trying to establish what she did that was so wrong in your eyes. She shouldn't have been shagging around? She should have refused to say anything in court? She shouldn't be defending herself against allegations of perjury? What?

There's only one person who blew a stupid irrelevant little NoTW story out of proportion. How has she done anything worse than that? It's hard to escape the conclusion that you are: a massive prude, a massive misogynist, or simply clutching at straws.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Trolle was held up to be better than Sheridan in the original case a few years ago with some saying it was disgraceful for him to drag her through it....a decent married woman.  The allegation being that he is morally worse than her.


 
You've made the mistake of getting me to check the archives. You said some pretty vindictive things about KT. It looks like it wasn't a product of the heat of the moment either.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-case?p=4914820&highlight=diddums#post4914820

I don't know which is worse. The sheer spite or the vomit inducing Tommy worship.

I don't see anybody making claims about KT's virtues as a "decent married woman" though.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 23, 2010)

Knotted said:


> You've made the mistake of getting me to check the archives. You said some pretty vindictive things about KT. It looks like it wasn't a product of the heat of the moment either.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-case?p=4914820&highlight=diddums#post4914820
> 
> ...


I'll quote that post here...so people can see my vomit inducing tommy worshipping and vindictive ...ness.


DexterTCN said:


> This wasn't the SSP, this was a clique.   The SSP were not to be informed until after the deed was done.
> 
> And if they can't take on Murdoch, win or lose, what fucking good are they?
> 
> justuname...she fled the country because she felt 'humiliated'?   Diddums.


 13/08/06 that was.

Diddums.  Sheer spite and vomit inducing tommy worship.

Diddums.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 23, 2010)

Scum.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Diddums.


 
Yep - that was your reaction to a woman who has had her sex-life paraded all over every tabloid newspaper in Scotland, been cross-examined by her (alleged) former lover in court, lost her boyfriend, her career and had to flee the country that she made home because of the humiliation.

Sheridan took on this case because he considered that a story that alleged he had had an affair harmed his reputation.  He was so concerned to preserve this reputation as a faithful husband and father to be that against the advice of friends and comrades that had worked with him for close to 30 years he sued the NoTW.  Now - true or not - its not v. nice to see the details of your initimate relations paraded through the tabloid press in lurid detail, but that is exactly what has happened to Katrine.  

Why not diddums for Tommy?   

The NoTW story was exactly that - a story - some would believe it, most would be eating their chips from it the next day.  Katrine however has been questioned in person under oath by her alleged former lover about details of her marriage, her sex life and her sexual relationships in open court with the tabloids printing every lurid detail.  Its disgusting and its abusive.  

...and now she's going through it all again.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 24, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Yep - that was your reaction to a woman who has had her sex-life paraded all over every tabloid newspaper in Scotland, been cross-examined by her (alleged) former lover in court, lost her boyfriend, her career and had to flee the country that she made home because of the humiliation.
> 
> Sheridan took on this case because he considered that a story that alleged he had had an affair harmed his reputation.  He was so concerned to preserve this reputation as a faithful husband and father to be that against the advice of friends and comrades that had worked with him for close to 30 years he sued the NoTW.  Now - true or not - its not v. nice to see the details of your initimate relations paraded through the tabloid press in lurid detail, but that is exactly what has happened to Katrine.
> 
> ...


You've obviously read nothing of these posts.  My overriding concern was for the future and status of the left in Scotland and how the murdoch press had been consistently attacking it over the years with no effective counter-attack from the Scots (or the left in other parts of the UK).

The original case was a perfect tool to make an effective stand - the winning of the notw case was a stunning victory that was quickly pissed away by fools.

I voiced my outrage that, instead of coming together and acting as a unit in this, petty internecine squabbles took over and they destroyed their own party.  They're a joke now.

I posted about how the whole thing had made me decide that voting for them, as I'd done in the past, was now pointless as they would have almost no public support.  I shifted my preference to the SNP.

Then, as now, the discussion was forced around to Trolle and how she was the most honourable and worst damaged person in the whole thing.  That had nothing at all to do with my posts.  Others with an agenda did not want to discuss the internal fracture of the party involved, preferring only to argue about who's better and who's worse.

They're all worse, as I've said.  Because they are a bunch of pathetic back-stabbing losers who'd sell each other, tape each other, sneak to the papers about each other.  

They, and their supporters (currently here calling me scum), have shown themselves to be entirely unworthy of political consideration.

Hope that's plain enough.

If you want to discuss it on an adult level, I'm happy to have my point of view challenged and to contend with you.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 24, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> They, and their supporters (currently here calling me scum), have shown themselves to be entirely unworthy of political consideration.



I have no current connections with the SSP. I'm not involved. I have no agenda. I call you scum because you are scum.

Scum.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Oct 24, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Then, as now, the discussion was forced around to Trolle and how she was the most honourable and worst damaged person in the whole thing.  That had nothing at all to do with my posts.  Others with an agenda did not want to discuss the internal fracture of the party involved, preferring only to argue about who's better and who's worse.



Now I get what you're saying - "She's No Better Than She Ought To Be"


----------



## Sue (Oct 24, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> The original case was a perfect tool to make an effective stand - the winning of the notw case was a stunning victory that was quickly pissed away by fools.
> 
> I voiced my outrage that, instead of coming together and acting as a unit in this, petty internecine squabbles took over and they destroyed their own party.  They're a joke now.



A 'stunning victory' that was based on lies and deceit? Don't see how you can blame anyone but Tommy for destroying the party, given he brought the case in the first place because of his ego. Your views on Katrine Trolle are also pretty disgusting -- can't see where you denounce Tommy or his brother-in-law or any of the others who were shagging around, just her. Could it be because she's a woman?


----------



## Geri (Oct 24, 2010)

It takes three to have a threesome!


----------



## ymu (Oct 24, 2010)

An Observer columnist claims to have counted a ninesome at one point in the evidence.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 24, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> Now I get what you're saying - "She's No Better Than She Ought To Be"


 
You're still implying singular criticism of trolle...and using made up quotes.  


> have shown themselves to be entirely unworthy of political consideration.





> they destroyed their own party





> And if they can't take on Murdoch, win or lose, what fucking good are they?





> I've not seen any paragons of virtue on the stand yet.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 24, 2010)

ymu said:


> An Observer columnist claims to have counted a ninesome at one point in the evidence.


 
Well...there may be a quality v quantity argument there...but I'm no expert!


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 24, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> The original case was a perfect tool to make an effective stand



You're just not getting it are you?  This isnt some parlour game, these are people's lives - Katrine has had her life wrecked, Alan's been to gaol, Tommy and Gail are looking at prison sentances, another five have been charged, are facing a trial and possible prison, while numerous people have been stressed out of their box.

And for what - not some great political principle, but so that Sheridan could maintain reputation as a fine upstanding family man and get £200K in the process.

In the process a v. sucessful political party was destroyed.  With hindsight maybe it was fundamentally flawed - based on Sheridan's celebrity, overly electorally focussed and contained the SWP.  The SSP now is a different animal from the SSP of 2004, a smaller, but a much better one.  It would have been nice however if we could have made the necessary changes without this charade.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 24, 2010)

I seem to remember the rest of the party doing quite well principally *because* of Sheridan's celebrity.   Sheridan won against Murdoch and that should have strengthened them no end with a vulpine smirk of excellent one-upmanship.   And they fucked it up.

Talking about their personal lives?   A monstrous distraction from the fact that many Scots had empowered these people to represent us in politics.  We didn't ask them to fill in a questionnaire on threesomes, swingers bars or being arseholes.  We wanted fucking effective representation.   That means you take what chances come your way, especially if you're minnows.

And they fucked that up.   And with this second trial - they have destroyed it entirely for most likely a minimum of 3 terms.


----------



## ymu (Oct 24, 2010)

Sorry, who fucked it up? Who took their sex life into a court-room?


----------



## Knotted (Oct 24, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I seem to remember the rest of the party doing quite well principally *because* of Sheridan's celebrity.


 
Can you not read? That was exactly the problem. It wasn't sustainable success, just a reflection of the celebrity status of this ludicrous man.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 24, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Can you not read?


Certainly can.  Read all the shit you've thrown at me on this thread, calling me all manner of vileness for no reason.  So fuck off and talk to someone who cares about your opinion or has time for it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 24, 2010)

ymu said:


> Sorry, who fucked it up? Who took their sex life into a court-room?


 ymu...dear lady of maths and poker - not sure what you're asking, there are varying levels of knowledge in this case (not saying I have most knowledge) and, apparently, some strong and irrational feelings. 

If you could rephrase that, it's a bit undefined in a thing that's been going on for years..


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 24, 2010)

Knotted said:


> Can you not read? That was exactly the problem. It wasn't sustainable success, just a reflection of the celebrity status of this ludicrous man.


 
Sheridan has no doubt lost his way, but I think calling him a 'ludicrous man' is a bit rough. He earnt his earlier reputation by being an excellent class fighter for quite a long time. Whatever has gone on since, he deserves credit for that.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 24, 2010)

He had his best moments.


----------



## rioted (Oct 24, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> If you could rephrase that, it's a bit undefined in a thing that's been going on for years..


Sheridan brought sex into the courtroom by denying the NOTW story and bringing it to court. Stupid man. I don't give a monkey's about who he's shagged and in what combination. But why deny it??? He's worse than a gay MP voting for clause 28.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2010)

It was a politically motivated attack to chip at his creditability.  The *jury* found for him and not the notw, no-one ever said this was because of the evidence.  The party took this win and quickly turned it into a big bucket of shit thrown over each and every one of them.  notw...job done for them.   Your clause 28 analogy is daft, I don't recall Sheridan voting on swingers, 3-somes or the like.


----------



## where to (Oct 25, 2010)

Dexter, are you saying that the first victory against the NOTW was a success for the SSP and worth a majority of SSP leading members and officials being viewed as liars in the courts, and that they should have accepted that and then got in behind TS and the line he took in court and carried on from there happily ever after?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 25, 2010)

Yes...like real politicians.   2 years later all that would have been remembered is the result.


----------



## Alan G (Oct 25, 2010)

just like if there was no court case no one would remember the story 2 years later? Just like that?


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 25, 2010)

Alan G said:


> just like if there was no court case no one would remember the story 2 years later? Just like that?



Excellent pwnage, sir.


----------



## where to (Oct 25, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Yes...like real politicians.   2 years later all that would have been remembered is the result.


 
i don't think you've thought that through.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 27, 2010)

Was in court yesterday, a remarkable tactic by Sheridan. Accusing people who'd been in the Militant of being trained liars due to the 'party withing a party' attack of the LP leadership. Bizarre afternoon.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2010)

He's going to expose the RCP _a la_ Michael Crick? Amazing, i recall him and others calling people scabs on the workers movement for such a thing.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He's going to expose the RCP _a la_ Michael Crick? Amazing, i recall him and others calling people scabs on the workers movement for such a thing.


 
He was referring to Cricks book in his bizarre ramble yesterday. I was knotting myself, along with numerous other ex Militants, when they heard what he was saying. He was making it clear being in the Militant, and therefore denying that Militant was an organisation, made you (Venton) a "trained liar", his words and quoted. As such the witness at the time, Richie Venton ex Militant FTer and long time member, was obviously a trained liar. This was also used in reference to all other ex MT who were not witnesses for the defence. What that says about Sheridan, Jock Penman and Stevie Arnott (the latter two witnesses for the defence) who were also in Militant, and by Sheridans own test were/are trained liars, was, surprisingly enough, completely ignored by Sheridan.


----------



## laptop (Oct 27, 2010)

Oor Tommie said:
			
		

> trained liars



Where is this training supposed to have occurred? Was there an equivalent of Skegness? Was there an NVQ in mendosophy? A degree course?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 27, 2010)

Lol what a fucking shambles


----------



## belboid (Oct 27, 2010)

laptop said:


> Was there an NVQ in mendosophy?


 
good word.  Even if it doesnt really exist


----------



## laptop (Oct 27, 2010)

It does now 

Er... topic...



> Mr Venton said the former MSP told an emergency meeting of the party's top brass on 9 November 2004 he went to the club for "cheap thrills".
> 
> Mr Sheridan is said to have told the meeting he could "destroy" the News of the World's sex columnist Anvar Khan, with whom he allegedly visited the club, as a witness.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11626480


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 27, 2010)

Isnt there a slight flaw in his plan to expose all the prosecution witnesses as ex-Militant members (even tho they arent) and therefore liars, as Sheridan was probably the best known Militant member in Scotland.

I read Doleman's blog on yesterday and it sounded like the stress of it all is starting to get to him...and this is now going to on until June?


----------



## where to (Oct 28, 2010)

Anver Khan up today, some interesting new info on how this whole sorry mess ever came out revealed:



> Ms Khan then described a meeting with a journalist from the Scotland on Sunday newspaper, organised by her publisher to promote the book. held in 2004 in the Copthorn hotel in Glasgow. She said she had made an "off the cuff" remark that contained a "clouded reference" to a "married MSP" She claimed that this was an "off the record comment but that the journalist had "run with it." She said she received a call from the same journalist a month or two later asking her to name the MSP which she refused to do. She said she had raised the matter with Bob Bird, the Scottish editor of the News of the World (NotW)bbut with no-one else.
> 
> 
> Ms Khan was then shown a copy of the NotW from 31 October 2004 and the headline "Married MSP is Spanking Swinger" and a sub-headline on page 13 "Girl Anvar and Married MSP and Sex Club Orgy." and was asked if she had co-operated with the paper on this story. She said she had "in a way" and that Bob Bird and her had discussed using the "Married MSP" headline to promote her book. Ms Khan said she had also been assured that this story was just a preamble to an expose being run on Mr Sheridan the week after regarding Fiona McGuire. The witness also stated she had received no payment for the story.



new to me anyway.

still confused by the Fiona McGuire stuff.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 28, 2010)

Does the Jury get to go home at night & at weekends? Imagine 3 months of this old shite...


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 28, 2010)

3 months?  They'll be lucky - last estimate I heard was June.


----------



## JHE (Oct 28, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> 3 months?  They'll be lucky - last estimate I heard was June.


 
At the cost of gawd knows how many millions...

If only the silly vain man had simply told the News of the Screws to publish and be damned!  The world would have forgotten about his  comic sexploits.

None of this was necessary.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 28, 2010)

I think they're all pretty much out of politics now, politics that any non-associated person would vote for anyway.

Once the Scottish self-declared left are supporting a murdoch sex journalist against a Scottish leftist...right or wrong.   It's nonsense.   It's not about politics.   Like I said I moved on to the SNP after this, Labour had gone to war and these arseholes...well...it's fucking annoying.   Self-destructive.

The arguments being used by the current witnesses are so...well...religiously fundamental that they have no place in politics here.  Murdoch is line by line destroying the left up here and these cunts, these stupid, stupid cunts, had a chance to set that in abeyance, to give a nasty bite, to show some fucking focus and resilience...what do they do?

What do they fucking do...well they say it's all about them, and fuck the voters.

Well...the voters, that's me, say fair enough, fuck you.  Because me voting you...it was never about you.  So fuck..off.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 29, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Once the Scottish self-declared left are supporting a murdoch sex journalist against a Scottish leftist...right or wrong.   It's nonsense.



Oh dear, you *still* dont get it.  

Either Sheridan committed perjury in his 2004 court case, or all 14? 15? witnesses so far are lying - witnesses as diverse as lovers, comrades, childhood friends and passing aquaintances.  Of course we've yet to hear the defence case and far be it from me to second guess the jury, but are you seriously trying to suggest that the motivation of all the left witnesses telling the court that Sheridan admitted to visiting a sex club on 9th Nov 2004 are doing so to support a murdoch sex journalist?



> The arguments being used by the current witnesses are so...well...religiously fundamental that they have no place in politics here.



FFS - the *witnesses* are there to give evidence - to answer questions put to them by the prosecution and the defence under oath - thats what *witnesses* do.  They are not there to lay out their case, they have no case.  The people contesting the case are the Lord Advocate (prosecution) and Tommy Sheridan (defence).  They get to ask the questions of the witnesses and then will make an argument in favour or against the accusation based on the witnesses answers.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> The arguments being used by the current witnesses are so...well...religiously fundamental that they have no place in politics here.


 
The only person who used morality either associated with or reived from religion was/is Sheridan with his references to promiscuous Danes, the marriage bed, loving his wife etc etc.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 29, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I think they're all pretty much out of politics now, politics that any non-associated person would vote for anyway.
> 
> Once the Scottish self-declared left are supporting a murdoch sex journalist against a Scottish leftist...right or wrong.   It's nonsense.   It's not about politics.   Like I said I moved on to the SNP after this, Labour had gone to war and these arseholes...well...it's *fucking* annoying.   Self-destructive.
> 
> ...


 
Far too much 'fucking' going on here... isn't that how this whole thing started in the first place?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 29, 2010)

Yeah...blame the K Cider 

Not had any for ages.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 29, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Yeah...blame the K Cider
> 
> Not had any for ages.



Wonder if it'll be Tommy or some of the witnesses who go for a similar excuse!


----------



## Random (Oct 29, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Was in court yesterday, a remarkable tactic by Sheridan. Accusing people who'd been in the Militant of being trained liars due to the 'party withing a party' attack of the LP leadership. Bizarre afternoon.


 He should also attack them by pointing out that they're scottish


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 8, 2010)

Reading the reports of the trial, this McNeilage chappie seems a bit nasty.

Pals at school...Best Man at the wedding...secretly taping his best mate and then selling it to the enemy.....because 


> Mr McNeilage told the High Court in Glasgow that he initially decided to video tape Mr Sheridan because of the way he had spoken about some "good, good people".
> 
> He kept it secret until he saw a newspaper article in which Mr Sheridan denounced members of the SSP as "scabs" following his libel win.
> 
> ...



They really put their trust in 'the papers' this lot, eh.   Quality Best Man too.



> He subsequently offered the tape - which apparently showed Mr Sheridan "confessing" to visiting a sex club - to the editor of the Scottish News of the World, Bob Bird.
> 
> But he made Mr Bird strip to his boxer shorts before allowing him to see the tape to check he was not wearing a wire, because he did not trust him.



bbc link but from google search, lots there, going off bbc tbh

Again...my main disappointment is still the amateurishness of it.   All that effort to set it up and he doesn't get Sheridan on it...and he's edited it  (!!!) apparently to protect the reputation of certain people.  I'm assuming that the editing involved is somewhere along the lines of taping some Jeremy Kyle off the telly. 



> McNeilage, one of the party's founding members, said he offered the paper the tape after Sheridan won a defamation action against the title and denounced SSP figures as "scabs". *Giving evidence for a second day at the High Court in Glasgow, Mr McNeilage said he did not want journalists outside his home once details of the video were known.*


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hZjdB2Di_InA9UII3yecvqmRo-DQ?docId=N0230891289224389716A
Yeah..those journalists are..err...the paymasters, it appears.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 9, 2010)

Say what you like about the bould Tommy... nobody can deny he was a classy master of the lefty 'loverman' tradition, as this quote shows...

ladies, form an orderly queue (outside Barlinnie?)


“What struck me was pictures of left-wing intellectuals on the walls. We went into his bedroom, there was a large picture of Che Guevara above the bed, and we had a shag” 

_*Ex-News of the World columnist Anvar Khan to the Tommy Sheridan perjury trial *_

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/oct/31/quotes-of-the-week/?q=tommy sheridan


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 9, 2010)

Your link doesn't have that quote.  

Not much being said by the anti-Sheridan brigade just now.   It would be nice to have some reasonable comments on my last post from them.  er...never mind reasonable...just some comments would be fine.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 9, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Your link doesn't have that quote.
> 
> Not much being said by the anti-Sheridan brigade just now.   It would be nice to have some reasonable comments on my last post from them.  er...never mind reasonable...just some comments would be fine.


 

There was me thinking that Alan G's pwnage of you earlier in the thread was comment enough.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 9, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Your link doesn't have that quote.
> 
> Not much being said by the anti-Sheridan brigade just now.   It would be nice to have some reasonable comments on my last post from them.  er...never mind reasonable...just some comments would be fine.


 
What's to say? Your own cluelessness as to the people in the witness box is comment enough frankly.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 9, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Was in court yesterday, a remarkable tactic by Sheridan. Accusing people who'd been in the Militant of being trained liars due to the 'party withing a party' attack of the LP leadership. Bizarre afternoon.


so hasn't he just called himself a liar by the same token? I mean, Sheridan was millie wasn't he?


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so hasn't he just called himself a liar by the same token? I mean, Sheridan was millie wasn't he?


 
He was yes.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2010)

jaysus what a mess ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 9, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> What's to say? Your own cluelessness as to the people in the witness box is comment enough frankly.


Really, Fed?

I think I've made fair comment on McNeilage, the trial, the meta-game.  Managed it in a civil way, too.  I've criticized everyone that deserves it.

In fact...it's only you cunts that keep getting personal, wears a bit thin after a while.   

You're all banging on about the moral high ground aye...this dick was his best man (I'm assuming you understand the concept but perhaps not), long term close friend then tried to set him up and sell the tape to the murdoch empire.  And he's such a fucking donkey he couldn't even do that right.

Let's see you excuse/rationalise that then.  Have a go, you've got big enough mouths the rest of the time sitting on your high horses.

For £200,000 was it?   To one of the most right wing media organisations on the planet mind, not to some Scots or left wing set up.   Morally superior socialists...save us all.



> Giving evidence for a second day at the High Court in Glasgow, Mr McNeilage said he did not want journalists outside his home once details of the video were known.



But he'll sell his comrade for money to the same journos


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 9, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Really, Fed?
> 
> I think I've made fair comment on McNeilage, the trial, the meta-game.  Managed it in a civil way, too.  I've criticized everyone that deserves it.
> 
> ...



"It's only you cunts that get personal" 

The same George who took the fall ie prison for Sheridan a few years back? The same George who pulled Sheridan out of the shit numerous times? You make sweeping statements about people you know sweet FA about, but carry on.

As for personal, Sheridans comments about George being a thief and housebreaker making him a nasty man is all a tad strange... Well given it was 30 years ago when he was a mess. Sheridan mentioned in his book how George went from being that person to the bloke he was today. Sheridan made clear his admiration for him and yet such a horrible man was his best man?! The person making the personal remarks is Sheridan, making accusations about womens mental illness, making moral judgements about womens sexuality. Making allegations in court george was a mugger, without s shred of evidence? 
I take it you've been in court and listened to the trial? I take it you actually know any of the people who have been in the witness box?


----------



## LiamO (Nov 9, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Your link doesn't have that quote.



Yes it does, you blind cunt...




> “If I had known this before 2008, Ireland wouldn’t have suffered. I can blame only myself”
> Bertie Ahern advises Poland to keep its financial institutions under control
> 
> 
> ...


 

If you wanna pick a row on here you have plenty to pick from besides getting pissy with me.


----------



## Sue (Nov 9, 2010)

LiamO said:


> “What struck me was pictures of left-wing intellectuals on the walls. We went into his bedroom, there was a large picture of Che Guevara above the bed, and we had a shag”



Romance is not dead right enough.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 9, 2010)

Meh, never saw it liam, looked down not up.  Pissy, really?  More likely to be pissy that you quoted the whole page rather than the relevant bits. 

Fed I have to assume that you are implying your moral high ground because you managed to get into the court for a day...not that it changed your stance one iota, mind.

Would you like to discuss the testimony he gave?   I'll start.



> Mr McNeilage approached the News of the World, he said, and negotiated a £200,000 payment for the tape. He also received an initial £1,500 cash payment so he and his children could escape the glare of publicity when the tape was revealed by the paper. He had a week in a caravan at "damp and dreary" Flamingoland theme park.


Does any of that concern you?


----------



## Fullyplumped (Nov 9, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Does any of that concern you?



I don't know what anyone else thinks but George should have been ashamed to have taken his kids to a grotty caravan camp. 

When we were wee we used to have really nice holidays at a B&B at Aberystwyth. Lots to do and see for kids, including funny wee trains that I remember. Very Welsh.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Meh, never saw it liam, looked down not up.  Pissy, really?  More likely to be pissy that you quoted the whole page rather than the relevant bits.
> 
> Fed I have to assume that you are implying your moral high ground because you managed to get into the court for a day...not that it changed your stance one iota, mind.
> 
> ...



Moral high ground, no-one else can get there becuasse Tommy seems to think he owns it.



> Mr McNeilage approached the News of the World, he said, and negotiated a £200,000 payment for the tape. He also received an initial £1,500 cash payment so he and his children could escape the glare of publicity when the tape was revealed by the paper. He had a week in a caravan at "damp and dreary" Flamingoland theme park.



Yeah it does concern me, Flamingoland? FFS, coulda gone somewhere better than that. 

Yeah the tit for tat shaftings do concern me, but for you it's just a chance to get all indignant and claim some kind of purity all the while avoiding the behaviour of others. I don't agree with what George did, unlike you tap tapping away I actually told him so to his face.... But I know why it happened and the shite George took for Sheridan hence his rather brutal reply. I know they say ignorance is bliss but surely you don't like it that much?

No, i'm suggesting you actually find out what happened and is happening rather than snippets however unsavoury they may be.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 10, 2010)

bloke did a fucking archer and won anything that hurts the NOW is postive in my book.
 Unfortunatly for him for him murdoch had him bang to rights and everybody around him knew it 
  expecting people to stay silent when there was blood in the water and sharks were circiling with large wallets and trusts was thin on the ground not going to happen.

sher


----------



## LiamO (Nov 10, 2010)

I have been acting as advocate for a friend in his dealings with social services this last 3 years. He has been treated abysmally whilst SS have closed ranks and consistently and unquestioningly covered for each other. So a Mexican standoff ensued with the question being who would 'blink' first? My friend literally had no place else to go, so he had no choice but to stand firm against an 'all-powerful' cabal. 

We were of the view that if we kept pushing, one would break ranks and it would all come tumbling down.

Recently one of them's humanity got the better of her and she cracked. Once all the others saw this they were queueing up to distance themselves/protect themselves and blaming each other like fuck. The whole sad sack of shit that their department is are now queueing up to grass on each other. They keep throwing my mate consolatory titbits - never realising that this is a fight to the finish, because they made it so.

'sThat's the problem once the united front collapses... because someone chooses to open a tin of worms... as Tommy Sheridan may well yet discover.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 10, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Moral high ground, no-one else can get there becuasse Tommy seems to think he owns it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think you've read my posts or understood my position on this, Fed.   Your posts merely accentuate the fact that for the people involved a proper political reaction was not something they were capable of.  They are political children, amateurs.

Voters, in general, do not give a fuck about sex lives.  They want effective representation and they want their candidates to be able to withstand attacks from whoever the enemy is.  NotW is *definitely* the enemy, there's no doubt, no arguing about that.

Your man George there....he sold out to them for £201,500.

And FlamingoLand is a great place for a family holiday btw.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I don't think you've read my posts or understood my position on this, Fed.   Your posts merely accentuate the fact that for the people involved a proper political reaction was not something they were capable of.  They are political children, amateurs.
> 
> Voters, in general, do not give a fuck about sex lives.  They want effective representation and they want their candidates to be able to withstand attacks from whoever the enemy is.  NotW is *definitely* the enemy, there's no doubt, no arguing about that.
> 
> ...



No, the politically childish decision was Sheridans decision to go to court. There was a political reaction, the party voted overwhelmingly to accept that at a National Council in Nov 2004. There was a well debated political process within the party supported by Sheridan until weeks before the defamation... Yet again you don't know what you're talking about but you still carry on blindly, real amateurishness at it's worst. 

As for "Voters, in general, do not give a fuck about sex lives", i'd agree, the logical response then is that Sheridan was/is/remains stupid for going to court to defend a lie over something that you agree wasn't an issue voters give a fuck about. yet you persistently ignore this fact in your own replies. 
You go further to think that Sheridan can trash people, acccuse them of mental illness, being scabs, being liars and they should simply forgive and forget. Funnily enough this is only ever aimed at those who don't agree with Sheridans tactics. 

I'd agree with you re the News of the World, but given Sheridan wanted to write for The Sun I find his rather theatrical rants rather less convincing frankly.

I've amde clear my position on George and made it clear to him. As for 'selling, Sheridan sold them out for £230,000...... But again that's something you studiously ignore.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 10, 2010)

Your position is that you have assigned a morally superior position to some in comparison to others.   

Mine is that they are all as bad as each other but that his party should have supported him in the defamation action as a unit.

I really wish you'd stop painting me as pro Sheridan, it's a big fucking lie Fed.  It only seems to suit your position as it seems, I believe, you have chosen to stand on one side of a very thin dividing line.

You say I'm the worst kind of amateur, throw insults here and there and contend that you know best.

It's quite obvious you are very like those involved.  Up yourself and convinced of your 100% righteousness   (hehe)


----------



## LiamO (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> It's quite obvious you are very like those involved.  Up yourself and convinced of your 100% righteousness   (hehe)



This is not at all _'obvious'_ to me? What about other readers without a vested interest in this case?

As for the Party shpould have supported him blindly... Surely the relevant question is 'did TS seek the support/opinion of the Party before engaging in the libel process?'


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Your position is that you have assigned a morally superior position to some in comparison to others.
> 
> Mine is that they are all as bad as each other but that his party should have supported him in the defamation action as a unit.
> 
> ...


 
Morally superiors? Where and when have I said or implied this? The only person using the morality stick is Sheridan.... 

A big lie? If it is then it's miniscule compared to the one Sheridan is spinning. It's not difficult to guess your view though, your criticism, whilst claiming a 'plague on all your houses' is clearly aimed at those not defending TS. Hardly a crime or lie to guess from that you're sympathies might lie with TS.... Whether they are or not is, imho, unclear. 

Well I suppose when you actually know the fella concerned you might know a bit more about him than others...


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 10, 2010)

My sympathies were with the politics, not the politicians.

Sheridan had the balls (and maybe the discoloured ego) to take on that right wing rag and win - but sometimes it takes character flaws (large or small) to take on what could be seen as an unwinnable fight.

My outrage is that they wasted the win, pissed it away in an internecine squabble.   My sympathies definitely did lie with Sheridan - or anyone who attacks that rag and others of the same ilk.

Of the personal, social and objective spheres - I'm definitely looking at the objective.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> My sympathies were with the politics, not the politicians.
> 
> Sheridan had the balls (and maybe the discoloured ego) to take on that right wing rag and win - but sometimes it takes character flaws (large or small) to take on what could be seen as an unwinnable fight.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.

I don't think, you, I or anyone can be 'objective' here though as there's a decision you make....


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Of the personal, social and objective spheres - I'm definitely looking at the objective.


 
No you're not, you've taken an utterly one-sided view based on a single political issue.  And thus come out with utterly ignorant tosh.  I dont have much sympathy with either 'side' in the SSP/Sheridan split, but to pretend Tommy is some kind of hero for 'taking on' the NotW is laughable, and McNeilage acting like a scab cunt doesnt make change that. Cos, unfortunately, the NotW were actually basically right about all their allegations. I'm glad Sheridan won the libel case, but the obvious fact was that it would all unravel, and it wouldn't be the end of the matter.  Sheridan showed no political nouse, the fact that he is popular doesnt give him carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he likes.

You're not objective at all, quite the opposite.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

LiamO said:


> As for the Party shpould have supported him blindly... Surely the relevant question is 'did TS seek the support/opinion of the Party before engaging in the libel process?'


equally, shurely, "did TS handle his relationship with his own party well enough to earn that support?"


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> No you're not, you've taken an utterly one-sided view based on a single political issue.  And thus come out with utterly ignorant tosh.  ...
> 
> You're not objective at all, quite the opposite.


Thanks for that.  It's always good when someone is kind enough to tell me what I think and why I'm thinking it.

Why bother with a reasoned discussion when you can just get your jack boots on, tell me what I think and then come to the obvious conclusion that it's 'utterly ignorant tosh'.  

I'm impressed.   Well done.   Honestly.

Who are you again?


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> But he'll sell his comrade for money to the same journos



That's the basic problem with any political system based on socialistical-ness or whatever. It completely ignores the incontrevertible fact that everyone has their price and will shaft their neighbour for material gain (even if the only thing that's on offer is a better flat or the option to skip 20 places in the Lada queue).


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Thanks for that.  It's always good when someone is kind enough to tell me what I think and why I'm thinking it.
> 
> Why bother with a reasoned discussion when you can just get your jack boots on, tell me what I think and then come to the obvious conclusion that it's 'utterly ignorant tosh'.
> 
> ...


 
See these things in black on this webpage?  They're called 'words'.  Words contain something we commonly refer to as 'meaning.'  By reading the words, we gather the meaning.  You have written lots of words, and your  meaning is clear. You just don't like it when it laid out plain for you.

Who the fuck are you?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> That's the basic problem with any political system based on socialistical-ness or whatever. It completely ignores the incontrevertible fact that everyone has their price and will shaft their neighbour for material gain (even if the only thing that's on offer is a better flat or the option to skip 20 places in the Lada queue).



"Cobblers loves legitimation of his own view of the word shocker" - hold the front page

Cunt


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> That's the basic problem with any political system based on socialistical-ness or whatever. It completely ignores the incontrevertible fact that everyone has their price and will shaft their neighbour for material gain (even if the only thing that's on offer is a better flat or the option to skip 20 places in the Lada queue).


please don't project your lack of integrity onto the entire human race. Most people are more principled than you


----------



## dennisr (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> please don't project your lack of integrity onto the entire human race. Most people are more principled than you


 
Its not worth talking to - its only intention is to talk at


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Its not worth talking to - its only intention is to talk at


yeah, yer right. christ, I never thought anyone would make me nostalgic for trolls past, but he does!


----------



## Knotted (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Thanks for that.  It's always good when someone is kind enough to tell me what I think and why I'm thinking it.
> 
> Why bother with a reasoned discussion when you can just get your jack boots on, tell me what I think and then come to the obvious conclusion that it's 'utterly ignorant tosh'.
> 
> ...


 
Why should anybody bother to work out what your incoherent position is considering that you randomly attribute ludicrous things like the following to anyone who disagrees with you.




			
				DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Your position is that you have assigned a morally superior position to some in comparison to others.



You do understand that this sort of wild characterisation just demonstrates your vindictive, I-don't-give-a-shit-about-what-you-think attitude.

You nasty little shit.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Most people are more principled than you



No they're not - that's why Socialism has been a dismal failure wherever it's been tried.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 10, 2010)

Knotted said:


> ...You do understand that this sort of wild characterisation just demonstrates your vindictive, I-don't-give-a-shit-about-what-you-think attitude.
> 
> You nasty little shit.


Quality argument.  Would you like a hanky for the spittle?  

At a bit of a loss as to your use of the word vindictive to be honest......mind you I'm at a loss for most of the abuse you through at me.

Would you care to comment on George selling out Sheridan for £201,500 to a right wing paper? 

This trial is about character, isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

The series of vicious, sexist and one-eyed posts you've made on this and the antecedent thread means you should not be take seriously by any poster.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 10, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Would you care to comment on George selling out Sheridan for £201,500 to a right wing paper?



He's a self-serving political hack, not worth tuppence so that's a cracking deal!


----------



## Knotted (Nov 11, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Quality argument.  Would you like a hanky for the spittle?
> 
> At a bit of a loss as to your use of the word vindictive to be honest......mind you I'm at a loss for most of the abuse you through at me.
> 
> ...


 
I thought you weren't interested in the characters just the politics and defeating Murdoch. You can't keep your excuses straight.

I don't have a problem with George MacNeilage. I probably wouldn't have done the same under the circumstances, but I should have. It's important to set the record straight for the party members, the working class and the broader public. After the trial people were willing to believe Tommy Sheridan's story that the 11 EC members were part of an anti-Sheridan faction who collaborated with the News of the World and were even willing to commit perjury in order to attack him. Socialists shouldn't lie to the working class. It's not merely a moral issue, it's about not causing broader confusion for the sake of some superficial immediate gain. Admittedly selling the video to the press played into Sheridan's hands to some extent, but more importantly nobody now takes Sheridan's word for what happened.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> After the trial people were willing to believe Tommy Sheridan's story that the 11 EC members were part of an anti-Sheridan faction who collaborated with the News of the World


It's very apparent that they have.  They kept the receipts.  I doubt very much that George kept all that cash to himself - it would stick out like a sore thumb.


Knotted said:


> I thought you weren't interested in the characters just the politics


Even a foul-mouthed person like yourself can surely understand that they are intertwined.  


Knotted said:


> Admittedly selling the video to the press played into Sheridan's hands to some extent, but more importantly nobody now takes Sheridan's word for what happened.


No, sorry.  He sold it to the Murdoch's hench-men.  This is a different thing.  As I've said before this paper was pro-poll tax, anti-miner, pro-warrant sale, pro-war, anti-pretty-much-everything-the-left-stands-for.   Pro-thatcher.  (try saying that last one out loud 5 or 6 times and you'll start to see where I am)

And it may well be that people don't believe Sheridan...do you honestly think that the same people will believe the others involved?  It's unrealistic. 

I'm of the opinion that the people, the working classes you go on about who vote, deserved effective representation.  You take your chances when you get them.  If you piss away those chances, you're in the wrong job.  None of them are worthy of my vote - I've already said that I now concentrate on the SNP because they are the only effective left of centre option just now.

You take that personally?  Tough luck.  You, like them, are quick to burn your bridges (another political idiocy).  There's no depth of political manoeuvring here, there's just nonsense and grudges - on all sides.

Now...you call me scum, vile, shit.  I can only assume that you must be one of these childish donkeys who were pretending to play at politics as well.   These people who brief against each other, sell each other out, whisper against each other.

Not required in the real world, sorry.

Innocence, guilt?  These people need to get a grip.  It's not about a wee area in the West, North, East or anyplace else.  It's a bigger thing.  They didn't have what's required.

In my opinion, of course.  And sorry about the long (but civil) post.

/puts umbrella up


----------



## Knotted (Nov 11, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> It's very apparent that they have.  They kept the receipts.  I doubt very much that George kept all that cash to himself - it would stick out like a sore thumb.



Disingenuous. That's after the trial.




			
				DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Even a foul-mouthed person like yourself can surely understand that they are intertwined.



Except that you claim to be only interested in one and not the other.




			
				DexterTCN said:
			
		

> No, sorry.  He sold it to the Murdoch's hench-men.  This is a different thing.  As I've said before this paper was pro-poll tax, anti-miner, pro-warrant sale, pro-war, anti-pretty-much-everything-the-left-stands-for.   Pro-thatcher.  (try saying that last one out loud 5 or 6 times and you'll start to see where I am)



That doesn't contradict what I said.




			
				DexterTCN said:
			
		

> And it may well be that people don't believe Sheridan...do you honestly think that the same people will believe the others involved?  It's unrealistic.



That's right. If you can't believe Tommy Sheridan then you can't believe anybody anymore. It's plain, you're just a screaming fan of the Scotland's celebrity socialist and you don't like it now he's fallen from grace. Stop trying to smear socialist activists just because Tommy ain't entertaining you anymore.




			
				DexterTCN said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion that the people, the working classes you go on about who vote, deserved effective representation.  You take your chances when you get them.  If you piss away those chances, you're in the wrong job.  None of them are worthy of my vote - I've already said that I now concentrate on the SNP because they are the only effective left of centre option just now.
> 
> You take that personally?  Tough luck.  You, like them, are quick to burn your bridges (another political idiocy).  There's no depth of political manoeuvring here, there's just nonsense and grudges - on all sides.
> 
> ...



You speak for yourself and only yourself. You aren't the voice of the people. You're only here to sneer. Frankly you should just piss off.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> You speak for yourself and only yourself. You aren't the voice of the people. You're only here to sneer. Frankly you should just piss off.


Yes - I speak for myself.  Never claimed otherwise

No, I am not the voice of the people.  Never claimed to be.

I have not sneered at anyone.  Taking a lot of shit though, from you 

Fortunately, I brought an umbrella.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 11, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> No, sorry.  He sold it to the Murdoch's hench-men.  This is a different thing.  As I've said before this paper was pro-poll tax, anti-miner, pro-warrant sale, pro-war, anti-pretty-much-everything-the-left-stands-for.   Pro-thatcher.  (try saying that last one out loud 5 or 6 times and you'll start to see where I am)


 
What you're saying is that what some rag says is something important. I don't care what the Sun says, I don't care what the News of the World says. I don't know anybody who does. I know people who take the Mail seriously. I know people who take the Record seriously. But nobody reads the Sun for it's political commentary. They read the sports section, they read the agony aunt page, they occasionally read the celebrity gossip. It's dirt cheap and you can wile away a half hour or so on the bus with it.

News International is not a big problem. It's great for getting yourself worked up into a moralistic lather about, but it doesn't matter much.

What Tommy Sheridan has done and is doing is more damaging than anything the Murdoch press has done. We have a leading socialist defaming other lefists and even the left in general. Anybody who wants to accuse the left of backstabbing, insane factionalism, hypocracy, petty envy and of being "trained liars" has only to reference Tommy Sheridan's lies. That's genuinely damaging. Try working yourself up into a lather about that.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 11, 2010)

Knotted said:


> What Tommy Sheridan has done and is doing is more damaging than anything the Murdoch press has done...



You're entitled to your opinion.  No matter how laughable it is.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 11, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> You're entitled to your opinion.  No matter how laughable it is.


 
You're entitled to not revise your opinions when you have been shown to be wrong. No matter how borish that is.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 11, 2010)

its pretty fucking obvious hes a randy old goat so suing for libel was always going to end with him doing an archer.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 12, 2010)

Pretty sad really...NotW editor testifies that he was throwing out money left right and centre to all of these honourable people...no comments made by anyone here.

Not one, all day or night.

Talk about vested interests.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 13, 2010)

Do you think they all knew they were taking Murdoch's coin...or were they all doing it behind each other's back?


----------



## Knotted (Nov 13, 2010)

I've explained to you why going to the press isn't a big deal. But supposing it were, you would consider it "professional" to support your comrades no matter how crazy their actions. At least you would if you weren't a stinking hypocrit.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 13, 2010)

Doesn't matter to me...I'll be voting for George Galloway anyway.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 13, 2010)

Didn't he take the coin of the Daily Record?


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 13, 2010)

Worked as a columnist.  Not the same as secretly taping your mate then trying to sell it to the enemy.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 13, 2010)

He's not, as far as I know, testified against his own people either.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 13, 2010)

And pretty soon he'll have more hair than Sheridan


----------



## Knotted (Nov 13, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> He's not, as far as I know, testified against his own people either.


 
You do understand that in the original defamation trial nobody in the SSP testified against Tommy Sheridan? You do understand that TS wasn't on trial, don't you?


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 13, 2010)

Hair today...gone tomorrow.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 13, 2010)

I suppose another thing in Galloway's favour - he likes to use the anti-democratic libel laws to silence the press.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 17, 2010)

So the trial's been in the news every night but no-one's commenting?

The newspaper editor saying that he was getting loads of phone calls after the original trial from people wanting to sell stories.   Not going to the law mind, the police or the courts - going to the news of the world.   Not worthy of comment?

Allegations of phone tapping and the main phone tapping private eye, with an exclusive contract to work with notw mind, having Sheridan's details.  No comment?

Khan's testimony?  Not a word?


----------



## LiamO (Nov 17, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Khan's testimony?  Not a word?





LiamO said:


> Say what you like about the bould Tommy... nobody can deny he was a classy master of the lefty 'loverman' tradition, as this quote shows...
> 
> ladies, form an orderly queue (outside Barlinnie?)
> 
> ...


 
Nobody's that arsed really from what I can see... just you


----------



## Fullyplumped (Nov 17, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> So the trial's been in the news every night but no-one's commenting?



Well, there's this. 



> The Tommy Sheridan perjury trial has been told the former MSP was warned by a "psychic" agony aunt that he was under "round the clock" surveillance. The jury was shown an e-mail to Mr Sheridan from Yasmin Urquhart, who wrote for the News of the World under the name "Ruth the Truth". In it she claimed the politician was being monitored by the newspaper.
> 
> Under cross-examination from Mr Sheridan, who is defending himself, Mr Bird said he could not explain the e-mail from Ms Urquhart. The 54-year-old said, however, that as a psychic agony aunt "Ruth the Truth" quite often got predictions wrong.



This proves that the editor of the Scottish News of the World knowingly employed an unreliable psychic. Which I think is quite damning. If the paper he edited can't be trusted to tell the fortunes of its readers, what else can it not be trusted with?

I think I can see where Mr Sheridan is going with this line.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Nov 17, 2010)

On the other hand, the pressure is beginning to tell. This photo tells its own story. 








> Tommy Sheridan broke down in court yesterday during an exchange about his alleged affairs. Judge Lord Bracadale ordered a break in Sheridan's perjury trial as the former MSP's voice cracked while he quizzed Scottish News of the World editor Bob Bird.
> 
> Sheridan asked: "What you do know, Mr Bird, you know that I was married (at the time) to a stunning woman I had known since the age of 13, don't you?" With Sheridan's voice breaking, Lord Bracadale ordered a brief adjournment.
> 
> ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 17, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Nobody's that arsed really from what I can see... just you


 Why don't you fuck off and find another thread then son, if you can't be arsed with this one.  

Otherwise you look a bit of a troll.  Unless it's personal against me.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 17, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Why don't you fuck off and find another thread then son, if you can't be arsed with this one.
> 
> Otherwise you look a bit of a troll.  Unless it's personal against me.


 
Do try and keep a civil tongue in your head, you uncouth Sweaty. I have absolutely no idea who you are and care even less. 

The person trolling this thread, spoiling for a bunfight, would appear to be you Billy-no-mates. 

Most people seem to be studiously avoiding engaging with you. It is not difficult to see why. You come across as a bit of a cranky, dim-witted  bully. I accept you may well be cranky in real life, but would seriously question whether you would be quite so aggressive in a pub.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 17, 2010)

LiamO said:


> I accept you may well be cranky in real life, but would *seriously question whether you would be quite so aggressive in a pub.*


 
Welcome to the internet!!


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 17, 2010)

Ok...so it's personal against me. 

Anything on topic to say?

Yes Plumped - both he and his wife are looking drained and worn now.   To be fair the reporting is generally neutral in most of the links I've looked at.   Whichever way it goes there'll be a big splash at the end. 

Sheridan talking about his unborn child and wife..breaking down....stress, theatre, fear I don't know.  Wish I could watch it actually.

Wish I could see all the testimonies.

Fuck knows about the 'psychic' though, that totally threw me.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 17, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Ok...so it's personal against me.


 
INFAMY! INFAMY! They've all got it in for me!

chillax Billy, paranoia is sooooo last year.


----------



## Sue (Nov 17, 2010)

Couldn't believe Tommy's brassneck about the whole 'potentially harming my unborn child' exchange. I mean FFS, it's bad when you find yourself agreeing with the editor of the NOTW.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 17, 2010)

Which part of his testimony are you agreeing with?


----------



## Sue (Nov 17, 2010)

"Did you have no sense of responsibility to the health of my pregnant wife and the emotional pain you were putting her through? You were prepared not only to risk the life of my unborn child to get your story, but also the life of Fiona McGuire, who was driven to try and commit suicide.

"You couldn't care less about the lack of proof because you were blinded by your desire to bring me down and get your front-page exclusive."

Mr Bird replied: "I think you were the one causing the emotional pain, putting her through all sorts of things behind her back.'


http://news.scotsman.com/news/You-risked-life-of-my.6628776.jp?articlepage=1


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 18, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Do try and keep a civil tongue in your head, you uncouth Sweaty. I have absolutely no idea who you are and care even less.
> 
> *The person trolling this thread, spoiling for a bunfight, would appear to be you* Billy-no-mates.
> 
> Most people seem to be studiously avoiding engaging with you. It is not difficult to see why. You come across as a bit of a cranky, dim-witted  bully. I accept you may well be cranky in real life, but would seriously question whether you would be quite so aggressive in a pub.



^^^^^^ This


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 19, 2010)

LiamO said:


> INFAMY! INFAMY! They've all got it in for me!
> 
> chillax Billy, paranoia is sooooo last year.



Put the numpty on ignore everyone else has.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 20, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> So the trial's been in the news every night but no-one's commenting?


 
I don't think anybody here thinks that criticism of the media is the height of socialist activity. But since you seem to I'm surprised you haven't picked up on how crappy the reporting has been.

The Record:


> Mr Bird replied: "You were the one causing pain, putting her through all sorts of things behind her back."



The Scotsman:


> Mr Bird replied: "I think you were the one causing the emotional pain, putting her through all sorts of things behind her back."



Somebody's being sloppy.

Point of fact - I don't think any part of the media stakes much of it's reputation on accurate reporting. It almost goes without saying that Anvar Khan sexed up her story somewhat. I don't think you'll see plumeting sales for the News of the World as a result.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Nov 28, 2010)

by Loki and R a Double B

""Liar liar pants ablaze, you sold the schemes a dream and lied to their face ... 
the blaze that will trail in the wake of this callous failed misogynist slash alpha male, 
can't believe I used to idolise him"


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 2, 2010)

Detective Fraser's testimony today.



> When court reconvened this morning the first witness for the Crown was Detective Sergeant Gerald Fraser of Lothian and Borders police. DS Fraser told the court that he had 28 years service with the police and had played an "extensive role" on the case of Tommy and Gail Sheridan.
> 
> 
> Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute began by presenting to the witness telephone records obtained from the Scottish Parliament for Tommy Sheridan's mobile telephone. The witness was shown a record that Mr Sheridan's telephone was used to call a particular telephone number on two  occasions on the 18th November 2006. These calls were timed at 18:43 and 19: 28. There was then a record of a call to voicemail at 20:44.
> ...



That's a bit confusing...there's people here been saying that the tape was kosher and that they've discussed it directly with the guy who's taped it.   Now we seem to have direct evidence that it's fabricated.   Back up by phone records and an answering machine (not sure why that's relevant as it seems to be after the taping) recording, no less, investigated by the police.



> Mr Sheridan then asked DS Fraser if he would be "surprised" if a police officer would interview a witness in the presence of a journalist, the witness confirmed he would. Mr Sheridan then asked DS Fraser if he was aware that a member of the inquiry team, DC Wilson had spoken to Katrine Trolle at the home of Lorna Martin with Ms Martin present, the witness said he was not aware of that. Mr Sheridan then produced an email from Katrine Trolle to DC Wilson where she thanks him for bringing "Coffee and muffins this morning" and goes on to give the details of her Danish bank account. Mr Sheridan told the court that the defence had not been given any statement from DC Wilson about this meeting and asked if meeting a witness at a jounalists home was "improper" DS Fraser answered that it was "not normal"



Sorry?  Here's an email with my bank details?  That's not good.  Can anyone offer a suggestion as to why she's sending her bank details to a policeman?  Widows and Orphans fund?

The defence wasn't given this information?  Well...it would be a bit awkward, wouldn't it.



> Mr Sheridan then asked DS Fraser about the testimony in 2006 by Fiona McGuire, the witness told the court that after investigation it "appeared she was not telling the truth"



That's not good either, is it?

Could be a Merry Dexmas after all.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 3, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Could be a Merry Dexmas after all.


 
Hardly, Tommy's liable to drag out his "defence" with as much grandstanding and bluster as he can before the Judge intervenes so that this drags on into the new year (so that he can spend Xmas at home with his loving wife and the wean as opposed to in the Bar-L where he belongs).


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 3, 2010)

Having looked over it...the prosecution case now finished...they have not presented one piece of evidence.  A NotW journo making claims, a bunch of political wannabees who it seems have all been given money by NotW.  No mobile phone location records as were promised, no cctv (even of garages, shops), no corroboration of the best man's video (which now appears to be 100% fake as admitted by the police - even though a policeman testified on the stand that in his opinion it *was* Sheridan...oops).

Where were the 180 witnesses then?

£1.1 million spent by the police, up 21 officers at a time for over a year (?), the police hanging around Trolle with journos, Trolle emailing her bank details tp the police (come on...seriously...no-one thinks that's suspicious?), the treatment of Gail in a police interview....

Can't wait for the defence.


----------



## Alan G (Dec 3, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Detective Fraser's testimony today.
> 
> That's a bit confusing...there's people here been saying that the tape was kosher and that they've discussed it directly with the guy who's taped it.   Now we seem to have direct evidence that it's fabricated.   Back up by phone records and an answering machine (not sure why that's relevant as it seems to be after the taping) recording, no less, investigated by the police.



I'm confused by the timeline you are quoting:

18:43 Tommy on phone

19:28 Tommy on phone

19:32 until 20:32 video being recorded

20:44 Tommy on phone.

Can you explain how this is direct evidence the tape is fabricated as you claim?


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 3, 2010)

I'm assuming it's from the location of the mobile at the time of the calls.   

Also...I'm quoting the testimony in the court - if you think there's an error in the questioning you should spell it out yourself instead of questioning me.   It would be nice if you had something more to say than merely comments on my posts.

As to regards the tape itself - I'm not sure if it's been presented as evidence by the prosecution.  It doesn't seem to have been verified by anyone and, indeed, all sides have stated that it has been edited.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 3, 2010)

It may also be that the 19:28 call lasted more than 4 minutes, which can be implied by the questioning.  Again, it was Prentice QC that thought it was worth questioning the plod about it.


----------



## Alan G (Dec 3, 2010)

You're implying a lot. You read that timeline and declared that there was direct evidence the tape was fabricated.

If for example the timeline was:
19:00 tape starts
19:10 tommys phone records show 10minute phone call
19:20 tape ends

and tape shows no phone call then that would be the case. I fail to see how the timeline is proof the tape is fake. Unless you have info about length of calls which contradicts this. But surely that would have been mentioned in court if it was the case no?

And the reason I commented on your post is because you said



> That's a bit confusing...there's people here been saying that the tape was kosher and that they've discussed it directly with the guy who's taped it.* Now we seem to have direct evidence that it's fabricated*. *Back up by phone records and an answering machine* (not sure why that's relevant as it seems to be after the taping) recording, no less, investigated by the police.



And I was querying as I had not came to these conclusions based on the timeline presented and was curious if I had missed anything in what was reported.


----------



## where to (Dec 3, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> It may also be that the 19:28 call lasted more than 4 minutes, which can be implied by the questioning.  Again, it was Prentice QC that thought it was worth questioning the plod about it.


 
is this the only thing you post about?  do you have politics too?


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 3, 2010)

Don't you keep up, Alan?



> Maggie Scott QC, acting for Mr Sheridan touched on the question of the video during her Friday afternoon cross examination of Caroline Leckie (see below) Ms Scott showed the end of a version of the tape which has an on screen timer and asked Ms Leckie what 62.24 minus 38.38 was (I assume to point out that the prosecution had not shown the whole recording)


Reporting of testimony Friday 8th October 2010.  You should probably verify that yourself.  There's 20 minutes missing from the tape.  Would you like that at the beginning or at the end?


----------



## Alan G (Dec 3, 2010)

Keep up with what?

I am not looking at the timeline and declaring the tape a fake because of it. But you declared it did, so maybe you should show the timeline and how that is "*direct evidence that it's fabricated*"


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 3, 2010)

Seems plain enough to me, I thought my last post explained it fine.   By the way there's no point editing your posts to add additional info, you're better just making a new post.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 4, 2010)

As for fabricated.....  The defence begins....



> The court later heard from two sisters, Joyce Drummond and Irene Lang, former SSP members.
> 
> They told the jury about a meeting they had with the party's Colin Fox in May 2006, where Mr Fox is said to spoken of a plot to "get" Mr Sheridan within the party and asked for their help to "clear out" his opponents.
> 
> ...



These two are a laugh and a half. It wasn't a 'reference as the central part of a mtion they wewre mdistributing at a Glasgow all members meet ingjust before the trial in 2006. There was no doubting what destroy the minutes meant when it was raised at the meeting.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 4, 2010)

That was me posting the above.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 4, 2010)

The jury will surely consider whether they've received payment from anyone while weighing the testimonies of everyone.

Did I hear that their were more women than men in it?   Don't really want to google 'ts trial jury'

The evidence came across as not the strongest.    Certainly not the joined up, self-referential evidence from many of those testifying for the prosecution.

Balanced out, however, by the evidence of Hugh Kerr and Alan Brown the other day.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 5, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> The jury will surely consider whether they've received payment from anyone while weighing the testimonies of everyone.
> 
> Did I hear that their were more women than men in it?   Don't really want to google 'ts trial jury'
> 
> ...


 
The issue regarding Joyce & Irene is obvious, if there was no details in the minutes why call for them to be destroyed, why even think they need destroyed? It's not really difficult to see why they wanted that course of action is it?!

Hugh Kerrs 'evidence' was no more than 'the women had it in for Tommy'. There was no actual corroborated evidence. Like many in the party I have personal experience of his 'evidence' because he claimed my old SSP branch hated him because we voted for someone else in an election other than him. That was the sum total of his 'evidence'. 

As for Alan, sound bloke and a good union rep in my union. However even his evidence merely contradicts aonther witnesses evidence who said he was at the festival but on the Saturday night. If so why was this this evidence not used at the original trial??


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 5, 2010)

Katherine Trolle, iirc, said there wasn't a festival on that night and that the note in his (TS) diary was merely code for the Cupid trip.  The Cupid trip that Trolle and Khan said was in a car that made at least 3 stops in the Strathclyde area (Trolle, Khan, 2 men) going down to Manchester with a rest stop (Khan and Trolle testimony iirc) and no cctv evidence from speed cameras, petrol garages etc.  No mobile records were presented from any of the witnesses or the prosecution for that date.  No credit card receipts, cashline withdrawals - no actual evidence.

21 police officers on this case, mind.

Kerr testified that he was present when a bug was found in TS car.  Kerr testified that he had not taken any payments from the media for his testimony, unlike the large majority of the prosecution witnesses, many of whom actively sought payments from notw and others.   Regarding payments there's still no reason given for Trolle emailing her bank details to a policeman - the same policeman (I think) who was interviewing people and taking statements _in the presence of a journalist_.

Mobile phone records were presented showing that TS had made a number of calls during the time of his alleged taping by McNeilage *but that McNeilage has edited those bits out of the tape*.   That would be pretty unarguable evidence, can I suggest that the tape's been edited precisely because the police/notw new about the timing of those calls from their (the police) use of the HOMES computer system (testified by DS Fraser).

Can't wair for Coulson and Mulcair next week, although I ca't see Mulcair saying anything, he has a notw noose around his neck already.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 5, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Katherine Trolle, iirc, said there wasn't a festival on that night and that the note in his (TS) diary was merely code for the Cupid trip.  The Cupid trip that Trolle and Khan said was in a car that made at least 3 stops in the Strathclyde area (Trolle, Khan, 2 men) going down to Manchester with a rest stop (Khan and Trolle testimony iirc) and no cctv evidence from speed cameras, petrol garages etc.  No mobile records were presented from any of the witnesses or the prosecution for that date.  No credit card receipts, cashline withdrawals - no actual evidence.
> 
> 21 police officers on this case, mind.
> 
> ...


 
But where am I saying there was? There's no cctv evidence that TS was in Glasgow neither, it's, yet again, people saying one thing and others contradicting them. 

Allll it is is evidence that he made calls, not that he isn't in the tape or wasn't being taped. 

Of course Kerr said that, but so could a large number of SSP members who weren't paid. By Kerrs logic that makes their evidence just as credible as his.  
The 'large majority' of prosecution witnesses were paid? I have to say I don't know, if that is the case you can prove this I take it? And, as I said, Kerr could provide no evidence about the alleged campaign waged against TS, it's just his claim.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 5, 2010)

I wasn't arguing with you as such, Fed - I was just throwing back other bits of testimony.  There's no reason for the jury to think that Kerr is more or less trustworthy than the prosecution's witnesses.  Apart from the fact that the NotW, loser in the original case, has doled out an awful lot of money to certain people, Khan demanded what? an editorship or something (bartered down iirc) to get evidence against TS?  McNeilage £200,000, Trolle originally denied getting offers from notw.  These people are the main prosecution witnesses.

The police have spent millions and had up to 20 officers on the case at times, where is the evidence beyond reasonable doubt?

I think Trolle originally swore that Cupids was 2001 and then later changed that to 2002.   Trolle got muffins and Gail got accused of IRA training down the station.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 5, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I wasn't arguing with you as such, Fed - I was just throwing back other bits of testimony.  There's no reason for the jury to think that Kerr is more or less trustworthy than the prosecution's witnesses.  Apart from the fact that the NotW, loser in the original case, has doled out an awful lot of money to certain people, Khan demanded what? an editorship or something (bartered down iirc) to get evidence against TS?  McNeilage £200,000, Trolle originally denied getting offers from notw.  These people are the main prosecution witnesses.
> 
> The police have spent millions and had up to 20 officers on the case at times, where is the evidence beyond reasonable doubt?
> 
> I think Trolle originally swore that Cupids was 2001 and then later changed that to 2002.   Trolle got muffins and Gail got accused of IRA training down the station.


 
And Khan also refused to do wht the NotW asked re phoning him up. 

Well i'm assuming the jury will decide what is and isn't beyond reasonable doubt. Having been in court there's been times when imho TS has made some very telling points and also when Prentice has made some very telling points.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 10, 2010)

The Rosemary Byrne evidence was massive...and uncontested...

She, Sheridan and another were paying for the party through credit cards and loans.


----------



## belboid (Dec 17, 2010)

charges dropped against Gail


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 17, 2010)

I wonder what the jury will make of that, after the heavy-handed shit by the police.

I think the defence has been pretty good in the main.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2010)

belboid said:


> charges dropped against Gail


 
That's all of the charges against Gail and a number of the charges against Tommy dropped since the prosecution began.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2010)

just one charge left against him, isnt it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2010)

belboid said:


> just one charge left against him, isnt it?



I'm not actually sure. I know that all of the charges against Gail are gone, and the charges against Tommy related to the Moat Hotel and also the charge related to Colin Fox are gone. I don't know how many counts remain against Tommy.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 19, 2010)

So, to the jury, will it look like the prosecution held out the charges until the very end to fuck her up?

The Trolle evidence is pretty damaged after she said that the Festival (or whatever) was code for the sex party, the neutrals have mostly agreed with the Sheridans, the dropping of charges based on Fox's allegations pretty much says 'ignore what this man says'.   NotW complicity, NotW payments to so many people involved here.

Some are partisan, others see meta.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 19, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not actually sure. I know that all of the charges against Gail are gone, and the charges against Tommy related to the Moat Hotel and also the charge related to Colin Fox are gone. I don't know how many counts remain against Tommy.



I think there is only one charge of perjury still standing against TS and that is it. The trail is supposedly going to finish by the end of this week.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Dec 20, 2010)

There are six remaining charges of perjury against Tommy Sheridan, according to the Advocate Depute in his closing speech to the jury today. 



> The politician remains accused of lying during his successful defamation action against the News of the World in 2006. He was awarded £200,000 following the civil case he launched after the Sunday tabloid printed an article claiming he was an adulterer who visited swingers' clubs. Sheridan originally faced more than a dozen claims of lying under oath at the start of the trial.
> 
> Five allegations, one of which was broken down into two sections in the indictment, were withdrawn today and six now remain.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Dec 20, 2010)

I recommend following James Doleman's extraordinary blog which offers by far the most detailed and perceptive coverage of the trial, and which surely deserves an award of some kind. 



> When court reconvened this morning Lord Bracadale, the presiding judge addressed the jury. He advised them that he had allowed further amendments to the indictment and asked them to remove a number of sections. (You can find a copy of the Indictment Here ) Deleted were all sections of the first charge except A, B and C and all charges from the second section except A, B ,C and M, N, and O. This indictment, which began with 19 charges has now been reduced to 6. There has also been an ammendment to Part N of the second charge which did read "that you had an affair with said Anvar Begum Khan in late 1992 for six months only and that you did not have a sexual relationship with her from 1994 to 2002;" The second date has been altered from 2002 to August 2003. We will post a full updated indictment later today.
> 
> 
> The court then heard from the Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC who began his summing up of the case on behalf of the Crown. Full report to follow.



The final indictment, and the first and second parts of the advocate-depute's speech to the jury are now available.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 22, 2010)

Mon the Tam.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 22, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> I recommend following James Doleman's extraordinary blog which offers by far the most detailed and perceptive coverage of the trial, and which surely deserves an award of some kind. ..


It's been excellent.

Wonder what Santa will bring Tommy for Christmas?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 23, 2010)

GUILTY!!!!!!!
bbc



> The 46-year-old former MSP was found guilty of lying during his successful defamation case against the News of the World newspaper in 2006.
> 
> Sheridan, who once led the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), now faces a prison term when he is sentenced.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> It's been excellent.
> 
> Wonder what Santa will bring Tommy for Christmas?


 
18 months i reckon.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Wonder what Santa will bring Tommy for Christmas?



A large helping of porridge?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Put there by the SSP liars!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 23, 2010)

Sentencing defered till 26th January


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 23, 2010)

Put there by who BA?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

No matter what the verdict it was defeat for us. A defeat brought on by Sheridan and his arselickers. I take it you're fucking off for the duration of his sentence dexter?

What a mess.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Put there by who BA?


 
The same people who backed him through thick and thin i suppose. Fed, have they taken out your sarcasm monitor?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

> Before the jury was sent out to consider its verdict yesterday, Sheridan appeared to have reduced several jurors to tears after claiming they were the only people he was scared of.
> 
> During his four-and-a-half hour long summing up speech, he said he was not scared of anyone else: not the NoW nor the police, who raided his home and scared his daughter, and pursued a "vendetta" against him.
> 
> But in a moment which capped all the drama which this case has seen, he paused, to hold back tears with a choking note on his voice. "I'm frightened of you. I'm frightened of you because you can do something that the NoW will never be able to do. You can separate me from my wife. You can make me break a promise to my daughter that I would spend Christmas with her," he said.



What a rat


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

He'll go at the notw again. He has to.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 23, 2010)

Given some of the texts i've already seen and remarks i've already heard it may have been turned off yes.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 23, 2010)

One of his leading supporters has already said-months ago-that he would appeal if found guilty.


----------



## laptop (Dec 23, 2010)

Butchersapron said:
			
		

> > Before the jury was sent out to consider its verdict yesterday, Sheridan appeared to have reduced several jurors to tears after claiming they were the only people he was scared of.
> >
> > During his four-and-a-half hour long summing up speech, he said he was not scared of anyone else: not the NoW nor the police, who raided his home and scared his daughter, and pursued a "vendetta" against him.
> >
> ...



And a stupid rat. Had I been on that jury I'd have been tempted to convict just for that.

If, on the other hand, he'd simply said "Go home and look up 'perverse acquittal', cunts" I might have done that


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 23, 2010)

Well done Tommy on destroying the Scottish left for a generation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

haha


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> One of his leading supporters has already said-months ago-that he would appeal if found guilty.


 
tommy sheridan has never been appealing


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> It's been excellent.
> 
> Wonder what Santa will bring Tommy for Christmas?


 
porridge, mostly


----------



## dennisr (Dec 23, 2010)

What with the millions pounds of public money was spent investigating him - Lovely folk like Alan McCombes who gave an affidavit to the Herald, then denied it, and went through the pantomime of going to jail for contempt of court when he had already handed over the information that was demanded and the wonderful George McNeilage who created the tape and was rewarded with £200,000 by the News of the World.

Strange bedfellows you lot lie with - you must all be very proud of yourselves


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

dennisr said:


> What with the millions pounds of public money was spent investigating him - Lovely folk like Alan McCombes who gave an affidavit to the Herald, then denied it, and went through the pantomime of going to jail for contempt of court when he had already handed over the information that was demanded and the wonderful George McNeilage who created the tape and was rewarded with £200,000 by the News of the World.
> 
> Strange bedfellows you lot lie with - you must all be very proud of yourselves


i've never liked the man. and i wasn't impressed with his defence. perhaps a better and more principled line might have been 'yeh. and so the fuck what? the murdoch press don't like my politics and all they can find is some story about swingers. i think it's a non-story and i hope you agree'.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Pathetic Dennis.


----------



## JHE (Dec 23, 2010)

From the moment the silly arse decided, against the wishes of his much more sensible comrades, to sue the News of the Screws for publishing some tittle-tattle about his sexual antics, there was never going to be a good outcome.  His conviction now is the least bad outcome of his trial.  He will have to go to prison, just like Aitken and Archer.  His problems may not be over even when he's served his sentence.  The News of the Screws will, I suppose, now win their appeal and Big Tommy will have to pay back a lot of money.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

JHE said:


> From the moment the silly arse decided, against the wishes of his much more sensible comrades, to sue the News of the Screws for publishing some tittle-tattle about his sexual antics, there was never going to be a good outcome.  His conviction now is the least bad outcome of his trial.  He will have to go to prison, just like Aitken and Archer.  His problems may not be over even when he's served his sentence.  The News of the Screws will, I suppose, now win their appeal and Big Tommy will have to pay back a lot of money.


 
and he'll publish his Prison Writings


----------



## Geri (Dec 23, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Strange bedfellows you lot lie with - you must all be very proud of yourselves



I was on Tommy Sheridan's side until I started reading up on it - the truth is so obvious it was staring me in the face.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Let's have more sp  comrades lashing out. You got it wrong again.

 Thanks for the leadership.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 23, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> One of his leading supporters has already said-months ago-that he would appeal if found guilty.



But he doesn't believe in the corrupt machinery of the state so why would he appeal to a load of judges who are clearly in the pocket of the right wing press?

What grounds can he use? (apart from that he was utterly incompetently represented in court).

_Oh noes - aaaah's bin dun - Ah woant a brief - gonny no gies' a ton o' leegul aid?_

Oh, well, at least _Gail anna' wean_ (*stifled sob*) will have the pleasure of his company for Christmas (which, as a committed Marxist/Leninist/loony leftist, he doesn't believe in).


----------



## Knotted (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> *Let's have more comrades lashing out.* You got it wrong again.
> 
> Thanks for the leadership.



You should check out the socialist unity blog.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Let's have more sp  comrades lashing out. You got it wrong again.
> 
> Thanks for the leadership.


 
"lashing out" lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

dennisr said:


> "lashing out" lol.


 
Omg you chose the state lol!

As I said, pathetic.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No matter what the verdict it was defeat for us. A defeat brought on by Sheridan and his arselickers. I take it you're fucking off for the duration of his sentence dexter?
> 
> What a mess.


 I'm fucking off from voting for all of them pretty much permanently.  A Sheridan win would have suited me.  A verdict against the notw  with the Cable and Coulson stuff still going on would have been great.

They should have backed him to the hilt.  They didn't, most of them took murdoch's coin.   This'll be the end of them outside of small areas of Glasgow.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 23, 2010)

Lie in court - get what you deserve .... 

Just because politicians can get away with lies and half truths in other spheres they should not be able to do the same in court. 

How long did Archer get? I bet Sheridan gets the same ish ..


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm fucking off from voting for all of them pretty much permanently.  A Sheridan win would have suited me.  A verdict against the notw  with the Cable and Coulson stuff still going on would have been great.
> 
> They should have backed him to the hilt.  They didn't, most of them took murdoch's coin.   This'll be the end of them outside of small areas of Glasgow.


 
You still haven't worked out what's going on. You total mug.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 23, 2010)

The piece of shit got what he deserved. It became clear quite early on in the trial that he was not telling the truth.  Should the Crown Office wish it, there is scope for a number of further perjury trials against the witnesses who lied, both in the Civil Suit, and the current trial.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm fucking off from voting for all of them pretty much permanently.  A Sheridan win would have suited me.  A verdict against the notw  with the Cable and Coulson stuff still going on would have been great.
> 
> They should have backed him to the hilt.  They didn't, most of them took murdoch's coin.   This'll be the end of them outside of small areas of Glasgow.


 
Did you follow the evidence? How on earth can anyone with a shred of integrity defend these people?


----------



## dennisr (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> As I said, pathetic.



nope - "pathetic" is what the crowers here represent. so glad you are all happy.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 23, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Lie in court - get what you deserve ....
> 
> Just because politicians can get away with lies and half truths in other spheres they should not be able to do the same in court.
> 
> How long did Archer get? I bet Sheridan gets the same ish ..


 
The betting is on 6-8 years. What a vile creature he is.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 23, 2010)

Where is the public interest in spending thousands of taxpayers money investingating TS for perjury when the yard conspires to cover up the extent of NotW's illegal activities and turns a blind eye to Coulson?  You can say that TS brought it on himself, but that doesn't justify these blatant double standards.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Where is the public interest in spending thousands of taxpayers money investingating TS for perjury when the yard conspires to cover up the extent of NotW's illegal activities and turns a blind eye to Coulson?  You can say that TS brought it on himself, but that doesn't justify these blatant double standards.


 
it won't stop the plonkers having a go though


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

dennisr said:


> nope - "pathetic" is what the crowers here represent. so glad you are all happy.


 
You once again show why you're not fit to lead anything. And why you don't. Pathetic.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 23, 2010)

dennisr said:


> nope - "pathetic" is what the crowers here represent. so glad you are all happy.


 
Happy? Why the fuck should anyone be happy? It has been a despicable business from start to finish. Sheridan will get what he deserves, certainly, but the damage done to his family, and also to his erstwhile colleagues is incalculable.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Where is the public interest in spending thousands of taxpayers money investingating TS for perjury when the yard conspires to cover up the extent of NotW's illegal activities and turns a blind eye to Coulson?  You can say that TS brought it on himself, but that doesn't justify these blatant double standards.


 
You no doubt have incontrovertible proof to back up that assertion? Thought not.

Edited to add:

If you believe that here is nothing wrong with telling lies under oath, which is what Sheridan did, I hope you never find yourself in the dock accused by untruthful witnesses. Perjury undermines the whole legal system.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You once again show why you're not fit to lead anything. And why you don't. Pathetic.


 
thats right. this is what it shows. ever the sharp commentary from butchers. you on the sauce again?


----------



## JHE (Dec 23, 2010)

weltweit said:


> How long did Archer get?


 
He was sentenced to four years.  He served half of that.  Aitken was sentenced to 18 months and served seven months.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

dennisr said:


> thats right. this is what it shows. ever the sharp commentary from butchers. you on the sauce again?


 
Cracker.


----------



## where to (Dec 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm fucking off from voting for all of them pretty much permanently.  A Sheridan win would have suited me.  A verdict against the notw  with the Cable and Coulson stuff still going on would have been great.


 
lolololol

yeah it was all about the politics, wasn't it!


----------



## dennisr (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Cracker.


 
racist (and on this question - idiot)


----------



## articul8 (Dec 23, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> You no doubt have incontrovertible proof to back up that assertion? Thought not.


 
Proof beyond reasonable doubt -they conspired to keep people in the dark even though they had reason to suspect that their phones had been illegally hacked.  And around 10 people from Coulson's watch have said that it was common knowledge that this was happening when he was Editor and that he must either have known and sanctioned it or at least turned a blind eye systematically without ever asking where all this highly confidential material kept coming from.

If they put anything like the time and effort into a prosecution than has gone into vilifying TS then they would really take some scalps.  But of course they didn't and won't.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 23, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> The betting is on 6-8 years. What a vile creature he is.



Oh. I doubt he will get that much.. 



JHE said:


> He was sentenced to four years.  He served half of that.  Aitken was sentenced to 18 months and served seven months.


 
Thanks JHE, so if Archer got 4 years and Aitken 18 months I recon Sheridan might get 2-4 years.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You still haven't worked out what's going on. You total mug.


 
I most certainly have it worked out.  

And being a voter in a democracy I can see it didn't go my way this time, I look for other options and move on to the next political situation that I can see which may be helpful to *my* political, social and communal desires.  And I can generally do it without being a dick to those with other opinions.

I'd rather be me than (and this isn't targeted at anyone, everyone has their opinion,) some sad fool who thinks that a political party is like a football team, one for your whole life.   Politics is a changing game, you should make the most of the good hands you're dealt.  And that counts for voters as much as prospectives/mps/msps.

This lot can't even play the game - and I've said that from the start.   They're probably already signing the contracts for the 'exclusives'.

I never said that Sheridan was innocent or guilty that I recall - it was never a consideration for me.  I looked for evidence that was weak, inconsistent or whatever I thought would get him off.

I wanted him to get off, others didn't.   At least if it had gone my way then maybe it would have had a bigger effect.  Hell, maybe it will start a snowball effect which attacks and curtails media/business power in the UK because our institutions have become subverted, imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

No you haven't. You never will. Defend Vince cable.

I make no apologies. It was always only about one man vs power. Fuck off.


----------



## rioted (Dec 23, 2010)

What the fuck has "democracy" have to do with Sheridan being a lying arsehole? The best defence to the NOTW was to fess up and say "so fucking what"? Instead Sheridan tried to drag his family and comrades into a moral abyss. For what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

rioted said:


> What the fuck has "democracy" have to do with Sheridan being a lying arsehole? The best defence to the NOTW was to fess up and say "so fucking what"? Instead Sheridan tried to drag his family and comrades into a moral abyss. For what?


 
i said that some posts up


----------



## rioted (Dec 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i said that some posts up


Well done.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 23, 2010)

rioted said:


> What the fuck has "democracy" have to do with Sheridan being a lying arsehole? The best defence to the NOTW was to fess up and say "so fucking what"? Instead Sheridan tried to drag his family and comrades into a moral abyss. For what?


Well you see...this is a politics forum...I outlined my political opinions and reasoning. 

You appear to be saying that you don't want politicians who can be good liars.   I want them to be good liars when they are furthering the representations of my views.  I don't care if they sleep around, as long as there is something in it for my politics.

I don't go to church.

I don't know what you're going on about, rioted.  You're not talking about politics, I know that.

You lot are on about the personal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Thanks JHE, so if Archer got 4 years and Aitken 18 months I recon Sheridan might get 2-4 years.


 archer procured an excuse he didn't in the end use in court. sheridan i think will get longer than aitken or archer. perhaps not the 6-8 years sas is on about, i'd go 5.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> You lot are on about the personal.


 the personal is political


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Well you see...this is a politics forum...I outlined my political opinions and reasoning.
> 
> You appear to be saying that you don't want politicians who can be good liars.   I want them to be good liars when they are furthering the representations of my views.  I don't care if they sleep around, as long as there is something in it for my politics.
> 
> ...


 
Eh?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 23, 2010)

Tories, Anarchists and Scottish Scab Party members all celebrating a socialist being sent to prison.

What an edifying sight.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 23, 2010)

I'm not celebrating. It's a tragedy for the Scottish left. A tragedy TS brought entirely on himself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Tories, Anarchists and Scottish Scab Party members all celebrating a socialist being sent to prison.


 
a stupid lying divisive 'socialist' who'd grass people up to the cops given half a chance.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 23, 2010)

he's been a bit of dick head though hasn't he - when the likes of Rosie Kane line up to denounce him in public you know there something amiss


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Yeah! Bang on time.

You worthless clueless cunt. Stick to your party graphs, the real world is obv too much for you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Hey tommy, you're going to fuck up the left in scotland for 20+ years, but as least you've got Nigel Irritabe on your side.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Defend Healy!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah! Bang on time.
> 
> You worthless clueless cunt. Stick to your party graphs, the real world is obv too much for you.



Been drinking meths again?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 23, 2010)

It's very sad actually, quite a tragedy - but not for TS but for all the thousands who were active in the SSP and got dragged along one man's ego trip and into a dead end celebrity NotW Quick I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here showbiz wham bang thank you mam


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Been drinking meths again?


 
Cesspit - people do know.


----------



## greencheese (Dec 23, 2010)

Tommy's just feart of telling his mum he was a bad boy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Been drinking meths again?


 
You, you'd hang him out to dry if the party told you to. You pathetic puppy-dog hack trying to hide behind principle. You have no principles beyond your parties interest. No one else cares. You're a liar and you're worse than a paid liar - you choose to lie.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 23, 2010)

There's almost certainly more to come. The media have been sitting on various stories on various people waiting on the outcome. Various other folk might be getting some press attention.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Tories, Anarchists and Scottish Scab Party members all celebrating a *criminal *being sent to prison.



There, fixed that for you.......


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You, you'd hang him out to dry if the party told you to. You pathetic puppy-dog hack trying to hide behind principle. You have no principles beyond your parties interest. No one else cares. You're a liar and you're worse than a paid liar - you choose to lie.



Enjoying your lunch evidently.

What lies are you accusing me of telling?


----------



## greencheese (Dec 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Enjoying your lunch evidently.
> 
> What lies are you accusing me of telling?


 
Lies? Aren't they an invention of the Murdoch empire and the capitalist establishment?


----------



## Alan G (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Defend Healy!


 
One of the posters on the Sheridan blog (Peter) did! He compared Sheridan and Healy and claimed they both had sex stories made up about them as part of a factional battle.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 23, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> There's almost certainly more to come. The media have been sitting on various stories on various people waiting on the outcome. Various other folk might be getting some press attention.


 
Now that TS (in legal terms) doesn't have a reputation worth defending the NOTW and the rest of the papers can pour out all the slops their lawyers wouldn't let them use before now.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 23, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Now that TS (in legal terms) doesn't have a reputation worth defending the NOTW and the rest of the papers can pour out all the slops their lawyers wouldn't let them use before now.


 
Yep, they'll be able to have a field day now. I recall notorious career criminal 'Mad' Frankie Fraser once trying to initiate legal proceedings against a newspaper and the case was almost immediately stopped on the grounds that Fraser didn't have a good reputation to lose.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 23, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Now that TS (in legal terms) doesn't have a reputation worth defending the NOTW and the rest of the papers can pour out all the slops their lawyers wouldn't let them use before now.



No doubt there'll be no shortage of members of the rump SSP willing to provide them with lurid tales.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 23, 2010)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No doubt there'll be no shortage of members of the rump SSP willing to provide them with lurid tales.


 
Remind me who decided to get the courts involved in the first place?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Nick bloody clegg


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)




----------



## rioted (Dec 23, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> You lot are on about the personal.


And it's because you make a distinction you're fucked. The personal IS political, and if not you're landed with any arsehole liar and the crap that follows.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Anyone see the prog that went on bbc1 scotland at 9?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 23, 2010)

**


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 23, 2010)

_Billy Davies?_


----------



## where to (Dec 23, 2010)

may not be genuine:


----------



## Knotted (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You, you'd hang him out to dry if the party told you to. You pathetic puppy-dog hack trying to hide behind principle. You have no principles beyond your parties interest. No one else cares. You're a liar and you're worse than a paid liar - you choose to lie.


 
And Tommy would agree. The CWI produces trained liars you know.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 24, 2010)

Tams pretty fucked. At least two or three years inside and the Murdoch empire will bankrupt him so thats the house gone. Few quid still to be made by the SSP but none of them will scoop what George McNeilage got. Wish id never met most of these cunts.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 24, 2010)

I've just read the piece: "The truth about Tommy Sheridan" on the 'Scottish Socialist Youth' website.

I find it incredulous that a political organisation, any political organisation, would produce and allow such a piece to appear as this?

It's tagged as "knobheads"?

That says a lot.

I won't link to it.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Dec 24, 2010)

I think this is awful sad. Tommy Sheridan was one of the most charismatic and, to many inspiring politicians we've seen in Scotland for many a year. In his work in the Scottish parliament he brought forward some very valuable legislation. 

But he brought this disaster upon himself and his family. He was correctly reported in a sleazy newspaper as having done a number of things that on the face of it are nobody's business but that of the individuals involved. He should have kept his head down, but instead he engaged in a course of deliberate deception in the civil courts, lying on oath and blackening the names of many other sincere and dedicated people who once called him comrade. 

He thought he had got away with it but the wheels of justice caught up with him and he now finds himself with one last month to spend with his daughter before he is locked up in prison for many years. 

He now faces a civil appeal which the News of the World is bound to win to recover the money he dishonestly came by, and his family will undoubtedly lose their home to pay for this. 

It is a tragedy, which through extraordinary arrogance and hubris he brought upon his shoulders and that of his wife and child, and nobody should take any pleasure from it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2010)

I do hope you die soon. I do hope it's awful painful too.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 24, 2010)

Run over by the "wheels of justice" perhaps?


----------



## LiamO (Dec 24, 2010)

Bakunin said:


> I recall notorious career criminal 'Mad' Frankie Fraser once trying to initiate legal proceedings against a newspaper and the case was almost immediately stopped on the grounds that Fraser didn't have a good reputation to lose.


 
Much, much closer to home for Tommy... Glasgow gangster Paul Ferris had a similar experience when he sued a Scottish paper for libel. Ferris then took full advantage of the 'no reputation to defend' rule by writing a very entertaining book in which anybody who had crossed hime was labelled (but not, appparently, _libelled_) a nonce, a grass, a bitch or a bitches bitch.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Dec 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I do hope you die soon. I do hope it's awful painful too.


 
Your remark shows you as the the indomitable class fighter and socialist firebrand you really are, as well as a master of the internet. 

Furthermore, you are clearly a Real Man.

For myself, let me wish you all the best wishes for the forthcoming festive season, with the hope that you eventually find love and true meaning in your future life.


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 24, 2010)

Been a good week for that malignant,cancerous,reptilian old cunt Murdoch,he's getting on a bit though,hopefully next year will be the last year he infests the planet


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 24, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> _Billy Davies?_


 
Funnily enough he was interviwed about a month ago on Radio 5 about allegations that he spent too much time up in Scotland  'with his family' recently rather than concentrating on his job at Forest.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 24, 2010)

Tommy the swinger - true:



This guy's got a more natural "tan" Tommy, though.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I do hope you die soon. I do hope it's awful painful too.


 
bit over the top, no?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2010)

Not at all. No?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2010)

Tommy's not fınıshed yet, nowhere near.  Strıkes me as a sıngularly determıned sort of fellow.  I reckon he's just gettıng started.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 24, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Tommy's not fınıshed yet, nowhere near.  Strıkes me as a sıngularly determıned sort of fellow.  I reckon he's just gettıng started.



Hardly, now that he's been exposed as a swinging liar, he'll only appeal to a fairly restricted demographic as opposed to the wider audience of thicko losers who were impressed by his shouty-firebrand-0-content-bollox schtick which may have had a certain appeal long ago before he lost his MSP's wages due to a lack of popular support for his "_party of one_".

Now, not even slebrity dancing on ice would offer him an invite.........


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Hardly, now that he's been exposed as a swinging liar, he'll only appeal to a fairly restricted demographic as opposed to the wider audience of thicko losers who were impressed by his shouty-firebrand-0-content-bollox schtick which may have had a certain appeal long ago before he lost his MSP's wages due to a lack of popular support for his "_party of one_".
> 
> Now, not even slebrity dancing on ice would offer him an invite.........


they certainly wouldn't offer you one.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Hardly, now that he's been exposed as a swinging liar



I don't thınk anybody who ısn't personally affected cares that he's a 'swıngıng lıar.'  I suspect he'll do just fıne.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> they certainly wouldn't offer you one.



Clearly not, unlike "oor Tommy", I'm not an egotistical maniac, hell bent on attaining personal fame at the expense of anything or anyone.............


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 24, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> I suspect he'll do just fıne.


 

Possibly, so long as his future career follows a different direction such as street-sweeping as he's clearly never going to get anywhere anywhere in politics where you actually need some support at the ballot box............

it's not as if he's been found guilty whilst espousing a "cause", unless you think that "Tommy Sheridan is THE big man" is a cause in its own right (unfortunately that appears to be Mr. Sheridan's only belief).


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Possibly, so long as his future career follows a different direction such as street-sweeping as he's clearly never going to get anywhere anywhere in politics



Why would he want to?  Polıtıcs ıs too small for hım now.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 24, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Why would he want to?  Polıtıcs ıs too small for hım now.



What do you suggest, he's a bit old and haggard to be a success in the porn industry!


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> What do you suggest, he's a bit old and haggard to be a success in the porn industry!



I belıeve that hıs future plans wıll surprıse everyone.  He's got a trıck or two up hıs sleeve yet, you mark my words.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 24, 2010)

You're a card phil.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 24, 2010)

Yeah, he's clever enough to carve a niche for himself. Unlike Archer or Aitken he doesn't have millions in the bank which he can fall back on after release from prison


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Yeah, he's clever enough to carve a niche for himself. Unlike Archer or Aitken he doesn't have millions in the bank which he can fall back on after release from prison



Exactly.  He'll HAVE to do somethıng.  Fırst thıng ıs wrıte a book, obvıously.  Not a memoır though but a novel.  In the style of James Kelman.  I'd buy ıt.  Then some poems.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 24, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> You're a card phil.



Yes, but I think he'll be proved right on that.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 24, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> What do you suggest, he's a bit old and haggard to be a success in the porn industry!


 
I must say that the thought of watching Tommy Sheridan's arse, pumping and grinding away combined with the obligatory porno dialogue delivered in a thick Glaswegian accent, followed by Tommy's gurning face and bulging eyes as he hits the money shot, is not something I'd be paying to rent next time I visit Blockbusters.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 24, 2010)

Bakunin said:


> I must say that the thought of watching Tommy Sheridan's arse, pumping and grinding away combined with the obligatory porno dialogue delivered in a thick Glaswegian accent, followed by Tommy's gurning face and bulging eyes as he hits the money shot, is not something I'd be paying to rent next time I visit Blockbusters.



such a narrow view of porn!

he'll be back, there's enough half-wits about who'll ignore the central message that 'oor tommai' will put anyone in an immpossible situation in order to protect his own ego so they can bask in the reflected glory that is 'oor tommai's tantastic orange glow.

i hope he goes away from a long time - only when the blight that is the ego and charisma of Tommy Sheriden is out of sight and out of mind will serious politics be able to be formed again.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Dec 24, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Tommy's not fınıshed yet, nowhere near.  Strıkes me as a sıngularly determıned sort of fellow.  I reckon he's just gettıng started.


 
He has a very impressive CV. BA in Economics. MSc in Social Research, and no doubt he'll complete his LLB while in prison, with time for a doctorate as well. Top that with two terms as an MSP, and he will be eminently employable as an academic in a number of fields. 

But of course he will earn a superb living as a telly personality, pundit and general media presence. 

What I want to know is who's going to play him in the fillum. 

I think there's only one candidate - step forward Michael Le Vell, Corrie's own Kevin Webster.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Dec 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Not at all. No?


 
"I do hope you die soon. I do hope it's awful painful too." is what you said of me, merely because you disagree with my comment. 

Obviously, having made seventy four thousand comments in this forum over nine years, you are a superior being, and we should all defer to you for your sagacity, political nous, and lack of anything else to do with your time. 

Alternatively, we might note that most of your comments, indeed most of your presence here, seems to consist of put downs, insults, and general ill will towards others. I hope the section of the NHS responsible for your mental health care, and which has presumably prescribed spending time here as a form of therapy, is making a contribution  to this website. But it doesn't seem to be having a positive effect. 

Perhaps you could consider making a move for elected office, to fill in the gap left by the political superstar we are here to discuss.


----------



## dylans (Dec 24, 2010)

I really don't care too  much about the details of this case. The whole saga reeks of personal ego and self serving pettiness. So he shagged around, went to sleezy clubs and got caught. Concerned for his celebrity status and ego he lacked the courage to put his hands in the air and say. "So fucking what" and, god knows what he was thinking, he sued over allegations he knew were true. That was stupidity of the highest level. 
But
To see his political enemies enjoying his situation and worse enjoying the NOTW win a victory is pretty disgusting. What's more, reading the self serving justification for this in the SSY site this morning just smacked of petty vindictiveness and self righteous moralism of the worst kind. What the fuck is this? 



> Concerns were also raised about where the dividing line between a swingers’ club and a brothel actually falls -- at Cupids, women don’t pay to get in while men do, and that is club policy for a reason. The website for Cupids was also only a few clicks away from websites where prostituted women were sold. The SSP was at this time still formulating its position on prostitution, so it was a sensitive subject. We have since adopted the position that *prostitution is abuse,* and that the perpetrators of that abuse (men who buy consent from* vulnerable victims*) *should be punished*.



http://ssy.org.uk/2010/12/the-truth-about-tommy-sheridan/

This is effectively a call for the criminalisation of sex work of the kind advocated by New Labour moralists like Jacquie Smith. Sex workers are no longer workers. They are "vulnerable victims" No longer workers in need of safe working conditions and workers rights but "victims to be saved by the moral guardians of the left. And saved how? By criminalising punters. An action which has been condemned by sex workers and sex workers organisations as guaranteed to make sex work more unsafe.  This is prohibition by another name. That it is advocated by the left is a disgrace.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 24, 2010)

dylans said:


> I really don't care too  much about the details of this case. The whole saga reeks of personal ego and self serving pettiness. So he shagged around, went to sleezy clubs and got caught. Concerned for his celebrity status and ego he lacked the courage to put his hands in the air and say. "So fucking what" and, god knows what he was thinking, he sued over allegations he knew were true. That was stupidity of the highest level.
> But
> To see his political enemies enjoying his situation and worse enjoying the NOTW win a victory is pretty disgusting. What's more, reading the self serving justification for this in the SSY site this morning just smacked of petty vindictiveness and self righteous moralism of the worst kind. What the fuck is this?
> 
> ...


 
Welcome to the world of professional politics. A political party is like a Mafia family, business always comes ahead of personal loyalties, friendships and so on. If it's in the interest of a particular faction to throw a leader to the wolves then they'll do that, they'll produce crocodile tears at the fall of a political rival (whose downfall they will have either engineered or at least used for their own gain) in the same way that mobsters will attend the funeral of a dead mobster even when it was them who killed him.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I do hope you die soon. I do hope it's awful painful too.


 
You really are an utter twat. So many threads have contributions from you like this. You talk about building an anti cuts movement etc etc .......on what basis eh......with people like you constantly trying to tell people what they can say and do all the time? Your so arrogant you will never really have the capacity to make a useful contribution politically. Instead you trawl the internet for some kind of analysis you can use in pointless arguements to make you feel a bit better....


----------



## audiotech (Dec 24, 2010)

New evidence appearing to suggest the possibility that Sheridan's phone was being hacked?



> The heavily censored notes...,appear to show that Mulcaire recorded Sheridan's Vodafone pin code.



http://respectuk.blogspot.com/

Oh and the tape is worth a look at again. Assuming it is Sheridan of course, he first sits down opposite that thing who sells his soul. Sheridan says: "I still trust you mate."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/23/tommy-sheridan-prison-perjury


----------



## audiotech (Dec 24, 2010)

Bakunin said:


> Welcome to the world of professional politics. A political party is like a Mafia family, business always comes ahead of personal loyalties, friendships and so on. If it's in the interest of a particular faction to throw a leader to the wolves then they'll do that, they'll produce crocodile tears at the fall of a political rival (whose downfall they will have either engineered or at least used for their own gain) in the same way that mobsters will attend the funeral of a dead mobster even when it was them who killed him.



Call me naive, but I expected that a declared "Socialist" organisation wouldn't stoop this low.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I do hope you die soon. I do hope it's awful painful too.


 
From what I've read of your posts and Plumped's, I prefer hers.  You've got a lot of posts on urban and I'd never dream of talking to you, generally.  There seems to be something wrong with you.


----------



## kebabking (Dec 24, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> From what I've read of your posts and Plumped's, I prefer hers.  You've got a lot of posts on urban and I'd never dream of talking to you, generally.  There seems to be something wrong with you.



me too. i'm not sure i've ever really read a serious, constructive post by BA. every thing is just hyper-aggressive, sect-obsessed 'fcuk you' 'cnut', or 'i hope you die'. i have absolutely no idea what he stands for, what the driver behind his ideology is, and how he thinks he's going to acheive it. just a big mouthed, yah boo, gobshite who thinks he is the be all and end all of 'the left'.

he's kind of right, in that he's an arse.

happy christmas to all, i hope you're with the people you love, and that the new year brings you happiness.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 24, 2010)

Have a crappy xmas everybody.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 24, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Call me naive, but I expected that a declared "Socialist" organisation wouldn't stoop this low.


 
I would have thought so at one time but, being a former Swappie, I swiftly became aware that the old left are every bit as capable as the old mainstream parties of screwing each other over for an advantage. Also, seeing as the prospective audience for the old left's ideas seems rather smaller than it is for the old mainstream parties, there seems to be an even more competitive edge to sweeping up what's left of the small number of fish in the old left's increasingly dry and stagnant pond.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 24, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Call me naive, but I expected that a declared "Socialist" organisation wouldn't stoop this low.



They batter their keyboards. They run to the cops. They shout sweary insults on blogs and forums. At their worst they will get the crown and state that they serve to put you away for a while, but they have no cold holes or nutting squads.


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 25, 2010)

the irony in all this is he ripped off Murdoch for £200,000 yet they're estimating he'll get 5 years . It costs 40 grand to keep someone in prison so....

thats £200,000 only this time paid by the taxpayer to keep someone in jail who isn't a threat to anyone, to prove a political point


----------



## audiotech (Dec 25, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> the irony in all this is he ripped off Murdoch for £200,000 yet they're estimating he'll get 5 years . It costs 40 grand to keep someone in prison so....
> 
> thats £200,000 only this time paid by the taxpayer to keep someone in jail who isn't a threat to anyone, to prove a political point



Coincidence that it should happen at this crucial time too?


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 25, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> but they have no cold holes or nutting squads.


And thats a bad thing then?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 25, 2010)

Its good if your a midnight or a brussel.


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 25, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> Its good if your a midnight or a brussel.


Find it kinda ironic your tag is "Feel the Love"


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

Gerry Conlon speaking at the Defend Tommy Sheridan rally held in Glasgow on 7th June 2007.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 26, 2010)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/sheridan-facing-three%11in%11a%11bed-sex-sessions-whether-he-likes-it-or-not-201012243387/  Some parts of the press are still dependable.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

dum de dum de dum


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 26, 2010)

No - it's a satirical take on the news.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 26, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Exactly.  He'll HAVE to do somethıng.  Fırst thıng ıs wrıte a book, obvıously.  Not a memoır though but a novel.  In the style of James Kelman.  I'd buy ıt.  Then some poems.


 
Are you angling to be his agent?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> No - it's a satirical take on the news.


 
I'll remember that in future.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

****


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 28, 2010)

from the dailymash item

_"The bright orange former Big Brother contestant has been a fierce critic of News International, particularly when he was a columnist for the Mirror Group, the newspaper company owned by banks and pension funds that make Rupert Murdoch look like Mahatma Ghandi's lovely old mum.

But now the guilty verdict has shattered his plans to return triumphantly to his utterly insignificant political career in which he made not the slightest difference to anything."_

An excellent summary of Tommy's "career".


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Dec 29, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> the irony in all this is he ripped off Murdoch for £200,000 yet they're estimating he'll get 5 years . It costs 40 grand to keep someone in prison so....
> 
> thats £200,000 only this time paid by the taxpayer to keep someone in jail who isn't a threat to anyone, to prove a political point


 
plus there's the £5 million the investigation is estimated to cost the public

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/26/tommy-sheridan-perjury-politics



> The entire cost to the public, for proving that one man lied in a defamation trial four years ago, will not be much short of around £5m.


----------



## Random (Dec 29, 2010)

dylans said:


> This is effectively a call for the criminalisation of sex work of the kind advocated by New Labour moralists like Jacquie Smith. Sex workers are no longer workers. They are "vulnerable victims" No longer workers in need of safe working conditions and workers rights but "victims to be saved by the moral guardians of the left. And saved how? By criminalising punters. An action which has been condemned by sex workers and sex workers organisations as guaranteed to make sex work more unsafe.  This is prohibition by another name. That it is advocated by the left is a disgrace.


 This is the law in Sweden, and it's already a recognised feminist position on the UK left, so I don't think it's all just down to Tommy.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Dec 29, 2010)

Random said:


> This is the law in Sweden, and it's already a recognised feminist position on the UK left, so I don't think it's all just down to Tommy.


 
I get what Dylans is saying tho,  this Spring,in my area SP councillors linked up with the Godsquad to pressurise a local publican  to stop having lap dancing on his premises. Sheridan is an SP/CWI supporter no? If the allegations are true there is some hypocrisy on his part .
 However having said that it's still a shame he's got caught out. Just because he'd lied about his sex life doesn't undermine the fact that politically he's a principled man who has done a lot of hard work helping people.
Free Tommy Sheridan!


----------



## dennisr (Dec 29, 2010)

dynamicbaddog said:


> Sheridan is an SP/CWI supporter no?



Nope - he's not has not been for a long while


----------



## Geri (Dec 29, 2010)

dynamicbaddog said:


> Just because he'd lied about his sex life doesn't undermine the fact that politically he's a principled man who has done a lot of hard work helping people.
> Free Tommy Sheridan!


 
He has done a lot of good work in the past, of course. But it's not that he lied about his sex life - it's that he tried to drag other people into a mess of his own making, and when they refused to lie for him, he called them liars and scabs. That is no way to treat people.


----------



## dylans (Dec 29, 2010)

Random said:


> This is the law in Sweden, and it's already a recognised feminist position on the UK left, so I don't think it's all just down to Tommy.


 
It is indeed the law in Sweden and it is a disaster for sex workers. It has driven the industry further underground and forced women into more dangerous working conditions by criminalising  women working together as well as their families. 


> The law against procurement renders it illegal to work indoors, work with others, to profit from the sexual labour of others, and advertise. Due to the law against procurement, sexworkers are forced to lie in order to rent premises, or alternatively they have to pay exorbitant rent. Either way, they constantly worry about being discovered. They also report often having to move (when discovered) and being treated badly by landlords and ’’rent pimps’’. Some women prefer to make contact with their customers on the street. Other sexworkers find this too humiliating.
> 
> Most of the women I have spoken to wish to be able to work together with others. This is to ensure safety and to support each other. They find it unfair that they cannot do this and feel scared when they have to work alone.
> 
> This law also makes it difficult for sexworkers to cohabit with a partner since it is illegal to receive any of a sexworker’s income. It is hard for a sexworker to have a family at all since sexworkers are considered to be unfit parents and therefore can lose custody of their children if it emerges that they sell sex.


"A recognised feminist position on the left?" If by "feminist left" you mean Harriet Harman and Jackui Smith and the likes of the poppy project.Then I would question your definition of "left". A left wing position on prostitution should start with the demand for s sex workers to be given the same rights to safe working conditions as all workers. That begins with decriminalisation and workers rights not dishonest attempts to prohibit the industry under the false labels of "trafficking" and "rescue" and certainly not by denying agency to sex workers, moralising about the rights and wrongs of sex work, ignoring the voices of those in the industry and labelling them "victims" when they are nothing of the sort. Sex workers are workers. The "left" should be fighting for their rights as workers.

http://sensuellqkonsult.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/lies-about-sexwork-in-sweden/


----------



## Geri (Dec 29, 2010)

Maybe you should start a new thread about this?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 29, 2010)

They are the scum of the earth. So called socialists grassing to the police and collaborating with the state to get a man jailed. 200K one of the scumbags pocketed for covertly taping Sheridan then selling it to Murdochs News of the World.


----------



## Geri (Dec 29, 2010)

The scumbag was Sheridan's best man, wasn't he? Birds of a feather and all that.


----------



## dylans (Dec 29, 2010)

Geri said:


> Maybe you should start a new thread about this?


 
It is the stated position of the SSP and is posted in their blog attacking Sheridan. 

http://ssy.org.uk/2010/12/the-truth-about-tommy-sheridan/


----------



## Geri (Dec 29, 2010)

dylans said:


> It is the stated position of the SSP and is posted in their blog attacking Sheridon.
> 
> http://ssy.org.uk/2010/12/the-truth-about-tommy-sheridan/



Yes, I know. But this thread is about the trial, not a vehicle for you to get on your favourite hobby horse.


----------



## dylans (Dec 29, 2010)

Geri said:


> Yes, I know. But this thread is about the trial, not a vehicle for you to get on your favourite hobby horse.


 
Oh ok.
Isn't it awful about the Sheridan trial.?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 29, 2010)

Geri said:


> The scumbag was Sheridan's best man, wasn't he? Birds of a feather and all that.


 
Sheridan was never on the gear, never robbed the houses of the working class,never done gaol for anything other than politics unlike McNeilage. Years ago George was under a heavy threat and Sheridan and a good few others went to lengths to dig him out and get him some protection. Wish they hadnt bothered for the scumbag. George was given every chance andlookhow the scumbag rat repays. Fuck him.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 29, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> to keep someone in jail who isn't a threat to anyone, to prove a political point


why is this particular perjury case all about 'proving a political point', rather than simply being, well, a perjury case?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 29, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> They are the scum of the earth. So called socialists grassing to the police and collaborating with the state to get a man jailed. 200K one of the scumbags pocketed for covertly taping Sheridan then selling it to Murdochs News of the World.


are you saying that TS was not, in any way, the architect of his own misfortunes?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 29, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> are you saying that TS was not, in any way, the architect of his own misfortunes?


 
We are all to some degree architects of our own misfortune pal. But we dont usually get dobbed in by our comrades nor have the level of scrutiny and surveillance that Tam had. He is guilty of underestimating the Brits and the socialist types who are fairly clueless at best and downright midnights at worst.


----------



## Geri (Dec 29, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> We are all to some degree architects of our own misfortune pal. But we dont usually get dobbed in by our comrades nor have the level of scrutiny and surveillance that Tam had. He is guilty of underestimating the Brits and the socialist types who are fairly clueless at best and downright midnights at worst.



You're mental.


----------



## JHE (Dec 29, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> are you saying that TS was not, in any way, the architect of his own misfortunes?



If only he were only the architect of *his own* misfortune!

He is also responsible for putting his then comrades in the SSP into an impossible position, slandering them when they opted not to commit perjury in the service of Big Tommy's vanity and for the destruction of a political party he had done much to build.

The fools who insist on applauding Tommy's foolishness and join Tommy in denigrating the SSPers who failed to commit perjury like to pretend that objections to Tommy are objections to his sexual antics.  They also like to pretend that the News of the Screws ran an exposé because News International wanted to do down a socialist, as if they don't run similar gossip about politicians of all persuasions and non-politicians of all sorts, too.  It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Tommy-ites are idiots or liars or both.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 29, 2010)

They set the whole thing up with their factional methods and desire to have Sheridan replaced. They took the minutes and kept them. They could all have quite easily avoided being NoTW witnesses. Sheridan had took the NoTW on after standing down as leader of the SSP.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 29, 2010)

Geri said:


> You're mental.


 

That it? Fucking joke.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 29, 2010)

Geri said:


> He has done a lot of good work in the past, of course. But it's not that he lied about his sex life - it's that he tried to drag other people into a mess of his own making, and when they refused to lie for him, he called them liars and scabs. That is no way to treat people.


 
SSP members testifying for Murdoch, a leading SSP member going to a newspaper, police informants and another member, a so called “mate” selling his soul to the class enemy for £200,000. They did all these things because they wanted to, not because they were compelled or obliged to do so. All beyond the pale and history will record this lot as a bunch of unprincipled traitors to their class.


----------



## dylans (Dec 29, 2010)

audiotech said:


> SSP members testifying for Murdoch, a leading SSP member going to a newspaper, police informants and another member, a so called “mate” selling his soul to the class enemy for £200,000. They did all these things because they wanted to, not because they were compelled or obliged to do so. All beyond the pale and history will record this lot as a bunch of unprincipled traitors to their class.


 
This is it in a nutshell. Look, if I do something stupid say shoplift something from a shop, and get caught. It's my fault and I am solely responsible. But if, say, I get away with shoplifting and, for reasons of their own, my former friends grass me up, sell the story to the press and then sit back and watch me get knicked and humiliated in the press then they are complete cunts who betrayed me. If they are former comrades who do this for petty factional reasons they are traitors. I am still a fool. but they are still treacherous dogs.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 29, 2010)

Well put Dylans. 
Sheridan would not have been charged, prosecuted and convicted without the demand for his prosecution and the collaboration with the crown in the court, freely and actively given  by the SSP leadership and a whole host of its members.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 29, 2010)

dylans said:


> This is it in a nutshell. Look, if I do something stupid say shoplift something from a shop, and get caught. It's my fault and I am solely responsible. But if, say, I get away with shoplifting and, for reasons of their own, my former friends grass me up, sell the story to the press and then sit back and watch me get knicked and humiliated in the press then they are complete cunts who betrayed me. If they are former comrades who do this for petty factional reasons they are traitors. I am still a fool. but they are still treacherous dogs.


 
Most people who go around shoplifting are intelligent enough not to sue anyone who accuses them of being a shoplifter - Tommy was stupid enough to do so as he thought that his comrades would do anything to support his their dear leader.


----------



## Sue (Dec 29, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> Sheridan would not have been charged, prosecuted and convicted without the demand for his prosecution and the collaboration with the crown in the court, freely and actively given  by the SSP leadership and a whole host of its members.



Not strictly true. During the original defamation trial, the judge said "It seems to me pretty much inevitable there will have to be a criminal inquiry at the conclusion of this case into the question of whether witnesses have committed perjury. Witnesses who have committed perjury would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for a lengthy period."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Tommy-Sheridan-trial-How-home.6670683.jp?articlepage=3


----------



## dylans (Dec 29, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Most people who go around shoplifting are intelligent enough not to sue anyone who accuses them of being a shoplifter - Tommy was stupid enough to do so as he thought that his comrades would do anything to support his their dear leader.


 
Indeed he was stupid. He didn't deserve support for his stupid decision to sue. However, not supporting him is one thing. Actively collaborating with the enemy, profiting from his situation and grassing him up is another. Its ABC. Socialists don't join forces with the News of the World to stitch up their comrades. If they do they are class traitors. End of story


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 29, 2010)

Sue said:


> Not strictly true. During the original defamation trial, the judge said "It seems to me pretty much inevitable there will have to be a criminal inquiry at the conclusion of this case into the question of whether witnesses have committed perjury. Witnesses who have committed perjury would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for a lengthy period."
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/news/Tommy-Sheridan-trial-How-home.6670683.jp?articlepage=3



The fact that this Sheriff made this remark is very telling. A perjury investigation was a definite if Sheridan won the defamation as the SSP had been briefing medialeftright and centre and of course the McNeilage tape was there. News International were going to put a hell of alot of pressure on for  round two. They certainly didnt lack influenceor contacts.


----------



## Sue (Dec 30, 2010)

Even if he hadn't won, a perjury investigation was on the cards -- the judge after all made his remarks during rather than after the trial. What with one lot of people saying one thing and the other lot the opposite, some of them were obviously lying. And given how high-profile the trial was, can't see there's any way they could've got away without investigating it whatever the outcone.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 30, 2010)

Whatever the judge says, still needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt with evidence.


----------



## ymu (Dec 30, 2010)

Did they volunteer as witnesses in the original trial, or were they subpoenaed and given the choice of perjuring themselves or being called liars in court by Sheridan? Noone comes out of this looking good, but I don't think you can argue that the perjury trial came about because some people decided to betray Sheridan - it came about because he put them in an impossible position by making a big deal out of a trivial NotW story.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 30, 2010)

They set the whole thing up by their actions at the Executive meeting , recording the minutes and then Alan McCombes goes and puts an affidavit into the Herald behind the back of the SSP. Sheridan stepped down so as to distance his action against the NoTW from the SSP. The SSP witnesses had by the time of the case all become very keen witnesses for the NoTW.


----------



## Geri (Dec 30, 2010)

dylans said:


> Indeed he was stupid. He didn't deserve support for his stupid decision to sue. However, not supporting him is one thing. Actively collaborating with the enemy, profiting from his situation and grassing him up is another. Its ABC. Socialists don't join forces with the News of the World to stitch up their comrades. If they do they are class traitors. End of story


 
How many people have profited from the situation?


----------



## dylans (Dec 30, 2010)

Geri said:


> How many people have profited from the situation?


 


> A PROSECUTION witness against Tommy Sheridan has spent £200,000 he received from a Sunday newspaper, but denied his evidence had been bought.
> *George McNeilage approached the News of the World, and negotiated a £200,000 payment for the tape*. He also received an initial £1,500 cash payment so he and his children could escape the glare of publicity when the tape was revealed by the paper. He had a week in a caravan at "damp and dreary" Flamingoland theme park.



http://news.scotsman.com/news/Sheridan-trial-39I39ve-spent-200000.6617742.jp



> > George McNeilage, 46, told Sheridan's perjury trial he was paid £200,000 by the Sunday newspaper for the video footage he secretly filmed of the former Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) leader in November 2004.



Of course, the SSP will be expelling McNeilage for such treacherous behaviour right? ... Oh!


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 30, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> The fact that this Sheriff made this remark is very telling. A perjury investigation was a definite if Sheridan won the defamation as the SSP had been briefing medialeftright and centre and of course the McNeilage tape was there. News International were going to put a hell of alot of pressure on for  round two. They certainly didnt lack influenceor contacts.


 
Sheridan also briefed the press via Ron McKenna and his pal Mark Smith, then at the Daily Mirror. Sheridan even admitted he did this, or did you forget this per chance?


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 30, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> They set the whole thing up by their actions at the Executive meeting , recording the minutes and then Alan McCombes goes and puts an affidavit into the Herald behind the back of the SSP. Sheridan stepped down so as to distance his action against the NoTW from the SSP. The SSP witnesses had by the time of the case all become very keen witnesses for the NoTW.


 
Clueless as ever, Sheridan subpoenad the witnesses. 

Btw, of course, given your former inside knowledge, you are aware, and do remember that at the NC in late November 2004 that took place at the Cally University Sheridan agreed with the minutes, didn't utter a word against their existence and agreed for them to be held by the EC/Party. Or did you forget that wee snippet?!


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 30, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> Sheridan was never on the gear, never robbed the houses of the working class,never done gaol for anything other than politics unlike McNeilage. Years ago George was under a heavy threat and Sheridan and a good few others went to lengths to dig him out and get him some protection. Wish they hadnt bothered for the scumbag. George was given every chance andlookhow the scumbag rat repays. Fuck him.



Anmd George also did a stretch to save Sheridans neck. Tell me 'fianna', given I know you know this, when did Sheridan start to get angry about George's past? All this was well know, it was also 30 years ago..... His time as a user is well documented in Tommy's book 'A time to rage', which of course you would know about given you were around at the time. He disliked him so much he was one of his best men, aye, that rings true..... Now, if, as TS claimed in court, George was such a terrible person, why did he go to great lengths to point out he was a good bloke in his book and have him as a best man.......??? I get TS rage at what George did, but the shite he, and Hugh Kerr elsewhere, brought up about George was pathetic.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 30, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> They are the scum of the earth. So called socialists grassing to the police and collaborating with the state to get a man jailed. 200K one of the scumbags pocketed for covertly taping Sheridan then selling it to Murdochs News of the World.


 
At any point, other than your internet hardman persona spouting forth against george with mention of nutting squads and the like, have you ever had the sweets to actually tell George to his face of your opinion?!


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 30, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Anmd George also did a stretch to save Sheridans neck. Tell me 'fianna', given I know you know this, when did Sheridan start to get angry about George's past? All this was well know, it was also 30 years ago..... His time as a user is well documented in Tommy's book 'A time to rage', which of course you would know about given you were around at the time. He disliked him so much he was one of his best men, aye, that rings true..... Now, if, as TS claimed in court, George was such a terrible person, why did he go to great lengths to point out he was a good bloke in his book and have him as a best man.......??? I get TS rage at what George did, but the shite he, and Hugh Kerr elsewhere, brought up about George was pathetic.



I dont get what your driving at here. Sheridan is obviously going to hate McNeilage after all they had been through as mates etc for the guy to turn round and set him up and betray him in such apublic and utterly mercenary and greedy, rapacious way. George McNeilage is dog shit and i would have no problem face to face with the SSPs hardest man [gangster].


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 30, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> I dont get what your driving at here. Sheridan is obviously going to hate McNeilage after all they had been through as mates etc for the guy to turn round and set him up and betray him in such apublic and utterly mercenary and greedy, rapacious way. George McNeilage is dog shit and i would have no problem face to face with the SSPs hardest man [gangster].



Yes, which I acknowledged. the shite i'm referring top is Sheridans pathetic trawl through Georges past6, he didn't hate him then, he had no problem with his past then, he had no problem with his younger persona that he had him as a best man. To drag that up, as if he's always seen george as a dodgy bastard was pethetic. Fine, dislike him for the tape but don't try and claim he's this nasty ex junkie you couldn't trust even though you did for 25 years.

And yet you've not bothered to do that, you've been up here since the tape was published have you not? It's funny how all these people are venting, like you with your cold holes and nutting squad wank fantasies, and yet no-one seems to have the sweets to put theory into practise. Perhaps you could get your Scottish comrades to do the bizz?!


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 30, 2010)

You are out the SSP right? So why you so het up about McNeilage? Hes a scumbag and a grass. The SSP never expelled him. No surprise.

You appear to be suggesting something between McNeilage and me? I hardly no him and he wouldnt know me. If theres any scores to be settled, im sure  someone will settle them.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 30, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> You are out the SSP right? So why you so het up about McNeilage? Hes a scumbag and a grass. The SSP never expelled him. No surprise.
> 
> You appear to be suggesting something between McNeilage and me? I hardly no him and he wouldnt know me. If theres any scores to be settled, im sure  someone will settle them.



I left well over 2 years ago. That doesn't mean I won't defend people if things written about them don't ring true. I made it clear to George I disagreed with what he did. I get pissed off with Sheridans faux outrage at Georges past, at Hugh Kerrs cowardly insinuations that. George was back on the smack, yet again from the safety of a computer screen, I find it funny that people who attack George and claim he can't even walk Pollok safely..... 

The point i'm making, is like alot of others, you are happy to fling your words and dark threats around and yet no-one seems to have the sweets to follow up on it. As with Socialist Unity, when someone gave their name to those making threats not one single taker.... Funny that....


----------



## Geri (Dec 30, 2010)

dylans said:


> http://news.scotsman.com/news/Sheridan-trial-39I39ve-spent-200000.6617742.jp
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the SSP will be expelling McNeilage for such treacherous behaviour right? ... Oh!



So one then.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 30, 2010)

I fail to see how you can defend McNeilage after what he did.  

On what level is he justified?  Political, moral, best man?   He sold out a long term mate to the actual fucking enemy for money.


----------



## dylans (Dec 30, 2010)

Geri said:


> So one then.


 
How many do you fucking want?


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 31, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I fail to see how you can defend McNeilage after what he did.
> 
> On what level is he justified?  Political, moral, best man?   He sold out a long term mate to the actual fucking enemy for money.


 
Did you miss this bit??



Fedayn said:


> *I made it clear to George I disagreed with what he did.*



Perhaps I should have put a few 'fucks' and 'bloodys' and 'bastards' into the sentence for that 'west of scotland working class enraged authenticity'?!

The point I was making, and still am, is that it's funny, all these cyber warriors making with the blood curdling threats never seem to have the sweets to actually to anything about it. And added to that is Sheridans patrhetic and entirely false outrage over George's younger life.


----------



## Geri (Dec 31, 2010)

dylans said:


> How many do you fucking want?


 
I wanted to know how many people you considered to have profited from this. You made it clear you think there is only one.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 31, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I left well over 2 years ago. That doesn't mean I won't defend people if things written about them don't ring true. I made it clear to George I disagreed with what he did. I get pissed off with Sheridans faux outrage at Georges past, at Hugh Kerrs cowardly insinuations that. George was back on the smack, yet again from the safety of a computer screen, I find it funny that people who attack George and claim he can't even walk Pollok safely.....
> 
> The point i'm making, is like alot of others, you are happy to fling your words and dark threats around and yet no-one seems to have the sweets to follow up on it. As with Socialist Unity, when someone gave their name to those making threats not one single taker.... Funny that....



Im aware that McNeilage walks safely round Pollok. As for Socialist Unity well id expect the types to be venting spleen about him will be SWP or CWI , not exactly renowned are they for robust discussions? So no big deal that they arent following up. Anyway what kind of fool makes threats on the net ? The SSP security is the state, and im sure George or any other scumbag SSP member would be straight onto the polis if they felt worried about some SWP or CWI etc active threat as opposed to mutterings on the fucking internet.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 31, 2010)

Fed...I'm guessing that TS changed his mind about McNeilage when he found out that his best man and long term friend and ally had sold him out to the notw for money.  If the tape is authentic - what do you think McNeilage had said to get Sheridan to talk?   

And I've not made any threats.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 31, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> Im aware that McNeilage walks safely round Pollok. As for Socialist Unity well id expect the types to be venting spleen about him will be SWP or CWI , not exactly renowned are they for robust discussions? So no big deal that they arent following up. Anyway what kind of fool makes threats on the net ? The SSP security is the state, and im sure George or any other scumbag SSP member would be straight onto the polis if they felt worried about some SWP or CWI etc active threat as opposed to mutterings on the fucking internet.



The CWI has not 'threatened' anybody - jezeus wept


----------



## dylans (Dec 31, 2010)

Geri said:


> I wanted to know how many people you considered to have profited from this. You made it clear you think there is only one.


 
Yes. And of course the SSP immediately expelled him for his treacherous behaviour didn't they? To do otherwise would be to consent to his selling his soul to the News of the World.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 31, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Fed...I'm guessing that TS changed his mind about McNeilage when he found out that his best man and long term friend and ally had sold him out to the notw for money.  If the tape is authentic - what do you think McNeilage had said to get Sheridan to talk?
> 
> And I've not made any threats.




George's younger life was/is irrelevant, fine, hate him for the video, understandable, but the pathetic bollocks about his past-which included lies from Sheridan about George mugging old people-was just that pathetic.   

What had he said? Well given TS was meeting various in numerous 1-2-1 discussions i'd assume it was the same. I'm not aware of the finer details having not been invovled in that particular episode. My oppositon to what George did was made known to him, the details of how it came about are part of the court record.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 31, 2010)

fiannanahalba said:


> *Im aware that McNeilage walks safely round Pollok.* As for Socialist Unity well id expect the types to be venting spleen about him will be SWP or CWI , not exactly renowned are they for robust discussions? So no big deal that they arent following up. Anyway what kind of fool makes threats on the net ? The SSP security is the state, and im sure George or any other scumbag SSP member would be straight onto the polis if they felt worried about some SWP or CWI etc active threat as opposed to mutterings on the fucking internet.



I have no idea what party, if any, the cyber warriors are members of.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 31, 2010)

Fedayn i havent come across any threats or the like concerning McNeilage on Socialist Unity or anywhere else. Why am i not surprised?


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 1, 2011)

FIVE people who testified backing Tommy Sheridan's claims he did not attend a swingers' club could face a police probe that they perverted the course of justice.

A complaint has been made to Strathclyde Police requesting an investigation into some evidence given in court last month on Sheridan's behalf.

The complaint has been passed to the chief constable of Strathclyde Police, Stephen House. It will then be up to the Crown Office to decide whether to press ahead with any formal investigation or prosecution, with the question of whether another trial is in the public interest likely to be a key factor in any decision.


----------



## JHE (Jan 1, 2011)

Fullyplumped said:


> FIVE people who testified backing Tommy Sheridan's claims he did not attend a swingers' club could face a police probe that they perverted the course of justice.
> 
> A complaint has been made to Strathclyde Police requesting an investigation into some evidence given in court last month on Sheridan's behalf.
> 
> The complaint has been passed to the chief constable of Strathclyde Police, Stephen House. It will then be up to the Crown Office to decide whether to press ahead with any formal investigation or prosecution, with the question of whether another trial is in the public interest likely to be a key factor in any decision.


 
Gawd, what a mess!  It gets worse and worse.

Big Tommy Liar will go to prison and I hope Mr McPlod decides he has better things to do than pursue the people mug enough to lie for Tommy.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 2, 2011)

I never said the theats on SU were against George. They are general threats. A former comrade of yours asked folk to put up or shut up. Funnily enough it's still rather quiet. Those against George were up here made by others.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 2, 2011)

The plot thickens. NoTW wanting action taken against Newmans Socialist Unity blog due to perceived threats and they are putting the pressure on for more perjury charges. FFS the SSP must be coming in their pants to know that their best mates in Murdochs Newspapers, the police and the British state arestill out to protect them and vindicate them.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 2, 2011)

Now George Galloway is saying that Tommy Sheridan lied about the women.



> Sheridan’s supporters have maintained the ex-MSP is innocent, while a source close to him was reported as saying the conviction will be appealed.
> 
> However, the Sunday Herald can reveal that Galloway – who continues to be a staunch supporter of Sheridan – has conceded that his friend has not been truthful about his private life.
> 
> In an exchange with a caller on his late-night talkSPORT radio show on Christmas Eve, Galloway – who has indicated he may stand as a candidate in this year’s Holyrood election – said of Sheridan: “He lied about his sex life and sexual proclivities.”


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 2, 2011)

i don't know the full background to this but anyone who sets someone up to receive up to 5 years in prison is lowlife of the highest (or lowest?) order


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 2, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> i don't know the full background to this but anyone who sets someone up to receive up to 5 years in prison is lowlife of the highest (or lowest?) order


 
Quite.


----------



## JHE (Jan 2, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> i don't know the full background to this but anyone who sets someone up to receive up to 5 years in prison is lowlife of the highest (or lowest?) order


 
By insisting on suing the News of the Screws, against the better judgment of his comrades, Big Tommy set up his comrades.  In the position he put them in, they had three options:
1.  Refuse to give evidence - and so be sent to prison for contempt of court, until they agreed to give evidence and then choose between options 2 and 3 
2.  Give evidence and lie in the way Big Tommy wanted - and so make themselves liable for prosecution for perjury and, if found guilty, imprisonment
3.  Give evidence and refuse to lie for Big Tommy

Big Tommy set them up for imprisonment.  Does that make him lowlife of the worst sort?


----------



## dylans (Jan 2, 2011)

JHE said:


> By insisting on suing the News of the Screws, against the better judgment of his comrades, Big Tommy set up his comrades.  In the position he put them in, they had four options:
> 1.  Refuse to give evidence - and so be sent to prison for contempt of court, until they agreed to give evidence and then choose between options 2 and 3
> 2.  Give evidence and lie in the way Big Tommy wanted - and so make themselves liable for prosecution for perjury and, if found guilty, imprisonment
> 3.  Give evidence and refuse to lie for Big Tommy
> ...


 
Edited for you.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jan 2, 2011)

Fucking hilarious!

Politics is a dirty game that attracts dirty people.

Hilarious.


Woof


----------



## audiotech (Jan 2, 2011)

Calling for the police to shut down a left-wing blog I don't find funny. Whatever next?


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 3, 2011)

dylans said:


> Edited for you.


 
yeah JHE forgot to mention no.4 which i suspect is the main motivation!


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 3, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I never said the theats on SU were against George. They are general threats. A former comrade of yours asked folk to put up or shut up. Funnily enough it's still rather quiet. Those against George were up here made by others.


 

True to form theres a fair bit of bleating about supposed threats being made over on Socialist Unity. The SSP is a grassing and/or neurotic fuck up. Tell you what some people are totally maximising the impact of the Sheridan case to really keep the pot boiling and sow as much disaffection and disillusionment as possible. Now whose agenda does that suit?
At least we know a good few people who any socialist would cross the street if they saw them coming and would double check their watch if they got told the time by them.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2011)

You seem to think it was all gonna be jelly and ice cream as opposed to the mess that it is? The disaster we have was clearly pointed out. So in whose interest was the whole pathetic ego driven and sectarian cheerled episode?


----------



## JHE (Jan 3, 2011)

dylans said:


> Edited for you.


 


trevhagl said:


> yeah JHE forgot to mention no.4 which i suspect is the main motivation!


 
How many people took £200k from News International (I mean apart from Big Tommy who conned his way to a pay-out of £200k)?  Just one, wasn't it?

I wish you Tommy-ites would come out and say what you really believe.  If you think that members of the SSP had a duty to commit perjury for Tommy or refuse to give evidence, say so.  How long should people have been willing to be in prison in the service of Tommy's vanity?


----------



## dylans (Jan 3, 2011)

JHE said:


> How many people took £200k from News International (I mean apart from Big Tommy who conned his way to a pay-out of £200k)?  Just one, wasn't it?
> ?


 
Did the SSP expel him? DID THEY EXPEL HIM? 




> I wish you Tommy-ites would come out and say what you really believe.  If you think that members of the SSP had a duty to commit perjury for Tommy or refuse to give evidence, say so.  How long should people have been willing to be in prison in the service of Tommy's vanity



I'm not a Tommy-ite. I have said many times I think he was a hypocrite and a fool for sueing the NOTW. However socialists never NEVER give evidence against a comrade. And they never NEVER  sell their souls to Murdoch. Refusing to help Sheridan is one thing. Actively collaborating with the enemy is another and it is a fucking disgrace that anyone can defend the actions of the SSP. They are class traitors.

A straight answer to your question. They should have refused to give evidence whatever the cost.


----------



## JHE (Jan 3, 2011)

dylans said:


> They should have refused to give evidence whatever the cost.


 
That would be contempt of court.  The cost would be imprisonment until they relented.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 3, 2011)

dylans said:


> A straight answer to your question. They should have refused to give evidence whatever the cost.


seems basic, doesn't it. sheridan is a vain idiot but these people are informers.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 3, 2011)

JHE said:


> That would be contempt of court.  The cost would be imprisonment until they relented.


 
that's a smaller cost than complete lack of integrity.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 3, 2011)

Nobody likes a fucking grass


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 3, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nobody likes a fucking grass


 
not only that but what right does a newspaper have to pry into someone's private life ? Unless of course he was an old school Tory bleating on amout family values...


----------



## dylans (Jan 3, 2011)

JHE said:


> That would be contempt of court.  The cost would be imprisonment until they relented.


 
So be it


----------



## JHE (Jan 3, 2011)

And you think they shouldn't ever relent, so that's life imprisonment.  Some people would go to prison for life for a good cause.  Is Big Tommy Liar's vanity, dishonestly, disloyalty to comrades and greed for 'compensation' a good enough cause?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 3, 2011)

Who would have gone to prison for life ffs?

McNeilage didn't go to the police, did he? He went to Uncle Rupert. He grassed for money.


----------



## dylans (Jan 3, 2011)

JHE said:


> And you think they shouldn't ever relent, so that's life imprisonment.  Some people would go to prison for life for a good cause.  Is Big Tommy Liar's vanity, dishonestly, disloyalty to comrades and greed for 'compensation' a good enough cause?


 
I think you exaggerate, you don't get life in prison for contempt of court. The worst that would have happened is they could have been locked up for several months and or be given fines.


> If a witness fails to attend court or give evidence or produce the required documents, they can be punished for contempt of court. The punishment can take the form of a prison sentence of up to 3 months duration and/or a fine of up to £250
> http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/witness-at-criminal-trials.htm



But the real question is what is the cause? The "cause" isn't Tommy Sheridan. The "cause is a very simple very basic principle. YOU DON'T GRASS ON YOUR COMRADES. This should be ABC and frankly it is a tragedy that this has to be spelled out.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2011)

Can any of you answer the simple question I asked? In whose interest was the whole farce to begin with?


----------



## JHE (Jan 3, 2011)

dylans said:


> I think you exaggerate, you don't get life in prison for contempt of court. The worst that would have happened is they could have been locked up for several months and or be given fines.


 
If you are in contempt of court, the judge can put you in prison until you purge your contempt.  If you continue to disobey the court, you remain in prison.

You say that the SSPers, who had asked Tommy not be be a bloody fool, should have refused to give evidence. Do you imagine that at some point in their refusal the court would have said, 'OK, then, you don't have to do what we've told you, after all'?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 3, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Can any of you answer the simple question I asked? In whose interest was the whole farce to begin with?


 
Yes, we get it that if Sheridan hadn't of pursued litigation in the first place then it could all have been avoided. But what does that have to do with McNeilage grassing for £200k to fucking Murdoch and the SSP not kicking the fucker out?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 3, 2011)

JHE said:


> If you are in contempt of court, the judge can put you in prison until you purge your contempt.  If you continue to disobey the court, you remain in prison.
> 
> You say that the SSPers, who had asked Tommy not be be a bloody fool, should have refused to give evidence. Do you imagine that at some point in their refusal the court would have said, 'OK, then, you don't have to do what we've told you, after all'?


 
Nobody is going to do life for perjury for heavens sake.


----------



## JHE (Jan 3, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nobody is going to do life for perjury for heavens sake.


 
You have Tommy's release to look forward to, then!


----------



## dylans (Jan 3, 2011)

JHE said:


> If you are in contempt of court, the judge can put you in prison until you purge your contempt.  If you continue to disobey the court, you remain in prison.
> 
> You say that the SSPers, who had asked Tommy not be be a bloody fool, should have refused to give evidence. Do you imagine that at some point in their refusal the court would have said, 'OK, then, you don't have to do what we've told you, after all'?


The fact that you have to resort to melodramic hysterics really does your case no good at all



> What happens if a compellable witness refuses to give evidence?
> 
> In the circumstances where either party to the proceedings believes that a witness may not attend court voluntarily, they can apply for a witness summons to be issued (an order issued to a person outlining the specific date for their appearance in court). A witness summons can take 2 forms namely, a witness summons requiring a person to give evidence and a witness summons requiring a person to produce documents that are needed as evidence. If a witness fails to attend court or give evidence or produce the required documents, they can be punished for contempt of court. *The punishment can take the form of a prison sentence of up to 3 months duration and/or a fine of up to £2500.*



You are simply wrong on fact. Contempt of court has clear consequences. Imprisonment for up to 3 months. Nowhere does the law state they can throw the key away until you relent. Maybe in Egypt or Belarus but not in the UK.


----------



## dylans (Jan 3, 2011)

JHE said:


> You have Tommy's release to look forward to, then!


 
For fucks sakes. Don't you get it? This has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of Sheridans stupid decision to sue. It is about a very simple working class principle. Informing on your comrades is treason. What part of that do you have problems with?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2011)

Instead of the histrionics any chance you might answer the question? 
And for the umpteenth time, George was wrong in what he did.


----------



## past caring (Jan 3, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nobody likes a fucking grass



I well remember saying that about Tommy back in 1990.


----------



## dylans (Jan 3, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Instead of the histrionics any chance you might answer the question?
> And for the umpteenth time, *George was wrong in what he did*.


 
Were the SSP wrong to not expel him? He is still a member right? How can they justify him remaining a member?

I don't think insisting on basic socialist principles is histrionics. That you do says a lot about you. 

As for your question re who benefits I thought it was answered but here is my two pennies worth.
Clearly Sheridan is an idiot and his stupid decision to sue has only benefited the NOTW who are rubbing their hands in glee at the damage this has caused.This entire farce has hurt the left in Scotland and ruined his personal reputation and that is a tragedy. None of that changes the fact that those members of the SSP who gave evidence against him should hang their heads in shame. They are nothing short of informers for the state and for Murdoch.  They have disgraced themselves and dragged socialist politics through the mud.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2011)

A political position based on a lie to the working class is not a politics worth defending or supporting. To defend a lie and build on that is a joke.
I ain't a member of the SSP  so dunno if he is. At the ver least the whole episode should have been investigated.


----------



## dylans (Jan 3, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> A political position based on a lie to the woruing'class is not a politics worth defending or supporting. To defend a lie and build o n that is a joke.


 
But it wasn't a choice between defending Sheridan or giving evidence against him was it? They could have done nothing. Just said nothing and refused to give evidence.  In such a situation they would have come through this with respect..................instead of contempt.

and you haven't answered my question. Should the SSP have expelled George McNeilage?

(sorry I only just seen your edit- You still haven't answered the question though have you? Do you think it is acceptable for a Murdoch grass to be a member of a socialist organisation?)


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 3, 2011)

Yup, what a scenario.....The leader of the SSP resigns and no-one can remember why. Not laughable at all. Sheridan subpoenad folj and demanded they defended a lie. That is anathema to socialist principle.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 3, 2011)

dylans said:


> As for your question re who benefits I thought it was answered but here is my two pennies worth.
> Clearly Sheridan is an idiot and his stupid decision to sue has only benefited the NOTW who are rubbing their hands in glee at the damage this has caused.This entire farce has hurt the left in Scotland and ruined his personal reputation and that is a tragedy. None of that changes the fact that those members of the SSP who gave evidence against him should hang their heads in shame. They are nothing short of informers for the state and for Murdoch.  They have disgraced themselves and dragged socialist politics through the mud.


 
Well here's an uber-principled position that the SSP could have taken:

1) Refuse to give evidence in the perjury trial (anybody who gives a shit about what evidence was given in Tommy's stupid defamation trial is frankly barking).

2) Refuse on the basis of the injustice of the perjury laws. Nevermind any crap about the beloved Tommy the saint being above the law because he is a comrade. If your socialism is the socialism of rights for people we like and fewer rights for people we don't then I don't want anything to do with your "socialism". Defend Sheridan and retrostpectively defend Archer and Aitken.

3) Release all information relative to the case in the party press, including anything incriminating. This sordid little legal affair was made political from day 1 by  Tommy Sheridan. He insisted that the party rally behind him. The NC asked him to resign. All this needed to be explained to the party members and supporters. This issue of party democracy is far more important than this petty issue of incriminating a crook ("grassing" if you like).

Of course that would have been in contempt of court on two accounts. I don't expect anybody to follow this path in this rather sordid and apolitical attempt at upholding Tommy's family man reputation - the consequences were too high relative to the principles at stake. But if we are bleating about principles then those are my principles. Fuck Tommy, fuck the courts. Everything should have been out in the open from day 1 and in the party's press not the Herald or the News of the World. The problem George Macneilage faced was that the SSP probably wouldn't have put the video up on their website. The stupid bastards were still soppy about Tommy. Going to the press was second best. Good for him.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 3, 2011)

Knotted said:


> If your socialism is the socialism of rights for people we like and fewer rights for people we don't then I don't want anything to do with your "socialism". Defend Sheridan and retrostpectively defend Archer and Aitken.


 
Defend Archer and Aitken, who benefit from the base morality  that functions in a class society? In which the pursuit is the idea of the “greatest possible happiness”, not for the majority, but for a small minority? Socialism is about a classless society, where a privileged minority doesn't exist. In the end means, and all means are permissible, if it leads to increasing the power of humankind over nature and to the abolition of the power of one class over another. To pursue a higher human morality.


----------



## Sue (Jan 3, 2011)

audiotech said:


> To pursue a higher human morality.



Really? Someone should've told Tommy that.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 3, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Defend Archer and Aitken, who benefit from the base morality  that functions in a class society? In which the pursuit is the idea of the “greatest possible happiness”, not for the majority, but for a small minority? Socialism is about a classless society, where a privileged minority doesn't exist. In the end means, and all means are permissible, if it leads to increasing the power of humankind over nature and to the abolition of the power of one class over another.


 
So if I can make sense of the above, the bourgeois courts were acting on behalf of the socialist future when Archer and Aitken went down. Interesting theory.

I've known shop stewards who would happily defend their mates but would grass up co-workers they didn't like. Never thought much of that mentality myself, I've always liked the "injury to one is an injury to all" slogan. If Sheridan is worth defending then so were Archer and Aitken. Tory bastards have rights too.

Is anybody in the Sheridan camp going to come up with an even half principled opposition to the perjury laws? Or is it that they think that Tommy is a socialist version of the queen and should be exempt from the laws of the land? Or do they think he's innocent? What is the basis for defending Tommy?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 3, 2011)

Knotted said:


> What is the basis for defending Tommy?


who's defending him?


----------



## Knotted (Jan 3, 2011)

discokermit said:


> who's defending him?


 
http://www.defendtommysheridan.org/defend/


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 4, 2011)

JHE said:


> That would be contempt of court.  The cost would be imprisonment until they relented.



Twice in my life i have obstructed prosecutions on non political matters. Sure i was threatened with gaol, but i got no more than suspended gaol sentence on one occassion and community service on the other. Course i have convictions so most jobs and careers/professions are fucked. I recall a lot of bottle crashing from pb scumbags in the SSP when all this started to develop in 2004 , oh dear what about my career etc etc.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 4, 2011)

JHE said:


> That would be contempt of court.  The cost would be imprisonment until they relented.


 
I am unsure of this but read on SU - in reply to a question about  wether the SSP exec had no choice about testifying in court:

The reply was:

_They did no thave to be involved.

At a meeting on 9/11/04, there was a discussion about an article in NOTW from October, and a personal discussion about Sheridan’s private life.

Proper procedure would have been to suspend standing orders and not minute this. Barbara Scott ignored common conventions of meetings and took an almost verbatim acocunt, that at the end of the meeting she gave to Alan Green for safe keeping.

People now have different recollections of that meeting; but it was a private meeting that need never have neen in the public domain.

However … … …

The very next day, SSP organiser, Duncan Roawn walked into the NOTW office and voluntarily gave them imfo about the previous day’s exec meeting, and without her knowledge put NOTW on the track of Katrina trolle, alledgeing that she was the one who Sheridan was having an affair with.

Katrina Trolle then gave her story to NOTW.

A couple of days after Rown went to the NOTW, Alan McCombes went to the Herald and gave a sworn affadvit that issues had been discussed at the 9/11/04 meeting which the SSP could have used to force Sheridan’s resignation.

At this point it was inevitable that SSP witnesses would be called if a libel action was commenced, but dragging them into court was not the work of Sheridan, but of McCombes, Scott and Rowan, who made sure that the contested and controversial nature of the 9/11/04 meeting was in the public domain._

There has not been any rebuttal of this comment - so i guess it holds? As PT said above though: "if Sheridan hadn't of pursued litigation in the first place then it could all have been avoided. "


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 4, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> A political position based on a lie to the working class is not a politics worth defending or supporting. To defend a lie and build on that is a joke.
> I ain't a member of the SSP  so dunno if he is. At the ver least the whole episode should have been investigated.


 
Agreed.

The brass tacks of the case are these:

1. There was considerable media attention given to aspects of Tommy Sheridan's private life that he took none too kindly to becoming public knowledge, but were substantially accurate all the same.

2. He could have taken that on the chin and possibly ridden out the storm, albeit at some cost to his political career. Instead, he started legal action that would not only run and run in the media, but was also fundamentally dishonest.

3. Instead of dropping his already ill-advised legal action and opting for damage limitation, he opted instead to stand in the court, take the oath and then lie through his teeth thereby committing the serious criminal offence of perjury.

4. He could have simply admitted he liked swinging. Instead, and with spectacularly bad consequences for all involved, he's now fair game to be labelled not only a swinger, but a perjurer and a criminal as well.

I couldn't care less that he likes swinging clubs, or orgies or threesomes or whatever his sexual preferences may be, personally, but his handling of this situation has been nothing short of disastrous for the Scottish left. As far as the suggestion of people defending TS by refusing to give evidence, well you can go to prison just as easily, and for just as long, by committing contempt of court as you can for perjury. And, personally, I'm somewhat unlikely to risk a jail term for either contempt or perjury when I've already got pretty firm evidence that a defendant is actually guilty. If it was a trumped up case aimed at fitting someone up, then I might consider it, but not for someone who had committed the offence they were on trial for.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 4, 2011)

dennisr said:


> I am unsure of this but read on SU - in reply to a question about  wether the SSP exec had no choice about testifying in court:
> 
> The reply was:
> 
> ...


_

At this meeting Sheridan's intent to sue the NOTW was discussed and consequently he was asked to resign as convener. That is, it wasn't just a meeting to discuss Sheridan's private life and tittle tattle in papers. It was a meeting in which a significant political decision was taken. I suspect that this is why it was minuted. I should point out that the minutes were not even confidential at this point. It wasn't until the next EC meeting that it was agreed to keep the minutes 9th November minutes confidential.





			
				dennisr said:
			
		


However … … …

The very next day, SSP organiser, Duncan Roawn walked into the NOTW office and voluntarily gave them imfo about the previous day’s exec meeting, and without her knowledge put NOTW on the track of Katrina trolle, alledgeing that she was the one who Sheridan was having an affair with.

Katrina Trolle then gave her story to NOTW.

Click to expand...


I think Andy Newman might be confusing Katrine Trolle with Fiona Maguire. I'm unclear about Duncan Rowan's motives were, but he seems to have been trying to protect Fiona Maguire.

To be honest I don't think the SSP's strategy of keeping the minutes confidential would have worked anyway. You can't exactly keep Tommy's resignation a secret.




			
				dennisr said:
			
		


A couple of days after Rown went to the NOTW, Alan McCombes went to the Herald and gave a sworn affadvit that issues had been discussed at the 9/11/04 meeting which the SSP could have used to force Sheridan’s resignation.

Click to expand...


I don't know the motives behind the affidavit, but that sounds plausible. Maybe McCombes felt he needed to pressurise Sheridan. But so what? The mistake was in not going public with the minutes not in leaking drips and drabs to the press. Sheridan's resignation and the silence on the reasons behind the resignation caused such confusion.




			
				dennisr said:
			
		


At this point it was inevitable that SSP witnesses would be called if a libel action was commenced, but dragging them into court was not the work of Sheridan, but of McCombes, Scott and Rowan, who made sure that the contested and controversial nature of the 9/11/04 meeting was in the public domain.

There has not been any rebuttal of this comment - so i guess it holds? As PT said above though: "if Sheridan hadn't of pursued litigation in the first place then it could all have been avoided. "
		
Click to expand...

 
Again, so what? They could have subverted party democracy in order to avoid legal issues? I'd like to say good on them for not giving into Sheridan's legalistic pressure. The pity is that they tried to have it both ways._


----------



## audiotech (Jan 4, 2011)

Knotted said:


> So if I can make sense of the above, the bourgeois courts were acting on behalf of the socialist future when Archer and Aitken went down. Interesting theory.
> 
> I've known shop stewards who would happily defend their mates but would grass up co-workers they didn't like. Never thought much of that mentality myself, I've always liked the "injury to one is an injury to all" slogan. If Sheridan is worth defending then so were Archer and Aitken. Tory bastards have rights too.
> 
> Is anybody in the Sheridan camp going to come up with an even half principled opposition to the perjury laws? Or is it that they think that Tommy is a socialist version of the queen and should be exempt from the laws of the land? Or do they think he's innocent? What is the basis for defending Tommy?



Aitken and Archer really couldn't avoid ending up in court for their blatent actions being found out, but by gum both have some chequered history, that eclipses Sheridan's minor infraction by a more than a country mile. Please excuse the C&P odyssey, but the comparisons need to be seen for what they are.

Archer has had a dodgy past setting up charity fundraising organisations some alleging financial discrepancies. Also involved in an alleged fraudulent investment scheme.

During his tenure as deputy chairman, Archer was responsible for a number of embarrassing moments, including his statement, made during a live radio interview, that many young, unemployed people were simply unwilling to find work. At the time of Archer's comment, unemployment in the UK stood at a record 3.4 million. Archer was later forced to apologise for the remark, suggesting that his words had been "taken out of context".

Then came the libel case with the Daily Star alleging that Archer had slept with Coghlan. Archer responded by suing the Daily Star. The case came to court in July 1987. Explaining the payment to Coghlan as the action of a philanthropist rather than that of a guilty man, Archer won the case and was awarded £500,000 damages. Archer stated he would donate the money to charity? The judge said of Jeffrey Archer, "Is he in need of cold, unloving, rubber-insulated sex in a seedy hotel round about quarter to one on a Tuesday morning after an evening at the Caprice?" 

Then anther libel case with accusations in Archers book: Twist in the Tale, portraying Major General James Oluleye to be a thief. He lost that one.

 In May 1991, Archer then organised a charity pop concert, to raise money for the Kurds, starring Rod Stewart, Paul Simon, Sting and Gloria Estefan, who all performed for free. Archer claimed that his charity had raised £57,042,000, though it was later revealed that only £3 million came from the Simple Truth concert and appeal, the rest from aid projects sponsored by the British and other governments, with significant amounts pledged before the concert. The charity would later result in further controversy.

Then was allegations of insider dealing surrounding the takeover of Anglia Television. Archer sold shares on behalf of his friend for a profit of £77,219.

Then on 21 November 1999, the News of the World published allegations that he had committed perjury in his 1987 libel case. Archer withdrew his candidacy for London Mayor the following day.

The basis of the allegations originated with Ted Francis, a friend who claimed Archer owed him money, and Angela Peppiatt, Archer's former personal assistant. They stated that Archer had fabricated an alibi in the 1987 trial and were concerned that Archer was unsuitable to stand as Mayor of London. On 19 July 2001, Archer was found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice at the 1987 trial. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. During his "imprisonment" Archer was let out to work at the Theatre Royal in Lincoln, England, and was allowed occasional home visits. Media reports claimed he had been abusing this privilege by attending lunches with friends, including former Education Secretary Gillian Shephard. On 21 July 2003, Archer was released on licence, after serving half of his sentence.

In July 2001, shortly after being jailed for perjury, Archer's name was again shrouded in controversy, when Scotland Yard began investigating allegations that millions of pounds had disappeared from Archer's Kurdish charity.

In 1991, Archer had claimed to have raised £57,042,000. In 1992, the Kurdish Disaster Fund had written to Archer, complaining: "You must be concerned that the Kurdish refugees have seen hardly any of the huge sums raised in the west in their name." Kurdish groups claimed little more than £250,000 had been received by groups in Iraq. Archer then had gone to Iraq on a fact-finding mission, where his chant of "Long Live Kurdistan" was mis-translated as "Bastard, Devilish Kurdistan."

In 2004, the government of Equatorial Guinea alleged that Archer was one of the financiers of the failed 2004 coup d'état attempt against them, citing bank details and telephone records as evidence.

The satirical magazine Private Eye refers to Archer as 'Jeffrey Archole' or 'Lord Archole' and characterises him as a liar and fantasist. On occasion it has published spoofs of Archer's fiction, describing a thinly-veiled heroic version of himself called 'Jeremy Bowman'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Archer

Then we have Jonathan William Patrick Aitken. He was convicted of perjury in 1999 and received an 18-month prison sentence, of which he served seven months.

In 1970 Aitken was acquitted at the Old Bailey for breaching section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 when he photocopied a report about the British government's supply of arms to Nigeria, and sent a copy to The Sunday Telegraph and to Hugh Fraser, a pro-Biafran Tory MP. As a result of the case he was dropped as a candidate for the Thirsk and Malton parliamentary constituency.

He was later accused of violating ministerial rules by allowing an Arab businessman to pay for his stay in the Paris Ritz, perjured himself and was jailed. Aitken had previously been a director of BMARC, an arms exporter from 1988 to 1990.

In 1995 a commons motion showed that he had signed a controversial Public Interest Immunity Certificate (PIIC) in September 1992 relating to the Matrix Churchill trial; and that the 'gagged' documents included ones relating to the supply of arms to Iraq by BMARC for a period when he was a director of the company.

He became Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1994, a Cabinet position, but resigned in 1995 following the allegations that he had violated ministerial rules.

When Aitken was defeated in the 1997 election. Within a year he was appointed as a representative for the arms company GEC-Marconi.

On 10 April 1995, The Guardian carried a front-page report on Aitken's dealings with leading Saudis. The story was the result of a long investigation carried out by journalists from the newspaper and from Granada TV's World In Action programme. Aitken's response was these memorable words:

_"If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today. Thank you and good afternoon."_

The World In Action film, Jonathan of Arabia, went ahead and Aitken carried out his threat to sue. The action collapsed in June 1997 (a month after he had lost his seat in the 1997 General Election) when the Guardian and Granada produced, via their counsel George Carman QC, evidence countering his claim that his wife, Lolicia Aitken, paid for the hotel stay.

The evidence consisted of airline vouchers and other documents showing that his wife had, in fact, been in Switzerland at the time when she had allegedly been at the Ritz in Paris.

The joint Guardian/Granada investigation indicated an arms deal scam involving Aitken's friend and business partner, the Lebanese businessman Mohammed Said Ayas, a close associate of Prince Mohammed of Saudi Arabia.

It was alleged that Aitken had been prepared to have his teenage daughter Victoria lie under oath to support his version of events had the case continued.

A few days after the libel case collapsed, World In Action broadcast a special edition, which echoed Aitken's "sword of truth" speech. It was entitled The Dagger of Deceit.

During this time it emerged that Aitken was chairman of a right wing think-tank Le Cercle when he was being encouraged to resign. The secretive group apparently received funding from the CIA.

Aitken was charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice, and in 1999 was jailed for 18 months, of which he served seven.

After serving his prison sentence, Aitken appeared on an episode of the BBC satirical quiz show Have I Got News for You. During this appearance, Ian Hislop produced a letter confirming Aitken's bankruptcy and announced that Aitken still owed Hislop's magazine (Private Eye) £13,702, several years after the bankruptcy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Aitken

Don't let me stop you, go ahead and keep defending the rights of these "Tory bastards", serial liars and duplicitous scum.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Don't let me stop you, go ahead and keep defending the rights of these "Tory bastards", serial liars and duplicitous scum.


 
I fail to see your point. They were convicted of perjury like Sheridan. They weren't convicted of being serial liars and duplicitous scum.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 4, 2011)

Good old Mick Hall gets it exactly right.


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 4, 2011)

Knotted said:


> Good old Mick Hall gets it exactly right.



"_If every one of those who lie whilst under oath when giving evidence were brought back before the courts on a change of perjury, then the British judicial system would crash with overload, and British prisons would be full of police officers, barristers, expert witnesses and god knows who else_."

Unfortunately for Tommy, some idiot decided to run the civil action based on "_ alls of youse is lyin scab scum_" so when he won, someone had to be prosecuted. Clearly the Crown Office spotted that the opposite was actually the case.

"I hestitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client" - he'll have a job claiming incompetent representation at the appeal.......


----------



## Knotted (Jan 4, 2011)

I suspect the point will be lost on you Cobbles but Mick's point is that perjury convictions are inherently hypocritical not that socialists should have defended Sheridan's lies.

Is anybody going to condemn the perjury laws? Is anybody going condemn the SSP leadership for welcoming the perjury investigation? Or are the Sheridianistas going to wiffle on about George McNeilage and his magnificent exposure of Sheridan's lies?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 4, 2011)

You deserve an OBE.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2011)

You gonna pull the trigger eh? Or is it yet another wee fantasy?


----------



## Knotted (Jan 4, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> You deserve an OBE.



Why? Defending George McNeilage's excellent expose of Sheridan's lies isn't difficult. It worked a treat so I'm glad he did it. The end justifies the means.

But now I'm more interested in why none of the Sheridanistas will not oppose the injustice of the perjury laws.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 4, 2011)

Knotted said:


> I fail to see your point. They were convicted of perjury like Sheridan. They weren't convicted of being serial liars and duplicitous scum.



More's the pity. I'm talking about sham bourgeois morality. Examining Sheridan's history, a man with little power and control, then comparing his powerlessness alongside the history of Archer and Aitken, both very powerful men, through their privileged class position, gives some indication of bias in the system. Even though Archer and Aitken were convicted of perjury eventually, there were other (those that have been reported), allegations of 'violating ministerial rules', 'financial discrepancies', 'fraudulent investments', 'insider dealing' even allegations of a 'coup plot' over a  period of time, but to be clear, these are allegations, not proven in any court. Despite that this is really about control - a function of the class struggle. There really is no equivalence here to be made.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> More's the pity. I'm talking about sham bourgeois morality. Examining Sheridan's history, a man with little power and control, then comparing his powerlessness alongside the history of Archer and Aitken, both very powerful men, through their privileged class position, gives some indication of bias in the system. Even though Archer and Aitken were convicted of perjury eventually, there were other (those that have been reported), allegations of 'violating ministerial rules', 'financial discrepancies', 'fraudulent investments', 'insider dealing' even allegations of a 'coup plot' over a  period of time, but to be clear, these are allegations, not proven in any court. Despite that this is really about control - a function of the class struggle. There really is no equivalence here to be made.


 
Actually Sheridan was pretty powerful and privileged in his own way. He could rely on the almost unquestioning support of hundreds if not thousands of activists. Normally the use of libel/defamation laws is the privilege of the elite who can afford the legal fees. Sheridan also had pretty privileged position in Scottish bourgeois life. He had celebrity status, he had columns in the papers, he was the socialist conscience of bourgeois Scottish nationalism. A cosy role that he lapped up.

Not that that's relevant. Nor is his misdemeanors such as his lying attacks on other socialists relevant. He was convicted for perjury. Like Aitken and Archer. These three men suffered an injustice. The idea that the courts are about truth is just a bourgeois fantasy and the conviction of these three men is ludicrous and hypocritical.


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Despite that this is really about control - a function of the class struggle. There really is no equivalence here to be made.



Oh, I see, they were nice posh perjurers who were prosecuted having been caught lying in Libel actions as opposed to a prole scum perjurer who was caught lying in a libel action.

Nope - still don't see the difference.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 4, 2011)

Cobbles said:


> Oh, I see, they were nice posh perjurers who were prosecuted having been caught lying in Libel actions as opposed to a prole scum perjurer who was caught lying in a libel action.
> 
> Nope - still don't see the difference.


 
Yes Cobbles exposing the hypocracy of someone like audiotech is like shooting fish in a barrel. Sure, you can do it. But how about adressing the pertinent question - what is your position on perjury? What about the everyday lies, falsifications, spin and half-truths that occur in civil and criminal courts across the country? Is that OK, whilst Sheridan languishes in jail?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 4, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Then we have Jonathan William Patrick Aitken. He was convicted of perjury in 1999 and received an 18-month prison sentence, of which he served seven months.
> 
> In 1970 Aitken was acquitted at the Old Bailey for breaching section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 when he photocopied a report about the British government's supply of arms to Nigeria, and sent a copy to The Sunday Telegraph and to Hugh Fraser, a pro-Biafran Tory MP. As a result of the case he was dropped as a candidate for the Thirsk and Malton parliamentary constituency.


tbf, at the time of the ABC affair Aitken, then a journo, was a whistleblowing good guy, who demanded to be prosecuted, as I understand it, and leaked to expose the govt's - a tory govt, one I presume he voted for - hypocrisy over biafra


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 4, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> You gonna pull the trigger eh? Or is it yet another wee fantasy?


 
Dunno what your talking about Wool.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 4, 2011)

Yes you do, don't try that one. Ooh, wool eh? How 1980s.


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 4, 2011)

Knotted said:


> what is your position on perjury? What about the everyday lies, falsifications, spin and half-truths that occur in civil and criminal courts across the country? Is that OK, whilst Sheridan languishes in jail?



Anyone who gets caught lying whilst under oath/affirmation deserves jail time. It mattres not whether they're a sunbed socialist or a bent peer.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 5, 2011)

I should revise my position a bit - I didn't know about Barbara Scott, Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie going to the police with the EC meeting minutes.

This action should be condemned. It's grassing - there's no two ways about it. Of course I think the minutes should have been published long ago and should have been freely available to all including the police, but the SSP collaborated with Sheridan over keeping the minutes confidential and then they collaborated the police to keep the minutes away from the party and its supporters and in the hands of the state. Total disgrace. Also thoroughly stupid. There is no question that the perjury investigation would ever clear their names - it would only ever show that the police thought it was not in the public interest to prosecute them.

The only person who comes out of this smelling of roses is George McNeilage. No-one else took the fight to Sheridan. The SSP cringed before Sheridan and then hid behind the police and the courts.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 5, 2011)

Aye St George slayed the dragon.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 5, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> Aye St George slayed the dragon.


 
Not yet. The real cancerous growth in the workers movement is not Sheridan but those who egged him on. Hopefully Solidarity will whither and die after this.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 5, 2011)

Knotted said:


> Not yet. The real cancerous growth in the workers movement is not Sheridan but those who egged him on. Hopefully Solidarity will whither and die after this.


 

They are and were an opportunistic lash-up and will certainly wither and die just like the SSP. A new left will emerge in Scotland but not built on electoralism or the eclectic pluralism or the middle class socialism that has been dominant recently.


----------



## dylans (Jan 5, 2011)

Knotted said:


> The only person who comes out of this smelling of roses is George McNeilage. .


 
Yes. A socialist taking £200.000 from the News of the World. He smells of something but roses it aint.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 5, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> They are and were an opportunistic lash-up and will certainly wither and die just like the SSP. A new left will emerge in Scotland but not built on electoralism or the eclectic pluralism or the middle class socialism that has been dominant recently.


 
I can certainly agree with that - or I would if I shared your optimism. The SSP was always just too trendy for its own good - nationalism, animal rights, feminism, pacifism/ disarmament. I think it ended up with the working class as just one concern amongst many little fashionable single issue campaigns.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes. A socialist taking £200.000 from the News of the World. He smells of something but roses it aint.


 
That's a bit puritan of you. I can appreciate that its not exactly classy, but good luck to him, I'm glad he got paid for his excellent work and I hope spent his windfall and something nice.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 5, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> They are and were an opportunistic lash-up and will certainly wither and die just like the SSP. A new left will emerge in Scotland but not built on electoralism or the eclectic pluralism or the middle class socialism that has been dominant recently.


 
I'm not sure i'd advise you to hold your breathe for that 'new left to emerge'. Solidarity is effectively finished, the SSP will carry on, tiny as it is. The next big 'farce' is Galloway possibly standing in Glasgow.... that will be an even funnier lash up than the one you mentioned above.


----------



## Knotted (Jan 5, 2011)

Mind you there's a big difference for Galloway in Glasgow than in Bethnal Green. They already know him in Glasgow. The Galloway lash up won't last long in Scotland.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 5, 2011)

Knotted said:


> Mind you there's a big difference for Galloway in Glasgow than in Bethnal Green. They already know him in Glasgow. The Galloway lash up won't last long in Scotland.


 
Well there was a chatty wee article in the Glasgow Herald yesterday about George Galloway - 


> Mr Galloway, who helped form anti-war party Respect Coalition after being expelled from the Labour Party over the invasion of Iraq, is to stand in Glasgow for the Scottish Parliament elections in May.
> 
> In an email to supporters this weekend, he promised a “momentous year”.
> 
> ...


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 6, 2011)

Fullyplumped said:


> Well there was a chatty wee article in the Glasgow Herald yesterday about George Galloway -



Not a big fan of Galloway but is it really that implausible that he could get 10,000 votes across Glasgow? (That's what he says he needs to get elected.)


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 6, 2011)

imposs1904 said:


> Not a big fan of Galloway but is it really that implausible that he could get 10,000 votes across Glasgow? (That's what he says he needs to get elected.)



Very easy for Gorgeous to get that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 6, 2011)

Knotted said:


> The only person who comes out of this smelling of roses is George McNeilage. No-one else took the fight to Sheridan.


 
Lol


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 6, 2011)

Knotted said:


> That's a bit puritan of you. I can appreciate that its not exactly classy, but good luck to him, I'm glad he got paid for his excellent work and I hope spent his windfall and something nice.



Unfortunately if he's spent the cash, then when the civil appeal succeeds, he'll have to sell his nice property to pay back the damages (+ the paper's legal costs). That should get him back to penury pretty quickly, still, no doubt he can touch up the Legal Aid fund for his bankruptcy proceedings.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 6, 2011)

Think you are getting mixed up with Sheridan and McNeilage here.


----------



## Sue (Jan 6, 2011)

He (TS) will have to pay back the defamation cash, no?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 6, 2011)

Sue said:


> He (TS) will have to pay back the defamation cash, no?


 
He never actually recieved it.


----------



## Sue (Jan 6, 2011)

Ah, okay. Was that because of the perjury investigation/trial?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 6, 2011)

Sue said:


> Ah, okay. Was that because of the perjury investigation/trial?


 
I'm not sure, possibly more to do with the NotW appealing the defamation trial verdict.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 7, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I'm not sure, possibly more to do with the NotW appealing the defamation trial verdict.


 
Exactly. The requirement to pay damages was suspended pending the defender's appeal, and the appeal was held back until the criminal conviction was concluded.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 7, 2011)

Tommy Sheridan has some new witnesses. 




> The Scotsman can reveal Sheridan's legal team have unearthed the fresh witnesses who say they can place the former MSP at an SSP meeting on the day he was accused of being at a swingers' club in Manchester - a key part of the prosecution evidence used to convict him.
> 
> The lawyers claim the witnesses will cast "serious doubt" over the perjury conviction and could lead to the guilty verdict being thrown out on appeal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 7, 2011)

Fullyplumped said:


> Tommy Sheridan has some new witnesses.



Gosh - so some more Sheridan groupies have crawled out of the woodwork............

Where were they during the initial Civil trial and the perjury trial?

_"Ms Uygun claimed the conviction was a "miscarriage of justice" and said she was so anxious to give evidence at any appeal that she would "rugby tackle" the former MSP in order to testify that he was at the event rather than the swingers' club on the date in question."_

Sounds credible (sniggers)........

I'm sure that the Anti-Sheridan wing of the revolutionary Socialisticical  free Garthamnock party will happily dredge up an equal number of brothers and sisters who can swear that he was at the swingers club to show their solidarity to their clique.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 8, 2011)

Fullyplumped said:


> Tommy Sheridan has some new witnesses.



Unfortunately, one of them may turn out to be to be a little bit unreliable. 



> Community activist Fatima Uygun told a newspaper Sheridan could not have been at a sex club in Manchester on September 27, 2002, as his trial heard, since she was with him that night at an event on socialism and the arts in Glasgow.
> 
> However, according to public records, Ms Uygun’s birthday was four days earlier, on September 23. Files lodged at Companies House show that on six occasions between 2002 and 2009, she signed statements giving her date of birth as September 23, 1967, when she became the director or secretary of various limited companies. Ms Uygun also gives her birthday as September 23 on her Facebook page.



and 



> But she could also face questions about her objectivity after posting vitriolic messages on Sheridan’s Facebook page, vowing to hunt down his detractors “like wild animals”.
> 
> On December 29, six days after the guilty verdict against Sheridan, she wrote: “I have already made it my life’s mission to hunt the scab down like wild animals … adding their parasitic friends to my ‘hate list’.”
> 
> ...



Oh, dearie me.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 8, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I'm not sure i'd advise you to hold your breathe for that 'new left to emerge'. Solidarity is effectively finished, the SSP will carry on, tiny as it is. The next big 'farce' is Galloway possibly standing in Glasgow.... that will be an even funnier lash up than the one you mentioned above.


 
No a fan of Gorgeous then, Fed?

His performance in front of that US Senate Committee is possibly my favourite TV performance ever. He made complete cunts out of them - and on _their _manor


----------



## LiamO (Jan 8, 2011)

Fullyplumped said:


> Unfortunately, one of them may turn out to be to be a little bit unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Indeed. Is this not the kind of arrogant stupidity that got Sheridan in the shit in the first place? Shame they publishe dthis stuff now - should have got the loon into the witness box first - then her and Tommy could have written each other from their respective cells.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> No a fan of Gorgeous then, Fed?
> 
> His performance in front of that US Senate Committee is possibly my favourite TV performance ever. He made complete cunts out of them - and on _their _manor


 
He is a brilliant showman when he wants to be, fair play to him for that.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 8, 2011)

LiamO said:


> No a fan of Gorgeous then, Fed?
> 
> His performance in front of that US Senate Committee is possibly my favourite TV performance ever. He made complete cunts out of them - and on _their _manor


 
Not really, he's already wittered on about the Muslim vote. It's not politics for him, he said it himself, he sees himself as a 'big hoitter' and the Scottish parliament needs big hitters like him. Georges only principle is what's good for George. His legacy in Dundee isn't exactly something to be proud of neither. 


Yeah he was good in that Senate hearing, he's had his moments on his radio show when a Rangers fan phone him and George rather ripped him a new arsehole. But that's not exactly what we need in a pro-working class representative is it? And as spanky-ironic name for this thread-says he's a showman, but not much else.
What will be interesting is the response of the sectarians ie SWP & the CWI. After all the SWP 'hate' him after the RESPECT debacle, the CWI criticised him over it. But I wonder if the ability to sell papers and recruit as part of his campaign will over-ride that political animosity. Obviously it'll be dressed up as 'unity' if they do......


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 8, 2011)

> Sheridan’s appeal in disarray as doubts arise over witness
> 
> 
> Tom Gordon and Paul Hutcheon
> ...


----------



## MikeMcc (Jan 8, 2011)

Oops! Another perjury case?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> ...Yeah he was good in that Senate hearing.... he's had his moments on his radio show.... ripped him a new arsehole. But that's not exactly what we need in a pro-working class representative is it?


No..you don't want an expert speaker who can shit on the right-wingers in their own house, expelled from his party for being against a war that we were all against, shown himself to be adept on his feet, can host a phone in comfortably.

You want mary fucking poppins.

You're a realist. 

You've got choices of quality reps.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> No..you don't want an expert speaker who can shit on the right-wingers in their own house, expelled from his party for being against a war that we were all against, shown himself to be adept on his feet, can host a phone in comfortably.
> 
> You want mary fucking poppins.
> 
> ...



Actually he wasn't expelled for being anti-war but for comments prehudicial to the LP. A fair few Labour MPs were resolutely anti-war, and managed not to be rimjobs for Saddam at any time, remarkable that. 

No, I want a pro-working class socialist with decent pro-working class principles. As such that counts Galloway out because his only principle is himself. His inability to stop getting his snout in any trough he can to make more and more money doesn't make me warm to him either...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 9, 2011)

Feel free to offer a possibility so we can compare, Fed.

this thread has pretty much shown that 'you lot' (no offence) don't actually deserve a capable politician, (a career politician?) because what 'you lot' do is not politics.  You seem to want a church.

A decent politician would most likely be wasted on you.  (Not you specifically, Fed, but I can't deny you're in the vicinty)


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Feel free to offer a possibility so we can compare, Fed.
> 
> this thread has pretty much shown that 'you lot' (no offence) don't actually deserve a capable politician, (a career politician?) because what 'you lot' do is not politics.  You seem to want a church.
> 
> A decent politician would most likely be wasted on you.  (Not you specifically, Fed, but I can't deny you're in the vicinty)



What comparison? This isn't binary opposition, it's not a case of if Galloway or no-one. If there's no-one i'd support I wouldn't vote, rather an easy point to make but too difficult for you it seems. 

'you lot'... 'don't do politics'. Fucking laughable, 'you lot' exercised democratic accountability, ie political control of political representatives and got pilloried for it. I'd stick to Sheridan puff pieces if I was you....

A decent politician would be wasted on me eh? But of course you are more than worthy of a decent politician....


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 9, 2011)

You said you wanted a certain kind of politician, I only asked you to name one.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> You said you wanted a certain kind of politician, I only asked you to name one.


 
Why do I have to name one? Again you seem unable to grasp the obvious concept that it's not Galloway or bust. Any politician i'd vote for would have to have certain qualities, Galloway has plenty of 'qualities' but far too many that make him not worth voting for.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> expelled from his party for being against a war that we were all against....


 
The charges laid against George and for which he was expelled from the Labour Party were that he -

- incited Arabs to fight British troops
- incited British troops to defy orders
- threatened to stand against Labour
- backed an anti-war candidate in Preston.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 9, 2011)

Like I said...being anti a war I and millions of others marched against.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Like I said...being anti a war I and millions of others marched against.


 
As much as I agreed with him in opposing the war it's a bit of a bending of facts to say he was 'expelled from his party for being against a war that we were all against'.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 9, 2011)

This little remark is a perfect example of why I have little faith in galloway "As I told Tommy Sheridan once, I couldn’t live on three workers’ wages." in reply to people not supporting over his refusal to stand on a workers wage. 

Awwww bless, £150,000....... What a fine representative of the working-class.



> "I spend my life working, I don’t do anything else: I don’t go to casinos, I don’t drink alcohol, I’ve meetings nearly every night of the week. Of course I don’t go around in sackcloth and ashes, why should I? Everything I have in life I’ve earned myself. Every penny I make I spend. I earned nearly £150,000 last year: I’ve got an overdraft. I don’t have any savings. I spend it on the move on the things I need to function properly as a leading figure in a part of the British political system."



http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/Indefatigably-yours.2428680.jp


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 9, 2011)

Indeed...and your reps are so much better. 

As I keep saying...'you lot' don't know an opportunity when it drops in your laps.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Indeed...and your reps are so much better.
> 
> As I keep saying...'you lot' don't know an opportunity when it drops in your laps.



You can't even dispute the point politically can you.... And you say others don't do politics.... Oh the irony.

What reps? If you mean SSP MSP's they had more integtrity in their little finger that that carpet-bagging communalist clown.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Feel free to offer a possibility so we can compare, Fed.
> 
> this thread has pretty much shown that 'you lot' (no offence) don't actually deserve a capable politician, (a career politician?) because what 'you lot' do is not politics.  *You seem to want a church*.
> 
> A decent politician would most likely be wasted on you.  (Not you specifically, Fed, but I can't deny you're in the vicinty)



Funny you should write that 'cos you're the main culprit on this thread for needing something to worship.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 9, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> This little remark is a perfect example of why I have little faith in galloway "As I told Tommy Sheridan once, I couldn’t live on three workers’ wages." in reply to people not supporting over his refusal to stand on a workers wage.
> 
> Awwww bless, £150,000....... What a fine representative of the working-class.
> 
> ...



Fuck Galloway.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 10, 2011)

Anyway, back to Mr Sheridan's trial. It seems that one of the jurors has been busy on Facebook, and may be facing a jail sentence of her own. 



> The juror, who cannot be named for legal reasons, may have breached the Contempt of Court Act by posting details of the jury’s deliberations – a crime which, if found guilty, can lead to a jail term. In ungrammatical English she described her fellow jurors as “dirty low life b*******” for finding Sheridan guilty, before saying she hoped they “choke in their f****** sleep, scum bags they are”.
> 
> On a public Facebook group linked to Sheridan, the female juror wrote: “Hi tommy i was one off youre jurers.” She revealed how the jurors had voted and commented on whether Sheridan was guilty or not. The post, which was written on January 4, then said: “Dont know if this letter gets too you personally but id be grateful if you can get back too me please.”She continued: “Hubby is 1000% behind you and so am i dawl ok i really think strong for you dawl and youre going to appeal against these idiots.” She finished by describing where she sat in court and said: “please please tommy get back to me or tell gail too do it let me know how you are ok pal take care.”



Oh, dearie me.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2011)

How could he lose wıth her on hıs sıde?


----------



## Geri (Jan 10, 2011)

What an idiot.


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 10, 2011)

Fullyplumped said:


> Anyway, back to Mr Sheridan's trial. It seems that one of the jurors has been busy on Facebook[/URL], and may be facing a jail sentence of her own.


_
"The woman also revealed where she sat during the trial and and urged Sheridan or his wife Gail to get in touch In a Facebook posting, she described fellow jurors as "dirty low life b******" and hoped they "choke in their fckn sleep scum bags they are"_

It has to be a wind-up except that the Juror's literacy/intelligence level seems to be about right for a Sheridan-ite.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 10, 2011)

Sneering cunts.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 10, 2011)

I don't see what the literacy level of the woman has to do with anything.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 12, 2011)

Anyway... James Doleman's Blog - which is up for the Orwell Prize and would be a highly deserving winner - links to a 25 minute interview by Bernard Ponsonby of STV with Tommy Sheridan recorded before the jury's verdict was given. 

[video]http://video.stv.tv/bc/news-101221-sheridaniv/[/video]


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 14, 2011)

Gail Sheridan to run for Holyrood



> The wife of Tommy Sheridan – convicted of perjury last month – is planning to run as a candidate for Solidarity, the party founded by her husband.
> 
> A formal announcement of her place at the top of Solidarity’s Glasgow list is not planned until after her husband is sentenced later this month.
> 
> ...



Oh, dearie me.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2011)

Have they told Galloway as yet? Or, was George or are Solidarity 'kite flying'?!


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 14, 2011)

If puir wee Gail wants to " _take up Tommy’s mantle_ ", she'll have to start the sunbed sessions,3 in a bed romps and wilful perjuring now.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 14, 2011)

If it fucks up Galloway getting elected then for that alone it would be great.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> If it fucks up Galloway getting elected then for that alone it would be great.


 
Or an even more cynical reading would be if they fuck each other over in getting elected.

There's an interesting comment by Andy Newman-rare in itself-over on SU about this article.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2011)

When doe Tommy get sentenced?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2011)

TopCat said:


> When doe Tommy get sentenced?


 
26th January


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2011)

Arf arf.....



> Speaking to BBC Scotland, Mr Galloway said he was "a bit surprised" to read about Mrs Sheridan's candidacy.
> 
> He said: "Only a couple of days ago Tommy Sheridan was proposing to me that Gail Sheridan should run as the number two on my list in Glasgow - my campaign's launched on Sunday.



George Galloway irked by Gail Sheridan Holyrood bid


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 14, 2011)

Fullyplumped said:


> Anyway... James Doleman's Blog - which is up for the Orwell Prize and would be a highly deserving winner - links to a 25 minute interview by Bernard Ponsonby of STV with Tommy Sheridan recorded before the jury's verdict was given.
> 
> [video]http://video.stv.tv/bc/news-101221-sheridaniv/[/video]



He's aged about twenty years in the last two.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 15, 2011)

Turns out that Gail offered to join George's list as #2, but he said no. 



> A friend of the Sheridans said: “George Galloway refused to countenance any link with anyone else. He has a tendency to want it his way or the highway. He seemed to think Gail Healey was some kind of wee lassie with no political background of her own, rather than someone who actually led a strike as a British Airways shop steward.


----------



## silentNate (Jan 16, 2011)

Reports on Twitter that Tommy Sheridan has died. I'm presuming that this is a sick hoax at present until I see something from the mainstream media


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 16, 2011)

silentNate said:


> Reports on Twitter that Tommy Sheridan has died. I'm presuming that this is a sick hoax at present until I see something from the mainstream media


 
to quote @robcatherall, a Sky News person, "contrary to rumours tommy sheridan NOT involved in road accident in glasgow, strathclyde police tell us. calm down all....."


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 16, 2011)

silentNate said:


> Reports on Twitter that Tommy Sheridan has died. I'm presuming that this is a sick hoax at present until I see something from the mainstream media





Fullyplumped said:


> to quote @robcatherall, a Sky News person, "contrary to rumours tommy sheridan NOT involved in road accident in glasgow, strathclyde police tell us. calm down all....."



What the fuck?!


----------



## where to (Jan 16, 2011)

christ this saga has taken some bizarre turns but that takes the biscuit


----------



## audiotech (Jan 16, 2011)

This?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12201950

"Some people on Twitter and DS then apparently jumped to the conclusion that Tommy Sheridan was involved, but why they did that I don't know"

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=47389718


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 16, 2011)

Somebody find a canoe


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 16, 2011)

Glad to say that Mr Sheridan safe and well and fit to face the sentencing diet in a couple of weeks.

Meanwhile, seen on twitter ten minutes ago - 



> BREAKING: Popular People's Glasgow socialist front to contest Holyrood election to give voters on left a proper choice of a dozen parties



and eight minutes ago - 



> Popular People's Glasgow Socialist Front to split into Popular People's Socialist Front of Glasgow and People's Popular Socialist Front


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 16, 2011)

Fuck Galloway and fuck the unionist Labour Party.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jan 16, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> Fuck Galloway and fuck the unionist Labour Party.


 
Tough talking there.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 16, 2011)

Sure is. All the  radical and intellectually challenging talent is on our side your lot is left with middle class careerist placemen/women and Iain Gray.As for Galloway just who with a brain believes him?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 16, 2011)

I like Galloway  

I get *slightly* more shit for liking Galloway than Sheridan.  Church of the Latter Day Socialists and all that.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 16, 2011)

What do you like about him? His wealth,his British patriotism and unionism, his love of certain regimes, his catholicism, his speeches? Galloway abandoned socialism and his class years ago- like so many of the misnamed representatives of labour.


----------



## tar1984 (Jan 16, 2011)

I once read a bit of Galloways autobiography but he lost me when he started arguing again scottish independance on the premise that 'the world needs fewer borders, not more'.

That's all very well as an abstract theory but while the english keep voting in the tories i'd prefer if their voting didn't have any impact up here thanks.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 17, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> What do you like about him? His wealth,his British patriotism and unionism, his love of certain regimes, his catholicism, his speeches? Galloway abandoned socialism and his class years ago- like so many of the misnamed representatives of labour.


 
Didn't your lot just sell out Sheridan for the murdoch coin?  Glass houses...stones?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 17, 2011)

Dexter i support Sheridan against the British courts and have been unsparing in my criticism of the SSP. Check my posts on here. I was in the SSP at the beginning and cant believe how easily it crumbled with its first bit of pressure from the secret British state and its friends in the Scottish "left".


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 17, 2011)

Yeah, I did notice.  So it's more cutting your own nose off to spite your face than throwing stones in glass houses


----------



## Melinda (Jan 26, 2011)

Sentenced to three years in jail.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 26, 2011)

Melinda said:


> Sentenced to three years in jail.



Yep, 3 years ... 

Hope he serves all of it .. 

Dirty political liar!


----------



## laptop (Jan 26, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Hope he serves all of it ..


 
Not unless he's *caught* in a threesome with a screw...


Hang on...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 26, 2011)

3 years is ok, out in 18 months.


----------



## brixtonscot (Jan 26, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> Dexter i support Sheridan against the British courts........



Did you also support Sheridans insistance on going to British courts in the first place ?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2011)

I'd support just about anyone going up against the news of the world. but  suing them for libel when you did what they reported you did thats just fucking stupid. only really going to be one result your going to jail.
  any chance of NOW provoking tony into suing please preety please


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2011)

Melinda said:


> Sentenced to three years in jail.


 
Sad to hear. Hope he gets through it OK.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Sad to hear. Hope he gets through it OK.


 
Sad? 

He lied in court!

And it is not as if he is stupid enough to think he could!!


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Jan 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Sad to hear. Hope he gets through it OK.


 
I agree, sad news indeed. The severity of the sentence is a total disgrace.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 26, 2011)

Me and Mr Sheridan would no doubt disagree on almost any and everything but I think its a joke that he has gotten jailed for this. How does it benefit society in anyway ? Especially since it was only some shitty tabloid that was meant to be the 'victim' of this crime.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I agree, sad news indeed. The severity of the sentence is a total disgrace.


yeh. my money was on something properly severe.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 26, 2011)

Oh come on .... 

He is hardly a dimwit innocent ... 

He knew perfectly well that it is against the law to lie in court, there is even a word for it "perjury".

He knew all that yet he spun a web of lies for profit in his libel court and now he has been found out!

A person of political substance, with a reputation to protect. 

Foolhardy, stupid, criminal .... 

He deserves every day he spends inside, perhaps he will grow up a bit!


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 26, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Oh come on ....
> 
> He is hardly a dimwit innocent ...
> 
> ...


 
I dont think anybody is saying that he was innocent but surely what matters in any crime who the victim is. If he had been caught lieing under oath to prevent somebody being found guilty of murder or similar then fine, lock him up.

But in the case of shitty tabloid whose original story was just a farce (his sex life is his business. As I understand it everything was consensual and between adults and in private so why is that 'news' ? ) then I am personally pissed off that the tax payer is going to have to foot the bill for keeping this man locked up. 

Its this sort of thing that community service should be designed for.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 26, 2011)

My own 'venom' is reserved for those political organisations who cheerled Tommy into court, whispered support in his ear as the courtcases loomed safe in the knowledge their liberty was never at risk and that they were safe. The armchair generals and Marxist Earl Haigs who celebrated this disaster from behind the front lines. The very people who relished theor 'political martyr' utterly safe in the knowledge that their liberty was never at threat but gifted a political cause celebre they never had to worry about losing on.....


----------



## weepiper (Jan 26, 2011)

I thought he'd get about two years.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 26, 2011)

Perjury is a _very_ serious crime indeed - he should count himself lucky.
I was expecting more like 4 or 5 years.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 26, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> My own 'venom' is reserved for those political organisations who cheerled Tommy into court, whispered support in his ear as the courtcases loomed safe in the knowledge their liberty was never at risk and that they were safe. The armchair generals and Marxist Earl Haigs who celebrated this disaster from behind the front lines. The very people who relished theor 'political martyr' utterly safe in the knowledge that their liberty was never at threat but gifted a political cause celebre they never had to worry about losing on.....



I cannot imagine anybody seeing him as a 'political martyr'. I guess Lord Archers jailing for perjury following a similar(ish) sort of scandal shows that its hardly the preserve of lefties to be targeted by the tabloid press in this manner.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 26, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> I cannot imagine anybody seeing him as a 'political martyr'. I guess Lord Archers jailing for perjury following a similar(ish) sort of scandal shows that its hardly the preserve of lefties to be targeted by the tabloid press in this manner.


 
I suggest you read the dribblings of Solidarity on the issue...


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 26, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I suggest you read the dribblings of Solidarity on the issue...


 
I will take your word on it. 

They must be fucking idiots though to try and push a political angle on this. I mean all that swinging stuff aint my cup of tea for all sorts of reasons ( I have a minor case of OCD about personel hygine and that sort of thing would be far too sticky for my liking ignoring any moral stuff) but its hardly going to discredit a left wing politician is it ? Some right winger who banged on about family values maybe but a leftie ? Nah.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 26, 2011)

It's a pity then that it was his left-wing mates who sold him out to the news of the world for money *after he won the original defamation case*.

And I'd argue that with the notw...yes, you are much more likely to be attacked as a politician if you're left-wing.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 26, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> I dont think anybody is saying that he was innocent but surely what matters in any crime who the victim is. If he had been caught lieing under oath to prevent somebody being found guilty of murder or similar then fine, lock him up.



I am not sure that the status of the victim should determine the severity of the crime. I understand that it is a tempting argumentative line to take but I am not sure it is right. 



Stoat Boy said:


> But in the case of shitty tabloid whose original story was just a farce (his sex life is his business. As I understand it everything was consensual and between adults and in private so why is that 'news' ? ) then I am personally pissed off that the tax payer is going to have to foot the bill for keeping this man locked up.



But people who stand up in public life and preach to others (I admit I don't really know what his personal preachings were about) have historically been fair game. So the paper picked him up about his private life ........... no I don't know enough about that. 



Stoat Boy said:


> Its this sort of thing that community service should be designed for.


 
Would you have been happy if Archer had just got a community sentence?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Would you have been happy if Archer had just got a community sentence?


 yes. because it's bloody difficult to write a prison diary about doing community service.


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 26, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> *after he won the original defamation case*



Only by *LYING*, otherwise he'd not be saying cheerio to the fragrant Gail + wain for 18 months (if he sucks the state toe).


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 26, 2011)

Cobbles said:


> Only by *LYING*, otherwise he'd not be saying cheerio to the fragrant Gail + wain for 18 months (if he sucks the state toe).



oooh...and that differs from every other court case in the world how, exactly?


----------



## janeb (Jan 26, 2011)

I'm sorry for his family, but he was an idiot who brought this on himself, and fucked over (in more ways than one) a lot of other people on the way - so I have no sympathy at all for the position he's now in.  And this is really fuck all to do with this political position, if he hadn't lied, then lied again, he wouldn't have been sleeping behind bars tonight.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 27, 2011)

janeb said:


> I'm sorry for his family, but he was an idiot who brought this on himself, and fucked over (in more ways than one) a lot of other people on the way - so I have no sympathy at all for the position he's now in.  And this is really fuck all to do with this political position, if he hadn't lied, then lied again, he wouldn't have been sleeping behind bars tonight.


 
I agree ..


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 27, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> oooh...and that differs from every other court case in the world how, exactly?



Most court cases aren't fabricated by a lying scumbag.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 27, 2011)

Tommy Sheridan stood against the police on nukes, warrant sales and the poll tax.

He successfully defended himself against the biggest right-wing media organisation in the known world.

He was then sold out by other so-called ..well fuck I don't know, can't be left and it sure isn't social...amateurs was my description a while back...his party became about the personal and not the political.

They'll get less votes than jedward.


----------



## Random (Jan 27, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I am not sure that the status of the victim should determine the severity of the crime. I understand that it is a tempting argumentative line to take but I am not sure it is right.


 Who's saying what the capitalist courts should do? All I know is that Sheridan was, for a time at least, a fighter for the working class, and so it's a shame that he's now in jail. Archer I couldn't care less what he gets.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> He successfully defended himself against the biggest right-wing media organisation in the known world.


 
What courtcase are you referring to because in the Defamation trial the NotW was the defence as Sheridan was the Plaintiff. In the recent trial Sheridan got found guilty and jailed, hardly 'successful'?!


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 27, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But people who stand up in public life and preach to others (I admit I don't really know what his personal preachings were about) have historically been fair game. So the paper picked him up about his private life ........... no I don't know enough about that.
> 
> Would you have been happy if Archer had just got a community sentence?


 
But I cannot recollect there being anything about him 'preaching' to others with regards to their sex lives. Thats my point. What he chooses to do in his private life should remain just that, private unless there is a very definite conflict of interest with his public life and I cannot see that in this case at all. 

As I have said I would be on the opposite side of the political fence on almost everything and anything from this man BUT I cannot for the life of me see any benefit to society from his being incarcarated over this matter.

And ditto with what happened to Lord Archer. He had a reputation for being a very liberal Tory when it came to personal sexual matters in terms of his voting record and the like and he never abused the prostitute he alledgedly paid and so on. 

Which is my point. 

I cannot see what harm either Sheridan or Lord Archer did to society in terms of how they behaved that represented enough of a threat to society to warrent either man being locked up especially when you see the leniency shown to others who have inflicted both physical and mental anguish on other people. 

Now I accept that I have a reputation on here for being a right wing racist and homophobic bastard and I dont mind that much if I am honest but I do like to think of myself as not being hypocritical and for me what people do in their private lives should remain that unless a genuine case can be shown for exposing them. And in both of these cases I fail to see it.


----------



## brixtonscot (Jan 27, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> It's a pity then that it was his left-wing mates who sold him out to the news of the world for money *after he won the original defamation case*.


 
It was Sheridan's insistance on going to court in the first place that dragged his "left-wing mates" reluctantly to go to court and tell the truth.

For that they were reported to the authorities falsely accused of perjury , and Sheridan went to the press accusing them of being scabs


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

Stoat Boy, if we take your arguments to their logical conclusion, then there should not be perjury laws on the Statute book, cos that's what he's being done for. Is that what you want, and can you see any practical difficulties with such a move?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Stoat Boy, if we take your arguments to their logical conclusion, then there should not be perjury laws on the Statute book, cos that's what he's being done for. Is that what you want, and can you see any practical difficulties with such a move?


 
Not at all. I am not saying that they do not deserve some punishment because they broke the law. What I am questioning is the value of locking them up. I cannot see anything beneficial in that. There was not real 'victim' in these crimes but rather just some shitty tabloid newspapers who are deserving of our scorn for even printing that sort of shite in the first place. 

Community service would have been more than sufficent in either case.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 27, 2011)

brixtonscot said:


> It was Sheridan's insistance on going to court in the first place that dragged his "left-wing mates" reluctantly to go to court and tell the truth.
> 
> For that they were reported to the authorities falsely accused of perjury , and Sheridan went to the press accusing them of being scabs



This is what I saw posted elsewhere. I am unsure but, if so, is basically saying, no they never had to go regardless of the rightness or wrongness of Sheridan's decision. If so the popular and oft repeated myth that his actions 'forced' them into court seems to be just that - a myth :




			
				someone or other said:
			
		

> At a meeting on 9/11/04, there was a discussion about an article in NOTW from October, and a personal discussion about Sheridan’s private life.
> 
> Proper procedure would have been to suspend standing orders and not minute this. Barbara Scott ignored common conventions of meetings and took an almost verbatim acocunt, that at the end of the meeting she gave to Alan Green for safe keeping.
> 
> ...


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 27, 2011)

Cobbles said:


> Most court cases aren't fabricated by a lying scumbag.


 
he LIED you twat. Something we all do from time to time. But 3 fucking years - £120,000 of taxpayers money to keep someone who isn't a threat to anyone in prison


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 27, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> Not at all. I am not saying that they do not deserve some punishment because they broke the law. What I am questioning is the value of locking them up. I cannot see anything beneficial in that. There was not real 'victim' in these crimes but rather just some shitty tabloid newspapers who are deserving of our scorn for even printing that sort of shite in the first place.
> 
> Community service would have been more than sufficent in either case.


 
crikey now i'm agreeing with Stoat Boy!


----------



## weltweit (Jan 27, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> Community service would have been more than sufficent in either case.


 
But Archer and Sheridan are both politicians, both prominent in public life. They have a reputation which is based largely on their utterances. That they can mislead in the course of their politics we all understand, politicians often mislead to better argue their point. 

It would be one thing if they were simply being economical with the truth for the purposes of a political argument out in the real world - though this sort of behaviour reduces the repute of the political class somewhat. But they were in court, they know that it is illegal to lie in court, they swore an oath when they took the witness stand, and yet, despite being intelligent enough to know that it is against the law to lie in court, and despite taking an oath, and despite knowing the seriousness of perjury, they did both lie significantly in court. 

They did not somehow lie by mistake, it was willful, they knew what they were doing. Hence they deserve the punishent for perjury. 

If everyone perjured themselves, the rule of law would fall apart. 

And these are public figures. 

Community service just would not cut it.


----------



## Sue (Jan 27, 2011)

The car crash continues...

Gail Sheridan has confirmed she will not be standing for election to the Scottish Parliament in May's vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12297093


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But Archer and Sheridan are both politicians, both prominent in public life. They have a reputation which is based largely on their utterances. That they can mislead in the course of their politics we all understand, politicians often mislead to better argue their point.
> 
> It would be one thing if they were simply being economical with the truth for the purposes of a political argument out in the real world - though this sort of behaviour reduces the repute of the political class somewhat. But they were in court, they know that it is illegal to lie in court, they swore an oath when they took the witness stand, and yet, despite being intelligent enough to know that it is against the law to lie in court, and despite taking an oath, and despite knowing the seriousness of perjury, they did both lie significantly in court.
> 
> ...


You've nailed it precisely here. People  as prominent as these 2 - and Aitken for that matter - should be made an example of, simply because perjury is such a serious business


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> he LIED you twat. Something we all do from time to time. But 3 fucking years - £120,000 of taxpayers money to keep someone who isn't a threat to anyone in prison


We certainly don't all lie *under oath*, trev, and are you saying perjury shouldn't be regarded as a serious criminal offence?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

Under oath to who?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Under oath to who?


OK good point, I'm not thrilled about the wording, but the point to me is more about whether lying in a court of law, when giving evidence, should be tolerated> To me, it shouldn't simply because otherwise legal proceedings would be a complete farce


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

dennisr said:


> This is what I saw posted elsewhere. I am unsure but, if so, is basically saying, no they never had to go regardless of the rightness or wrongness of Sheridan's decision. If so the popular and oft repeated myth that his actions 'forced' them into court seems to be just that - a myth :


 
Well apart frm the fact thet Tommy Sheridan subpoenad them.... And even whilst he knew the subpoena was being put together etc he didn't tell anyone it was coming. So the idea he didn't use legal means to make them goto court is frankly factually incorrect
Tommy also knew full well about the minutes, he knew full well what was in the minutes and agreed that they were held by the EC when it was put to a 'Special' NC meeting at Glasgow Caledonian University 27th November 2004. 
That Duncan Rowan-hungover staggered into the NotW offices, the minutes were used and the affa davit which were all unacceptable are factual events are they the only people to 'blame'? Whilst I agree with them not being right again it's more of the same pish that everyone else is to blame except the man who launched the legal action. It's everyone BUT Tommy's fault.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Under oath to who?


 
The very same oath that Tommy said 'Graeme McIvor 4 children', to give him his full name in Tommyworld, swore to so it proves he's not lying, that he had 4 kids and swore the oath....


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

I must admit, although I hate the idea of a socialist - and one I used to admire - being fucked over by NotW, I'm finding it really hard to muster much sympathy for TS....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> The very same oath that Tommy said 'Graeme McIvor 4 children', to give him his full name in Tommyworld, swore to so it proves he's not lying, that he had 4 kids and swore the oath....


 
My point was that no socialist should be putting an oath to the crown/state/judiciary on a pedestal.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> My point was that no socialist should be putting an oath to the crown/state/judiciary on a pedestal.


so you are saying that socialists should not regard perjury as a law worth respecting (merely one where they should take seriously the worst-case consequences of breaking)?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> so you are saying that socialists should not regard perjury as a law worth respecting (merely one where they should take seriously the worst-case consequences of breaking)?


 
Yep, precisely. Obviously it depends on the consequences for others but I don't see lying to a court as any worse than lying down the pub. Worse consequences, obviously.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> OK good point, I'm not thrilled about the wording, but the point to me is more about whether lying in a court of law, when giving evidence, should be tolerated> To me, it shouldn't simply because otherwise legal proceedings would be a complete farce


 
good to see you sticking up for the bourgeois state.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yep, precisely. Obviously it depends on the consequences for others but I don't see lying to a court as any worse than lying down the pub. Worse consequences, obviously.


 
lying down the pub is worse. that's lying to your mates. who gives a fuck about lying to the crown?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

discokermit said:


> lying down the pub is worse. that's lying to your mates. who gives a fuck about lying to the crown?


 
Aye, I'd agree with that


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> My point was that no socialist should be putting an oath to the crown/state/judiciary on a pedestal.


 
Does that include Sheridan who on numerous occasions did exactly that! Or, yet again, is it another case of one law for everyone else and another for Sheridan?!


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

discokermit said:


> lying down the pub is worse. that's lying to your mates. *who gives a fuck about lying to the crown?*


 
If you read the transcript Tommy Sheridan clearly thinks you shouldn't lie to the crown. But, yet again, he's never to be criticised for his own 'bourgeois morality' as regards adherence to the crown!


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yep, precisely. Obviously it depends on the consequences for others but I don't see lying to a court as any worse than lying down the pub. Worse consequences, obviously.


 
Whatever the charge or matter at hand? Are there any circumstances when socialists shouldn't lie to the crown/on oath?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

discokermit said:


> lying down the pub is worse. that's lying to your mates. who gives a fuck about lying to the crown?


so - devil's advocate - say you, or a socialist you respected - got fucked over as a result of someone lying in court, your response would be?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Does that include Sheridan who on numerous occasions did exactly that! Or, yet again, is it another case of one law for everyone else and another for Sheridan?!


 


Fedayn said:


> Whatever the charge or matter at hand? Are there any circumstances when socialists shouldn't lie to the crown/on oath?


 
What?

I specifically said it's obviously going to depend on who else would be implicated. I never claimed socialists should lie to the crown - I said I don't think socialists should hold the crown or the judiciary up as sacred. And I never even mentioned Sheridan or the case, I was commenting on Streathamite holding perjury up as some terrible crime. Personally, my only concern about lying to the courts would be 'will I get caught'.

Fed, I know you're close to all this but you need to chill the fuck out.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

edited out as PT's answered the question. Yes, I see the  point now. PT's slightly got me wrong - I'm more concerned with the practical implications of perjury not being seen as a serious offence, as opposed to me genuflecting before crown and m'lud (which I certainly don't do).


----------



## rioted (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> so you are saying that socialists should not regard perjury as a law worth respecting (merely one where they should take seriously the worst-case consequences of breaking)?


"vote for us, we'll only lie when politically expedient. Trust us." Can't see it catching on. 




discokermit said:


> who gives a fuck about lying to the crown?


Who gives a fuck about 3 years?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> What?
> 
> I specifically said it's obviously going to depend on who else would be implicated. I never claimed socialists should lie to the crown - I said I don't think socialists should hold the crown or the judiciary up as sacred. And I never even mentioned Sheridan or the case, I was commenting on Streathamite holding perjury up as some terrible crime. Personally, my only concern about lying to the courts would be 'will I get caught'.
> 
> Fed, I know you're close to all this but you need to chill the fuck out.



Surely the issue is dependent on the matter in hand? Or am I being shafted by someone shop is suppodely my comrade? Well given we're on the thread re Sheridan and the issue of perjury is rather pertinent here it's hardly a leap of logic to use the recent trial as an 'example'. 

Sheridan clearly holds perjury up as a crime. He mentioned a witness had been done for perjury, he mentioned that the issue of 'lying' was discussed at an SSP meeting so yeah he clearly does hold it to be important.... Funny that....

Chill the fuck out? There's the tatters of a Left up here and you want me to 'chill the fuck out'?


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> What courtcase are you referring to because in the Defamation trial the NotW was the defence as Sheridan was the Plaintiff.



It was a Scottish Civil Court, therefore Tommy was the pursuer and the newspaper was the defender.


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 27, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> he LIED you twat. Something we all do from time to time. But 3 fucking years - £120,000 of taxpayers money to keep someone who isn't a threat to anyone in prison



He lied under affirmation - that's a criminal offence.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> so - devil's advocate - say you, or a socialist you respected - got fucked over as a result of someone lying in court, your response would be?


 
that's on the same level as saying 'oh, you don't believe in private property, yet you own a car!'. fuck off.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> If you read the transcript Tommy Sheridan clearly thinks you shouldn't lie to the crown. But, yet again, he's never to be criticised for his own 'bourgeois morality' as regards adherence to the crown!


 
i don't give a fuck what sheridan says.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> he LIED you twat. Something we all do from time to time. But 3 fucking years - £120,000 of taxpayers money to keep someone who isn't a threat to anyone in prison


 
Less than Archer, but i'd agree re jailing perjureres esp non-violent low threat defendants.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

discokermit said:


> that's on the same level as saying 'oh, you don't believe in private property, yet you own a car!'. fuck off.


no it's not, it's  a perfectly  reasonable question (NOTE: A question, NOT a statement), so how about giving a reasonable answer?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

discokermit said:


> i don't give a fuck what sheridan says.


 
No, you simply ignore what Sheridan did when it conflicts with your attitude on here.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Surely the issue is dependent on the matter in hand?


 
Why do you keep asking this when I've answered it twice? What I've said has been quite clear. I didn't mention Sheridan, I said 'an oath to who'. And yeah, you should chill the fuck out. If you think the collapse of the Scottish left is just down to Sheridan then you're deluded.

The Welsh equivalent of the SSP collapsed pretty quickly too, without any help from the 'sects' or the 'brit left' or whatever, and without a sex scandal or a perjury trial. It collapsed for the same reasons the SSP did - because class became just another issue, alongside 'feminism, self-determination' blah blah, because it was populist and contradictory, and because too many people were in it for themselves.

As for Sheridan, as I believe I have said before, I do not think he was in the right to pursue the case in the first place and I do not think a socialist should be dropping their comrades in the shit like he did. I also don't think he's the devil, just a vain man who fucked up big time but who, it should also be acknowledged, has done a lot more than most for working class politics. And you are right when you say that everything that came after wouldn't have happened if Sheridan hadn't have been so fucking vain - but that doesn't detract from the conduct of others in the SSP, nor does it detract from the fact that the SSP, as an organisation, put the personal ahead of politics (as Sheridan did). I wouldn't touch the SSP with a fucking shitty stick, and I don't imagine many working class people in Scotland ever will again.

Not that any of this is relevant to the point I made, namely lying under oath may be a criminal offence but I don't regard it as ethically dodgy in the slightest.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> No, you simply ignore what Sheridan did when it conflicts with your attitude on here.


 
i don't like sheridan. i think he was a twat for starting the whole thing. nowhere near as bad as the touts up there who couldn't wait to get stuck in though.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

Innit


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Sheridan is neither the devil nor solely responsible, indeed he is one of a few who have fucked it. However his idiotic decision was the catalyst for much if not all that followed.
No offence but it's farcical to even try to use the collapse of the 'Welsh Left' as any comparison to what happened up here. 
 As it goes I don't think many people will touch 'the left' in general up here with a shitty stick full stop at present.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

Same model, same flaws


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

We’ll stand by Tommy



> with his mother Alice at the helm.
> 
> She said: *“I believe that Tommy is the victim of the biggest, most insidious conspiracy since the Dreyfus affair”* – a reference to the political scandal that divided France in the 1890s and early 1900s when a French artillery officer of Jewish descent was wrongly accused of treason.



Doh!!!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

It is his mum tbf


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> It is his mum tbf


 
I understand that, but that notwithstanding it's frankly laughable.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I understand that, but that notwithstanding it's frankly laughable.


 
yeh, but it's his mom.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

My mum is similarly convinced that I am the victim of a police conspiracy to silence me, on the basis of having been nicked a few times for 'political stuff'. I haven't the heart to tell her it's cos I'm a bit gobby.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

discokermit said:


> yeh, but it's his mom.


 
A longstanding political activist, so the idea it's just his mammy doesn't stand up.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> My mum is similarly convinced that I am the victim of a police conspiracy to silence me, on the basis of having been nicked a few times for 'political stuff'. I haven't the heart to tell her it's cos I'm a bit gobby.


 
My mum knows it's cos i'm gobby.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 27, 2011)

Mums are ace


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

They can be brilliant aye.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Mums are ace


 
mine isn't. mine's a pig ignorant scab.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

discokermit said:


> mine isn't. mine's a pig ignorant scab.


 
Her loss.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

discokermit said:


> i don't like sheridan. i think he was a twat for starting the whole thing. nowhere near as bad as the touts up there who couldn't wait to get stuck in though.


well that I certainly agree with


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Chill the fuck out? There's the tatters of a Left up here and you want me to 'chill the fuck out'?


 
theres a left up here? 

fuckin hell, its going to be a long while before the smoke clears on this one if ever. its the whole reason that many have taken a complete backseat on any political involvement up here. TS was insane taking this as far as he did, self destruct... except it wasnt just his self that got caught in the blast. it was always going to end one way.  

i wish solidarity would give the big conspiracy theory a rest, a hatched plan  by news international, the ssp and the police. its cringeworthy at best. i wish it would move on, but i cant see any way for that to happen with so much despise, anger, allegations and sour feeling between so many people. 

as much as i personally believe one man brought this upon himself and others, i do not want to see a custodial sentance. hey ho.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Garcia Lorca said:


> theres a left up here?
> 
> fuckin hell, its going to be a long while before the smoke clears on this one if ever. its the whole reason that many have taken a complete backseat on any political involvement up here. TS was insane taking this as far as he did, self destruct... except it wasnt just his self that got caught in the blast. it was always going to end one way.
> 
> ...


 
Agree with nearly every word mate.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 27, 2011)

brixtonscot said:


> Did you also support Sheridans insistance on going to British courts in the first place ?



Yes. It was a civil case against NoTW. He wouldnt be in gaol if the entire leadership of the SSP hadnt engaged in a massive exercise in collusion with the Courts and the police.


----------



## Red Faction (Jan 27, 2011)

disgraceful waste of public resources

spending millions of pounds hounding tommy sheridan, just so rupert murdoch can save face

at a time when there are massive redundancies in the public sector

in a time of 'austerity', how on earth can a political showtrial be justified as being in the public interest?!


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 27, 2011)

brixtonscot said:


> It was Sheridan's insistance on going to court in the first place that dragged his "left-wing mates" reluctantly to go to court and tell the truth.
> 
> For that they were reported to the authorities falsely accused of perjury , and Sheridan went to the press accusing them of being scabs



Simply untrue mo chara. A press report but no truth in it. Wonder if Colin Foxs cosy little relationship with the journalist Susan Dalgety had anything to do with it being planted and subsequently regarded conveniently by the SSP and other willing dupes as truth.
Frances Curran working for MI5 all these years, well well....


----------



## weepiper (Jan 27, 2011)

Red Faction said:


> disgraceful waste of public resources
> 
> spending millions of pounds hounding tommy sheridan, just so rupert murdoch can save face
> 
> ...


 
There was an article in my local rag today which said Lothian and Borders Police (my local force) have spent £1.3 million investigating Sheridan. And he doesn't even live here, neither did any of the main events happen in the force area  the whole thing's a shocking waste of money, and has become such a distraction that there's nobody credible speaking for us anymore because they're all too busy fucking fighting over this non-story.


----------



## Red Faction (Jan 27, 2011)

its just disgusting
sheridan is imprisoned- whereas coulson gets paid millions as a government advisor

fucking cunts


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> Simply untrue mo chara. A press report but no truth in it. Wonder if Colin Foxs cosy little relationship with the journalist Susan Dalgety had anything to do with it being planted and subsequently regarded conveniently by the SSP and other willing dupes as truth.
> *Frances Curran working for MI5 all these years*, well well....



Do you have any evidence for this accusation?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

weepiper said:


> There was an article in my local rag today which said Lothian and Borders Police (my local force) have spent £1.3 million investigating Sheridan.* And he doesn't even live here, neither did any of the main events happen in the force area * the whole thing's a shocking waste of money, and has become such a distraction that there's nobody credible speaking for us anymore because they're all too busy fucking fighting over this non-story.


 
Yes they did, they happened in the court in Edinburgh. That's where he was found guilty of committing the perjury.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 27, 2011)

Yes. But wont disclose - she wont be the only one in that nest of vipers.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> Yes. But wont disclose - she wont be the only one in that nest of vipers.


 
I think you need to prove little remarks like that....?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 27, 2011)

Why shes a class traitor proven by her own hand, now we will see who has been onside in this debacle with the Brits.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> Why shes a class traitor proven by her own hand, now we will see who has been onside in this debacle with the Brits.


 
Well as much as we diagree, perhaps put those goalposts back eh? Now, your claim that Frances was "Frances Curran working for MI5 all these years, well well....", care to substantiate this?


----------



## Sue (Jan 27, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> Why shes a class traitor proven by her own hand, now we will see who has been onside in this debacle with the Brits.


 
The Brits? Strange terminology.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Sue said:


> The Brits? Strange terminology.


 
Aaaahh, you don't know our resident 'Soldier of Scotland' do you?


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Aaaahh, you don't know our resident 'Soldier of Scotland' do you?


 

Its warrior pal. Otherwise id be Oglachnahalba. 
You want to know the sources, well unfortunately they wont be disclosed for obvious reasons but i dont need the mi5 allegation to know that she and the rest are traitorous touting scumbags.


----------



## Sue (Jan 27, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Aaaahh, you don't know our resident 'Soldier of Scotland' do you?


 
No...


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> Its warrior pal. Otherwise id be Oglachnahalba.
> You want to know the sources, well unfortunately they wont be disclosed for obvious reasons but i dont need the mi5 allegation to know that she and the rest are traitorous touting scumbags.


 
Ok warrior.... oooohhhh...

I'm just thinking that making claims like that should requirte a bit of evidence. Strange archaic wee idea but hey....


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 27, 2011)

Sue said:


> No...


 
Apparently, he's no mere soldier but a 'warrior'.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 29, 2011)

Tommy Sheridan talks to STV days before he was sentenced.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/223655-tommy-sheridan-talks-to-stv-days-before-he-was-sentenced/


----------



## newbie (Jan 29, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> What?
> 
> I specifically said it's obviously going to depend on who else would be implicated. I never claimed socialists should lie to the crown - I said I don't think socialists should hold the crown or the judiciary up as sacred.


 
I know I'm coming at this a bit late, but I think you're missing the point. Is it ok to lie to the electorate, the people of Scotland, the constituents? Are they 'sacred' or are they just pawns to be duped?  

The man was a leading politician who sought to use his prominence and his reach to influence events.  Like all such politicians, he does that by promoting himself, persuading others to follow in his footsteps _because his judgement is trustworthy_ and, frankly, because his judgement is better than the average. 

When he chose to confront the NoTW over their story he was attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scottish people.  

The oath (or affirmation) to the crown is but a constitutional nicety, what he wanted was that the people of Scotland thought his sexual conduct was more mainstream than the reality. He wanted to protect his position and his career and he didn't trust them to accept his behaviour, so he lied to them, not only in interviews and statements but also in court for personal financial gain as well as political gain.

Politicians lying is nothing new.  Politicians telling whopping great lies to their constituents after having promised that they will tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" cannot be condoned, surely.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 29, 2011)

actually, that's not a bad point.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 29, 2011)

The allegations in the NotW that he challenged were lies, he had no relationship with Fiona McGuire. 
Some socialists are willing to lie to the crown in Scotland while other Scottish Socialist Party members tend to prefer to lie down to the crown. I prefer the former to liberal, middle class, identity politics cowardly touts.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 29, 2011)

I am sure living in the Big Brother house will have prepared Sheridan for his first weeks inside...


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 29, 2011)

Sheridan will have no problems whatsoever inside.


----------



## Geri (Jan 29, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I am sure living in the Big Brother house will have prepared Sheridan for his first weeks inside...


 
And having been in prison before.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

sorry to bump this - but I think the current news of the world hacking story is relevant - at the trial did Coulson say under oath that he was not aware of any hacking? and if he did, and is now saying he was aware - is that not perjury? is that grounds for a re-trial or is Tommy fucked by other evidence?

eta link 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Tommy-Sheridan-39might-not-have.6795925.jp


----------



## Alan G (Jul 6, 2011)

Coulson was a defence witness called by Sheridan...

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2011/07/sheridan-wasnt-convicted-on-evidence-of.html


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

I think all of the murdoch people said no hacking, no police corruption and the emails were unavailable, under oath.

Coulson.


> I don't accept there was a culture of phone hacking at the News of the World. All I can tell you is that, as far as my reporters are concerned, the instructions were very clear: they were to work within the law and within the PCC code. It's in their handbooks



I think that's called perjury.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> I think that's called perjury.



Indeed - I think what has happened to the breived relatives of those murdered is far, far worse than what has happened to Sheridan - in the sense of the immoral depravity of those who carried out thee acts - but I am wondering if this new evidence has been withheld - at least partly - _because_ of the Sheirdan trial. The verdict was a majority of only 8 to 6 wasn't it? With the new evidence now coming to light that must surely be in question now?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

Of course, the recent revelations that murdoch scum were criminally hacking phones of dead children, relatives of the victims of murders, wars and terrorism....it casts those who testified against TS and took murdoch money in a very bad light indeed.   Considering what his media has been doing to the left in the UK for decades.   

Will they be giving the money back?

People on urban, even, chose to side with the meta-game against TS because they had decided they had a morally superior case.

Well done them.  Quality judgement.   Well thought out.

If this turns sour and there's a (retrial, mistrial, charges against others etc.) what little defence of principle they had quickly turns them into laughing stocks.   And seriously questions their judgement.

I've consistently posted that attacking that empire was more important and most reading this will be aware of the personal shit I've had thrown at me for it...woman hater, sex criminal, cunt and so on.   The usual tabloid stuff. 

I'm sure there'll be a mature, reasoned reaction from them conceding that the bigger picture was always more important than their feudal nonsense, that it was indeed more important to attack the murdoch regime as a unit.

Actually I don't think they'll do that at all.   I have low expectations of them and I doubt I'll be disappointed.

If there's come-back for this trial I'll be rubbing all those posts on my titties.  

I am and was correct about the more important aspects of these goings-on.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

a lot of the evidence against Sheridan was presumably gathered by NOTW through illegal hacking of phones - does he have a case - is that evidence tainted?


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jul 7, 2011)

In the Scotsman :

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Tommy-Sheridan-jail-break-as.6797229.jp

not the main part of the articile but getting a mention.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

There was also a bug found in a car he used.  I think the police investigated and didn't find anything.   I think it's pretty apparent what happened there.

And I'm sure that they were also hacking the phones of those who stabbed him in the back to exert additional pressure.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2011)

dennisr said:


> Indeed - I think what has happened to the breived relatives of those murdered is far, far worse than what has happened to Sheridan - in the sense of the immoral depravity of those who carried out thee acts - but I am wondering if this new evidence has been withheld - at least partly - _because_ of the Sheirdan trial. The verdict was a majority of only 8 to 6 wasn't it? With the new evidence now coming to light that must surely be in question now?



I don't see how an investigation into Coulson-who was a defence witness-can not take place. Bird and White? too. Calling Coulson was either a masterstroke or a shot in the dark either way could have significant effects. Does the hacking of various phones mean not guilty, no, but I would agree it casts doiubt. Then the decision is whether that doubt is big enough?! But the further complication is if you have personal knowledge of thingsd he did, does that doubt mean he should still be released?!

There was something pointed out by a lawyer this morning that a judge had already refused Sheridan leave to appeal. Now is this true? Even if it is do the new allegations change that?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> a lot of the evidence against Sheridan was presumably gathered by NOTW through illegal hacking of phones - does he have a case - is that evidence tainted?


 
This is where the issue lies surely? However alot of the evidence was from entirely different means and nothing to do with hacking.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Of course, the recent revelations that murdoch scum were criminally hacking phones of dead children, relatives of the victims of murders, wars and terrorism....it casts those who testified against TS and took murdoch money in a very bad light indeed.   Considering what his media has been doing to the left in the UK for decades.



Does it? If they knew about this hacking and knew about this then yes it would make them worse. It will of course be made out they were in cahoots with people who did this but that doesn't make it so. 
By the way, Rose Gentle, mother of Gordon Gentle is a good mate of a number of those who you attack here. I'd place rather more weight on what she thinks of those people than I would your opinion, after all if she and her friends if the Military Families Against the War were hacked and they remain friends with them then that makes for interesting reading.

It's also not some kind of 'binary oppositiont' that you imply. It is entirely possible to condemn the behaviour of the New of the World and have little repsect for Sheridans lies. That doe not mean he is on a par in any way shape or form. It is also however entirely possible that Sheridan and Coulson are both liars, it's not either or.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

This whole thing is getting well out of hand for the Murdoch empire:

Apparently the case is now going to be reviewed! :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14061332


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> This is where the issue lies surely? However alot of the evidence was from entirely different means and nothing to do with hacking.


 
yep, I wasn't sure how much of the evidence was gained by illegal means - part of it obviously is the jury belieiving that Sheridan lied under oath at the original libel trial - but if he was only found out by illegal means - does that make the conviction unsafe?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2011)

The issue being looked at are a number of statements, most notably those of the NotW bods.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> *I've consistently posted that attacking that empire was more important* and most reading this will be aware of the personal shit I've had thrown at me for it...woman hater, sex criminal, cunt and so on.   The usual tabloid stuff.


 
This reads pretty much like it's irrelevant if Tommy lied the simple case was to oppose the prosecution and the NotW. At what point would simply attacking the NotW, and defending TS/A N Other not be acceptable? What allegation would make it serious enough to refuse to defend de facto defend TS/AN Other?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2011)

Judge rejects Sheridan bid for an appeal

This may be reviewed


----------



## JHE (Jul 7, 2011)

I can't see how the exposure of the News of the Screws' nasty little electronic spying habit could make anyone think Big Tommy Liar is innocent.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

This Sheridan soap opera sure has legs


----------



## JHE (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> This Sheridan soap opera sure has legs


 
It would have been over in a week or two if the central character had not made the stupid decision to sue.  He moved it from being a dollop of tittle-tattle into a soap opera.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

JHE said:


> It would have been over in a week or two if the central character had not made the stupid decision to sue.  He moved it from being a dollop of tittle-tattle into a soap opera.


 
I can imagine him emerging victorious from this


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

NOTW is to be closed down - live on Sky.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

Sheridan's actions have played a part in this.   There's no doubt.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Sheridan's actions have played a part in this.   There's no doubt.


 
Certainly his use of Coulson as a defence witness alongside News Int. claiming they have e-mails to contradict him certainly added to the mountain of other hacking activities.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Calling Coulson was either a masterstroke or a shot in the dark either way could have significant effects.



Don't imagine it could ever be described as a master stroke given other desicions he has made in the past 

Grauniad says the evidence is going to be investigated: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/tommy-sheridan-evidence-investigated-phone-hacking


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2011)

dennisr said:


> Don't imagine it could ever be described as a master stroke given other desicions he has made in the past
> 
> Grauniad says the evidence is going to be investigated:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/tommy-sheridan-evidence-investigated-phone-hacking


 
Aye, Coulson, Bird and White I think.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2011)

Well, I hope Sheridan does pull a rabbit out a hat and drive a nail into NI's coffin, he might be a massive egotripping wanker but...


----------



## Alan G (Jul 7, 2011)

So say Sheridans phone was hacked and then evidence gathered was used for the story (as speculated above)

How can TS claim :
a> the story is all lies
b> they used stuff they got off my voicemail
c> I didn't lie when I said the stuff in b wasn't true

all at the same time. Sheridan having his phone hacked would give him less ammo to claim he didn't commit perjury surely?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

Surely we must now have police investigations into the, as we now know, perjured evidence given by murdoch's men at the TS trial.   I think that's what the Crown is looking into.

Sheridan doesn't need a retrial or a mistrial, he's always said it was a newscorp vendetta.   It was.

Now we can have another trial or three.   Probably just one though.

Unless it's being suggested that there was no collusion in the evidence they gave.   That would be harder to believe.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 8, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Surely we must now have police investigations into the, as we now know, perjured evidence given by murdoch's men at the TS trial.   I think that's what the Crown is looking into.


 
I think there's prima facie evidence, as regards the e-mails and Coulson, so yes certainly for him. Others too at a guess.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> This Sheridan soap opera sure has legs



indeed - latest on sky news: *Tommy Sheridan - Coulson Has To Answer Perjury Claims*


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 16, 2011)

Interestingly Paul McBride QC who was Gail Sheridan's defence counsel has now been instructed to act on Andy Coulson's behalf. McBride is also quoted as saying...... *"Tommy Sheridan was convicted of perjury by telling a civil jury that he hadn't been to a swingers club and that he hadn't told members of his own party about it.

"The evidence at the trial was from members of his own party that he had been to a swingers club and the jury accepted that evidence and he was convicted of perjury.

"The News of the World had no input whatsoever in relation to that perjury conviction, so the evidence of any journalist of the News of the World, even if it was perjured evidence, would not affect the conviction of Tommy Sheridan at all."*


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2011)

The trial, if it happens, will be about committing perjury during the swingers perjury trial, not about Sheridan's conviction.   Sheridan's conviction is not relevant.   

The fact that Sheridan had to answer to the courts (for perjury) merely strengthens the argument that the murdoch men should stand trial for the same.  It does not dilute it.

The amount of police resources (and so on) used must now be considered under a harsher, more informed light.   The police, murdoch's money, friends bought for money from newsint, perjury all coming together in a trial against a wee Scots socialist.  Dear oh dear.

Sheridan may well have the last laugh even if his conviction stands.   I'll have a laugh with him.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 16, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> The trial, if it happens, will be about committing perjury during the swingers perjury trial, not about Sheridan's conviction.   Sheridan's conviction is not relevant.
> 
> The fact that Sheridan had to answer to the courts (for perjury) merely strengthens the argument that the murdoch men should stand trial for the same.  It does not dilute it.
> 
> ...


 
I think you miss the point re McBride, what does McBride already know about the reality of some things from the courtcase?! Seems a tad 'conflict of interest' to me for him to be instructed on Coulsons behalf?! There's very few people who were at that trial who will be unhappy if Coulson et al go down... I agree mind that Coulson, if the News Int e-mails are true, should stand trial over perjury.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2011)

He can have Kavanagh, Petrocelli, Perry Mason and Jack McCoy working as a team.   He can have Jesus.

It's not going to make any difference.   Everyone in Scotland knows what he said during the trial and where we are now with what we know about him.

He committed perjury, I feel, during a perjury trial.   That'll go down well.   Sadly it will also further tar those up here associated with the murdoch empire and those who took its shilling during the TS perjury trial.   Well...I say sadly, I obviously think they deserve it.

From the start I've said the same, the bigger picture.

Imagine the glory those wee socialists would be basking in just now and the resurgence in votes they would have received in the next few elections if they'd pluckily stood up against newscorp.

I hope the coins in their pockets are heavy and drag them down to the bottom of the sea. 

Fuck murdoch, fuck those who stand beside him, they deserve nothing.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> From the start I've said the same, the bigger picture.



And that wee point makes clear you know Sheridan was a liar and that it's ok for him to lie to the working-class to save his sorry little arse.. And from the start you've singularly failed to answer the question that at what point is the 'bigger picture' not argument enough to back a man who lies to the working-class. Where is that tipping point?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

Don't give me that working class crap when all his so-called mates were selling out to murdoch after sheridan had supported the party from his own pocket.   Getting coaching from the police and prosecution...working class were they?   Secret meetings with murdoch editors?   He gave money, they took money.  There's a tipping point.

I've never said I thought TS was guilty or innocent, I merely said I did not care and that the best outcome was a sheridan victory, both times.  I do not care about his guilt or innocence.

You do care, you were always about the small picture - which of course destroyed the party because they (million quotes by me) acted like amateurs and did not apply any political strategy which would have strengthened them to those working class voters you bang on about.   They come out of this looking terrible and there's pretty much no left left.  Small pic or big pic does not imply one is better than the other.

The last election showed what the working class thought.

As to your hypothetical question, what's that got to do with anything?  What tipping point?  Murder, rape?   You're miles away from me in all of this.   Those who testified against TS were well paid.   You've no high ground here just an inability to admit that I have been right on this one and attacking that corrupt institution was more important.

You disagree?  Fair enough, that's your opinion.   I don't care if you agree, I don't have any need to convince you and anyway I'm just a wee wanker and my opinion's worth fuck all, if I remember your comment on the other thread.   

My eyes are now focused on the investigation up here in Scotland - I'm wondering if Coulson et al  will stick their socialist pals in it as well just for old times sake.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Don't give me that working class crap when all his so-called mates were selling out to murdoch after sheridan had supported the party from his own pocket.   Getting coaching from the police and prosecution...working class were they?   Secret meetings with murdoch editors?   He gave money, they took money.  There's a tipping point.
> 
> I've never said I thought TS was guilty or innocent, I merely said I did not care and that the best outcome was a sheridan victory, both times.  I do not care about his guilt or innocence.
> 
> ...


 
As I thought, lying to the working-class is irrelevant to you.... It's hilarious watching you try to appear as some great political mind who sees some bigger picture as if you're on some exalted plateau.... 

That the working class made clear their view is one I would agree with, but i'd also add thazt Sheridans pals results were worse than the others... The excuses made by the likes of Phil Stott et all even funnier than your claims of a 'bigger picture', which you can't quite admit means it matters not what Sheridan, or an other did or does, so long as he/they win..... Classy....


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> I've never said I thought TS was guilty or innocent, I merely said I did not care and that the best outcome was a sheridan victory, both times.  I do not care about his guilt or innocence.





Fedayn said:


> ...even funnier than your claims of a 'bigger picture', which you can't quite admit means it matters not what Sheridan, or an other did or does, so long as he/they win..... Classy....



I think I've admitted it plain enough, often enough.   Damaging newscorp was (ad nauseum) my preferred outcome.  Admitted it in the post previous to yours, in fact, as I've quoted. 

I think you'll find the bigger picture in the millie dowler thread. 

And as I've _also_ said, those wee socialists would be riding a wave just now instead of having their party and position drowned in a tsunami of public opinion which I also outlined in the previous threads.   So I don't claim to be on an exalted plateau but I was saying this last year and at the time of the original trial.

Comparing the immorality of sheridan with that of murdoch's machinations is laughable, ridiculous.

I think it's your own tipping point that should be put under scrutiny after all the recent revelations.  And you don't say much about the big picture, you avoid it and always fall back on the 'oooh tommy's a bad bastard' argument.   What's that?  We're miles apart on this.

If they'd stuck together they'd be rolling in gravy.   They went your way and now they're toast.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> I think I've admitted it plain enough, often enough.   Damaging newscorp was (ad nauseum) my preferred outcome.  Admitted it in the post previous to yours, in fact, as I've quoted.
> 
> I think you'll find the bigger picture in the millie dowler thread.
> 
> ...


 
No you don't admit it, you make a nod to it. In other words you don't care what Sheridan, or AN Other had done as long as he won. That's a disgraceful position that leads to defending all sorts. Quite how far you'd go you still haven't said.....

I don't think there is any equivalence betweeh Sheridan and Murdoch, one is a lying prick the other is an utter anti-working class scumbag who shafted thousands at Wapping etc etc. No-one I know compares the two or says they are even close. And there's the point, for many, you included it was merely a case of Sheridan is attacked then support him cos the NotW is attacking him. What tyhey and you conveniently forget is that there's others here, people who are dragged to court, peoples whose lives are picked over, a party that had no say in being dragged into this charade. But you, like others, conveniently ignore this and simplistically talk about defending TS, as if it was such a binary opposition.

My tipping point is simple, as danny la rouge has oft pointed out. Don't expect your comrades to lie for you to defend your wholly manufactured image. Don't drag others into your own pathetic charades because you haven't got the sweets to own up to your behaviour. Don't sacrifice your own comrades just to save your own sorry lying arse. Don't shaft others just to stop your mummy and wife knowing the truth about you....

And in your final sentence not one scintilla of comment/regret about Sheridans decisions, was it such a good idea to go to court and do what he did? He went his way and now the left is toast....


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> No you don't admit it, you make a nod to it. In other words you don't care what Sheridan, or AN Other had done as long as he won. That's a disgraceful position that leads to defending all sorts. Quite how far you'd go you still haven't said.....



Good stuff, Fed.   

I'm not going to agree with you and I've been proven right, this was a political disaster for the left in Scotland and standing together and acting as a coherent, motivated, united, targeted party is *WITHOUT ANY DOUBT* the option they should have taken.

You cannot argue that point.   Bereft of a point, you quote dannie who says pretty much the same as you...stuff that's fuck all to do with political parties and the opportunities they get.   If a party does not seize an opportunity and make the most of it then they're no good to voters.   Voters are not interested in a soap-opera.   They don't mind actors as long as the actors are furthering the causes that the voters want furthered.

People are not interested.   The voters crushed them.

So we're agreed.  We're miles apart on this.   We're even miles apart in our concepts of miles.  You spell it morals, I spell it guile.   We don't speak the same language.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Good stuff, Fed.
> 
> I'm not going to agree with you and I've been proven right, this was a political disaster for the left in Scotland and standing together and acting as a coherent, motivated, united, targeted party is *WITHOUT ANY DOUBT* the option they should have taken.
> 
> ...


 
Of course we're miles apart.... Isn't that the whole point? We disagree on the whys and wherefores?

How am I 'bereft of a point'? You ask a question I answer it simply as to where my tipping point is, not really difficult to see that's what I did. 

I agree that the whole episode was/is a disaster though, a disaster predicted by those you decry. A disaster precipitated by the madness of a man taking the NotW to a defamation trial. I also agree that people who opposed Sheridan made mistakes and some did things I, like you, utterly oppose. I also agree that the voters passed a rather damning and justifiable verdict on the whole shebang, I don't blame them frankly. That's not some prediction you made in splendid isolation, plenty could see what was coming.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 18, 2011)

It wasn't a prediction, Fed, it was a shit way for the whole thing to end.   Well it's not ended but that part of it is pretty much over unless they're daft enough to bring it back up during any upcoming coulson trial.  (which I wouldn't put passed any of them tbh the daft bastards) 

Because I'm unhappy with their actions on a political level does not mean I wish any bad on those involved.   It's not a personal judgement.  The use of the term soap-opera was meant in a tabloid sense not as a comment on those involved, I'm aware of the personal cost to some in this comedy/tragedy.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 18, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> It wasn't a prediction, Fed, it was a shit way for the whole thing to end.   Well it's not ended but that part of it is pretty much over unless they're daft enough to bring it back up during any upcoming coulson trial.  (which I wouldn't put passed any of them tbh the daft bastards)
> 
> Because I'm unhappy with their actions on a political level does not mean I wish any bad on those involved.   It's not a personal judgement.  The use of the term soap-opera was meant in a tabloid sense not as a comment on those involved, I'm aware of the personal cost to some in this comedy/tragedy.


 
Fair points.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2011)

get me up to speed folks - is sheridan now appealing, on grounds of all the NOTW testimony now being unsafe?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> get me up to speed folks - is sheridan now appealing, on grounds of all the NOTW testimony now being unsafe?


 
His leave to appeal was refused a few weeks ago, it then went to a second hearing, the results of which are yet to be known. How the new information affects that is anyone's guess.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2011)

Cheers Fed. jesus, all this is _exhausting_


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jul 20, 2011)

Sheridan out for Christmas and ready to do what he can for Scottish independence. He appears to have been picking up a decent amount of working class support recently.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 20, 2011)

Really?  Awesome.  Fast Tan West is becoming a shade of yellow. heh

Working class opinion is a many varied thing tough.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jul 21, 2011)

WTF are you talking about ya daft cunt?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 21, 2011)

Don't you worry about it.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 21, 2011)

fiannanahalba said:


> WTF are you talking about ya daft cunt?


 
Not just me who was wondering then.....


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 22, 2011)

The official investigation into Coulson for perjury begins.  link another link


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 22, 2011)

Fun fact: Sheridan was in the open prison right beside my mums house.  I never saw him there though.


----------



## laptop (Jul 23, 2011)

So: will Coulson's trouble affect Sheridan's conviction or not?


----------



## JHE (Jul 23, 2011)

tar1984 said:


> Fun fact: Sheridan was in the open prison right beside my mums house.  I never saw him there though.



He wasn't there much.  Apparently, there's some swingers' bar nearby and, taking advantage of the openness of the prison, he spent most of his time there, swinging.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 23, 2011)

laptop said:


> So: will Coulson's trouble affect Sheridan's conviction or not?



No.  It will have an exponential effect on public opinion but it has no effect on the verdict in the trial and he would be a fool to play it that way.

In a short while the fact that Coulson's evidence played a part in his conviction will imply so much more than a reversal of the decision could infer.

The same will (does) go for those who took money from Coulson's ilk.


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 24, 2011)

JHE said:


> He wasn't there much.  Apparently, there's some swingers' bar nearby and, taking advantage of the openness of the prison, he spent most of his time there, swinging.


 
I'm not sure if you're joking but there is no swingers bar there, there is nothing much at all there it's in the countryside.  You can't just walk in and out so easily you could spend loads of time out of the prison too, unless you were on day release (some prisoners go to work placements and college in the day).


----------



## Alan G (Jul 24, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> In a short while the fact that Coulson's evidence played a part in his conviction will imply so much more than a reversal of the decision could infer.



If Coulsons evidence played a part in his conviction then he was a bigget twat than I thought - he called him as a witness.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 24, 2011)

I wasn't expecting any de-polarisation of views.   The legal variations on current developments are certainly worth discussing but the "he's a twat" and "you're a cunt" posters don't seem to have much to contribute.

The investigation just now has opened on perjury, corruption of officers, phone hacking and 'data protection' offences which could be a pretty wide net in itself.  It will certainly include the connection between different govt agencies (dvla, cps?, police at least) and notw.   The allegation that dvla sold info could connect notw to the bugging device found in sheridan's car although in comparison to perjury I'm not sure it's worth committing too many resources to its follow-up.

Then again it's going to be a lengthy investigation so who knows how it will branch out as it goes along.

Coulson was working for Cameron at the time of the alleged perjury.   Any conviction will be crushing for the current PM.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 16, 2012)

here we go again

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/151438-...-hacking-and-perjury-at-tommy-sheridan-trial/


----------



## weepiper (Nov 20, 2012)

Andy Coulson's been charged with perjury according the The World At One


----------



## marty21 (Nov 20, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Andy Coulson's been charged with perjury according the The World At One


 excellent news (if true) any comment from Cameron yet?


----------



## weepiper (Nov 20, 2012)

ah here's a link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20405915

edit, no, that's misconduct in public office, hmm


----------



## marty21 (Nov 20, 2012)

weepiper said:


> ah here's a link
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20405915
> 
> edit, no, that's misconduct in public office, hmm


 Expect nothing from slippery Dave about this for a while


----------



## weepiper (Nov 20, 2012)

ok the perjury charge appears to be from May  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18262740 but either way i think he's fucked now


----------



## weepiper (Nov 20, 2012)

marty21 said:


> Expect nothing from slippery Dave about this for a while


 


> Downing Street said the prime minister had nothing to say about his former director of communications.
> "It would be inappropriate to comment for legal reasons. Proceedings are active," said a spokeswoman.


 
from the Guardian live blog

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/nov/20/operation-elveden-charges-live-updates


----------



## audiotech (Nov 21, 2012)

Talk here with: Gregor Gall (author of 'Tommy Sheridan: from hero to zero?') and Sarah McDonald (CPGB), who during her speech refers to Sheridan amusingly as: "Tam of Pollock".


----------

