Thursday, November 4, 2010

Jack Ferguson

The last witness of the day was Jack Ferguson, a 26 year old student and a member of the SSP and a former organiser of it's youth wing the SSY.  After taking the oath he told the court that he had spoken to Jock Penman at a SSP meeting after the 9th November executive. He stated that Mr Penman had told him that Mr Sheridan had admitted the allegations against him at that meeting and that is why he had been asked to resign. Alex Prentice QC, for the Crown, asked the witness if he was sure of that, Mr Ferguson said he was. With that Mr Prentice ended his evidence in chief and Mr Sheridan began his cross-examination.

Mr Sheridan began by informing the witness that he had a forensic report with him that showed that a message left on his telephone on the 3rd October 2006 had come from Mr Ferguson's phone. The witness agreed but said he was "not sure of the details" Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that the message had said "You dirty turncoat bastard" and that in the background a voice could be heard saying "I hope your mother dies of cancer" (Mrs Alice Sheridan was diagnosed with cancer that year) Mr Ferguson stated that he had not left the message, "would never do such a thing," and that he regretted that it had happened. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that this showed a "horrible depth of hatred" To which Mr Ferguson replied "people didn't like you, then again you didn't like us....you abused us." 


Mr Sheridan then brought into evidence an article from the Scottish Daily Mirror from August 2006. When this was mentioned the witness smiled and Mr Sheridan asked him he "thought this was funny." Mr Ferguson replied that yes he did "find this aspect quite funny." Mr Sheridan read out the story which claimed that at an Scottish Socialist Youth event, "Camp Secret Squirrel," an effigy of Mr Sheridan had been burned on a bonfire, "a scene straight out of the wicker man" according to the newspaper. Mr Ferguson told the court the event was "unimportant" and that they were having a "bit of a laugh" Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that he was "there to lie for the SSP" and that "Jock Penman made no such remark." This the witness denied.


Mr Sheridan ended his cross-examination by saying  "tell your associates that my mother is alive and kicking" a statement that Mr Prentice objected to as it was "not a question." Mr Sheridan then said "could you tell your associates that my mother is alive and kicking?" before adding "I hope your friends are happy about that." He then returned to the dock. Mr Prentice declined the opportunity of re-examination and the court ended for the day.


The case continues on Friday.

100 comments:

Shug said...

Oh come on, you missed the best part! When Ferguson pointed out that the "WICKER TAM" story had won an award from fellow journalists for worst story of the year, and when Sheridan asked him if burning a wee effigy was 'normal' for SSY and he replied "well we do quite often make fun of lying hypocritical politicians". I saw a good few chuckles in the courtroom.

I think in fairness to him as well he called the phone message despicable and said it had just been lying around in a pub; you'd think that if Sheridan still had it and Ferguson had left it he'd have played it in court to embarrass him. I seem to recall him hinting as well that a similar comment might have been made to someone he knew, but Sheridan didn't get into it in his questioning.

All in all I thought it was a good bit of light relief (especially the effigy story) and found him credible.

Anonymous said...

Jack Ferguson credible? You're having a laugh.

His reply to the phone question was less than convincing, to say the least.

He came across as immature, insincere and profoundly lacking in intelligence.

Anonymous said...

This trial has been a disaster for the SSP. You'd need to be off your head to vote for any of them.

Anonymous said...

It's been a greater disaster for Solidarity, though, hasn't it?

The Lumpen Sociologist said...

Anon 8:39
He came across as immature, insincere and profoundly lacking in intelligence.

Thank f@ck somebody is normal.

Anon 8:59
This trial has been a disaster for the SSP.

A disaster for the left in Scotland but they will still carry on.

Bobby said...

Anon @ 8.59
Come on, it's not just a disaster for the SSP, but for Solidarity and the WHOLE of the Scottish Left, caused directly by Mr Sheridan's decision to try and sue The News of the World through the British courts. There are no doubt those on either side are hoping for the annihilation of the other. The truth is, once this is all over, if the Left is to have any chance in the future it will require the two (or more) sides/factions to come together. I think it is something many of the more vitriolic posters on here would do wise to remember.

Anon @ 8.39
The problem with your statement is that whilst you find someone like Jack Ferguson totally lacking in credibility, you would, I assume, find someone like Jock Penman completely credible because he supports your assumptions. Or am I assuming too much?

Shug said...

Come on, you're reaching for something you want to see. I doubt anyone could have read him as insincere or unintelligent and it seems to me that the immature remark is just about his age. I'll remind people that it wasn't him who either burnt the 'effigy' or made the phonecall, and as I said, surely if Tommy had a recording of the message and it sounded like Jack he'd have played it in court?

Some people on here are rather poor at masking their bias. Also, I rather imagine that the party this trial would be worse for is the one that Sheridan is currently leader of; isn't that logical?

Baloo said...

Mr Sheridan very obviously knew that the phone message was not left by Mr Ferguson, as he did not ask him 'did you leave this message on my phone?' but rather 'do you know who left this message on my phone?', so you can quit with your 'less than convincing' nonsense as it's obvious it was not Mr Ferguson who said that - Mr Sheridan, while obviously angry, did not press the matter as he knew there was nothing credible to press.

And hah, anyone who thinks that Jack Ferguson is lacking in intelligence wants to have a read of the epic almost academic posts he writes on the Scottish Socialist Youth's website, and then maybe have a think about their own skills, and their motivations. It's highly unlikely 'anon 8.39' is as intelligent as Mr Ferguson.

Anonymous said...

Can't believe Tommy entered Tartan Bollock award winning 'Wicker Tam' article as evidence, ahahahahaha

Effra Lottavum said...

If anyhone comes across as immature in today's proceedings its the Scottish press publishing a campsite incident in the woods as news.

At least it won the Tartan Bollock award.

Anonymous said...

As someone who was at court I can assure you that young master Ferguson did not perform well most ordinary folk do not think that smirking about calls hoping an elderly lady dies of cancer is normal behaviour, even leaving aside burning people in effigy

while partisans and friends of the witness may think of his performance as "credible" (and I make no comment on the veracity of his evidence) he came across to me, and the people I was with as the best witness the defendant has had all trial

The Lumpen Sociologist said...

Anon 9.55 think that smirking about calls hoping an elderly lady dies of cancer is normal behaviour,

haven't read of this anywhere else, thought the smirks were for Wicker Tam and that he stated he was sorry that the phone incident happened.

Anonymous said...

Erm excuse me, Jack Ferguson did not smirk at the comment made at the phonecall, which he repeatedly thoroughly condemned. He smirked at TS producing a ridiculous article as evidence. Just because you want to paint him as some evil person who laughs at cancer doesn't make that true - and the evidence shows that's not the case too

Shug said...

He didn't 'smirk' about the call, he was smiling about the newspaper story. It's funny!

Anonymous said...

The part about the phonecall, which Ferguson admitted came from his phone, about Mrs Sheridans cancer, left a clear mark on the court room. It was obvious that it was a horrific incident and that Ferguson did not show any remorse.

This meant that his attempt to laugh of the effigy thing made him look callous. The story in the mirror came about because a member of the SSY who attended that "Secret Squirrel Club" meeting was horrified enough to contact the press.

He seems to be a bit old for a "youth wing" and certainly too old to be claiming immaturity as an excuse.

UL platform shoes said...

The SSP must be seriously damaged by this trial, whether Solidarity are also damaged depends on how their witnesses show up.

So far we have seen just one witness who is also a Solidarity member, apart from Sheridan.

Penman definitely came across as the most sensible and mature of all the political witnesses, and the texts from the other witness (Campbell?) seemed to show he was under attack from the SSP members and certainly added to the picture of outright hostility and "poison" being directed at Sheridan's supporters.

Bith witnesses against Penman have brought stories of personal attacks and venom to the court with them.

Anonymous said...

I'd agree that Mr Ferguson was not smirking over the telephone incident, however he did not as look as aghast over it as almost everyone else in court was. Indeed he initially denied knowing what was said, and when told appeared unconcerned by what was a shocking statement (indeed I could not think of anything worse) he certainly appeared, to this observer, to begin to try and excuse it. before thinking better of the idea.

I would say that from where I was sitting he was not a popular figure in court at the end and whatever your views on the case Sheridan's statement at the end was certainly effective.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:41

"Ferguson did not show any remorse"

He said he regretted it ever happened.

"his attempt to laugh of the effigy thing made him look callous."

No, he didn't laugh at it out of callousness but because it was ridiculous. It is ridiculous that a burning piece of tabloid rag should ever be used to describe a life-size human effigy and beyond a joke that it should be used as court evidence.

"a member SSY who attended that "Secret Squirrel Club" meeting was horrified enough to contact the press."

Horrified enough? Pathetic enough.

Anonymous said...

anon 10.41 you might say pathetic but the person involved was obviously moved to do aomething about it.

Its clear that it was an extremely immature thing to do, almost as immature as calling a political event the secret squirrel club.

Someone didnt find it funny and you think it is "pathetic" that she/he didnt agree with your idea of humour.

Anonymous said...

"And hah, anyone who thinks that Jack Ferguson is lacking in intelligence wants to have a read of the epic almost academic posts he writes on the Scottish Socialist Youth's website, and then maybe have a think about their own skills...", and anyone who thinks Tommy Sheridan is lacking in intelligence should read his columns in the Daily Record.

Anonymous said...

I don't show any remorse for things I haven't done - why should Jack Ferguson? You wouldn't show any remorse at something someone else did either. He stated that he condemned the remark, would never have done it himself and was sorry it had happened to Mr Sheridan - what else do you want????

Anonymous said...

I wasnt at the court on wednesday but if my phone had been used to send a message and id just found it was wishing someones mum dead id have at least have said sorry, did this guy?

Anonymous said...

11.17 YES as has been repeatedly said JF said sorry his phone had been used and utterly condemned the message

Anonimouse said...

Anon 10.14

SSY is open to young people up to the age of 26.

The "Wicker Tam" incident at Camp Secret Squirrel was in late August 2006, two weeks after Sheridan planted an article in the Daily Record announcing that he would "destroy the 'scabs' that tried to ruin me" and a week before Sheridan launched his breakaway "Solidarity" party. As evidence for a political plot to depose him in 2004, its rather weak.

Anonymous said...

@11:13
"Someone didnt find it funny and you think it is "pathetic" that she/he didnt agree with your idea of humour."

No I find it pathetic they'd go to the press about it.

Anonymous said...

Also mr ferguson stated that he first heard there was an abusive phonecall when one mr jim Monaghan phoned him briefly and said so, but I think he said he found out the actual contents of the message when mr Sheridan went to the papers with it (afaik this was during the 2007 election campaign but I could be mistaken, might have been another story before this as well), so he would presumably have heard the contents before hence why he wasn't shocked, but it's just daft to say he didn't express apology over it, he clearly did by all accounts

Lord Summerisle said...

Oh come on, burning a page out of the Daily Record with Tommy's picture on it is hardly in the same league as locking Tommy in an enormous wicker statue with some sheep then setting it on fire.

Shug said...

He said he was sorry it ever happened and that it was despicable - do people want him to commit hari-kiri in the witness box?

I rather think some of the commenters on here who I believe are around my age are being rather uncharitable to the youth when they seem say that they'd have called it "Camp Secret Squirrel" without intending an ounce of humour.

AFAIK btw the upper limit on the SSP youth wing is 27, so Mr Ferguson wil be out on his next birthday, though I'm not sure why that bothers people.

I do quite honestly find it hillarious that anybody would have been horrified by a little cardboard man on a fire. Ferguson testified that they had to build a fire at the campsite and that basically every paper they balled up for kindling had Sheridan's face in it, so then someone made a litle cardboard Sheridan which later got thrown on the fire by one inebriated camper while most others were in bed. I don't find that pathetic, but I think it looks a mite so to cite this as evidence of some kind of grand conspiracy; I doubt any of the stiff lipped commenters here denouncing Ferguson (who I found, for the record, to be a well spoken and obviously not stupid young man) have never done anything 'immature' while under the influence. It is frankly enjoyably ridiculous that this should be raised in the High Court by someone conducting his own defence, especially when the story won an award with the illustrious title of The Tartan Bollock.

Anonymous said...

If this blog is accurate, he said "The witness agreed but said he was "not sure of the details"

I have always been rather sceptical of T Sheridans idea that there was a plot against him, yet if people are willing to wish his mother to die a horrible death is it a stretch to far to think they would hate him enough to lie in court?

Shug said...

It might also be worth noting for people's interest that when Carolyn Leckie gave evidence (the first time) and mentioned something about not having a "word for word recall" (could be wrong here on the wording, ironically, it's been a few weeks) of something she said to police because it was about a month after her mother had died and she was still very much grieving, I heard a distinct snort of contemptuous laughter in the gallery.

People in glass houses and all that.

Bobby said...

Anon @ 11.32
Whilst I agree with you that the comments are reprehensible, you can look at it two ways:
1. People hate him enough to wish his mother to die, and is therefore evidence of a plot.

2. Tommy lied and caused so much pain to people who had invested so much, that it made them really angry (and people sometimes do really daft things when they are angry).

Anonymous said...

"people sometimes do really daft things when they are angry"

Like lie in court?

Bobby said...

Anon @ 11.39

If you agree Tommy angered people in the Party so much prior to the NotW story being published that all but one of the witnesses so far are lying, I'd be keen to hear what you think he did to cause the anger?

Anonymous said...

Let's get this timeline right:
-TS accuses EC/women/youth/fluffy kittens of plotting against him
- TS wins court case
-TS calls SSP MSPs scabs for £25,000
- SSY light campfire at summer camp using newspapers, discover they all have TS's face on them, someone sticks face to bit of cardboard
- later that night a couple of people stick it on the fire and laugh, camping ensues
- member if SWP who was at summer camp fakes outrage, tells TS of 'breaking campfire news'
- TS plants front page story about 'life-size effigy' in Mirror
- article wins journalist-voted 'tartan bollock' award for worst story of the year
- TS produces tartan bollock article in court as part of his defence, as proof of impeccably organised Murdoch mi5 conspiracy against him

Aye, well done, makes perfect sense don't it.

Sceptic said...

Every newspaper had TS's face on it?

Yes that is very believeable.

It is interesting how many people on this web site seem to singing from the same hymsheet, as it were.

Bunc said...

People generally will do more risky things in the heat of a situation than they wouls do when they have more time to think.

I don't find it hard to think that people who might say angry things in closer to the heat of a situation would be unlikely to act like that when they have longer to think about the implications of their actions.

To see this as one big angry conspiracy implies the ability of a large number of people to carry that anger of an incredibly long number of time, be prepared to hold it long enough to get into a court and risk perjury and take the risk that other "conspirators" might bail out of the conspiracy etc etc.

This notion of some grand conspiracy makes no sense whatsoever. This is a case of individual human frailty and hubris. Conspiracy also hardly flies given witnesses who are not involved in the political background. For them of course the defence has to pose a second grand conspiracy - by "the establishment"

Bobby said...

Anon @ 11.44
Did common sense and truth died?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqAypbgaUKM

Anonymous said...

from my experience there is a lot of "swinging" that goes on at these tufty club events - that's why young folk go in the first place -, kind of ironic that TS is getting hauled over the coals for allegedly doing the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Once people tell one lie bunc, especially of it is to the police in the form of a statement, they are locked in and cant back out or they will be in the dock too.

Debator said...

May I ask that people try and avoid, if possible, using the Anonymous tag, as it makes it hard to follow who is saying what.

If you select "name/url" from the menu below you can choose anything you want to be known as, it would be easier to keep track of the debate

Cheers

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

anon 11.44 - it is posts like yours that is making me think that there is something in Sheridan's claims. It is a desperate attempt to try to portray Sheridans points as the work of a mentally ill conspiracy theorist. Definitely in the 'doth protest too much' category.

I was swaying re Ferguson until your post and some others who seem to be going to lengths to explain points of evidence and make light of them.

The effigy event, when heard alongside the sick phone call, doesnt paint the Ferguson boy in a good light. And Sheridan was right to bring it up to show the mood at the time. Why did they have so many pictures of Sheridan at a camp?

Anonymous said...

Incase you didn't notice, TS winning his court case was pretty big news. You'd be hard pressed to find a paper that didn't cover it

Bunc said...

"Once people tell one lie ..."
So many people? I very very much doubt it. THe "tow grand conspiracies" defence is threadbare - unless you have an ego the size of a TS of course or your a fanboy.

Debator said...

"TS winning his court case was pretty big news. You'd be hard pressed to find a paper that didn't cover it"

So it was on every page, the sports section? Business pages, the horoscopes?

Anonymous said...

Brilliant point, Debator. Tommy must be telling the truth then. I for one am thoroughly convinced.

People need to calm down. This Mirror effigy story has very little if anything to do with this case. If you want to get wound up about the case, I'd suggest waiting for McNeilage's tape being discussed might be a more worthwhile incident to expend your energies on

Shug said...

"from my experience there is a lot of "swinging" that goes on at these tufty club events - that's why young folk go in the first place -, kind of ironic that TS is getting hauled over the coals for allegedly doing the same thing."

What? Seriously is this some kind of fantasy of yours, what proof do you have of this?

As for seemingly deliberately obtuse comments about why they had pictures, Ferguson said they were building a fire and using newspaper for kindling, which is hardly unusual. I think it's silly to ask if he was on EVERY page as he obviously wasn't and that was never claimed, but at that pint I think him being in most of the tabloids is pretty obvious. Should they not even have kindled the fire because he was on it?

Bobby said...

From wikipedia:

Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.[1][2] The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.

Bunc said...

Even with a worst case interpretation of the supposed effigy burning - this is an event that occurred after the defamation case. If people knew at that point the truth had been betrayed ( and they were being branded as liars) then their anger would be explainable, consistent with the overall evidence - and by no means give any support to the theory that some grand conspiracy preceded that.

State Plant Hsoj said...

Sam Beaton has a lot to answer for.

Anonymous said...

All this noise and so little sense.
Vitriol was present before the NOW defamation trial and has got worse.

Lies have been told and have been consolidated. Someone will go to prison and spend their life paying a whopping fine. The NOW is cackling up its sleeve - for the moment.

And it's all still a game?

Anonymous said...

Tommy needs to calm down. I know he was upset. I know it is exhausting. But his best moments are when he relaxes and doesn't try too hard to hammer home with constant repetition.
Remember the jury. It is their trial.

James Doleman said...

One thing that was not made clear in court is when this camp took place, does anyone know?

Shug said...

Who said it was a game?

Shug said...

August 2006, after the defamation action.

James Doleman said...

Thanks Shug.

Denizen said...

Thanks. I keep forgetting my name and password

Bunc said...

I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

a few weeks after sheridan won his defamation case.

the crown has produced scores of witnesses. this latest was confronted with the devastating fact that some pissed up 20 year olds chucked a picture on a fire.

kaboom. really, kaboom.

James Doleman said...

I was trying to work out how the "effigy" event tied into the telephone call. seems they were separate dates.

Saddened, Dundee. said...

The people treating this like a game are Paul McBride and Tommy Sheridan. Spend a day in court watching and that is evident. Add to that too the numerous watchers and guffawers who talk over testimony witnesses have to give, events that have consumed these witnesses lives for years. It genuinely sickened me to hear the cackling of Sheridan's in court cheerleaders when Carolyn Leckie mentioned her mother's death, when the sex life of Katrine Trolle was questioned in court, when Paul McBride made sexual jokes at Anvar Khan's expense, when a voice called Carolyn Leckie the c word on camera, people who shake their heads when the people that Tommy Sheridan used to call friends are asked how betrayed they felt by the way he behaved and continues to behave. Despicable, and that some of these people proclaim to be socialists disgusts me, almost makes me want to give up.

James Doleman said...

Hello saddened Dundee, I've been in court every day it has sat and I have to say that I do not recognise your description of the proceedings in any way. There is the odd reaction in the public gallery but nothing like what you describe.

I was also there for all of Carolyn Leckie's testimony and I have no recollection, or note that anyone "Cackled"

former ssp said...

what a stupid line of argument from Tommy.

even if he has told the truth about everything, i don't think anyybody in any jury in the land would ever see a story from the daily record (i'm pretty sure it was actually the Mirror)about a effigy of Sheridan, that was supposedly comparable to a wicker man, being evidence of a masterplan to wait until there was a sex scandal in the paper and forcing him to stand down for something he didn't do so that they could then conspire with the NOTW, mi5, a bunch of swingers from Manchester, and the Crown to force him to sue a newspaper...

Shug said...

I was there James and I do, as I've said further up the thread. There's a lot of room and people can sit far away from each other, I'm sure you just didn't hear it.

From what I hear the first couple of rows of the gallery have been roped off due to heckling/reactions from the gallery during Alan McCombes' testimony.

Bunc said...

James - people often attend more to those things that fit their preconceptions - this maybe cuts both ways eh?

The charred remains of David Cameron said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0uQmzVJrPA&sns=em


Those SSY monsters!!!

James Doleman said...

Well fair enough Shug, but the idea that the high court is some sort of Salem witch trial with people booing and cackling in the gallery is frankly bizzare.

I know some people were warned early own for "audible gasps" and people do laugh when someone makes a joke, but in general it a quiet and respectful atmosphere.

Anonymous said...

@ Bunc

Could you suggest why the first couple of rows of the gallery have been roped off then?

oh yes said...

Saddened Dundee is sickened that some people who support TS call themselves socialists.

This has to constitute an inversion of reality, not to mention the meaning of what it is to be a socialist.

I'll give you a hint: you don't side with the bosses or their class interests - never, under any circumstances.

This is why it isn't TS who's on trial here, but the SSP, an ideologically bankrupt sect of former socialists.

Anonymous said...

@oh yes

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that it was definitely Tommy Sheridan who was on trial. For perjury. But maybe I'm wrong.

James Doleman said...

Hello Saddened, Dundee. I'd be happy to publish your comment except for you naming an individual you allege did something.

If you want to resubmit it without naming someone I'd be happy to post it.

Bobby said...

@ Oh yes.

I have a question for you:

Would you perjure yourself to protect Tommy Sheridan?

P.S. Read the indictment, it is actually TS who is on trial here, as much as you wish it was the SSP. I think you'll find all of those who have testified have come against their will (and said so in court, and in 2006). Whether you believe he is guilty or innocent, it's Tommy who has brought us here. And you cannot deny it.

former ssp said...

oh yes appears to have missed the point entirely

this is not about siding with the NOTW, what a stupid thing to say. if the ssp witnesses are telling the truth then all it means is that they are not prepred to perjure themselves to protect their MSP's sex life, a sex life, which if it is 'under attack' is only 'under attack' because he sued a newspaper.

the way your comments read look like a justificatoion for perjury.

this is where there is a major contradiction in what Sheridans supporters say, on one hand they say that people should side with Sheridan against the 'NOTW' even if it means lying, on the other hand they say that everyone except Sheridan is lying...

i'm not even in the SSP anymore, but the amount of rubbish some people come out with is frankly unreal

oh yes said...

After considering Jack Ferguson's testimony, I've come to the conclusion that the man is a teapot.

If this is the future leadership of the SSP then all I can say is that they can look forward to their vote plunging from its present laughable 1 percent to 0.0000001 percent.

Anonimouse said...

@ oh yes

I think that if you look carefully you will actually find that it indeed Sheridan who is on trial.

I'm surprised that has passed you by given that its been on the news every single night since his trial started, and this blog is entitled "The Sheridan Trial".

It does appear to be a common misperception that it is the SSP and their members on trial, with people commenting on how they have set out "their case", and demanding they provide evidence to back up their testimonies.

The witnesses, SSP and non-SSP; prosecution and defence, are there to provide evidence so that the jury can decide whether Sheridan committed perjury in 2006.

James Doleman said...

From saddened Dundee

I've been in on one of the days Leckie gave evidence, one of the days Khan did, both days Trolle did and also when Frances Curran and Kevin McVey did and was disappointed by the way that people in the court behaved on all of these occasions. I appreciate you may be concentrating more fully on the actual evidence rather than reactions as you have notes to take, but I can assure you this is how certain known Sheridan supporters were acting - gasping, tutting, laughing and talking - and a case of almost shrieking with laughter at Leckie. Not really appropriate in my view

The Lumpen Sociologist said...

Of course one thing we have to take into account in relation to the effect of this trial among the working class is that the majority of the working class who buy newspapers in Scotland buy the Sun,(although the Records owners have put out some dubious figures contradicting this) and many more don't even access the news on a regular basis. Outside about a 1000 leftwingers nobody cares too much about what is happening here.

Saddened, Dundee said...

Thanks James. And with that I'm off to bed, laughing at the mental image of a teapot giving evidence in court! Are you sure he wasn't a Singing Kettle??

James Doleman said...

Anyway all, been an interesting debate, I'm off to bed now so won't be moderating any more comments until the morn.

Midnight Caller said...

Sweet dreams, James, goodnight.

Anonimouse said...

@ Lumpen Sociologist

Oh yes they do.

This trial is like a background hum. Since it started barely a day has gone by without overhearing a conversation on the bus, in the lift at work, at the supermarket.

Makes a change from X-factor.

Ex SSP said...

I never knew the 'dying of cancer' comment came from Jack F's phone. Very, very disappointing.
I remember discussions within the SSP of who had done it and everyone claimed 'no knowledge' at the time. Wonder if that was true. Doubt it.

Shug said...

Came from Jack F's phone, ex-ssp, not from Jack F.

I think it is perfectly plausible tha the doesn't know, since he said he basically left his phone lying out on a table in a noisy pub.

The Lumpen Sociologist said...

anon 1.05, you are probably right I live an isolated life.

speugg said...

It wasnt a secret, it was common knowledge and Jack never denied it that I know of.

Catriona Grant spoke about it in the internet forum UKLN, confirming that the SSP knew about it and were dealing with it.

I dont think it ever came out in the press or papers that I can remember.

Stan said...

Shug - "Some people on here are rather poor at masking their bias."

This is self-mocking irony, right?

ExSSP said...

speugg and shug, it was common knowledge that a call had been made within the SSP, but not, IIRC, that it had come from JF's phone.
I can accept that doesn't mean HE did it but if Sheridan is correct that there are voice(s) audible in the background, including the one making the cancer remark, then some people must have known.
That was genuinely disappointing.

Anonymous said...

No it was common knowledge that it was Jacks phone, it was discussed openly on blogs and SSP members confirmed that it was being dealt with.

Anonymous said...

Am I missing something here? Nobody's been charged with making a nasty phone call. The jury are not being asked to rule on that, they are being asked to decide whether Tommy and Gail Sheridan committed perjury.

I'm sure this phone stuff's all very exciting, but it's no use getting your knickers in a flap over it.

Ex SSP said...

And how precisely was it dealt with, anonymous of 507PM, since you seem to know?

Anonymous said...

Ex SSP,

Who gives a flying one?

The trial is about perjury.

Lots of love.

Ex SSP said...

Anonymous 9:36PM

I give a flying one.

And yes, the trial is about perjury, but I was not aware that meant those of us commenting here could not speak about other matters covered at the trial.

Love and Hugs and All That.

Anonymous said...

too right former ssp - this is a discussion forum NOT a court of law.

Anonymous said...

Yeah. That's right. Let's have lots of interminable squabbles about insignificancies.

In two months time, Jock, Tommy and Gail will be sitting round the table, eating fondue, and laughing at all this silly trial.

anon507 said...

ex ssp, i wasnt in the SSP so I dont know how they dealt with it.

I can remember discussion about this on several forums, it was known that Fergusons phone was used, (I dont think anyone accused him of leaving the message), and SSP members said that they were aware of it and would deal with it. May be you were not 'ex' ssp at the time and could tell me how they dealt with it?

What I cant remember is the story getting to the papers. Ferguson referred to knowing more details when it was covered by the press, I dont think that happened. Maybe it did and I just cant remember.

I think this is an important point, this is the biggest thread so far with nearly 100 comments so obviously others do too.

I can understand why some people seem overly desperate to change the subject but I dont want to.

Whatsy said...

Re: Saddened, Dundee

I have to agree with most of your comments. While I don't recall any outright cackling, I have been surprised by the tutting and chatter from some areas of the public gallery when some prosecution witnesses have been on the stand, and was surprised nothing was done about it earlier. Having said that, the court is generally quiet and respectful the vast majority of the time.

The police tape seems a huge overreaction though. Apparently, this is the work of the court police, not the clerk or judge. For trials like murder, the police will tape off certain seats near the witness stand and behind the dock, which is understandable when the accused could have family of the victim sitting in the public gallery very nearby. For this trial, I don't think there is any suggestion of anything getting physically out of hand.

Anonymous said...

Is this thread going to reach 100 comments? lol

Anonymous said...

Not yet, another comment to go.

Comment No 100 said...

Made it, phew :-)

John R said...

Here's a report I've found while youtube browsing from 2006 of that very summer camp that was discussed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJOIno1QQI

Doesn't sound like the focus of the camp was burning lifesize effigies of permatanned men