We are posting live updates and analysis from the perjury trial of Her Majesty's Advocate versus Thomas Sheridan and Gail Sheridan.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
John Penman
Today the court heard from the first witness to testify that Mr Sheridan made no admissions of visiting a "Sex club" at the SSP executive meeting of the 9th November 2004. More to follow.
19 comments:
Whatsy
said...
I had really looked forward to the first pro-Tommy witness, but this had to be the most boring witness testimony so far.
Prentice was clearly teeing up further witnesses who will contradict Penman, but it was not riveting to watch from the gallery. Still, Penman seemed credible enough for now.
I wasn't there in court, but I would imagine some one who said 'nothing happened' would be much less interesting than someone who claimed TS reduced a room of hardened campaigning socialists to tears by his statement. I mean he couldn't even tell us about the noise that mythical pin made as it dropped.
On the general point that "nothing happened" is much less interesting than "swingers' clubs admissions", Penman was quizzed on the same question in multiple different meetings that he didn't really remember, but his basic testimony could be summed up as "Tommy didn't admit the Swingers' Club thing" and "I didn't tell anyone he did admit it". Repeat for every meeting he may have attended over about a year. There didn't seem any need for this to last as long as it did.
I know it's not entertainment, but it did drag. Maybe I was just tired. Anyone else find this particularly fascinating?
Penman’s testament will be on all the front pages tomorrow...Just see it now ‘nothing happened' u headline grabbing fiend u Jock.I wonder if he has a £6,000 pound advance up his sleeve.Of course the book will be called 'Imagine that nothing happened'
"I wasn't there in court, but I would imagine some one who said 'nothing happened' would be much less interesting than someone who claimed TS reduced a room of hardened campaigning socialists to tears by his statement."
Perhaps but quite how and why the SSP exec would unanimously vote (Jock's vote included) to dump Sheridan if 'nothing happened' is a puzzling question.
i dont understand anonimouse. i was an ssp member at the time. the decision was that he was asked to resign if he was going to be tied up in a legal battle and the party wanted to stay apart from that. it seemed like a reasonable decision, you cant soend all of your time fighting a libel trial and be party leader at the same time without it involving the party.
So the suggestion would be that Jock Penman heard Sheridan deny he had visited a sex club, but still felt that it was inappropriate for him to take on a libel case as leader of the party.
That would suggest a considerable level of disloyalty from Jock and other witnesses who heard Sheridan deny it, but still voted for him to be asked for his resignation.
I mean asking him to resign if he is about to take on a court case alleging libel over events that are true is a no-brainer, but why not publically back him if the allegations are false? According to Jock Sheridan publically stated so at an exec meeting.
If he was uncomfortable with his party's leader being caught up in such a case, why is he a member of Solidarity which is making a big issue of backing Sheridan?
anonimouse, you have lost me sorry. I was replying to your point about why ask sheridan to resign if he wasnt guilty of the allegations. At the time in the SSP, the mebers were not old of a confession and were told that because tommy was going to take on Now in court, it wasnt a good idea for him to be covenor while he was spending all of his time on that.
Jock Penman relates the exact story given to SSP members as I remember it. Of course we have now all seen that there were two levels of members, some being told more than others. And, of course, there was an elite who decided which democratic decisions were acceptable and acted on.
This whole sexist/misogynist thing is pathetic. Its obviously the UL line, but when applied to this blog it just stand up to any scrutiny at all.
Anonimouse - I think it's reasonable either way for Sheridan to resign if he's launching a defamation article against NotW, whether true or false. It would be a massive distraction from his role as head of the SSP.
"anonimouse, you have lost me sorry. I was replying to your point about why ask sheridan to resign if he wasnt guilty of the allegations. At the time in the SSP, the mebers were not old of a confession and were told that because tommy was going to take on Now in court, it wasnt a good idea for him to be covenor while he was spending all of his time on that.
Jock Penman relates the exact story given to SSP members as I remember it. Of course we have now all seen that there were two levels of members, some being told more than others. And, of course, there was an elite who decided which democratic decisions were acceptable and acted on."
19 comments:
I had really looked forward to the first pro-Tommy witness, but this had to be the most boring witness testimony so far.
Prentice was clearly teeing up further witnesses who will contradict Penman, but it was not riveting to watch from the gallery. Still, Penman seemed credible enough for now.
I wasn't there in court, but I would imagine some one who said 'nothing happened' would be much less interesting than someone who claimed TS reduced a room of hardened campaigning socialists to tears by his statement. I mean he couldn't even tell us about the noise that mythical pin made as it dropped.
Ha! Good point! I was fully expecting mention of the pin, and when it didn't appear I immediately realised this was not the usual SSP witness.
On the general point that "nothing happened" is much less interesting than "swingers' clubs admissions", Penman was quizzed on the same question in multiple different meetings that he didn't really remember, but his basic testimony could be summed up as "Tommy didn't admit the Swingers' Club thing" and "I didn't tell anyone he did admit it". Repeat for every meeting he may have attended over about a year. There didn't seem any need for this to last as long as it did.
I know it's not entertainment, but it did drag. Maybe I was just tired. Anyone else find this particularly fascinating?
I've not even written a post yet!
Do it quick before you slip into a coma. I hope you got all the individual meetings, locations and dates and attendees...
Of course! and all the names and telephone numbers from the txt bit.
I may summarise it though
I may have actually rested my eyes for a minute or two during the txt bit.
Penman’s testament will be on all the front pages tomorrow...Just see it now ‘nothing happened' u headline grabbing fiend u Jock.I wonder if he has a £6,000 pound advance up his sleeve.Of course the book will be called 'Imagine that nothing happened'
"I wasn't there in court, but I would imagine some one who said 'nothing happened' would be much less interesting than someone who claimed TS reduced a room of hardened campaigning socialists to tears by his statement."
Perhaps but quite how and why the SSP exec would unanimously vote (Jock's vote included) to dump Sheridan if 'nothing happened' is a puzzling question.
Anon 9.27pm
"why the SSP exec would unanimously vote (Jock's vote included) to dump Sheridan if 'nothing happened' is a puzzling question."
It is indeed and I am surprised it is not one that the advocate saw fit to put to Jock Penman.
Hello, can we all avoid commentating on people who may be witnesses and any charges they may or may not have faced in the past?
Thanks
i dont understand anonimouse. i was an ssp member at the time. the decision was that he was asked to resign if he was going to be tied up in a legal battle and the party wanted to stay apart from that. it seemed like a reasonable decision, you cant soend all of your time fighting a libel trial and be party leader at the same time without it involving the party.
Hang on - so we can comment on people who may be witnesses if they are not supporters of Sheridan? Is that it, you misogynist cultist?
@anonirat 12.35
I see.
So the suggestion would be that Jock Penman heard Sheridan deny he had visited a sex club, but still felt that it was inappropriate for him to take on a libel case as leader of the party.
That would suggest a considerable level of disloyalty from Jock and other witnesses who heard Sheridan deny it, but still voted for him to be asked for his resignation.
I mean asking him to resign if he is about to take on a court case alleging libel over events that are true is a no-brainer, but why not publically back him if the allegations are false? According to Jock Sheridan publically stated so at an exec meeting.
If he was uncomfortable with his party's leader being caught up in such a case, why is he a member of Solidarity which is making a big issue of backing Sheridan?
12:38 am - I think you should provide some evidence for that misogynist accusation. Or be quiet.
Try using your own name too before slinging around such accusations at someone else who is clearly identifiable on here.
You can say anything you want about me. Go for it. I won't mind.
James - sorry - don't mean to troll.
anonimouse, you have lost me sorry. I was replying to your point about why ask sheridan to resign if he wasnt guilty of the allegations. At the time in the SSP, the mebers were not old of a confession and were told that because tommy was going to take on Now in court, it wasnt a good idea for him to be covenor while he was spending all of his time on that.
Jock Penman relates the exact story given to SSP members as I remember it. Of course we have now all seen that there were two levels of members, some being told more than others. And, of course, there was an elite who decided which democratic decisions were acceptable and acted on.
This whole sexist/misogynist thing is pathetic. Its obviously the UL line, but when applied to this blog it just stand up to any scrutiny at all.
Anonimouse - I think it's reasonable either way for Sheridan to resign if he's launching a defamation article against NotW, whether true or false. It would be a massive distraction from his role as head of the SSP.
"anonimouse, you have lost me sorry. I was replying to your point about why ask sheridan to resign if he wasnt guilty of the allegations. At the time in the SSP, the mebers were not old of a confession and were told that because tommy was going to take on Now in court, it wasnt a good idea for him to be covenor while he was spending all of his time on that.
Jock Penman relates the exact story given to SSP members as I remember it. Of course we have now all seen that there were two levels of members, some being told more than others. And, of course, there was an elite who decided which democratic decisions were acceptable and acted on."
Nonsense. Members knew.
Post a Comment