The final defence witness called on Friday was Irene Lang. Ms Lang told the court she had been employed as a child development officer for the last twenty one years and had been married for fifteen years. Mr Sheridan asked the witness about her political background, Ms Lang replied that she had been involved in politics in her early twenties and had briefly been a member of Scottish Militant Labour but had "fallen away" from politics after that. The witness went on to tell the court that in 2004 she had been involved in a strike by Glasgow nursery nurses and had phoned the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) for support. Ms Lang went on that Mr Sheridan arrived at the picket line the next day and during the course of the fourteen week strike Mr Sheridan had been at the picket line "almost every day" and had donated his earnings for a column in the Scottish Daily Mirror to the strike fund. The witness told the court that this had "inspired her to be active again" and she had joined the SSP in 2004.
Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Lang about a meeting between her, her sister Joyce Drummond and McCardy in a cafe in Edinburgh in May 2006 with then SSP convener Colin Fox. The witness was asked what the purpose of the meeting was, and she replied that Mr Fox wished to discuss concerns he had about the actions of people in the SSP. Ms Lang went on to tell that court that at the meeting Colin Fox had, she claimed, stated that there was a "plot" by people to "get you" and had further told them that Mr Sheridan "had made no admissions of at the EC meeting" [of 9/11/04] and indeed had denied visiting a "Sex club" The witness then told the court that Mr Fox had told the group that he wanted "to clear out the executive the SSY and the Voice and asked if we would help him." Mr Sheridan then asked what the conclusion of the meeting was, Ms Lang replied that we "didn't say one way or the other."
Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Lang about an alleged incident that took place after an SSP meeting in May 2006 involving previous Crown witness Keith Baldassara. Ms Lang told the court that at the meeting she had spoken about "not being happy" about the attitude the party was taking to Mr Sheridan and that afterwards Mr Baldassara had approached her "being abusive and shouting" and had called her a "stupid f*cking bitch" which she had found "frightening." The witness went in to tell the court that she had, along with her sister Joyce Drummond, written a letter of complaint about this incident to Alan Green and Ritchie Venton and added that as far as she knew there was no investigation into this incident and that "no-one ever got back to us" Mr Sheridan concluded his evidence in chief by reminding the witness that she had affirmed to tell the truth and asking if she had, Ms Lang replied that she had.
Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute then rose to begin his cross-examination and began by asking the witness what the purpose of her alleged meeting with Colin Fox was. Ms Lang responded that "he had asked to meet with us" and repeated her previous statement that at the meeting Mr Fox had stated his intention to "clear out the executive, the SSY and the Voice." Mr Prentice asked if Mr Fox had said anything about his forthcoming testimony at the defamation case between Tommy Sheridan and the News of the World (which was due to start in July that year) and Ms Lang said Colin Fox had said he was going to "tell the truth" and say Tommy Sheridan had made no admissions at the 9/11/04 meeting. Mr Prentice put it to the witness that "the truth is he did not say Tommy Sheridan denied the allegations" to which Ms Lang replied "no."
Mr Prentice then asked the witness if she had written a letter to a judge, Lady Smith in May 2006. The witness confirmed that the Cardonald branch of the SSP had in May 2006 and that this was a letter of apology for the branch's motion demanding that the party destroy any documents or minutes relating to Mr Sheridan's "private life" if they existed. Mr Prentice asked what the branch had meant by this motion, to which Ms Lang replied that they had not meant it "literally" and instead were "trying to send a message to the executive." Mr Prentice queried the assertion the motion was not to be taken "literally" asking "what else could it possibly mean?" Ms Lang insisted again that the intention was to "send a message to the executive." Mr Prentice put it to the witness that there were no 'hidden meanings" in the motion and that it amounted to "Cardonald branch calling on the executive to destroy the minutes" Ms Lang said that "that was not our intention" Mr Prentice then moved to return to his seat, but turned back and asked the witness "who else was a member of Cardonald branch" Ms Lang replied "Me, Joyce Drummond, Tommy Sheridan, Gail Sheridan.." and was then interrupted by Mr Prentice who said "that's enough, thank you" and then returned to his seat. Mr Sheridan then left the dock to re-examine the witness.
Mr Sheridan began by asking the witness when the motion discussed by the prosecution had been passed by Cardonald branch had been passed, Ms Lang replied "May 2006" The witness then told the court that she had voted for the motion but not written it. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if Mr Fox had said anything about minutes at their supposed meeting in Edinburgh the same month. Ms Lang said he had told them "he had never seen any minutes from the 9th November." Mr Sheridan concluded by asking Ms Lang if they had delivered their letter of apology to Lady Smith to anyone. Ms Lang said they had taken it to Lady Smith's court but as she was not there that day had given it to her clerk along with their telephone numbers. Mr Sheridan asked if anyone had ever contacted them about the letter of apology, Ms Lang replied "no."
With that Mr Sheridan returned to the dock and Ms Lang was permitted to leave the witness box. The court then rose for the day with the defence case due to continue on Monday morning.
124 comments:
"I thought Colin, in my opinion, was not a great leader" and that she had doubted his ability to carry through what he had promised.
I thought that was a very telling comment.
"Mr Prentice then moved to return to his seat, but turned back and asked the witness "who else was a member of Cardonald branch" Ms Lang replied "Me, Joyce Drummond, Tommy Sheridan, Gail Sheridan.." and was then interrupted by Mr Prentice who said "that's enough, thank you" and then returned to his seat."
I, for one, Lol'd when I read that.
I assume the purpose of Alex Prentice's last question was to suggest that the witness was lying to support a political friend.
The problem with this line of argument is that if he is saying that a witness may risk a perjury conviction to help a political friend, is it not at least equally likely that a witness may be willing to risk a perjury conviction to harm a political enemy?
The jury may end up deciding that political witnesses on either side can not be relied upon - that will harm the prosecution case more as it is they that have the onus of proof. Also, with political witnesses discounted, the bulk of what remains of the prosecution case consists of witnesses who have been, or may hope to be, paid by the NOTW.
I agree with anonymous. This boils down to political witnesses on either side.Not witnesses who have been paid by the NOTW, neighbours of witnesses who have been paid by the NOTW, employees of the NOTW, who admit being mistaken in evidence previously given in the civil case. Hotel witnesses that have now been dropped, who were also paid by the NOTW. (There is a common denominator here). And with the atmosphere in the SSP of vitriolic hatred described by a witness yesterday the political witnesses are not without their problems of believability either.
Keith, I'd draw your attention to one detail:
"...Mr Baldassara had approached her "being abusive and shouting" and had called her a "stupid f*cking bitch" which she had found "frightening."
It seems there were tempers on both sides. And as we've heard from others, there were several meetings especially in 2006 where tempers were extremely high.
I'd be curious to ask Ms Laing what she had been shouting in the first place.
The implications in AP's line of questioning is that those who were under investigation were themselves also conspiring to have evidence relating to their activities destroyed.
It is a particularly stupid position for a branch of the SSP, which includes Gail and Tommy among its members, to pass a motion calling for minutes and references to their private lives (i.e. the evidence) to be destroyed.
Burn one paper trail while leaving another...
For all of the theatrics and rhetorical flourishes in the courtroom, this aint too smart, is it?
I am thoroughly underwhelmed and uncovinced by the evidence of these two sisters, but it looks like the character and evidential witnesses for the defence are better schooled in the art of delivering corroborating testimony than the ragbag of prosecution witnesses were, so it might just work to swing this case further in Tommy's favour.
As stated in another thread, I have no particular loyalty to the sanctity of the court, nor do I subscribe to the notion that one should never lie in a court of law. The police give this type of textbook delivery of evidence to courts every day of the week, secure convictions and get away with the obvious raised eyebrows of those looking on because, for them, the resulting conviction is all that matters. They can also console themselves with the fact that, to all extents and purposes, they 'played it by the book'.
Tommy's defence witnesses are now 'playing it by the book'imho. All's fair in love, war, politics and the law it seems.
I think Not Guilty is probably the fairest and the most inevitable outcome of this case. Whether or not I believe a word of what any of the witnesses - defence and prosecution - have said during this trial is, however, another matter entirely.
AP's issue regarding the Cardonald's request to destroy the Minute is covered in Observer 28 May 2006
News
Politics
Socialists to axe Sheridan in libel battleParty's co-founder faces expulsion unless he agrees to drop News of the World court case
Share Lorna Martin, Scotland editor The Observer, Sunday 28 May 2006 Article historyTommy Sheridan, the firebrand Scottish Socialist MSP, could today be forced out of the party he co-founded unless he drops his libel action against a major tabloid newspaper.
At a critical meeting of the party's national council this morning, members are expected to call on him to abandon his lawsuit against the News of the World. Sheridan is unlikely to do that, which would make a split in the country's 'trail-blazing, anti-establishment' left-wing party inevitable.
His determination to sue the paper over lurid allegations printed in 2004 relating to his private life has already resulted in the imprisonment of his former friend and adviser, Alan McCombes, and provoked damaging splits within the party.
McCombes was remanded in custody on Friday for refusing to hand over key internal party documents containing detailed discussions about Sheridan and the claims made about him.
The Murdoch-owned Sunday tabloid believes those documents contain crucial information that would help it defend the defamation case brought by the Glasgow MSP.
McCombes withheld the crucial minutes not to assist Sheridan - with whom he fell out in 2004 - but to protect his party's right to hold internal meetings in private. However, the Scottish Socialists' efforts to keep the minutes confidential may have been in vain. It is understood that sheriff officers will raid the home of McCombes and the party's offices tomorrow in an attempt to get hold of them.
In a further twist, another party motion, passed by Sheridan's own branch of the Scottish Socialists in Cardonald, to which his wife Gail and mother Alice also belong, has called for the documents in question to be destroyed.
The motion, which will be voted on today, states: 'This branch demands that any such record or minutes involving comrade Sheridan and his private life, if such a record does indeed exist, should be immediately destroyed.
'Our party should never intrude into members' private lives or assist the reactionary scab News of the World by co-operating with them, in either confirming the existence of documents or handing them over.'
At the Court of Session on Friday, the judge, Lady Smith, indicated that she might want to question members of the Cardonald branch about their calls for the minutes to be shredded.
Sheridan denies all the claims made about him in the News of the World and a jury trial will start on 4 July.
On 9 November 2004, the SSP's executive committee forced Sheridan to resign after he refused to deal 'differently' with the accusations. The News of the World had gone to court to obtain the minutes of that meeting.
A spokesman for the SSP said the party supported the McCombes's decision to keep the minutes confidential.
"A spokesman for the SSP said the party supported the McCombes's decision to keep the minutes confidential."
Wonder if the spokesman knew that Mr McCombes had already passed them to the Sunday Herald?
Hello anon, sorry but that may well be a "matter of public record" but has not been mentioned in this trial so, sorry, can't post it.
Best regards
James
O.K.James - I bet AP mentions it in his summing up.
Keith, as covered in great detail on this website, McCombes did not hand over any minutes to the Sunday Herald. If you've actually heard what the affidavit contains, you'd know it is very brief and references no details of the minutes and simply says that the decision to ask Sheridan to resign was unanimously endorsed by the SSP EC and was accepted by Sheridan himself, and that the party had information that made his postion as convenor untenable. That'd be a pretty rubbish minute wouldn't it. He did not "hand the minutes over" and it's a slander to say so. That was what was thought the affidavit must contain for years but it's been subsequently proven to have not contained the minutes, so quiet down.
Anoymous
If that is the case, I stand corrected and I apologise.
Apology accepted.
child development officer = the new name for nursery nurse, remember them?
Anon: Child Development Officer requires a degree or diploma and I find you’re post patronising and insulting to women in that profession. Are you a member of the SSP by any chance?
Anon 848
Thanks for that I was wondering wtf it ment.
At least Lord Bracadale will sum up AFTER we have heard from Prentice AND Sheridan.
If minutes contained no reference to admissions then they would in effect contain no reference to sheridans private life. Why then call for them to be destroyed? Doesnt make sense.
Anonymous said...
Keith, as covered in great detail on this website, McCombes did not hand over any minutes to the Sunday Herald. If you've actually heard what the affidavit contains, you'd know it is very brief and references no details of the minutes and simply says that the decision to ask Sheridan to resign was unanimously endorsed by the SSP EC and was accepted by Sheridan himself, and that the party had information that made his postion as convenor untenable. That'd be a pretty rubbish minute wouldn't it. He did not "hand the minutes over" and it's a slander to say so. That was what was thought the affidavit must contain for years but it's been subsequently proven to have not contained the minutes, so quiet down.
No Mr.McCombes did not hand over any minute he had however gave over information following an internal meeting of the SSP.
IMO this was a major breach of democratic principle from am alleged democratic party.
IMO it is not slanderous to say this.
"Bunc said...
If minutes contained no reference to admissions then they would in effect contain no reference to sheridans private life. Why then call for them to be destroyed? Doesnt make sense."
If the minutes contained a reference to TS denying visiting Cupid's, that would still be containing a reference to his private life.
Anon99,
Why would conspirators create a minute in which Sheridan denied the visit?
Anon100
Anon 99, the 'mystery minute' just contains no reference at all, no confirmation or denial. So if those are the minutes, they don't need to be destroyed for containing private life info do they. I'm near tripping over the Cardonald Clan's logic.
Anon101 said...
Anon 99, the 'mystery minute' just contains no reference at all, no confirmation or denial. So if those are the minutes, they don't need to be destroyed for containing private life info do they. I'm near tripping over the Cardonald Clan's logic.
December 5, 2010 12:45 AMAs
As I understand it the Cardonald branch had not seen any minutes as only a couple of people had access so they did not know this.
I understand it from the testimony in both trials that information had circulated around the SSP that were critical of Sheridans personal life.
The Cardonald branch were correct, in my opinion, to assert labour movement norms and request that no ones personal life was recorded in formal party documents and that any such records should be destroyed.
(To keep personal information in an unratified set of "minutes" is a severe breaches the Data Protection Act by the way so the Cardonald branch were acting responsibly.)
They obviously were not aware at that point that a literal interpretation of their position request could create a difficulty for the court process in the forthcoming libel case.
I say obviously as it appears were not trying to do anything underhand.
They debated this matter openly and sent their request openly - so there can be no plot there that I can see.
If they were aware that the minutes did not actually record such information then obviously they would not have sent the email.
As it turns out a set of "minutes" did appear, that allegedly did record a personal confession, so they were not wide of the mark when registering their concern.
Who actually created the disputed set of minutes recording the supposed confession is a more intriguing question.
I suggest posters read them again carefully. They have a unique style and tone.
A motion to destroy minutes?
http://timvp.com/columbo2.jpg
"Eh... just one last question Mr Suspect"
Why would the Cardonald Branch want the SSP minutes, recording aspects of a member’s private life, destroyed unless adverse things had been stated at the meeting pertaining to the matter? The Cardonald motion challenged neither the validity nor content of the minutes; it simply wanted them redacted or destroyed.
To an observer, the motion mentioned represents strong corroboration of the testimony of the SSP members during the early part of the trial. That Cardonald motion, with its substantiating effect, should be brought to our attention by the testimony of a T.S. witness is certainly ironic.
Is it not possible that with no denial or admission they just did not want party information included? or is that just daft:)
Peter, with the greatest respect if a minute which may or may not contain private details of an individual is being asked by the said branch to be destroyed and members of that branch are directly effected by what is stated in that minute then I do think this raises a number of issues.
There are other issues with regard to this minute that did not come out during AP's cross examination - all public documents - maybe they will be raised with AP's closing comments.
My original point appears to have been misunderstood.
We appear to have two versions of what happened at the meeting of 9th November 2004: either Tommy denied the allegations put to him about his private life, or he confessed. In either case, it is perfectly understandable that Tommy, Gail and family would not want the matter minuted. Calling for any minute that may contain details of an individuals private life to be destroyed is not, therefore, a sign that they assumed a confession would be minuted. It is possible that they assumed a denial would be minuted, but still wouldn't have wanted the matter minuted. However, in view of the anti-Tommy feeling in certain quarters of the SSP at that time, it is quite likely that they feared the worse in terms of what may be minuted - a fear that seems in hindsight to have been justified.
Well explained peter. The process of minute taking was set out in the party’s constitution and Barbara Scott did not follow this procedure, as you quite rightly said it is a breach of the Data Protection Act to keep private information about an inividuial. It was at that time I started to question my membership of the SSP. Whilst British troops marched into Fallujah the executive of the SSP was sitting around tittle tattling about another comrade’s private life. An absolute disgrace and I totally agreed with the Cardonald branch’s motion at that time to have the minutes destroyed. They were not relevant to what the executive should have been discussing at the time and minutes of people’s personal lives should not have been documented whatever they are about
Anonymous Anon99 said...
My original point appears to have been misunderstood.
We appear to have two versions of what happened at the meeting of 9th November 2004: either Tommy denied the allegations put to him about his private life, or he confessed. In either case, it is perfectly understandable that Tommy, Gail and family would not want the matter minuted. Calling for any minute that may contain details of an individuals private life to be destroyed is not, therefore, a sign that they assumed a confession would be minuted. It is possible that they assumed a denial would be minuted, but still wouldn't have wanted the matter minuted. However, in view of the anti-Tommy feeling in certain quarters of the SSP at that time, it is quite likely that they feared the worse in terms of what may be minuted - a fear that seems in hindsight to have been justified.
December 5, 2010 11:50 AM
I think you (and I) must right Anon 99 but let us work through it as it is a bit complicated.
Firstly from a careful reading of the cross examination by the Crown it appears the Crown did not specifically accuse the Cardonald branch of actually knowing exactly what was in the disputed "minutes" that record a confession nor having seen them.
The Crown also does not accuse the Cardonald branch of knowing that an "alternative" set of minutes existed or having seen them.
Importantly the Crown does not accuse Gail or Tommy of creating an alternative set of minutes in the indictment. They also have presented no evidence to that effect in the trial. Posters here need to reflect on that fact. Even the Sheridanbashers must admit is revealing.
Lets take it on further.
Simply put the defence argue that the motion by the branch was simply (perhaps a bit naively) designed to avoid gossip and tittle tat about Tommy Sheridan and Gail Sheridan (and also other party members don't forget) from being recorded in formal party documents.
Quite correct.
An accusation that the branch knew exactly the contents of the "minutes" and the motion by the branch passed was a cynical attempt to remove references to an alleged confession so that they could create an alternative set of "minutes" is fanciful to me. It is not supported by evidence so far at least.
If anyone could point to me evidence that exists that show it was designed to do that I may revise my view. The Crown does not seem to have any!
Ask yourself this:
Would the branch formally and openly send the motion to Sheridans bitter opponents in the leadership of the party if it was a serious attempt to delete valid "minutes" so a set of "alternative" "minutes" could be created!
The jig would be up before it got off the ground!
It is mentioned by one of the Anonymous (who well may be different posters but how can I tell as they don't put a user name in)that the Crown may pull out such new evidence of such a plot in his closing comments to the judge and jury.
Not sure how that will work Anon.
It's not the final scene In The Name of the Father lad.
Saw it again the other night after many years and whilst I used to really rate it as a movie it does not stand up to scrutiny - much as the sinister Cardonald Nursery Nurses Plot, being proposed by some posters, does not.
But it is an interesting one so happy to debate it.
NB: I suggest posters look at the content, structure and style of the SSP "Truth" article published publically in the Voice after the libel trial in 2006 vis a vis the "minutes" that record an alleged confession by Sheridan. Hmmmmm
I find all parties in this equally distasteful, but in my opinion and if I had my arm twisted up my back I would have to concede that - so far - I honestly believe that the Sheridans - the pair of them - are guilty. Of course, it will be interesting to see what the jury decide and it is their opinion - and their opinion only - that counts.
Just because I think that someone is "technically" guilty doesn't necessarily mean that I would find them guilty in a court of law. In my opinion this case is too close to call. It could go either way.
In my opinion the phrase "hoisted by one's own petard" sums this saga up neatly.
There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.
Buffy, I completely agree.
I was in court on Friday, I thought the advocate depute made quite a good job of cross-examining Drummond and Lang. I could have been one of the limited number of people in the court who could see where he was heading from some distance away when he started cross-examining Drummond and Lang about minutes. Both of them were floundering about without a coherent answer, a bit like Paul McBride claimed he had Anvar Khan. The excuses some people are trying to give for the Cardonald motion here were not put forward by either witness or TS in re-examination. The Cardonald motion was a good example of how IMHO the antics of TS and his supporters have apart from anything else been marked by an astonishing degree of tactical ineptitude. I would agree with Peter that there are definite similarities between the cases of TS and Gerry Healy, if you don't know what I mean see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Healy .
I'm not sure what the bog deal is about this motion, passed by one branch of the SSP. Of far more interest, to anynone who is not a gimlet-eyed anti-Sheridan partisan of course, is that we had two witnesses who testified that Colin Fox had denied any admissions at the "9/11" meeting or that he had ever seen the disputed minute of that meeting.
To ignore those bombshells in favour of a discussion about an ill-judged branch motion seem to me to border on the bizzare.
(To keep personal information in an unratified set of "minutes" is a severe breaches the Data Protection Act by the way so the Cardonald branch were acting responsibly.)
Only if the minutes are in an organised information retrieval system (an A4 jotter does not count), and only if the owner is not registered with the inormation reigistrar feller.
"Buffy said...
I find all parties in this equally distasteful, but in my opinion and if I had my arm twisted up my back I would have to concede that - so far - I honestly believe that the Sheridans - the pair of them - are guilty. Of course, it will be interesting to see what the jury decide and it is their opinion - and their opinion only - that counts."
and..
"Bobby said...
Buffy, I completely agree."
To be fair, have just had weeks of the Crown's evidence, and only a day from the defence, I think it is a little early to reach any sort of conclusion. All I will say is that if the defence keeps on producing evidence that directly contradicts evidence presented by crown witnesses (as happened on Friday) it will be very difficult for the jury to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt without having to believe that dozens of defence witnesses are committing perjury!
Who knows...perhaps we'll have an even bigger perjury investigation followed by loads of perjury trials next year if they can't convict the Sheridans this time round!
@ dergo - according to the "hook and crookers" we only have a day or two at most of the defence case (verdict expect this coming Friday or thereabouts?!) which sounds unbelievable since as you say we have heard weeks of the prosecution case. And there are others who are convinced that this trial will still be running in 2016-ish.
anon 3.15 over 2 months of prosecution evidence and 2 days of defence evidence!, yeah, that'll be right. to give ts & gs a fair crack of the whip this trial should last until at least mid-march.
Peter all you do is "What if".
Anonymous 3.31# James will be able to answer the following question:
How many hours did TS take during the prosecution time compared to AP?
Campbell could you avoid stating that "everyone knew" about issues contested in the case.
Thanks
It is inappropriate to record private details and allegations of a personal nature in a minute.
It is also inappropriate for discussions like this to be held in front of a whole committee.
The motion from Cardonald seems to be nothing more than an attempt to say that any private discussions should have been confidential.
Of course we now know that those minutes were not ratified, that was confirmed in the testimony of Allan Green, so it seems reasonable to me to ask for the typed opinions or version of the meeting to be destroyed to prevent them from being read as an accurate minute. Without ratification they cannot be taken as accurate.
Its quote a straw-clutching attempt by Prentice as I would imagine the Lord Bracadale will instruct that the jury cannot take this document to be a confirmed and legal minute, only a version of events.
That was an interesting link to the article about the Cardonald motion. It was written by hournalist Lorna Martn, the same journalist who also broke the story about the later alleged confessions in pubs and other places AND the same journalist who had coffee and doughnuts with Katrinne Trolle and a police officer. Trolle claimed that she was staying at that journalists flat.
Peter said... (my bold)
"NB: (NB: Nota bene "note well")
I suggest posters look at the content, structure and style of the SSP"
The content, structure and style of the SSP? That is what you took from this testimony Peter?
JustSaying...
"To ignore those bombshells in favour of a discussion about an ill-judged branch motion seem to me to border on the bizzare"
No. I'm trying. But I still can't find the words to reply to this. Hold on!
No. I still can't manage it.
Oh hold on. It's coming now.
Nota bene: A motion was raised in a branch of the SSP to destroy the second most contentious piece of evidence in this trial. That motion came from a branch in which the two accused were members. And it is also the branch in which two defence witnesses came from.
Yes. It's bizarre that some should focus on this.
I'm now quietly stepping back into my speechless mode, in order to raise my eyebrows even further.
I could not possibly put this into my next novel. The citizens of Cabot would riot.
Perry Freemason# Why then produce another minute if the minute you refer to was not ratified?"
The one thing I have to wonder is, I am the only one thinking that Tommy's claim that this is all a plot to do the guy in is a bit harsh.
Unless he has mortally wounded the other members of the party I am sure that they would not want to see the guy and his wife criminally charged?
We all get annoyed and sometimes hate co-workers and colleagues, but doubt any of us would wish them this much trouble, embarassment and possible prison time. There is an innocent child involved in this after all.
If they were tired of him could they have not collectivly asked him to leave the party or take a back seat.
It seems to me a bit much that they and would go to these lengths to get rid of the guy, if not for the simple fact of the sheer embarassment to the actual party they all represent. This is very bad press for all parties concerned.
Please do not think I am in either camp I am simply trying to weigh up the facts in my own mind and using this as a soundboard for my own thoughts to see if other people think I am onto plums here or not.
If a majority of the people at the meeting say that the minute was accurate then this will be taken into consideration.
lol imo the whole bang shoot of this lot are slimeballs... you couldn't put a cigarette paper between... all we are trying to do is work out who is the biggest slimeball of them all.
anon, I dont how or why anyone would produce another minute. We havent heard evidence about this being from the cardonald branch so it doesnt seem relevant to my point.
In 2003 when the SSP had six MSP's elected, who could have thought that it would come to this? No matter who is to blame and whether anyone gets convicted or not the left wing in Scotland has been obliterated for a generation, if not for good. The total, visceral hatred between both sides has made me question how I could ever have voted for any of them.
Anon 4:48, I agree, they could have just make it "uncomfortable" for the guy, let him know that "he wasn't wanted". Under those kind of circumstances most people would just leave of their own accord. And if he wouldn't budge maybe just de-selecting or something would have done the trick. To go to these alleged lengths does sound rather extreme in my opinion.
"Anonymous said...
The one thing I have to wonder is, I am the only one thinking that Tommy's claim that this is all a plot to do the guy in is a bit harsh.
Unless he has mortally wounded the other members of the party I am sure that they would not want to see the guy and his wife criminally charged?"
I'm sure that this thing has ended up like this because Tommy chose to sue the NOTW, and won. The people he accuses of plotting against him didn't want him to sue (perhaps they had reason to think he might win?) and it was only when he did that they felt the need to 'clear their names' since their evidence had been disbelieved at the libel trial. Therefore, I'm sure they didn't start out with the intention of having Tommy jailed, but they have found themselves with little alternative than to push ahead whatever the consequences may be for Tommy and his family.
"Tommy and his family" - but his family are not on trial, unless you mean by "Tommy and his family" TS & GS.
As a former member of the SSP can I point out that the Cardonald branch was the one who held a lot of the recorded documents. If, when I was a member at least, you wanted details of conferences etc, it was avaiable at the cardonald ssp website. This was the branch where Pam Currie was secretary.
the problem with getting rid of him any other way was that Sheridan kept beating them in votes, even after his resignation.
the party's members voted against the UL's strategy over the minutes and to give full suppot to sheridan. They also voted him as party chair with the largest ever vote for that post, just months before the defamation trial.
We saw earlier in this trial that McCombes affidavit had said that they had information that they were prepared to put in the public doamin if heridan didnt resign.
"Sheridan kept beating them in votes"
So why wasn't he elected leader after winning the trial?
well there wasnt an election after the trial, he joined another party.
To donald carr, sorry that comment and in particular the use of the word "deliberate" is not something we could post.
Best Regards
J
We haven't heard all the evidence re the Cardonald branch - all available via public documents. As the membership of the branch is very important to this particular point and remembering some of the evidence re this matter cannot be put because TS has refused to take the stand then we will see if AP ties in all up in his final speach to the jury.
Can we clear one thing though it is not the SSP that is charging him here, it is the crown. I remember reading from the first trial that the judge had not been happy with the evidence and statements provided and ordered the investigation. Then it has snowballed from there police-> procurator fiscal. So I don't think the SSP or the newspaper is behind him being charged with perjury.
anon 618, i think Prentice will use this in his summing up but, at best, it will only give an impression that we have two sides saying opposite things with groups in the party (branches, factions etc) contradicting the other. It wouldnt be very good for establishing anything beyond reasonable doubt. But I think you are right that his question was about getting something to use in his summation.
I think that the cutting off of the witness answer was quite clumsy though and noticeable to all in court.
I can't imagine the membership of a far-left organisation being particularly large in an area like Cardonald, but you never know.
he only got approx 200 votes in May this year, one of the reasons why they delayed the trial was so he could run in the elections. If he beat the SSP member with 200 votes it may be that both parties need to rethink their campaigns.
If you want to find the boggy men just follow the money. The things people will do for cash makes my hair curl.The Sheridans dont have much money but from what has been seen The News of The World has plenty and appear willing to buy support with it!!!!!What is happening to TS has happened to good men for a long time. They get sucessful every Jimmy in Glasgow knew him when he dident have a pot to P... in. Be fair he is from a good working class family and he has at his own personel hardship supported many worthwhile causes. I am very grateful for men like Tommy who have never flinched when he was put to the test.
Well said Ian
Maybe son Ian, but a lot of the MPs who have been convicted of fiddling their expenses have also come from "good working class backgrounds" and may in their time fought for and suffered personal hardship for good causes. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other, in my opinion.
6.33,
i rather think he hoped it was noticeable to all in court.
RD said...
(To keep personal information in an unratified set of "minutes" is a severe breaches the Data Protection Act by the way so the Cardonald branch were acting responsibly.)
Only if the minutes are in an organised information retrieval system (an A4 jotter does not count), and only if the owner is not registered with the inormation reigistrar feller.
December 5, 2010 3:04 PM
Not so RD I am afraid.
Legally, politically and morally the United Left minutes were dodgy.
Even if they were true account but were disputed by parties and unratified then the above applies as well.
On what grounds do you think it is legal that parties can create and circulate very damaging allegations?
NOTW got their bottom slapped for you may remember to the tune of £200,00.00.
Actually in this case the disputed minutes (if they even existed in that form at the time) were not ratified formally even by the United Left!
But maybe let agree to try one case at a time. The Information Commissioner can deal with that matter in due course.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter,
the information commissioner is not about to start investigating political parties on the grounds that keeping minutes is a breach of the data protection act.
Catch, as they say, a grip.
"Clive"
This is looking very bad for both of these parties political futures. If this example is anything to go by.
SSP and Solidarity will most likely struggle for votes for a very long time. Not that other parties are any better, Labour in Glasgow is a great example. But this kind of publicity showing that they can't even take down meeting minutes correctly and follow procedure is very poor.
Why would it take 2 years from the date of the NEC (Nov 2004) and May 2006 for the Cardonald motion?
SSP official jailed over papers
Senior Scottish Socialist Party official Alan McCombes has been jailed for refusing to hand over party documents to the Court of Session.
The News of the World has requested the internal minutes, which it claims would help defend a defamation case brought by former SSP leader Tommy Sheridan.
Judge Lady Smith jailed Mr McCombes for 12 days after he ignored a deadline to release the papers.
The party insists the minutes of an executive council meeting are private.
The documents in question cover the meeting where the resignation of Mr Sheridan as leader was discussed.
“ You are flouting an order of court. No-one is entitled to do that ”
Judge Lady Smith
At the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Friday, Lady Smith granted a News of the World motion and ordered Mr McCombes to hand over "all and any" documents.
The normal rule in such circumstances is for documents to be submitted in a sealed envelope and for arguments about confidentiality to be made then.
Paul Cullen QC, representing Mr McCombes, had told the judge his client did not intend to comply.
Court punishment
When a deadline of 1430 BST passed, Lady Smith ordered Mr McCombes to be held in custody until a week on Tuesday to consider his position.
"It has been made quite clear to you that you are flouting an order of court. No-one is entitled to do that."
She warned him that if he did not change his stance it would be "highly likely" she would make a finding of contempt of court and he would be punished accordingly.
“ I've said all along it's a matter of principle, it's a matter of conscience ”
Alan McCombes
Lady Smith also granted a warrant for messengers-at-arms to search for the documents in question.
Speaking just before he returned to court Mr McCombes said: "I've said all along it's a matter of principle, it's a matter of conscience."
He added: "It's not the first time as a Socialist I have been in conflict with the court, I'm sure it won't be the last time."
Afterwards, SSP party convener Colin Fox said: "Our colleague, comrade and friend, Alan McCombes, has been sent to jail for defending a fundamental principle - the private and confidential documents of the SSP should remain the property of the party."
It is thought the party leadership has urged Mr Sheridan to drop his case against the News of the World.
Rather than wanting to help Mr Sheridan by refusing to release papers, it is thought the SSP is more concerned over the effect his defamation action is having on the party.
Newspaper allegations
It is believed he may even be expelled from the party he helped set up over the issue.
The Court of Session hearings stem from the time Mr Sheridan was leader of the SSP.
The Glasgow MSP, who co-founded the SSP with Mr McCombes, agreed to step down in November 2004 citing family reasons.
His decision came shortly after allegations about his private life were published by the News of the World.
He denies the claims and a full hearing is due to begin on 4 July.
The QC for the News of the World has claimed that Mr Sheridan's local branch of the party was about to consider a motion, which had already been put forward, to destroy the minutes in question.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/scotland/5014452.stm
Published: 2006/05/26 15:00:08 GMT
© BBC MMX
The same month, according to this witness, Colin Fox had not seen minutes!
As reported by the BBC TS will not be giving evidence. Does that mean that as he is not giving any evidence on oath he is hypothetically free from any hypothetical potential perjury charges resulting from this perjury trial?
Nice try anon but May does not begin on the 28th and I see nothing in Colin Fox's statement about minutes only "documents"
Also there is this
"Mr Sheridan then continued probing what he saw as discrepancies between Mr Fox's testimony in this case and other statements he had made under oath in 2006. He was shown another transcript of his evidence where he stated he had not seen the disputed minute until a couple of months before the July 2006 trial. He said that was his recollection now. Mr Sheridan then accused Mr Fox of tying to confuse the court which he strongly and forcibly denied. Mr Sheridan then asked if Mr Fox had ever been cautioned by the police for perjury, to which he responded "of course not." The court then rose for lunch."
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/day-9-afternoon-colin-fox.html
So Colin Fox is the leader of the SSP - Nov 2004 and in 2006 has not seen THE minute but others are claiming they have.
Now that's what I call leadership!!!
I have been an avid reader of this amazing blog and have also been an observer in the public gallery when time permits. I was predisposed to the fact that G&T were as guilty is the day is long having heard of his alleged antics over a number of years. However, having been on the receiving end of a prosecution which I brought, I appreciate how its possible to demonstrate the "reasonable doubt" and I think this is the way it will end, I can accept that and im sure most others will. However, Gary Clark, not as a personal friend, but having met him around the time of the alleged trip, had nothing to gain but a lot to loose by confirming that he visited Cupids. To suggest he was mistaken due to drink or drugs is so unbelievable, and I can confirm this by saying im presently on drink and drugs and I know exactly where I am and what im typing.Please excuse any typos I just spilt my drink on the keyboard.
Anonymous said...
Can we clear one thing though it is not the SSP that is charging him here, it is the crown. I remember reading from the first trial that the judge had not been happy with the evidence and statements provided and ordered the investigation. Then it has snowballed from there police-> procurator fiscal. So I don't think the SSP or the newspaper is behind him being charged with perjury.
December 5, 2010 6:30 PM
It is on record that the SSP delivered the minutes to Lothian and Borders Police and a member sold a video to the NotW make of that what you wish to me that is collusion to ensure that this trial took place.
Anon 1:15 AM
Yes but was this voluntary in all cases or part of the police investigation or under court order. Due to this trial those invloved have wrecked their careers and parties to which they are members. The SSP & Solidarity will need to go back to trawling round university campuses for supporters again as the general public is laughing at them now.
Did the original newspaper article mention Shirdan by name? I was under the impression that Khan had used different names?
If so why did Rock on Tommy think it was about him?
Why not just ignore it and the next day it would have been forgotten?
If he was not named then me thinks the lady does protest to much?
Anonymous said...
Did the original newspaper article mention Shirdan by name? I was under the impression that Khan had used different names?
If so why did Rock on Tommy think it was about him?
Why not just ignore it and the next day it would have been forgotten?
If he was not named then me thinks the lady does protest to much?
December 6, 2010 8:06 AM
Did the newspaper name him? the answer is yes so it would have been hard to ignore, you may have confused that AK in her book refered to an unnamed MSP.
Anon 10:43 No one has yet been found guilty of lying in court, there are allegations of lying which are being persued at the moment.
If you believe that this whole debacle is simply about truth telling IMO you are way off the mark.
My understanding, from following the case, is that Mr Sheridan sued over the allegations relating to Fiona McGuire which did name him, not the Anvar Khan story. The plaitiff, the News of the World, were then free to bring other alleged affairs into their defence case to attempt to prove the original claim was part of a pattern of behaviour.
You wouldn't have to be a conspiracy theorist James to speculate that there is a POSSIBILITY that the Fiona McGuire story was a ploy, the cheese in Tommy's mousetrap, it's always worth considering all POSSIBILITIES, even though they could be wide of the mark.
I remember when I read this, by Whatsy I think
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/douglas-wight-pt-3.html
"Mr Sheridan questioned Mr Wight on his examination of Ms McGuire's phone records, with Mr Wight stating that she only submitted her phone and records for examination by the NoW after the story had been published. Mr Sheridan recounted how, from some of Ms McGuire's previous statements, she had described how the process of arranging to meet the accused was always the same – Mr Sheridan would text or phone her – and asked the witness why, if this was the case over 24 different occasions, no phone or text records could be found on Ms McGuire's phone. The witness replied that the NoW were indeed short of evidence for the story, and that was why they had not ran the story earlier, adding “If you had kept your mouth shut about the Anvar Khan story, the Fiona McGuire story would still be unpublished”.
Anon and James thanks for the info regarding the questions.
But I believe if he had just ignored it or responeded with his side of the story to a rival paper, we could have been done with the He said She said stuff back when it started.
He should have been the bigger man and blanked it and if he is innocent then truthfully the only one it should matter to is his wife.
The public and voters forgive and most importantly forget very easily.
One other view is that even if he did do it, big deal! He would not have been the first politician and certainly not the last. His wife would have been the one to forgive him not anyone else.
I think the guy is worrying too much about his image. Guilty or innocent he should have possibly given more thought to his wife and child at the start.
I don't know much about this boy Sheridan but have at least read a lot of positive feedback in this site alone about him. So even if he did do something with these women, people would not care and realise we are all human and make mistakes and they would go back to focusing on his better points.
I think both sides have made a lot out of what could have been a forgotten story by now.
James,
That is not correct. Sheridan's defamation action was a bit of a scattergun, that took in allegations on him being a swinger.
It is a shame "Swinger" means what it does now.
I do not know if I will be able to look at King Louie from the Jungle Book the same. That was the best song from the whole movie.
There goes my childhood innocence!
It is a shame "Swinger" means what it does now.
I do not know if I will be able to look at King Louie from the Jungle Book the same. That was the best song from the whole movie.
There goes my childhood innocence!
The News of the world was not the "plaintiff".
That's a Peter-like misuse of English.
Anonymous said...
The News of the world was not the "plaintiff".
That's a Peter-like misuse of English.
December 6, 2010 1:52
Oi !
My Rogets wasn't working that day am going to sue them. By the way choose a user name why don't ya. Try "Roget" or "Credulous" - otherwise people will think your the other fella on here who cannot read the Crown indictments or witness testimony.
By the way other Anons. James is busting his proverbials to record the proceedings - at least read it before commenting. For example:
Ms Scott (United Left faction member) trip to the cop shop with leading United left members in tow to hand in her notes that Sheridan was implicated in the transporting of guns was in fact entirely voluntary - as she made perfectly clear in her testimony.
As was indeed the McNeilage trip to the NOTW and the secret McCoombes affadavit to the Herald were wholly voluntary.
They did it all to defend the reputation of the party (and get a nice wedge in Big Georgie's case).
Mmmmm proof of factional activity much.
Cheers,
Peter
(Wish I had chosen Wot No Forensics as my user name now)
Has TS produced any forensics yet? What about Alan Brown the guy who stated that TS gave him a lift to Hamilton? Did TS present any Global Positioning Satellite Data to back this up, or did I miss something?
Anonymous said...
Has TS produced any forensics yet? What about Alan Brown the guy who stated that TS gave him a lift to Hamilton? Did TS present any Global Positioning Satellite Data to back this up, or did I miss something?
December 6, 2010 2:37 PM
T.S is the defendant in this trial it is the Crown to prove the case.
You may as well ask is there any forensics that back up any witness, too much American crime progs. watched IMO, this is not C.S.I. Glasgow.
It should be noted however that the Police investigators used the systems normally used for serious crimes to bring these charges.
I would consider any questions regarding the lack of forensics would be best addressed by a request to them their address is well known to a few of the SSP.
The jury will make up their minds on the basis of their watching video, I'd have thought.
Anonymous said...
The jury will make up their minds on the basis of their watching video, I'd have thought.
December 6, 2010 3:40 PM
This video has been disputed as an accurate record of events I believe more work is required by the Crown to remove any doubt regarding this piece of evidence.
Of course it has been disputed. Defendants very often dispute evidence. The Jury are entitled to make their own decision on its veracity.
That old Occams Razor thang agin.
If you go by Occam and his (t)rusty razor you'd have to accept that the video was genuine!?
Funnily enough anon our legal system does not rely on razors and balance of probabilities in a criminal case, it instead insists on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Old Occam's famous blade is, I'm afraid, entirely superfluous in this case.
That old Occams Razor thang agin.
That implement has a lot of work to do here IMO.
Yes Spectic, a reasonable doubt in that the doubt has to be reasonable, so old Occam does come into play.
Anonymous said...
If you go by Occam and his (t)rusty razor you'd have to accept that the video was genuine!?
December 6, 2010 4:22 PM
Wikipedia said
Evidence of limitation
Even if Occam's Razor is empirically justified (also see "Applications" section below), so too is the need to use other "theory selecting" methods in Science. For instance, in order to have even justified Occam's Razor, theoretically a scientist must first identify "the correct explanation" to gauge its complexity. Obviously this must be accomplished using other aspects of the Scientific method besides the Razor itself (or else we would be making a circular argument to support the Razor). Thus, to measure the Razor's (or any method's) ability to select between theories, we must be sure to use a different, reliable "theory selecting" method for corroboration.
Once SSP said...
"well there wasnt an election after the trial, he joined another party."
Tommy tried to get an election by having a motion of no confidence in the leadership. It failed, quite heavily.
No it doesn't breach any legislation. Mr. S was aware minutes were being taken otherwise why was Ms.Scott there? She had the role of being the Minutes Secretary. He also personally asked the NC to keep the minutes confidential, therefore consenting to them. If the information in them was false or misleading why did he not raise the issue at the nov NC? Also Alan's QC argued that at the time but Lady Smith disagreed
No Jessica, that is just SSP spin, there were a few branches on one side or the other who declared confidence or not for Sheridan but is clear from the NC in May that the leadership clique would lose heavily. The vast majority of those who were against the leadership clique (the members) were in favour of leaving the party rather than fighting to win control of such a damaged organisation.
In light of what we have seen in this trial, especially the actions of McCombes and Leckie, its pretty clear that they were right.
@Fake feminist...
That's nonsense. There were motions raised against the leadership(NOT Sheridan) by those on Sheridan's side.
If they planned on leaving "such a damaged organisation" then why put these motions forward? (the one in my branch was defeated by a ratio of more than 7 to 1).
If support for Sheridan was as great as you claim it was then why the need to leave and form another party? According to you he had more than enough support to easily become 'leader' again, AND remove those he was unhappy with.
It was only AFTER the results of the motions of no confidence came back that it was announced he would be leaving with the SWP and CWI to form a new party. In other word he failed. The membership was not behind him. It was time to run away and try and start over.
How is Solidarity these days anyway? Does it exist in anything more than name now?
Hi Jessica
I too was a member if the SSP and had been one almost from its incecption.
However my decision to leave was not due to any great support of T.S. it was more of a realisation that the SSP were not the democratic party that they puported to be. At that time I had grave concerns that the party were using leaks to the media not only in regard to T.S but on a number of other issues the straw that broke this particular camels back was information from an internal NEC meeting being given over to the Herald irrespective of the content I may add.
It was and still is my belief that this action was unprecedented for an orginisation of the left and assisted in the damage to the SSP and was carried out in the knowledge of where it would lead.
As for Solidarity time will tell however at the moment if I wished to raise an issue with a Socialist MSP where do you suggest I go, for now there is none and I would suggest that that number will not be increased by the SSP now or in the near future.
The electorate IMO require to have trust in who they elect, how do you convince these people to elect your candidate when a section of the membership have lost trust in the NEC.
Jessica, that is just SSP propaganda, that he left because he couldnt win a vote, there wasnt a vote!
I left because the party was no longer democratci and had been taken over in a coup by the UL.
That is the same for most people. Tommy and a few others had o be persuaded not to stay and fight but it was the right choice at the time.
Everything we have seen in court in the last few weeks vindicates that decision. Green, McCombes Leckie etc thought that they were special annointed people and didnt need to bother with petty things like democratic decisions by members.
The UL are exposed now for everyone to see.
@Rural Socialist, Jessica, Fake Feminist
A bit of a digression here, but as someone who has never been in a party, I'm finding this discussion very interesting.
I would have thought that the leadership of a party would be elected by the membership, but then would have freedom to behave as they wish without having to run many decisions past party members. Obviously, at some point they will need to try to get re-elected by the membership or avoid being ousted if they step way out of line.
Have I got this wrong in the SSP/Solidarity case? Why the need to split, rather than just democratically bump off the leaders who are doing stuff the membership don't agree with?
Whatsy,
you are, of course, correct. While leader, Tommy Sheridan made decisions and took actions without running to the membership for their blessing every time. That was perfectly acceptable, as he had a democratic mandate given by the membership.
A great many Sheridan supporters now think that their "democratic" views should have influenced the actions of SSP members dragged into a court case, during which one side lied. That is not a credible position.
Kaiser Brian
Hi Whatsy.
I believe that your question would require James to open up another blog.
However like yourself I was not a member of a party until the formation of the SSP so I would have classed myself as unaligned ie no involvement with SWP CWI etc, I do not know the position of fake Feminest or Jessica with that regard.
You are correct in stating that the leadership is elected by the membership and as such had some leeway in regards to decision making. Although this decision making was expected to inline with policies agreed by the membership.
Whilst not required to run each and every decision past the membership it was expected that decisions would be inline with conference decisions.
As for the removal of leadership there were a few factions or remnants of older factions within this grouping that had the support of like minded or supported by others in these factions, and for the unalinged like myself and perhaps a few others it was a case of being outnumbered so the removal of this leadership would have been difficult.
at that point whatsy, the UL held all of the paid positions and refused to implement democratic decisions. We saw that in court re the McCombes affidavit.
The UL changed the locks on Sheridans parliamentary office. It had gone too far for further political debate IMHO.
If we had stayed to fight them, there would have been nothing left to win when the fight was done.
It would seem that there are rather a lot of those who followed TS out of the SSP are continuing in their efforts to rewrite the history of the months and years following the split.
board (bored) watcher said...
It would seem that there are rather a lot of those who followed TS out of the SSP are continuing in their efforts to rewrite the history of the months and years following the split.
December 8, 2010 4:48 PM
Not correct Iam afraid I have no interest in rewiting history what I have posted is my own views as an unaligned former member of the SSP.
Indeed I believe what I have posted is a Factual account it is ok to disagree if you wish. However it is a fact that Alan McCombes did leave the NEC meeting and handed over an avadavit.
I can see that some will have no issues with that whatsoever,but for me it was a bretrayal of party democracy.Simple as that no rewriting required.
Fakefeminist there was an emergency SSP conference called for October in 2006, in an NC in June I believe.
Tommy could have retaken the convenership and his allies could have contested for spaces on the EC in a vote then.
A Rural Socialist said...
board (bored) watcher said...
It would seem that there are rather a lot of those who followed TS out of the SSP are continuing in their efforts to rewrite the history of the months and years following the split.
December 8, 2010 4:48 PM
Not correct Iam afraid I have no interest in rewiting history .....
Indeed I believe what I have posted is a Factual account it is ok to disagree if you wish.
However it is a fact that Alan McCombes did leave the NEC meeting and handed over an avadavit.
December 8, 2010 5:42 PM
A fact which didn't come out until a week or so ago!
anon 6.21
yes, i know, but it never happened. the choice taken by hundreds of members was that it was best to leave and try to build again, without thjose who had hijacked the party.
that conference would have been organised by those in the UL who we now know were manipulating events and ignoring democratic decisions. what is the point of more democratic decisions when the ones we had passed were useless.
board (bored) watcher said...
A Rural Socialist said...
board (bored) watcher said...
It would seem that there are rather a lot of those who followed TS out of the SSP are continuing in their efforts to rewrite the history of the months and years following the split.
December 8, 2010 4:48 PM
Not correct Iam afraid I have no interest in rewiting history .....
Indeed I believe what I have posted is a Factual account it is ok to disagree if you wish.
However it is a fact that Alan McCombes did leave the NEC meeting and handed over an avadavit.
December 8, 2010 5:42 PM
A fact which didn't come out until a week or so ago!
A fact that was not and had not been admitted who exactly it was who gave he avadavit. Indeed that part was unknown by all until a week ago.
The question I think you should be asking is who also knew of this hidden messenger.
It is still a fact that this avadavit was passed over after an NEC 2004.
If you have been kept in the dark about why it took to last week for this to be disclosed I can not answer Iam afraid perhaps the NEC have their own truth economy
I think you should also be looking elsewhere for rewriters of history.
Whatsy said...
"Have I got this wrong in the SSP/Solidarity case? Why the need to split, rather than just democratically bump off the leaders who are doing stuff the membership don't agree with?"
It's a bit crazy isn't it? Some are trying to have us believe that TS had the backing of the membership, but yet for some reason he decided to go away and start a new party. By strange coincidence this split occurs after a failure to oust his enemies.
If he had the backing of the members, he would have been able to oust his enemies, and take over the leadership.
When you look at the parties now it gives you a clue of who had better support. Solidarity might not even exists as far as I'm aware. The SSP has been ticking by, ith ups and downs, despite some major hardships (like it's previous leader leaving to form a rival party, and getting caught up in an Alice in Wonderland type court case, or two), and it has also been pulling in new members.
Hi Whatsy.
Where do you think the SSP would be today if all who left remained, you can see from some of these threads and the hostility of some SSP witnesses that there wouuld have been a poor enviroment to be in.(For all)
You should also remember it is a political party (for some)and not a way of making a livelyhood and unlike having to put up with a lousy job where you have to work with people you do not admire, you can choose to leave.
Jessica said: "By strange coincidence this split occurs after a failure to oust his enemies"
No, that didnt happen, as has been said, the conference was planned for October but the parties split in August.
By strange coincidence that happened after Barbara Scott had aken documents to the police, SSP executive members had testified against Tommy Sheridan and then changed the locks on Tommy Sheridans parliamentary office.
fake feminist said...
"No, that didnt happen"
Are you saying that motions of no confidence weren't raised against the leadership at the time? Motions that failed?
Did I imagine it? Am I lying? Or am I just mistaken?
It did happen!
jessica, you are probably mistaken as the people who raised such motions had left the party before the conference. The party split very soon after the court case, we will never know whether Sheridan would have won or lost any vote.
There was never a test of Sheridans strength of support or confidence in the leadershiop, it didnt happen.
All we can do is speculate what might have happened. You are speculating based on some motions raised in the immediate aftermath of the case that never reached confidence. I am speculating based on the fact that members voted 2-1 to support Sheridan just a month before the court case and elected him as Party chair by a huge margin just months before that.
@fake fiminist
Saw this and thought of you...
http://sspmajority.typepad.com/sspmajority/
"The May NC was a turning point for the Scottish Socialist Party. Delegates reflected the view of the majority of members in their support for Tommy Sheridan and their rejection of the Executives position. Hence the name " SSPMajority" blog and web site
The SSP members’ open letter was circulated to give members the opportunity to show their solidarity and support for Tommy in his forthcoming battle against the News of the World. Comrades were angered that reports in the press by unknown party spokespersons continued to give the impression that the party was not behind him. The letter also rejected the views of the new so called United Left ‘anti Sheridan’ platform that emerged after the May NC.
The signatures to the open letter reflect the diversities within our party. From Stornoway to the borders, from Dundee to Dunoon, from comrades who are members of platforms and no platforms. United in our solidarity and support for comrade Sheridan and of our aim to build the SSP.
The October conference will provide us with the opportunity to make changes to ‘our’ party. The aim of this Blog it to allow members who signed the open letter to share and to assist us in planning for our parties future."
Fascinating
The court case seemed to change everything it seems. Even though I remember voting in a motion against the leadership not long after the case had ended.
Motion fails, then TS leaves.
@fake fiminist
Saw this and thought of you...
Fascinating
The court case seemed to change everything it seems. Even though I remember voting in a motion against the leadership not long after the case had ended.
Motion fails, then TS leaves.
Jessica
Do you recall when/where the motion you refer to was debated.
Do you have copy of motions and voting results I presume there will be records.(Much like the record you copied into your post)
Also were the various groupings present at this debate, IE. the SSP Majority the UL and rank and file members who are were unaligned.
As an unaligned member I do not recall this debate, this of course does not infer what you state did not occur however there should be some record of the event that could help jog my memory?
Jessica, there may have been motions of no confidence in the executive AFTER hundreds left the party, I wouldnt know.
The statement you copied was from one faction (about 10% of party members) who WERE advocating that Sheridan take on McCombes and Fox. But, as the statement says, that was for an October conference. That didnt happen.
A couple of weeks after the defamation case Rosemary Byrne called for talks about a new party. Tommy Sheridan, at first, agreed with those who said 'stay and fight' but he was soon persuaded otherwise by most of those who left the party.
You may be getting mixed up with the damning attack by the RMT when they withdrew their affiliation to the SSP or even some small faction that remained calling for the EC to resign, but by that time Sheridan and a few hundred others had left the SSP.
The Glasgow regions candidates election didnt take place, a sheridan vs Fox challenge didnt take place.
The only test of Sheridans poplarity or support among the members came at the 2005 and 2006 conferences and the May 2005 NC.
In those cases it was clear that the partymembership, supported Sheridan.
They are not clear indications of how people would have voted in a subsequent leadership challenge but they are the only indication we have in a test of members.
The talk of Sheridan leaving because he had no support was simply the UL spin after the party fell apart.
Post a Comment