This morning the court has continued to hear Bob Bird, the Scottish editor of the News of the World (NotW) being cross-examined by Tommy Sheridan. Mr Sheridan has continued to concentrate on the payment of witnesses in this case by the NotW producing at one point a heavily redacted document from the newspaper titled "Sheridan costs" which contains various entries of witness payments, including payments to Anne Colvin, George McNeilage and others.
Mr Bird was also asked about a payment made to George McNeilage to, in Mr Sheridan's words, "disappear." Mr Bird stated that Mr McNeilage was concerned about possible "retribution people might take on him" and he was given a thousand pounds by the newspaper to go on holiday.
Mr Sheridan has also called Mr Bird's story that he visited the Pollok housing estate alone and that he stripped to his underwear when viewing the "McNeilage tape" as "made up for dramatic effect." Mr Sheridan has also put it to Mr Bird that he was "embarrassed" at evidence revealed yesterday that the NotW had allegedly spent $2 million to "destroy TS."
However the main thrust of today's hearing has been the NotW story about Fiona McGuire, published on the 14 November 2004, alleging that she and Mr Sheridan had a four year affair. Mr Sheridan put it to Mr Bird that despite Ms McGuire's claim that she met Mr Sheridan "every couple of months" for four years, and that Mr Sheridan called her to arrange these meetings, that the newspaper had not a single phone record or text message as proof of their story. Mr Bird has continued to state that he believes that Ms McGuire's story is "substantially true" and the paper published it in "good faith. Mr Bird however has conceded that despite the newspaper quoting a "pal" of Ms McGuire five times in the story, no such person existed. Mr Bird insisted this was normal journalistic practice.
Mr Sheridan then put it to Mr Bird that he had not a "shred of evidence" for the Fiona McGuirestory and that the paper had run it in an attempt to ruin people's lives. He brought into evidence a transcript of an conversation between Ms McGuire and a NotW journalist where Ms McGuire appears to believe that Tommy Sheridan was married in 2002, not 2000, and put it to Mr Bird that it was not credible that a woman he supposedly had a four year affair with would not know when he had been married.
In an emotional section of this morning's testimony, Mr Sheridan asked Mr Bird if he knew that when the NotW story was run his wife was 8 weeks pregnant, and that he had printed "a pack of lies" and had no sense of responsibility for the health of my pregnant wife. Mr Bird responded that the fault lay with Mr Sheridan for having an affair and "you shouldn't have done it." and "it was not our fault you had been unfaithful."
Mr Sheridan has also brought into evidence the assertion that four days before her story was printed Ms McGuiretook a deliberate overdose of drugs in an attempt to take her own life. Mr Bird responded that that may have been a reaction to the pressure she was under from Mr Sheridan's "comrades" not to give evidence.
Court is now ajourned for lunch with Mr Bird due to continue to give evidence at 2pm.
26 comments:
Regarding Sheridan costs" which contains various entries of witness payments, including payments to Anne Colvin, George McNeilage and others.
Can you specify who the others are?
Mr Bird however has conceded that despite the newspaper quoting a "pal" of Ms McQuire five times in the story, no such person existed. Mr Bird insisted this was normal journalistic practice.
So it is normal practice to fabricate the existance of a Pal but not the main story?
Also if anyone reacts in the way Ms Mc Quire had to this fabrication it is not an issue for the NoTW but is the fault of others.
I had thought that the Mc Quire story had previously been shown as a total fabrication??
Mr Bird however has conceded that despite the newspaper quoting a "pal" of Ms McQuire five times in the story, no such person existed. Mr Bird insisted this was normal journalistic practice.
So it is normal practice to fabricate the existance of a Pal but not the main story?
Also if anyone reacts in the way Ms Mc Quire had to this fabrication it is not an issue for the NoTW but is the fault of others.
I had thought that the Mc Quire story had previously been shown as a total fabrication??
I can see why the NotW can afford to pay their sources so much money, look at this snippet from the BBC in 1999:
Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch may run one of the most profitable businesses in the UK, but it appears that he has somehow managed to avoid running up a tax bill over the past 11 years.
According to The Economist, Mr Murdoch has saved at least £350m in tax - enough to pay for seven new hospitals, 50 secondary schools or 300 primary schools.
How he has done it remains a mystery - and News Corporation is certainly loath to give away any financial secrets.
But it appears that Mr Murdoch's tax accountants have surpassed themselves - making full use of tax loopholes to protect profits in offshore havens.
Thanks for that report James. TV news mentioned that court had to adjourn for a short time when TS became upset when talking about Gail. Do you know if Fiona McQuire is going to apear for the crown?
Hi James,
Excellent blog, but its McGuire, not McQuire
Good stuff James. It is Fiona McQuire on this blog but Fiona McGuire everywhere else. Why?
Emotional??? Ah c'mon... The 'poor Gail and our unborn wean' line is wearing a bit thin now. TS really is a bit of a drama queen at heart.
Thanks all, fixed now.
Hello Eraserhead, if you could avoid talking about witnesses that have not yet appeared and allegations no-one has yet made I'd be happy to print your comment.
Yes I did not mention anything about Mr McNeilages holiday in my report, or that one witness had claimed this was to avoid the newspapers and as he was scared of the community reaction to the story being printed.
It seemed to me not to be that important, however I may well add it when I look at the report again. Please try and remember this is a summary (one which at lunchtime I have 30 mins to write) not a transcript
Hi James, thanks for the clarification. I did refer to a witness from the civil case who has been referred to in this case. I did not know that this could be construed as being detrimental to either side in this case. I apologise for that. I also asked if it was likely that another person would appear as a witness, as he has been referred to by name by several witnesses in this case so far. There are several 'persons of interest' referred to by both sides that would certainly add more stew to the pot if called. There. Hope I managed that without any obvious references.
Thanks for the good honest reporting here, but I still think you should have referred to the perceived 'fears' and 'threats' as reported by other media, even if, like me, you take Big George's 'fears' with a pinch of salt.
No worries Eraserhead, the part about Mr McNeilage's fears I'll add now.
Yeah, it is normal practice Anon. Just like "a court insider said" - it means that they made it up.
Journalism is more akin to a story based loosely at best (if at all) on the facts, it is not meant to be an accurate accounting of the facts. If you want to read, for instance, verbatim accounts go and read Hansard. This blog is as good as it gets as far as court reporting goes.
People really need to get over the misapprehension that what they read in newspapers is true. People make two gross mistakes when reading a newspaper article 1. They believe it to be true 2. They believe that the journalist believes what they are saying. Do you believe everything that you read in the Beano? Its only a story - get over it!
How many times do you read in a newspaper "neighbours said blah, blah..." Do you really think that the journalist goes round knocking on doors interviewing neighbours? Or do you think that they just sit at their keyboard and make it up?
Is there any particular reason why certain sections of the emails are redacted? Is this something that has been agreed or otherwise beforehand beetween the parties?
Hello anon, sorry we can't discuss that (indeed we can't even discuss why we can't discuss it)
That sounds not unlike : There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know.
Hello anon whose comment I just deleted. I think you may be right, however let me put it like this. We cannot publish anything discussed in court out of the presence of the jury, as that whole matter may well have been, or not.
" Mr Bird insisted this was normal journalistic practice."
Not at proper newspapers. Maybe at The Sun and NOTW.
The New York Times does not use "a friend" as a source. They are actually quite scrupulous in how they report stories. People get sacked for making things up at normal newspapers.
Making quotes up is not normal journalistic practice unless you print a lot of rubbish and don't really bother about superfluous stuff such as veritas.
Tommy the trial addict - a newspaper caters for a particular demographic (audience), if you apply a readability test to a tabloid newspaper passage it will give a reading age of 8-10 i.e Moron!
Anon 12.34
It is sad to say that there are a lot of people who sit within this demographic.
That is the why some media groups have loads of dosh to publish articles that have little or no basis in reality, knowing that they have adequate funding/means at their disposal to protect themselves if challenged.
The costs to the General public in funding this trial and the cash spent by the NoTW would build hundreds of Social Homes,provide Jobs in areas of deprevation or clear some of the national debt.
I do not know if it is possible but if the NoTW are proved to have fabricated evideence they should be forced to pay back the Scottish tapayer has spent for this charade.
The cost to others in this case cant be counted in money terms.
Yes, a lot of the money spent by both sides, the crown and the defence, could have been so much better spent. Where did this all start? Ah, that's right, a man with an allegedly huge ego took a newspaper with allegedly low morals to court in a CIVIL case, against the advice of his friends and comrades. All of this could have been so easily avoided if TS had taken that advice, but it appears that the ego ruled the head. Those who hold the purse strings would be better off, but don't kid yourself that the money would have been spent on more useful things like social housing. This is the era of cuts not spending.
Chicken & Egg.
Your comment highlights the idea that if a Cash rich rag decides to do a job on someone/anyone that they should just shut up and take it.
I also disagree that this is simply due to having an excessive ego this was an attack on a prominant Socialist and indeed the Socialist movement. Having read this blog and being personally aware of some who have borne witness I would suggest that that there a number of inflated egos involved.
I never expected that the NoTW would divert their cash into social housing however the Scottish Taxpayer has diverted funds and as you say "in an era of cuts "could have been spent more wisely or on more socially productive endevours.
Post a Comment