The third witness for the defence on Friday was Joyce Drummond. Mrs Drummond told the court she had been a nurse for seventeen years and had been married for sixteen years. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness about her political background. Mrs Drummond stated she had been involved in the campaign against the poll tax in the 1980's but had then dropped out of politics. She had become politically active again in 2004 when her sister had been involved in a strike by Glasgow nursery nurses, a strike during which, she told the court, Mr Sheridan had visited the picket "almost every day" during the fourteen week dispute. She had then joined the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and later on the organisation set up by Mr Sheridan after he had left the SSP, Solidarity.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mrs Drummond about a meeting she had with Colin Fox, a previous crown witness, in May 2006 in Edinburgh. The witness told the court she, and her sister Irene Lang, had met Mr Fox in a cafe in Edinburgh. At this meeting, the witness claimed, Mr Fox had told them that there was a "plot to get you [Tommy Sheridan] and also that Mr Fox had told them Mr Sheridan had made no admissions at the 9/11/2004 SSP executive meeting of visiting a "Sex club" Mrs Drummond added that Colin Fox had also told her that after the libel trial he intended to "clear out the people plotting against you" and had named people within the Scottish Socialist Youth, the Executive committee and the Scottish Socialist Voice (the party's newspaper) as being amongst those "plotting." Mr Fox had then appealed to Mrs Drummond and her sister to stay as members of the SSP "to help him' to do that. Mr Sheridan then asked Mrs Drummond if she was sure that Colin Fox had said Mr Sheridan had made no admissions to the Executive, the witness replied "definitely"
Mr Sheridan then asked Mrs Drummond how this meeting had ended. The witness stated that they had not commented because, "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. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if she had "formed an impression" of the state of the SSP at this time and if she believed it was a unified organisation. Mrs Drummond replied "definitely not" and that the party was divided into factions and that "people, in my opinion, were out to get you."
Mr Sheridan then brought into evidence another incident that has been discussed in court, (see Here) and asked if Mrs Drummond had ever had any reason to take action over Keith Baldassara. The witness then told the court about an incident, also in May 2006, when after a meeting she and her sister had been approached by Mr Baldassara and George McNeilage who she said had been "shouting and bawling" at them and had called her sister a "stupid f*cking bitch" actions which she said had left her scared and intimidated. She had then, along with her sister, written a letter of complaint to the SSP which she gave to Ritchie Venton, the Glasgow organiser and Alan Green, the then National secretary of the SSP. Mr Sheridan asked Mrs Drummond what the outcome of this complaint was. The witness told the court she had never heard anything further adding "they did nothing, ignoring the membership was no great surprise " Mr Sheridan concluded his evidence in chief by asking the witness if she had told the truth in court today, which she said she had. With that Mr Sheridan returned to his seat in the dock and Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, rose to question the witness on behalf of the Crown.
Mr Prentice began by asking the witness how long she had been a member of the SSP, and if she had held any positions within the party. The witness responded that she had been a member from 2004 until 2006 and had been a branch secretary and a minute secretary. Mr Prentice then asked if the witness agreed that minutes of a meeting were important and that they should be "preserved as a record of what happened at a particular meeting" Mrs Drummond stated that she did agree that minutes should be preserved, "once ratified." Mr Prentice then put it to the witness that one should never destroy minutes and that it was "wrong to get rid of a record" Mrs Drummond again replied that ratified minuted should not be destroyed.
Mr Prentice then showed the court a motion, passed by the he Cardonald branch of the SSP of which Mrs Drummond was a member, which called on the SSP executive to note that every member was "entitled to a private life" and demanded that any records or minutes that mention a "comrade's" private life to be "immediately destroyed." Mrs Drummond replied that she did not regard the purported minute of the 9/11/04 meeting of the SSP executive as a "proper minute" to which Mr Prentice responded that since she was not at that meeting so "could not know." Mrs Drummond was then asked what happened to this motion. The witness replied that it was taken to an SSP regional council but was not debated.
Mr Prentice finished his cross-examination by putting it to Mrs Drummond that in fact Colin Fox had not told her that Mr Sheridan had made no admissions of attending a sex club at the 9/11/04 executive meeting. Mrs Drummond replied "of course he did" and with that the Advocate Depute ended his questions. Mr Sheridan declined the opportunity to re-examine the witness so Mrs Drummond was allowed to step down from the witness box.
36 comments:
This witness is a nurse, mentions Tommy's support for nursery strike, (remember predominatly female jury) contradicts Colin Fox and claims that Keith Baldsesara has a bad temper and swears at women -- a good witness for the defence I would say. However she is very obviously on the pro-Tommy side of the split and others have been called liars because they are on the anti Tommy side. I feel by now I should have a feeling one way or the other but so far I can't get off this fence.
A couple of interesting points in the evidence of this witness, she repeatedly says that "ratified" minutes of a meeting are important. Were the minutes of the meeting where TS allegedly confessed ratified? I genuinely don't know. The other part was concerning Colin Fox, who obviously has a different memory of certain events that she has. She said "I thought Colin, in my opinion, was not a great leader" and she doubted his ability to carry through what he had promised. The SSP record from his time as leader/joint leader of the party until now backs her opinion up.
A choice moment of legal theatre at the end of AP's cross-examination yesterday.
The clear implication is that as the only members of the Cardonald branch, apart from T&GS, the two sisters are wholly in TS's pocket. Even more damagingly, the implication is that TS was, through the branch, directly involved in an attempt to get the SSP executive to destroy evidence relating to his private life - namely, the minute of the meeting of 9/11/02.
The prosecution will have a problem if they start down the road that witnesses lie for political reasons don't you think critical eye?
That assertion could seriously rebound on them.
Keith 2.30pm
As you may know a disputed minute of the SSP executive was allegedly drawn up by Crown witness (and United Left member) Ms Scott. It was presented by the Crown as evidence.
Ms Scott's disputed minute records that Tommy Sheridan allegedly informed a formal meeting of the SSP of intimate details of his sex life including secret visits to sex clubs whilst married.
Ms Scott's minute was NOT ratified as an accurate minute in the SSP record of events although one or two United Left witnesses appear to consider it was.
The defence contends that is because no such confession was made by Tommy Sheridan. They contend the minute is a fabrication created by elements of the United Left faction to force Sheridasn from the leadership of the SSP.
Another minute of the same meeting was presented to the court that makes no mention of any such confession.
To get to the bottom of this I suppose the jury needs to ask itself a simple question.
How likely is it that someone who, according to the NOTW/Crown, has had a series of exotic secret affairs with a string of women including visits to sex clubs, all behind his wifes back, would publically discuss his sex life with anyone at all.
If Sheridan had done what he was accused of by the NOTW would he:
a)discuss it with anyone who was not a close personal friend or family member.
b)publically discuss it, in a room full of people drawn from across Scotland, some of whom he only recently knew.
c)publically announce it to people he had political and personal disputes with.
d) publically announce it in a formal meeting in the knowledge that someone was taking formal minutes.
e)publically announce it when friends of his wife were in the room.
f) Would Sheridan then go on to say (and again have it formally recorded in minutes) to that same room full of people that he intended to enter into a criminal conspiracy to defraud the NOTW?
Ms Scott also gave evidence that her own personal notes record that Mr Sheridan was associated with the transporting of guns.
The Crown it should be said has been unable to find anyone to support her rather startling accounts and therefore it appears it may wish to brush Ms Scott's notes under the carpet.
It appears very unlikely to many that Sheridan did confess anything about sex and guns to anyone and that Ms Scotts records are not accurate but that is for the jury to decide!
Peter
I hope TS is reading this blog because what you have wrote is an angle TS should use in his summing up
James,
Is there a reason my response to Peter hasn't made it on here?
"Clive"
Hello Clive, yes there was a reason your comment was not posted. If you would like a specific answer could you email us rather than having the discussion here.
Best regards
James
Peter said:
"Another minute of the same meeting was presented to the court that makes no mention of any such confession."
Where those minutes ratified?
Anonymous said... Extracted comment
This witness is a nurse, mentions Tommy's support for nursery strike, (remember predominatly female jury)
I take that from your comment that this section of the witness statement, would have changed if the jury was filled by more male jurers, or that witnesses who are asked questions under oath guage their answers on a gender basis?
Peter 5:44 PM said:
"How likely is it that someone who, according to the NOTW/Crown, has had a series of exotic secret affairs with a string of women including visits to sex clubs, all behind his wifes back, would publically discuss his sex life with anyone at all."
Ever read Dostoievski's Crime and Punishment Peter?
No Steve the missus does the Russian Literature. More of a Film Buff myself - ever seen Confessions of a Dangerous Mind ? Read the book as well. Now if the guy in that book is telling the truth .... But again how could anyone be sure - doubt and the unreliable narrator are features of all the best mysteries.
The jury have just been 'treated' to 9 weeks of Crown evidence which has been patchy but (I strongly suspect) just good enough to get past 'no case to answer' defence submissions.
Juror fatigue sets in at some point and, I fear, it might be about now. The considered defence strategy is obviously going to involve unfolding used bus tickets, ironing discarded betting slips and rescuing forgotten library cards from down the side of settees to prove...
...that the Left argues. And other stuff. Wow.
Meanwhile in the real world 15 good men and women true are wanting home for Christmas I'd expect. Dangling the tempting prospect of being here until sometime 2016-ish listening to the deep musings of the minute-taker at the Inverpumphston Branch lorne sausage procurement and equalities sub-committee meeting on 22nd November nineteen-canteen is not going to endear them over much to the defence.But that seems to be the TS defence strategy.
I can't help feeling that the best TS tactic would have been a "death or glory" stint in the witness box and place the onus on AP.Get beat up and the jury would give TS the sympathy vote for getting turned over by a smart-ass AD. Land blows on Prentice from the box and the Crown is stuffed.
I fear that this is going wrong...
Excellent post Mr/Ms Hufty-bufty-wufty. But death or glory would not be my choice except in theory. I'd ask Mr P to prove it without a free hit in the witness box, if it was me on trial that is.
Re. Peter @5.44pm
I very much like your using the word 'defraud' (Point (f) in your post)
I merely opine that if an individual is daft/arrogant enough to raise an action against another on the basis of lies, with the aim of monetary gain, and uses a court of law in which to carry out said actions, then that would indeed be fraud. It's the first time I've noted anyone here alluding to such.
And that, I suggest, would demonstrate breathtaking contempt for the entire legal process and not just for/of court.
And should be criminally sanctionable, in my opinion; regardless of cost. The rule of law is imperative in any civilised society and should be defended and upheld at any cost. It's the ordinary man on the street who would suffer most otherwise...
The thing that does notb add for me is why would the Cardonald branch in 2004 want to destroy the minutes becauase at this time they were not alleged to be forged. The defense alleges they were forged in 2006. What did they want to hide if there was no confession? It is tantamount to admitting that there was a minute and they want it suppressed.
Of course there's no way you could allege that the branch was controlled by the Sheridans as Prentice gleaned kin last Columbo style question to the witness!
If I read the blog above correctly Hufty, the defence witness was talking about Colin Fox admitting that no confession took place, and Baldessara cursing and showing a deep hatred for anyone connected to TS.
These two are key prosecution witnesses and a big part of the crowns case and rebuffal evidence is highly important.
It seems to be AP who keeps bringing up the minutes to every defence witness not the other way round.
I tried to post along similar lines before but the comment hasn't appeared. The defence has now argued Colin Fox (in discussion with these last 2 witnesses) believed there was a 'conspiracy'/witch hunt against Sheridan that he was fighting against. What explanation do they have for him going on, a few weeks later, to testify that TS did make the alleged confession. [edited by JD]
The Sheridans live in Cardonald, do they not?
Agree, intriguedandcurious. If someone can get away with what the Sheridans are ALLEGED to have done it is the ordinary workers that are being made a fool of.
leftbanker, you picked it up wrong, the cardonald motion was in 2006 when the "minute" emerged. SSP witnesses have confirmed under oath that destroying the minute was an option discussed by the SSP executice during that year too.
Prentice is clutching at straws here.
We know from the earlier evidence of SSP witnesses that these "minutes" were never ratified.
Destroying an unratified account of a meeting seems a logical move lest this account is mistaken as an accurate account.
The idea that an allegation of someones private life should be discussed at a full executive of any organisation and then minuted seems ludicrous and far more dodgy than an attempt to destroy them.
Perry Freemason says:
"SSP witnesses have confirmed under oath that destroying the minute was an option discussed by the SSP executice during that year too."
Yes, DISCUSSED, and OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED DOWN. They've also stated that they voted to tell the truth overwhelmingly. I highly doubt it was discussed becaues it was genuinely a possibility in everyone on that EC's mind - rather I think it was certain pro-Sheridan members who went on to testify in Sheridan's favour. Don't try and tar everyone with the same mucky brush.
Perry said...
"Prentice is clutching at straws here."
It's a pretty fat and juicy straw.
"Destroying an unratified account of a meeting seems a logical move lest this account is mistaken as an accurate account."
Yes that sounds reasonable.
What was the wording of the motion?b
jessica, if it is such a juicy straw why didnt it affect the result of the defamation case when it was raised there and why didnt Lady Smith take action when it was brought to her commission.
This isnt new evidence, it came up four years ago and was given to the commission previous to the trial.
In both those cases it wasnt considered to be anything more than a statement that minutes should not be kept of allegations in someones private life.
The SSP are at odds with every organisation I know of, this would never happen anywhere else.
There are established procedures to deal wih allegations of this nature, making someone answer to a full executive and then recording the meeting is unheard of.
If I knew of this happening elsewhere I would certainly move that the record should be destroyed, sounds too much like pressure and intimidation against the person who has allegations made against them.
I am sure every trade unionist here will agree with me
Anonymous said...
jessica, if it is such a juicy straw why didnt it affect the result of the defamation case when it was raised there and why didnt Lady Smith take action when it was brought to her commission.
This isnt new evidence, it came up four years ago and was given to the commission previous to the trial.
In both those cases it wasnt considered to be anything more than a statement that minutes should not be kept of allegations in someones private life.
The SSP are at odds with every organisation I know of, this would never happen anywhere else.
There are established procedures to deal wih allegations of this nature, making someone answer to a full executive and then recording the meeting is unheard of.
If I knew of this happening elsewhere I would certainly move that the record should be destroyed, sounds too much like pressure and intimidation against the person who has allegations made against them.
I am sure every trade unionist here will agree with me
December 5, 2010 6:23 PM
Correct Anon - the SSP minute taking process appears to have been usurped by certain comrades into a gossips charter.
The trade unions who disaffiliated from he SSP made it clear that was their main criticism of the United Left group.
Don't worry too much about the "minutes". The Cardonald branch were left alone even after a 2 year police investigation and not charged with even a minor crime. So no wrongdoing there.
Dodgy minutes (if these are what they are) are a factional tool. An old one and desperate one at that - even older and more desperate tool than me!
The open and shut of it is that a couple of weeks later (if the minutes existed at all in the form they now appear as) they were not ratified - even by the United Left faction members themselves on the executive!!!
The cat was out of the bag on factional activity after the McCoombes revelation.
The Crown appear to be looking straight ahead and pretending not to notice the significance of the McNeilage revelation - apparently in the hope that no one else will.
Dodgy minutes, briefing the media, secret affidavits to the media, allegations of sexual misconduct, allegation of common criminality ie. gun running, he said she said confession nonsense.
All been done before by the left factions who lose the plot. Whether that happened here is for the jury to decide. Some don't think the level of vitriol it can reach that extreme but it can.
Just look at what Campbell McGregor and I have posted about the WRP history. that makes the defence case very well.
The jurors won't know this of course, unless they are in such parties, but the United Left witnesses gave them a taste of the vitriol existent in the SSP towards Sheridan even 6 years later !
Anonymous said...
The Sheridans live in Cardonald, do they not?
December 5, 2010 2:36 PM
Nearly all branches are made up of people who live their areas.
Peter
"The open and shut of it is that a couple of weeks later (if the minutes existed at all in the form they now appear as) they were not ratified - even by the United Left faction members themselves on the executive!!!"
That would be because Sheridan and others argued at an NC that they should be kept secret.
Before anyone slanders the minutes as "dodgy" I suggest they look them up, they're easily found on google, and read like a perfectly well written set of minutes to me. Given what's come out in court about the notes that were taken being far more salacious than anything put into the actual minutes (notes are handwritten as-you-go record of what's said at the meeting, minutes are the shortened typed version which is passed to people for approval/changes at a later date featuring key points of discussion and decisions taken at a meeting). Indeed the amount of detail that is left out of the minute pretty much proves that the minutes were drawn up with the intention of keeping private DETAILS of TS's private life out of the minutes, the only "private" detail is one which is not private at all and refers directly to the truth (or if you believe the mystery minute, nothing at all) alleged to have been confirmed by TS at this meeting - given it forms the basis for the meeting and the unanimous vote on TS's future in the role of convenor, it's a pretty vital piece of information. It's not a private detail at all if it's in the paper and then someone admits it and as a result action has to be taken.
Much like when organisations expel members for sexually assaulting other members, I imagine the minutes of those meetings contain the word "sexual assault" and possibly "admitted", but they don't contain the actual details of what the sexual assault entailed for the victim. This is how minutes of important but sexual conduct based decisions take place the world over.
Found them. Interesting!
Anon said:
"This is how minutes of important but sexual conduct based decisions take place the world over."
December 6, 2010 1:12 PM
Oh dear. Anon. It is difficult to know where to start mate.
If you consider that that to be normal minute practice in the labour movement it is no wonder the RMT disafilliated from the SSP.
If you are being genuine may I suggest that if the United Left faction were playing fair to Tommy then their minutes could have simply said:
-----
a) Mr Sheridan announced his intention to sue the NOTW over certain stories. The SSP executive decided not to support that action as it was a wholly private matter. Mr Sheridan disagreed but accepted the decision of the Executive.
b)The executive voted to ask Mr Sheridan to resign his position as it felt that it was not appropriate for senior members of the party to pursue major private legal actions, with all that entails, whilst in leading positions.
Mr Sheridan disagreed with the vote of the Executive. Mr Sheridan indicated that whilst he disagreed that in any event he wished to spend more time with his family and prepare his private legal action.
Mr Sheridan agreed he would not challenge the decision in the party and agreed to resign as Convenor.
c) The Executive determined that Mr Sheridan could retain his membership of the SSP parliamentary group.
d) The SSP executive thanked Mr Sheridan for his long service to the SSP Convenor and wished him and his family well for the future.
--------
Simples!
What's with all the extraneous juicy detail in the "minutes"?
That is why many consider the "minutes" a factional document, backed up by the McCoombes affadavit and the Scott notes. They were part of a move so they could push him out, with no way back in, by saying there was a formal record kept.
Allegedly it partly fell apart when the "minutes" if they existed at all in that form were not ratified.
The Scott notes and the secret McCoombes affadavit can reasonably be regarded as a back up plan by the faction to be pulled out when and if it became necessary.
Peter seems to have missed the point - the fact that TS planned to sue the NoTW being a "private matter" was not the reason the executive (unanimously remember - any explanation for those SWP members etc voting for it yet?) asked for Sheridan's resignation.
The issue was the fact that TS - allegedly - planned to lie in court to defraud the NoTW and protect his image.
(If we believe the SSP witnesses' testimony, published explanations from 2006 etc.), the example of alternative minutes you provide above - while certainly more conducive to Sheridan's privately-pursued court action, would NOT have been an honest reflection of the meeting or reason for the (massively important) decision that was taken (unanimously) by that meeting. You are essentially suggesting that the minutes secretary should have made up a vague-sounding fake minute to protect TS's privacy. Indeed, (assuming the prosecuting witnesses' testimony is true), then all that can be said in criticising those minutes is that a)the minutes secretary should have clouded one of the biggest decisions in the party's history in such vague terms that nobody could understand why the decision was taken; or b)the minutes secretary should have made something up (eg."the executive decided not to support that action as it was a wholly private matter - and [via a missing logical step] - therefore forced him to resign".
I must say that after reading the minutes that Ms Scott must be an outstanding notetaker, every word, every nuance, certainly the most complete minutes I have ever seen.
Indeed if the number of voters added up they would be a perfect example of minutes, I wonder how that small mistake came about? still probably nothing.
The second "mystery minute" causes more problems than it solves for mr Sheridan. If all these people were in a conspiracy against him, why would they create a minute that covered up their "phoney" allegations?
And where did those minutes come from?
Ms Scott was the minute secretary and she insists the minute handed over after court action is the real one.
The shorter minute was written by someone other than the minute secretary, surely?
Anonymous said...
The second "mystery minute" causes more problems than it solves for mr Sheridan. If all these people were in a conspiracy against him, why would they create a minute that covered up their "phoney" allegations?
And where did those minutes come from?
Ms Scott was the minute secretary and she insists the minute handed over after court action is the real one.
The shorter minute was written by someone other than the minute secretary, surely?
December 6, 2010 11:03 PM
The minutes were provided at the defamation case I believe, how do these differ from those provided after that case.
And if they do differ why has this not been highlighted?
It has been highlighted. There are two sets of minutes. One of which Sheridan says is accurate.
But nobody seems to know who wrote them.
Anonymous said...
It has been highlighted. There are two sets of minutes. One of which Sheridan says is accurate.
But nobody seems to know who wrote them.
December 7, 2010 12:00 AM
Anon,
Missed something have you not?
A couple of tiny points:
a) who created the United Left set of "minutes" that the Crown claim are genuine?
b)Why was that document not ratified?
c)What date did that document appear in the party records?
d)Why did Ms Scott tell the police and this court that she took a careful note that Tommy was involved somehow in the transporting of guns? Do you believe that was said as well?
Mmmmm lets thinks about all that as we head away to our beds.
By the way how about you choose a user name - it is the same deal confidential as Anon but it is easier to follow the debate ifwe all have separate names.
Try "Author Author!" as a user name or maybe "Minute Man"
Good night,
Peter
Post a Comment