Mr Sheridan began his cross examination of Mr Penman by asking about his background. Mr Penman told the court he had been a shop steward at the Rosyth Dockyard until he had been forced out because of his trade union activities. Mr Sheridan also asked the witness about his role in the 1984 miners strike and Mr Penman told the court that he had organised collections and meetings in support of the miners in Rosyth.
Mr Sheridan then turned to to the SSP executive meeting on the 9th November 2004 and asked Mr Penman if he had heard any admissions by him that he had visited a sex club. Mr Penman said he had not and agreed that Mr Sheridan had denied the accusations. Mr Sheridan asked the witness that if he had heard him admit the allegations if he would be in the witness box, Mr Penman said he would not. Mr Sheridan further asked the witness if he would risk "going to prison for me" to which Mr Penman said "No. Sorry Tommy."
Mr Penman was then asked if he had been aware of any political tensions in the SSP before 2004. The witness responded that he had been aware that there were "obviously people who didn't like you, a clique in the parliament and the office." He added that there was a "power struggle" and that some people who had called Mr Sheridan a "Maverick." Mr Penman then told the court that there was nothing said about Mr Sheridan;s private life and that Colin Fox had told him that Mr Sheridan's weekend "is a meal with Gail on Friday, Saturday night at the pictures and dinner at your mum's on Sunday. You are a anorak."
Mr Sheridan then moved on the results of a forensic analysis that had been carried out on Mr Penman's mobile phone and the court was shown a number of recovered texts from a Mr Ian Campbell. These spoke of the "disunited left" and their "hollow rubbish." Another text spoke of "fizz poison" a reference Mr Penman said to Felicity Garvie, a previous Crown witness. Mr Penman was asked to put these text messages in context, and told the court they reflected the tensions in the SSP and were "evidence of disunity." Mr Penman added that there was a group who wanted to replace Mr Sheridan as convener of the SSP.
Mr Sheridan concluded his cross-examination by producing a list of signatories of the launch statement of the "United Left" group of the SSP, produced in June 2006, and highlighting how many were Crown witnesses. He then thanked the witness for his testimony and returned to the dock.
Mr Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute then briefly re-examined Mr Penman, and asked him again if he had heard Mr Sheridan admit 2 visits to the Cupids sex club at the 9th November 2004 meeting of the SSP executive. The witness said he had not. Mr Prentice then finished his examination and the court rose for the day.
The trial continues.
19 comments:
I have yet to be surprised by the evidence of any of the witnesses, it is all so predictable, and it will be the same until the non political witnesses come aboard. One thing I have noticed is that male witnesses are being treated with more respect than the female ones in the blogosphere and throughout the Left the trial is mainly being ignored as an embarrasment.
"it is all so predictable"?
You weren't surprised that Alan 'affadvit' McCombes the man who went to jail defending the SSP from the bourgeois courts, was the man who spilled the beans to the Herald?
You weren't surprised that a key witness, Katrina Trolle has a very friendly relationship (to put it kindly) with a copper on the case. Not only that, they had private unrecorded meetings where they discussed the case.
It doesn't surprise you that two witness's who put TS in Cupid's both initially said 2001 and then both changed it to to 2002? Not surprised that a lawyer working for the NOTW was responsible for producing the transcripts (used as evidence in this trial) from the libel case?
Is this really what you expected in the trial? Or is it you just cant be bothered to keep up with the evidence and have already decided before hand - no smoke without fire?
1.41. Lol, as young people say. Lol.
How does any of what you say relate to the evidence we have seen. For those of us with no interest in far left politics, why does it matter that Alan McCombes gave an affadavit to the Sunday Herald? How does that affect ay evidence presented so far?
Oh come on, Prentice has already went over the 2001/2002 stuff. And have you actually looked at what's in the affadavit?
"throughout the Left the trial is mainly being ignored as an embarrasment."
I suspect some of them are ignoring it due to certain support they gave at the time.
I really dont get the point about women being treated worse than men. A quick look back at this blog (the only to cover it) clearly ahows that isnt true.
The people getting the worse teatement are clearly Tommy Sheriodan and Alan McCombes, perhaps deservedly, but unless they have had an op I dont know about, they are men.
I've noticed several attempts to make this look like a mal vs female fight, there has been bothing so far in this trial to back this argument up.
Glad the left ignoring the trial as the degenerative behaviour behavior of T S is disturbing whilst as a human being with human rights he has every right to defend himself and his family but as a ''socialist' he doesn't have the right to take on the language of the previous witch hunters of the labour party using the history of the militant to attack former comrades.
I agree that this blog and many of its comment ers seem to have a gender bias, probably commonly known as being sexist. I wonder why that is? Is it an other sign of degeneration?
Glasgow guy.
No, none of it surprises me, the changes that you mention do not surprise me and it seems that you are the one who may not be listening to the evidence. As for McCombes working with the Bourgoise press, Sheridan is much more in the grasp of the Bourgoise establishment as he carves out a place as C list media star much in the manner of Derek Hatten.
You ask Is this really what you expected in the trial?
Yes, what more can we expect, the SSP are taking one stance and the Socialist Party of England and Wales Scottish section or whatever name the CWI is operating under these days takes another. Were you surprised that McCombes wrote Sheridans articles for the bourgoise press, I think they were all in bed together in this one, in a non sexual way.
Not surprised by Gary Clark's testimony that he went to Cupid's with Tommy?
Just watched 12 angry men last night, naa dont think so. Great work James keep it up.
Hello Jim, I just report what happens in court, the idea that this makes me "sexist" is baffling.
Just watched 12 angry men last night, naa dont think so lol Tommy, in my opinion lol does bear a striking resemblance to Henry Fonda - they could be identical twins.
"sexist" lol of course you're not James. If anything, you're a foaming-at-the-mouth, sand-in-the-vagina, rampant feminist if anything lol
I find the sexist comment extremely baffling also so i'll ignore this. What we have is a fairly concise but comprehensive view fo what is going on rather than a concise media view. I can start to make greater understanding of what is happening from Jim's commentary than all the media rubbish. Saying that this is only a quarter of the evidence and looks very dodgy indeed: all of one type of the population are drinking from the same well here and it will be very interesting to listen to the counter witnesses in coming weeks. In the meantime, keep the unbiased non sexist narrative going, Jim!
The comments rather your reporting James to be fair
re male dominance: out of the 11 contributions on this page only 4 have actually outed them selves as men. Given the nature of the evidence there has amazingly little discussion of a sexual nature on here. So why this blog is in some way sexist, I too am baffled.
Being a man discussing the case, is not proof of being sexist.
"the degenerative behaviour behavior of TS is disturbing" wtf? What - TS being accused of having sex with the light on out with the marital bed and not in the prescribed sexual position? Is he on the slippery slope to the big fire?
Ah the Scottish left, can't beat them for some good old moralism. Anon is one of your Sunday activities chasing the weans off the swings?
A section of the Scottish left appears to be inspired by 80s feminism here. Anyone who has sex with more than one woman at a time has to be a misogynist bastard. It actually displays a very patronising view of women.
Oh Noes! Not the group sex! Anything but that!
You can argue that it's no big deal if he was having sex with more than one woman at a time, or you can argue that he is completely innocent of the allegations, but you can't argue both at the same time.
But Robert remember NO ONE has had sex with more than one woman in regards to this trial!! Have you not been falling the trial?
Why is it patronising to women? If women consent to it then what is the problem? Women have spoken in the court of having group sex yet they have been called liars, plotters, fantasists, of being cunning attention seekers or making it up to sell their story to the NOTW.
Tommy, Paul McBride QC and some of the people who comment on here have had very old fashioned ideas about sex and sexuality.
Post a Comment