This morning we reached a significant milestone in the trial as the defence opened it's case. The first witness called by Mr Sheridan was Hugh Kerr, previously a member of the European Paliament for the Labour Party, a founding member of the Scottish Socialist Party and Mr Sheridan's press secretary from 1999 to 2006.
Mr Kerr as testified to tensions within the SSP after the 2003 Scottish Parliament election, describing an atmosphere of "petty jealousy" and tension withing the party. In addition Mr Kerr has spoken to freedom of information requests he made to Lothian and Borders police on the cost of the investigation in Mr and Mrs Sheridan's alledged perjury, which appear to show that over £1.1 million pounds was spent up to September 2008.
Full report to follow.
70 comments:
In my opinion the cost of this investigation is completely and utterly irrelevant. Can we have some evidence please.
Can anyone name one political party that doesnt suffer from petty jealousy and tension please? Thought not.
It will be interesting to see the future of justice in this country of the cost of investinagting cases becomes a valid defence.
"We find the defendant not guilty because the cops spent too much money investigating this case" - really?
Do Accused persons in a trial normally bring up the cost of the investigation. Murder inquiries don't come cheap.
Rock on Tommy !
OJ
Why isn't Tommy the first witness for the Defence? That's the normal batting order down 'Sarf!
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=653
ho hum. fiddles with rosary, stares at wall, saying nothing
Seems a strange witness to start off with - I'd have brought out my best witness first.
I suppose it's to start building the narrative of the party-within-the-party and the conspiracy-to-do-Tommy-in.
If the cost of an investigation was a valid defence Peter Tobin et al would still be roaming the streets.
Whilst I think it's unfair to criticise a witness before we're aware of the totality of their evidence I have to agree that what has been posted thus far from Mr. Kerr seems somewhat rambling and irrelevant.
I can only hope that there is some 'meat' to his testimony when the fuller report of it is published here, later.
Between the amount the NOTW admitted to spending and the cost of the investigation by Lothian and Borders police, this has cost a staggering amount of money. But I agree, the cost of investigating TS is not a valid defence. Pity they can't get a discount for all the dropped charges.
I was half expecting TS to "get stuck into the tape". Oh, well...
Aren't the Sheridans on legal aid and therefor adding to this burden on the tax payer?
But these are the only points Juan has to make, and we can't leave him out...
Consider this notion that this is about 'bad people in the SSP out to get poor Tommy'.
These bad people seem have such numbers in the party that a majority of the EC are prepared to swear he confessed to visiting Cupids, and these bad people also have the means to fake a video of Tommy confessing.
Surely, if that's the case, then they could have done Sheridan in much more effectively than the conspiracy theorists and Sheridanistas would have you believe.
It would be a simple matter of just not re-electing him at an annual conference. Any spurious grounds could have been manufactured, if these bad people are so resourceful.
This 'bad people in the SSP' arguement just doesn't fly, in my opinion.
Det Sgt Harkness testified the other day that there were between 10 and 21 officers working on this case. Seems to be an awful lot.
Yesterday's testimony of the treatment of Gail during questioning seemed surprisingly harsh. (If I can't say that please take it out or replace it with 'coarse')
The cost of the operation is relevant if there's an implication of pressure from someplace.
I wonder how many (if any) of TS's witnesses AP will cross-exam?
I suspect that the fact that the police was willing to spend such an incredible amount of money looking for evidence, and yet appears to have found so little that is not tainted with NOTW payments or alterior motives, suggests that the lack of strong evidence is not due to lack of effort by the police.
Anonymous said...
In my opinion the cost of this investigation is completely and utterly irrelevant. Can we have some evidence please.
December 3, 2010 1:17 PM
Anon - do us a favour and choose a user name from the Name/URL field it is still Anonymous. Try "Wot No Forensics?"
Many of us were waiting for evidence in the Crown case Anon.
In pre-trial leaks to the media we were promised forensic evidence ie. credit cards, CCTV evidence, mobile phone tracking that would link Sheridan to the visit to Cupids, the visit to McNeilages house, Trolles house, Khans house etc etc. Also we wanted forensic evidence that the video is genuine.
Forensics never appeared.
The importance of the cost of the investigation that Hugh Kerr refers therefore should now be clear.
It means the police had access to the highest level of investigatory methods and forensics techniques but failed to come up with any forensic evidence at all.
This has been hinted at continually by the defence throughout the Crown case but is now out in the open.
So Bunc and Anons the cost is a very relevant issue.
Anonymous said...
In my opinion the cost of this investigation is completely and utterly irrelevant. Can we have some evidence please.
December 3, 2010 1:17 PM
Anon - do us a favour and choose a user name from the Name/URL field it is still Anonymous. Try "Wot No Forensics?"
Many of us were waiting for evidence in the Crown case Anon.
In pre-trial leaks to the media we were promised forensic evidence eg. credit cards use, CCTV evidence, mobile phone tracking that would supposedly link Sheridan to the visit to Cupids, the visit to McNeilages house, Trolles house, Khans house etc etc. Also we wanted forensic evidence that the video is genuine.
Forensics never appeared.
The importance of the cost of the investigation that Hugh Kerr refers therefore should now be clear.
It means the police had access to the highest level of investigatory methods and forensics techniques but failed to come up with any forensic evidence at all.
This has been hinted at continually by the defence throughout the Crown case but is now out in the open.
So Bunc and Anons the cost is a very relevant issue.
Anonymous said...
Do Accused persons in a trial normally bring up the cost of the investigation. Murder inquiries don't come cheap.
December 3, 2010 1:20 PM
This is not a murder trial.
This trial is about allegations of perjury,indeed in every court in the land when an accused is found guilty after pleading not guilty there is almost certainly an element of perjured evidence that has been provided.
As it stands this trial is unique in its persuit into allegations of perjury.
The cost of this trial is an interesting point, although perhaps not entirely material.
I would imagine that TS is trying to show the jury that L&B did set out with a pre-conceived notion of his guilt and weren't afraid to ring up a very large bill in pursuing TS.
Murder trials, don't as Anon said above come cheap, however in this situation no-one has been murdered. Stitched up perhaps but not murdered.
Well, this is not a murder trial, murder trials (at an average of 5 days) in the High Court, tend to be much cheaper than this. The point is surely, is this prosecution proportionate to justice? How many times do we hear its not in the public interest to pursue a prosecution? I've always thought that meant, crudely 'yes you committed a crime but it could cost to much to prove that you did so'. eg you wouldn't use DNA evidence in a littering case but you would in the case of murder. So, is it in the public interest for a sizeable chunk of the criminal budget to be spent on a case where the main victim seems to be the reputation of the NOTW (such as it is)?
Also, TS's argument seems to be that there is collusion between the police and the NOTW. Disproportionate use of public funds would be part of that argument.
There is "petty jealousy" between my cat and dog!
The Trial is still on schedule, so you can all expect a Verdict around this time next week.
I would say that barristers rarely bring up the cost of a trial. However this isn't a normal trial is it? The police spent £1.1m to try and prove that a man lied in court about extra marital sex.
What has this got to do with him being in a swingers club. Smoke screen I believe.
The point being made is would so much time and money have been spent on pursuing someone else? Remember, TS was a leading light in the Anti-Poll Tax movement, which eventually saw the demise of Thatcher. This trial is revenge by the establishment and Murdoch for ending Thatcher's reign.
PRENTICE WAS CRINGING when Lord Bracadale put him firmly in his place,he thinks there,s rules for the crown only
The first time Mr Sheridan got "well above his station", as Hugh Kerr claims, was when he ignored the advice of almost everyone on the Executive committee, and the private advice of most of his closest friends and others in and outside the Party, and decided to sue the NotW.
Then I'd say that setting up a Party in his own image, and appearing on Big Brother is pretty convincing evidence of getting well above one's station. Interesting that Tommy's cheerleaders on here don't often cite his appearance on Big Brother as his finest moment in his political career.
Hugh Kerr: Left the Party before the crisis. Could only say some people didn't like TS much. Hardly a convincing witness. Try harder Tommy, try harder.
It's part of TS's 'conspiracy' defence - i.e. look how desperate the state (in cahoots with half the left, rupert murdoch, the judiciary, mi5, etc, etc,) is to do me in(!)
PS. Does anyone know how such costs are actually tallied, anyway? I've never really understood how they can arrive at such figures - presumably it includes wages of all the cops involved? Would they not have been getting paid regardless of what case they were assigned to? Or is it just overtime and expenses?
The point that you miss 'anonymous' is that this is not a murder enquiry, it's a petty little enquiry into a petty little party and it's petty little squabbles.
Worth spending £millions on?
I don't think so.
The projected costs of the Crown case alone should have been enough to kick it into touch before it ever got to court.
Those arguing here about the sanctity of the court and the seriousness of committing perjury have obviously never been on charges themselves.
Would I lie to a court for the benefit of myself and my comrades? Too right I would.
People construct stories and lie to back each other up every day of the week in court cases all over this country. I've been up on charges and I have appeared as a witness for others and I can 'honestly' say that, for the greater good, I have been prepared to lie to a court in order to ensure my own freedom and my comrades' continued liberty.
All you legal eagles might find this to be anathema, but this is the real world folks, not your little legalistic bubble.
Ooh Tommy told fibs at the court of sesh and took £200,000 from the NOTW...
Who the $£$£ cares?
This will be a NOT GUILTY verdict and you still won't be happy, because YOU know he lied and got away with it AGAIN... and the bitterness will go one and the left will remain divided and politically irrelevant as a result.
Chillax, in the grand scheme of things, politically and legally, this makes not one iota of difference to the working class that you purport to represent.
Time to get out of the court and off the computers and start knocking on doors again 'comrades'.
'Bunc' with his ususal 'anti Tommy' stance said:-
'Can anyone name one political party that doesnt suffer from petty jealousy and tension please? Thought not'
That is not the point. The point is that a lot of previous witnesses have proclaimed that these tensions did not exist.
That there was no problem between them and TS, when plainly (according to this witness & TS) there was.
Calling into question the veracity of some of the previous witness's evidence.
No one has to prove the tape is genuine: the jury can decide for themselves.
Of course TS will take to the dock to defend himself. This is his bog moment. He probably sees himself as John MacLean and Nelson Mandela rolled into one "I come here not as the accused, but as the accuser of capitalism" ad nauseum.
He has probably been writing his I-am-the-next-john-maclean-speech since he was 17. All he needs is a couple of sympathetic folk songs and a hunger strike to secure his martyr status.
There would be a fair amount of overheads in the total cost I'd guess - depreciation & insurance of buildings, vehicles & office equipment, IT costs, pension contributions & other back room costs.
It's not hard to spend a lot of money.
Eraserhead,
If Tommy Sheridan is acquitted, then he will be vindicated in;
- referring to the minutes of the now famous "confession" meeting of the SSP executive as "the dodgy dossier" in the 2006 civil case.
- calling his ex-comrades in the SSP "scabs" as he did after his victory in that case.
Would you be happy with that?
I wouldn't have minded if England had won the football World Cup, what I would have minded would be the never ending triumphalism from England supporters.
If T Sheridan is acquitted I expect that he will be equally as obnoxious, in a faux class-hero way.
If Tommy Sheridan has committed a crime, it is not a totally victimless crime.
Re yesterday's court proceedings, in view of the admission below by TS, Gail's loyalty to someone who keeps such 'company' is quite astonishing. Barge, Pole and run a mile would be my reaction.
'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'
If there was lack of sufficient evidence to convict TS beyond reasonable doubt, it does not prove that those who gave evidence against him were lying.
Indeed it would still be open to anyone accused of being a scab to sue TS, as the burden of proof is different in a civil case.
However a tape, a diary, lots of independent witnesses does present a reasonably compelling case for the jury to consider.
Look guys,
Surely the crucial point about the expense of the investigation and the trial is not whether it is money well spent.
I and others do not think it was well spent as it is a fit up job - wereas others think it was well spent.
But surely we must ALL must agree that after all that money and time spent on forensic examination of CCTV, mobile phone tracking, credit cards etc it is astounding that the Police/Crown could apparently not find even one piece of forensic evidence.
No forensics were presented that Sheridan (nor indeed any of the Crown witnesses) was even in the vicinity of any of the places the events supposedly took place.
If that has not been made crystal clear yet it is of course a failure of the defence.
But it is only the first day so Tommy will no doubt make the point in his own time.
Hugh Kerr has simply today laid the groundwork for that by confirming the huge sums spent by the police without any forensic result.
A decent start.
Not 1 bit of proof of the cupids trip only the paid witnesses have said it happened and they all gave different accounts,AP never dug into this either as he would have ended in a hole he would,nt have got out of.
Why did he even put the Fox charge on the indictment when he knew it couldn,t be corobarated,makes you wonder
Peter - you never explain the evidence given by "independent" witnesses such as Elizabeth Quinn, the couple in Aberdeen/Dundee etc. Does EQ read the NotW, is there something that we are not being told?
I believe that most people accept this case 'had' to be brought given the nature of the allegation and that the cost associated it is incidental.
Let us not forget we are dealing with an allegation here that a person deliberately instigated a court case founded predominantly of not entirely on untruths (indeed allegedly sought to persuade others to do the same) in an effort to seek financial penalty from a publication which had printed a story about them.
That is pretty much a definition of a case in the public interest. The courts are for all equally and any attempt to manipulate them for personal ends should be fully pursued.
Bunc said:
'Can anyone name one political party that doesnt suffer from petty jealousy and tension please? Thought not'
Quite correct Bunc I cannot either but that is the point isn't it - as Anon rightly points out earlier.
According to the United Left version of events until Tommy allegedly confessed (supposedly to a room full of people some of whom he had disputes for years with) to a series of sexual encounters with various women and visits to sex clubs there were NO problems AT ALL - NONE AT ALL.
As you say how likely is that to be true?
All parties have disputes.
So if you agree with your ow analysis you cannot really agree with the United Left witnesses. A bit of ownage there I am afraid there Bunc.
By the way if you track back on my earliest posts and you will note that opposition to Sheridan went back to the LPYS / Militant days well before SML, before the SSA and before the SSP.
For example Sheridan going onto the Militant CC as a young buck was opposed way back in the 80s by some comrades.
The various groups and individuals who formed the SSP where no "Sherdanistas" far from it.
So I was less convinced by the evidence of the United Left it was all sweetness and light in the SSP than you.
Sad to say factional disputes can be intensely bitter, as Kerr indicates today, and indeed as the United Left witnesses showed when they displayed their venom to Sheridan in court.
look at the evidence McCoombes secretly going to the media; Barbara Scott unforced going to the police; Katrine Trolle going to the NOTW. Bitter factional activity if ever there was.
If you don’t believe that then look up the factional dispute in the WRP when some to gain factional advantage accused their leader of some of the worst things possible - much worse than Sheridan was accused of.
Peter -
There is no body to have done dna forensics on. There might have been some boduly fluids who knows but lets not go there.
If I recall rightly there was talk of cash being used not credit cards. As for other forensics -phone records eg geolocation data would only be kept for a limited time and the police investigation into perjury did not start until quite some time after the events in question.
Lack of "forensics" doesn't stop people up and down the land being prosecuted sucessfully for crimes each and every day where there are eye witnesses and other corroborating evidence.
Ideally I too would have liked to have head expert evidence about the tape but I don't think its a critical issue - unless TS produces some expert willing to assert that it's been faked of course. If he does and the evidence can't be succesfully challenged then that would sink the prosecution utterly.
Lack of "forensics" is a bit of a red herring when you have eye witnesses and other corroborating evidence though.
some bloggers are quoting £1.1 million for the investigation.i bielieve this figure was up till march 2008,and has risen to over £1.5m to date.in court today there was a figure of £3m suggested for the trial alone.so nearly £5m has been spent from the tax payers purse in pursuit of one man.the general public would be disgusted to hear of the murders,rapes and other horrific crimes that were committed during this investigation,and remain unsolved while L and B spent such large amounts on this,so called,witchunt.
i also think it is just sick to compare the crimes of beasts like tobin to this case.i also believe this case is not about destroying one man,but about destroying a movement and some who claim to be part of this movement are happy to assist the establisment to achieve this
Rock on Citizen Smith err tommy Sheridan.
Every leader of the working class needs to do time. Looks like it could be his time to do it sooner rather than later.
If yer an enemy of the state money doesn't come into it. It's get him at ALL COSTS, and it appears that's what it going to cost.
A good solicitor is 200 or so an hr. A advocate 400 _ 500 an hr. Nice work if you can get it.
So the cost of the court case alone is a lot plus the investigation and 30k a yr to keep him locked up all adds up.
I think the discount tariff if you plead early is only about saving money and not about justice. Ask the relatives of someone whos been murdered and the accused gets quarter off his sentence for pleading guilty!
Our jusice system is not for victims its for quite well off people getting even richer off the public purse. Check out the slab Scottish legal aid board site for the money that some get.
IMHO tommy lied and knows he did. But also I don't believe he should have been prosecuted at any cost. Maybe a fiscal fine should have been offered.
Is it to late to offer a fiscal fine if a trial has started could they have offered it right up to the start date?
@ a ballpark figure it will be costing ~ at least £10,000 a day to "run" the courtroom.
It does save money by pleading guilty at the outset - a LOT of money, it cost at least £10,000 a day to run a courtroom, = £50,000 a week, = £500,000 for a 10 week trial.
Funnily enough Bunc I don't feel the tape if/when it is proven to be fake does actually blow the prosecution case out of the water.
It was never supposed to stand up to scrutiny anyway - it was most likely a device to get big Georgie and the boys their "pension" and provide some limited basis to get a perjury investigation started. It did its job.
What has already blown the case out of the water is the testimony of the two main Crown witnesses Khan and Trolle.
Despite supposedly acting independently of each other, they changed the dates of the sex sessions to the same date and (if we believe Bob Bird) it has been shown they lied under oath about payments, the offers of payments and the size of payments.
In Khan's case she admitted it is actually her job is to make exotic sex stories up for money and that she used this whole matter for contract negotiations.
Lets face it Khan was destroyed as a witness by McBride.
And the third woman who supposedly had sex with Sheridan was not even called by the Crown and even the police told the court she was probabaly not telling the truth!
If you believe these ladies Bunc then there is not much I can do for you.
I will only believe them if there is supportive forensics.
Yes we all noticed that the Crown was careful to draw out from Khan that Tommy always allegedly paid by cash in envelopes not by card. How convenient for the Crown - yet again! The jury aren't dafties they will spot the dealing for the bottom of the deck there.
The police had anti-terrorist officers and an ulimited budget. You know if they actually existed that credit card, CCTV and tracking evidence would have been found. There is none.
I can sense you shifting to a reasonable doubt Bunc - I am trying to throw you a rope here.
Come on walk towards the light lad.
up4it - a fiscal fine is offered as an alternative to prosecution. At this stage of the proceedings there is absolutely no chance of AP offering TS a "fiscal fine".
As with anyone else by accepting a fiscal fine TS would be implicitly "confessing" just in the same way as accepting a police "caution".
@Peter
"If you don’t believe that then look up the factional dispute in the WRP when some to gain factional advantage accused their leader of some of the worst things possible - much worse than Sheridan was accused of."
are you both a)comparing Sheridan to Healy and b) saying both were victims of malicious and false claims?
look it,s down to credability and i dont know ts or gs,but having watched a good part of the trial the prosecution witnesses in my opinion are not credible,if you dont believe parts of the evidence there must be doubt,so the not proven verdict will come into play i think
yulefae, but at least the prosecution witnesses gve evidence and were subject to cross-examination. TS or GS giving evidence is something that we have yet to see. And in accordance wit normal court procedure TS should have (if he intended to give evidence) been the first witness for the defence. I know that the Accused don't have to give evidence, but in my opinion TS and GS are very unlikely to give evidence, particularly GS.
I unerstand your point,but it,s for the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt their case,the fact they have brought a case full of witnesses with zero cred makes the case a farce,the fact these people have been witnesses for financial gain brings the crown case into untested waters,i have and hope never to see a case like this again.
For the crown to ask a jury to convict an accused on the evidence of someone who has gained finacialy is in my book a disgrace and totally undermines what justice is about,i think AP will be saying to himself why me
But that is just they way things are, especially an accused sat in the dock tight-lipped clutching her rosary beads. A lot of people have done themselves a disservice, the notw is a crock of shit and the police are no angels and are as corrupt as they come. But trying to use common perceptions to defend a case in my opinion stinks. TS is not a stupid man, he has a politics degree so will be well read, he knows what he is doing in the same way that others can see what he is doing in my opinion.
Hey anon, the cost for lord bracadale and the prosecution team will be more than £10k a day alone.I suspect you have never been invoiced for the services of a Qc.
Mike
They had great difficulty getting rid of Tommy at annual elections because the majority of the party were behind him and remained behind him. The United Left had to find an alternative, non democratic, way of getting rid of him and when the N of the W came sniffing around with their imaginative story T’s enemies within the party clapped their hands in glee as they got out their back stabbing knives.
@ firestarter £10K is just the "running costs" of one courtroom, it doesn't include QC's fees etc., you have to add them on. A QC can easily maje more than £10K a day.
Eraserhead I completely agree. We always knew the when the left started to become successful the right wing medi would be out to get us. They came and people who should be holding their heads in shame right now colluded with them and helped destroy the left in Scotland. We need to dust ourselves down and do just as Eraserhead says - get back to chapping on doors. It is just so heartbreaking to see all our years of work destroyed by jealous bitter nasty people.
"Anne said...
Mike
They had great difficulty getting rid of Tommy at annual elections because the majority of the party were behind him and remained behind him. The United Left had to find an alternative, non democratic, way of getting rid of him and when the N of the W came sniffing around with their imaginative story T’s enemies within the party clapped their hands in glee as they got out their back stabbing knives."
Anne -it's worse than that. Do you really believe the NOTW just happened to come sniffing by? Remember than Fiona McGuire went to the NOTW - who put her up to it? Was she not an item with Duncan Rowan at the time, the SSP North East organiser who was later taped talking to the NOTW?
The whole thing really stinks.
thanks anon.
I know appearances are deceptive and all that but does anyone else think Hugh Kerr looks like the kindly old man who might be on one of those adverts that asks you if you've put enough away for your funeral?
i,m not a politician but have been accused by my partner on anothers say so of simmilar things,its called bitching
I met Hugh Kerr when he was still a Labour MEP but fallen out with Blair and about to be deselected. He came to the Green Party conference in 1998 to get top spot on a green-socialist joint list.
Quite a smart operator - which is more that can be said than most of the leftist groups that suddenly discovered the Greens in '98.
Colin Q,nice point re.crown witnesses having the right to sue TS for calling them scabs etc.You seem unaware (as indeed I was until very recently)that one such main witness has already tried that.I am referring to Frances(dont use the bourgeois courts Tommy) Curran. Not content to pursue one, but two newspapers for defamation etc,she was spectacularly blown out at a pre hearing on March of this year. As the case therefore never went to proof partially explains why this is not common knowledge.If you read up on the case it will become obvious why Curran et al.have kept so tightlipped.Log onto FRANCES CURRAN v SCOTTISH DAILY RECORD &SUNDAY MAIL Ltd.
I don't know what people are on about when they say that "they" had difficulty getting rid of Tommy in annual elections. Tommy was returned unopposed as convenor at every annual conference of the SSP up to his resignation in November 2004, he was also selected overwhelmingly as the no.1 candidate in Glasgow before the 2003 election. The United Left was not formed until 2006.
Anne,
There were no moves to oppose Tommy prior to 2004.
It isn't as if there was a constant battle between Tommy's supporters and those 'bad people' determined to oust him.
This simply isn't the case, he was regularly unpposed as Convenor and easily topped the list in Glasgow.
However, after he decided to start on this kamikaze route and calling people scabs, then there was some opposition. I think nearly every branch in Glasgow passed a motion of no confidence in him, for example.
So, Sheridan had pretty much overwhelming support in the SSP before this, and pretty much lost most of it afterwards.
Spot on, Mike!
That simply isnt true. The only test of Sheridans support through the democratic structures showed the opposite.
3 months after he resigned he topped the male list for the National Executive with the highest vote recorded, 12 months later he was elected as chair of the party, again by a huge margin. Just before the defamation trial we had a test of that again where the national Council voted to support him.
After the trial when the party was splitting apart, some of the more avid pro and anti sheridan branches declared dubious motions against or for him, but there was no test of that.
In my branch we had about 20 members, we refused to declare one way or the other, we thought such actions were divisive. So you could say we were not a pro-sheridan branch OR you could say that we were not an anti-Sheridan branch, When the party split our branch split about 50% solidarity, 25% remaining in the SSP and 25% cursing both houses.
Those votes of confidence or those branches who nominated Sheridan to take on Fox for the leader were making political points, not taking part in any democratic test of members.
Apologies, I thought I had replied here.
Anon, I think that's my point - even after he decided to take the legal action and resigned as convenor, Tommy was subsequently elected unnoposed as Chair and topped the EC list.
So, if that's the case, where's the conspiracy against him?
Post a Comment