Sunday, December 12, 2010

Pat Smith

The second witness on Thusday morning was Pat Smith. Ms Smith told the court that she had been a teacher for 16 years latterly managing an arts centre in Edinburgh. Ms Smith also confirmed that she had originally been cited as a Crown witness but had not been called during the prosecution case. Asked about her political background the witness stated that she had been a longstanding member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and had joined the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) along with the rest of the Scottish membership of the SWP in May 2001. Ms Smith also told the court that she had been elected onto the SSP executive committee in 2002 and had attended the disputed executive meeting on the 9th November 2004. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness for her account of that event.


Ms Smith told the court she had arrived at the meeting just as Tommy Sheridan had began speaking and had taken the seat beside him. The witness  stated  that Mr Sheridan "seemed to be answering a question about an MSP attending a sex club" adding that "you were carefully explaining that it wasn't you and giving reasons why it couldn't be you." Ms Smith told the court that Mr Sheridan did admit to a "brief relationship" with a journalist, Anvar Khan, but that this had ended in the early 1990's. Mr Sheridan asked Ms Smith if she was "clear" that this is what he had said, the witness responded "absolutely clear, I was sitting next to you."

Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if he had left the meeting early, which she confirmed. He then asked Ms Smith if she could recall  what happened after he had gone. The witness replied that she would "never forget it" and that there had been a "very acrimonious atmosphere" and people had been saying "all sorts of things that were entirely new to me" Ms Smith added that it was "horrible hearing my comrades speak that way" and described her reaction as "stunned." Asked by Mr Sheridan about what was said Ms Smith stated that  there were a number of "derogatary comments" made about Mr Sheridan and they all "felt you were the person" and that "some people indicated that they knew it was you." Ms Smith also described that some of the Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) in attendence had complained about receiving "snide remarks" about Mr Sheridan when they attended events, which they had claimed made it "impossible to do their jobs."


Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if a "consensus" had been reached by the executive. Ms Smith said there had been a vote at the end of the meeting and it had been agreed that if Mr Sheridan decided to sue the News of the World the executive would ask him to step down as convener. Ms Smith said she had voted for that position because of the "dire financial straights" the SSP was in and also because a defamation case would be a "distraction from the important political work" the party had to do. Ms Smith also told the court she had not spoken at the meeting as she was "stunned" and added that she had not thought this was a "final decision" as it had also been agreed that there would be another meeting "on Saturday."


Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Smith how she had got back to Edinburgh from the meeting and the witness told the court she had been given a lift back along with Barbara Scott, Rosemary Byrne, Catriona Grant and Colin Fox. Ms Smith was then asked if Barbara Scott and Catriona Grant  had  discussed "minutes" during the journey,  to which she replied "not at all, there was no mention of minutes" 


Mr Sheridan then moved on to a subsequent meeting of the SSP executive, held on the 24th November 2004 , and asked the witness if minutes of the 9th of November meeting had been shown to her then. The witness stated that there were no minutes shown to her adding that Alan Green, the SSP's then National Secretary, had said that as the meeting had dealt with issues of a personal nature there would be no record kept. Ms Smith told the court that the first time she had seen any minute of the 9th November executive had been just before the 2006 defamation case. Mr Sheridan concluded his evidence in chief by asking Ms Smith if she would be "prepared to risk prison to lie for me" Ms Smith replied "no, not for you or anyone else" Mr Sheridan then returned to the dock and Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, rose to cross-examine the witness.


Mr Prentice opened his cross-examination by asking the witness if she thought "integrity" was important, which she agreed. Mr Prentice then asked the witness how she felt about "one socialist calling another socialist a liar" and put it the witness that by insisting that Mr Sheridan had denied visiting a sex club at the executive meeting in question that was what she was doing.   The Advocate Depute then asked Ms Smith if Mr Sheridan had denied the accusations why had she then voted for him to stand down as convener. Ms Smith replied that was "not her understanding" of the motion she had voted for, and that the she had believed that the "sequence of events" would be that two MSPs would speak to Mr Sheridan the next day and that  there was, in any event another meeting to be held "next weekend" Mr Prentice suggested to the witness that the vote had been for Mr Sheridan to resign, Ms Smith replied "it was not as clear as that" and that the vote referred to the still "hypothetical situation" of Mr Sheridan taking legal action against the News of the World.


Mr Prentice then asked Ms Smith how long the meeting had taken, she replied around three and a half hours. Mr Prentice put it to the witness that if the meeting had really heard Mr Sheridan deny the allegations the meeting would be "quick" to which Ms Smith responded "you would have thought so." Asked if anyone had challenged Mr Sheridan's denial, Ms Smith told the court that Alan McCombes had stated at the meeting that he did not believe Mr Sheridan as had Carolyn Leckie. Ms Smith said that Mr McCombes did not give a clear reason for his view but that she had got the impression  that many people attending had already "formulated a view" on the matter and where "bolstering each other up" during the discussions. Mr Prentice questioned the time taken at the meeting suggesting to the  witness that if everyone had a "pre-determined view" the meeting should not have lasted three and a half hours. Ms Smith replied that there had been a lot discussed, including complaints of "unilateral actions" by Mr Sheridan over a demonstration in relation to Rose Gentle, an anti-war campaigner and a "number of other things." including the Cupids website, and a discussion on "on exploited women" that took up a lot of time.


The Advocate Depute then asked Ms Smith if Alan McCombes had called Mr Sheridan a liar wouldn't she want to know why, when she said she would have, Mr Prentice said "did you ask him" Ms Smith said she did not speak at the meeting, as "it was all entirely new to me" and she had been "astonished" at the subject matter. Mr Prentice then produced one of the purported minutes of the 9th November meeting, the "Barbara Scott minute" and asked the witness if it was accurate. When Ms Smith replied that it was not Mr Prentice asked if the witness was calling Barbara Scott a "liar" Ms Smith responded that Ms Scott may have been mistaken, however when pressed said "that's what she is" Mr Prentice then read  through the document line by line asking the witness which parts were, in her opinion, accurate and which were not. The witness agreed that most of the minute was accurate except for the sections that referred to admissions by Mr Sheridan.


Mr Prentice then suggested to the witness that a "sex scandal" involving Mr Sheridan would be a "disaster for the SSP"  Ms Smith replied that this was not entirely true and if it was it had "never struck me at the time as Tommy Sheridan said he was not involved" Ms Smith added that what had struck her was the "massive divisions in the SSP" which she had previously been "unaware of" 


The Advocate Depute concluded his cross-examination by asking Ms Smith about her previous testimony that no minute of the 9th November meeting had been shown at the 24th November executive. Mr Prentice produced the sheet of paper that was used at the 24th November signed by those attending to show they had received and then handed back the documents presented there. On being shown the document Ms Smith stated "that's not my signature" but did agree that documents were signed for and returned. Mr Prentice asked the witness if there was no minute why else would this "extraordinary " procedure have been employed. Ms Smith replied that it was her understanding that this was done as information had been leaking to the press. Asked if anyone had  challenged the minute's accuracy Ms Smith stated that there was no minute so no-one "could have disagreed" Mr Prentice then ended his cross-examination and Mr Sheridan rose to re-examine the witness.


Mr Sheridan opened by returning to the issue of the 24th November SSP executive meeting and asked Ms Smith if she was "sure" no minute was presented. Ms Smith said again she was. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness about the "leaks to the press" she had mentioned in her cross-examination. Ms Smith told the court that after the 9th November executive meeting accounts had appeared in the press "the next day" and these had included quotes which were "almost verbatim" Mr Sheridan then had the witness examine the "Barbara Scott" minute and asked Ms Smith if she thought it was typical of other minutes produced in her two years on the executive. Ms Smith stated that, in her opinion, it was not a "normal minute" as these were usually made up of "action points" while this  had a "discursive style" which she had not seen before. Mr Sheridan concluded by asking Ms Smith if she was clear that he had denied the sex club allegations at the 9th November executive. Ms Smith t said "absolutely clear" and with that Mr Sheridan returned to the dock and the witness was excused.

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

It appears that Pat Smith has been quite emphatic in her response to questioning, and has a clearly a different recall of the 9-11 meeting provide by some of the Crown witnesses.

I wonder what sort of snide remark it would take to make it impossible to do your job?
If snide remarks have such effect on you you were probably in the wrong job being a MSP.

I believe that James has had a few snide remarks in his coverage of this trial lets hope he finds it possible to continue.

Steve said...

"Mr Prentice then asked the witness how she felt about "one socialist calling another socialist a liar" and put it the witness that by insisting that Mr Sheridan had denied visiting a sex club at the executive meeting in question that was what she was doing."

Didn't Mrs Smith answer these questions?

James Doleman said...

"Didn't Mrs Smith answer these questions?"

Not really as they were mostly statements she did say it was "unusual" for socialists to call other socialists liars and that was about it.

I don't do a transcript Steve and have to summarise two hours of testimony. so I do skip over stuff which is covered again later, in this case in the exchange about Barbara Scott.

Borders or Bust said...

James is going to publish a book after the trial is over with all the snide remarks in it: it will be titled Pretty Repetitive! Order now for Xmas!

Note Taker said...

Anyone that wants to read a verbatim transcript should read Hansard.

Anonymous said...

Borders or Bust said..

Surely it would be titled Petty Repetitve?

keith79 said...

On the basis of what's been written already I think a book by James would be a very good idea. Don't know how popular it would be though?

James Doleman said...

I was hoping for a job with the News of the World (NotW) but I suppose that is a fallback option.

Anonymous said...

Ideal James you would not need to worry about cash it seems soo much is left laying about their offices that they can not keep track of it or they forget its there.

Bunc said...

genuine question here - Did TS not call this woman during the defamation action and if not what reason could there be?

Campbell McGregor said...

I have checked the Scottish Courts website, it seems that in December Glasgow courts are closed on Monday 27th and Tuesday 28th, but that is all. I assume they are closed on 1st and 2nd January as well. Anyone like to estimate when this case is going to end?

James Doleman said...

Ms Smith did testify at the 2006 defamation case bunc.

see here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5231208.stm

Bunc said...

Thanks james

Campbell McGregor said...

Sorry, I meant 3rd and 4th of January.

Anonymous said...

If this trial doesn't reach a conclusion this year it will more than likely resume on Monday 10th January 2011

Bunc said...

It strikes me that this is probably the best witness so far. All that stuff with Coulson and the NOTW was complete guff in my opinion and didn't address the real issues.

This witnesses testimony directly addresses the issues. Obviously the jury must weigh her evidence against the evidence of others but taken on its own merits this sounds as though it was a much better episode for the defence it seems to me.

Anonymous said...

Campbell, the Courts are open over the Festive Period, but this to process persons who have been detained in Police Custody; there are time limits on how long a person can be held before appearing in Court.

Bunc said...

By the way - whatever your views on this case lots of you im sure wont be great lovers of the torys or Andy Coulson - you may have seen this - of not here's something to warm your hearts

MP asks for Civil service investigation into payment of Coulson's legal fees

A Rural Socialist said...

Bunc said...
It strikes me that this is probably the best witness so far. All that stuff with Coulson and the NOTW was complete guff in my opinion and didn't address the real issues.

This witnesses testimony directly addresses the issues. Obviously the jury must weigh her evidence against the evidence of others but taken on its own merits this sounds as though it was a much better episode for the defence it seems to me.

Yes I agree that Pat Smith was a good witness for the defence, to me she appeared to convey a more plausible course on the 9/11 meeting.
The alleged rancour at this meeting IMO relays the direction the Party was taking in relation to gender politics apparent at this time.

Anonymous said...

Pat Smith again mentions TS admitting to a "brief relationship" with Anvar Khan. I have serious doubts that TS ever had an affair with Anvar Khan in any shape or form - but he is on record to admitting it. In fact, if TS had denied this and it was libelled that he in fact did have a "brief relationship" with Anvar Khan I would have had no hesitation in acquitting him. It is strange that the only part of TS's narrative that I don't believe is the part that he has admitted to.

Critical-eye said...

So now we know what really happened at the 9/11 meeting: TS denied he was the person in the NOTW story, but said he would sue the paper, and accordingly all agreed that he should step down as Convenor because a "defamation case would be a distraction from the important polictical work".

As a complete outsider, I imagine that all sections of the party would be content: TS's supporters would understand that he needed to step down so that he could clear his name; and those who thought that "he was too big for his boots" would be happy that, at last, he has stepped aside.

With this outcome, TS has a fight on his hands, but it is his fight only, it does not involve the party in any way. The party can get on with "the important political work".

So, why was the meeting so acrimonious?

Why did a majority of the executive concoct the complete cock and bull story that TS confessed at the meeting?

Why did they persist in their invention, and go into the witness box in support of the NOTW, a paper they detested?

Why did the Cardonald branch of the party (to which TS and GS belonged) ask the executive to destroy any papers about members'private lives?

Anonymous said...

When PS said that was not her signature did TS not follow this up?

level-headed larry said...

Critical-eye

Perhaps you don't like the fact that evidence is coming forward that directly contradicts the Crown's evidence?

You seem to find it difficult to believe that those who hated TS would be willing to lie against TS in court, but no difficulty in believing that others would be willing to lie in court for him.

Perhaps, in your case, its a bit of 'none are so blind as those who will not see'...

Interested said...

Noticed some testimony you may have missed James. From the BBC:

Responding to questions from Mr Sheridan, Ms Smith said: "You said you had never been to a sex club. I am absolutely clear about that. I was sitting next to you."

She added that Mr Sheridan had also told the meeting: "They would never find a shred of evidence."

Mr Sheridan asked the witness: "Could you have been confused?"

Ms Smith replied: "No, not at all. I don't think anybody could have been confused."

Anonymous said...

@ Interested - the "shred of evidence" remark was actually posted in a (now deleted comment), if you search this blog (search box on the right) you will find many references to TS allegedly saying "shred of evidence". TS even used the phrase in his cross-examination of Bob Bird.

James Doleman said...

What I have in my note is "I was sitting next to you, you said they would never find a shred of evidence, it was certainly not you"

I'd not put it in the report as I did not see it as particularly significant but I'll add it to the main post later.

James

CB said...

level-headed larry

You say "You seem to find it difficult to believe that those who hated TS would be willing to lie against TS in court, but no difficulty in believing that others would be willing to lie in court for him."

But as I see it, the point Critical Eye is making (and it is at the very core of the question at issue) is that the people who "hated TS" had no need to lie or invent anything in order to get rid of him, as he had already agreed to step down as party leader. The jury may wish to reflect on what motive the SSP witnesses could possibly have to perjure themselves by concocting a cock and bull story out of thin air.

Those of Tommy's supporters who were at the meeting may of course be telling the truth about his not confessing to any visit to the sex club, but even if they are they have an obvious motive to do otherwise.

iain brown said...

Picking up on PSs "almost verbatim " quotes in the next day papers.This has jolted my memory of the Dundee SSP meeting addressed by Alan McCoombes( Pre defamation case).This was a closed members only meeting and everyone was told to switch of their mobiles. Similar meetings were held elsewhere with himself and Alan Green.I sat there horrified listening to the litany of accusations made against TS,with McCoombes stating there was much worse still to come out. This was going to be Armagedon for the Party said Alan.Next day,my mind was still reeling and i was struggling to remember everything said.Come to the rescue that mornings Dundee Courier(Rabid anti union DC Thomson publication). Blow by blow account.Suspicions at the time pointed to a couple of branch members leaking/bugging. However the source was most likely to have been McCoombes himself. Anyway i fully believed what he said on the basis that it was inconceivable that longstanding friends,comrades,best man etc. could make this stuff up.I now have very serious doubts. Forget the Wicker Man.Seems more akin to the Omen.McCoombes painted Sheridan like a Damian figure who was hell bent on destroying the SSP.Accordingly he had to be destroyed. For some time i scoffed at TSs accusations of a conspiracy but i am becoming increasingly persuaded. Remember McCoombes testimony that he was prepared "to do anything to protect the Party".So in this context socialists are prepared to do the unthinkable and justify the unjustifiable for the greater cause. Seems to me they have caused profoundly more damage to the SSP than TS,even if guilty as charged. Reminds me of the infamous Lt. Calley at the My Lai massacre trial(during the Vietnam War),"We had to destroy the village to save it"(from the Viet Cong).Mission accomplished.

Lefty Trainspotter said...

"you said they would never find a shred of evidence"

has different connotations to

"you said there could not be a shred of evidence"

Shredless Wheat said...

Is that not a strange formulation - it was not me, and by the way they will never find a shred of evidence?

The second statement is surely implicit in the first - if it was not you, then there can't be any evidence that it was.

I would have thought a more natural statement would be something like "It wasn't me, I'm innocent, how dare they, I would never betray my wife..." Etc.

Just reads a little oddly IMHO.

Steve said...

On the SSP lying issue, my take is that it is unlikely anyone would lie - if people lied 50% of the time there would be no language, so the average rate of lying must be below 50%, probably very much below. My own feeling is that there are no circumstances (e.g. a white lie) that significantly impair this expectation in the SSP case..

Given that, the balance of probabilities is that the majority are telling the truth. But that is not enough to convict, which requires 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

That is where the corroborating evidence comes in. And that, as we say, is for the jury to decide.

Anonymous said...

TS obviously in my opinion picked up on the potential fatal implications of the "shred of evidence" comment and that is why my opinion he asked Pat Smith if she could be "confused".
And the BBC seem to have picked up on it too.

Steve said...

Of course, Mrs Smith's remark that it is "unusual" for a socialist to accuse another socialist of lying tends to support my view above on the tendency to veracity of people in general.

Anonymous said...

I believe prosecution witnesses also referred to Tommy saying something along similar lines regarding the NotW not being able to find a "shred of evidence" on him (don't know if any used the exact phrase, but something similar): though obviously in the context of him just admitting to them that the allegations in the paper did refer to TS.

Obviously it makes a lot more sense in the prosecution witnesses version of events. Make of that what you will.

Peter said...

CB said

"The jury may wish to reflect on what motive the SSP witnesses could possibly have to perjure themselves by concocting a cock and bull story out of thin air."

Hi CB,

To understand the ations of the McCoombes group you need to put yourself in their minds and what they regarded as the "Truth".

The McCoombes group did not consider they were making it up "out of thin air".

Rumours and tittle tattle had circulated about Tommy's personal life for years by his opponents inside and ouside the movement. I remember it back in the 80s and 90s.

If you read McCoombes article ater the libel trial group around McCoombes were fully convinced BEFORE the executive meeting that Sheridan was the MSP who was going to be named as the one who went to Cupids - they expected much more revelations besides.

They wanted an immediate resignation, on their terms, with no chance of a return. McNeilage then fully expected (as the man who considers himself to have "created" Tommy) to take the leadership.

If Tommy had not dug his heels in and pursued his legal action and if Fox had not stood with Sheridans endorsement McNeilage's leadership bid in 2005 would likely have been successful.

The bitter state of mind of the McCoombes group towards Sheridan's "guilt" was shown later. The same group championed Trolle and McGuire as innocent SSP women who were the victims of a manipulative sexual predator.

McNeilage was not disciplined for creating/filming and selling it to the NOTW. Indeed now McCoombe's has been let off by the SSP for secretly giving the Herald an affadavit even though that strictly against party orders that internal matters be kept from the media.

Whether Sheridan denied it or not was not an issue for this group -they "knew" it to be "true" or so wanted it be true for factional reasons they were prepared to cross class lines and follow were the NOTW lead.

Others (more rational in my view)on the executive either believed Tommys denials or at least were willing to give Tommy the benefit of the doubt to fight the case out.

That those people (outside the McNeilage group) did not want him to pursue a libel action as leader (with all the risks that entailed) was no doubt influenced by the fact that a lot of the leading members of the McNeilage group made it very clear that they felt his denials were false.

After garnering opinion the executive meeting adjourned to assess the situation through further discussion with Sheridan.

A deal was arranged and the compromise with Sheridan was that he agreed to resign and to continue his legal action whilst remaining as a party MSP. That was the right deal to reach in my view. I, for example, have always argued that if Sheridan was going to do a libel case he should stand down. That does not I mean I believe the NOTW but it is the sensible course of action.

That of course was not enough for the McCoombes group who as I say were fully convinced Tommy was "guilty".

The "minutes" and the final fail safe of the secret affadavit were therefore insurance for the anti-Sheridan faction to prevent Sheridans return to leadership of the party.

Those tools were put to that effect in 2006 and indeed Tommy nearly lost the libel case on the back of that manouvere.

Anonymous said...

what are the political affiliations of the defence witnesses while members of the SSP. IE what platform did they belong.
We know which Crown witnesses were from the united left.

Sceptic said...

Might be worth you reading paragraph one of this report anon.

Rolo Tomasi said...

@ Peter

You talk about the "McNeilage group", and "McNeilage's" bid for the leadership, as the man who "created" Tommy.

Is this right? I thought big George was one of the Pollok boys from back in the day, but not involved in the jockeying for SSP leadership positions in 2004.

Peter said...

Sorry Rolo "my bad" as the kids say - well spotted.

Am getting my Macs mixed up - easy to do with you lot up there!

I said "McCoombes group" first and meant that - the slip into the "McNeilage group" was not a freudian one but a typo.

The McCoombes article written in the period immediately after the libel trial is vital reading in my view.

For an understanding of the feelings of the McCoombes/United Left group on the executive (other it appears than Fox) it is unrivalled.

At the point of writing it McCoombes and his UL group on the executive were not admitting to he was the author of the affadavit.

McCoombe's fulsome defence in that article of the strategy of resistance as a principled attempt to protect Tommys and Gails confidentiality from the media is therefore particularly hilarious (if it were not so sad)

Now we know of course that it was McCoombes himself who had given an affadavit to the Herald with the knowlegde of at least one of the United Left faction MSPs (ie. Carolyn Leckie).

If the party was not factioned as Tommy says why was new SSP leader Fox not advised of this important little detail by his Chief Policy adviser McCoombes and fellow MSP Leckie.

Now we do know of it some have appeared in court to defend McCoombes action in giving the affadavit to the Herald ( to his credit not Fox) as an attempt to keep a record of events in case the "minutes" were disputed later.

If McCoombes wanted to protect Tommys confidentiality; if the "confession minutes" are genuine; and if McCoombes was simply worried the "confession minutes" would not be believed later and he therefore wanted a back up record why did he not just give one copy of the minutes confidentially to a notary - rather than giving an indistinct affadavit to a newspaper and thus laying a trail to a set of "minutes" that nearly resulted in Sheridan's destruction by the NOTW.

Mmmmm no answer to that one has yet appeared from the McCoombes group.

The defence consider that McNeilage was prepared to go jail (and indeed went to jail) to cover up his secret involvement in blowing Tommy up in this matter of the affadavit - what else would he do to get him?

Cheers,

Peter

Peter said...

PETER SAID

"The defence consider that McNeilage *EDIT I MEAN McCOOMBES* was prepared to go jail (and indeed went to jail) to cover up his secret involvement in blowing Tommy up in this matter of the affadavit - what else would he do to get him?"

Sorry I did it again Rolo. In my defence I was distracted by TV news footage of the Met police tipping a guy with cerebal palsy from his wheelchair, dragging him across the road and giving him a few smacks ... say after me the police are our friends ... help the police ... give statements to the police ...they will treat you fairly...the police are neutral.

Anonymous said...

Peter - you could add to the list name names. A lot of people hold the Police in high regard, even go running to the Police to "grass" people up - you ever watched Cops n Robbers? - it is only through bitter and personal experience that they learn who the Police really represent. And does this shed light on the matter of alleged Perjury committed by the Sheridans?

Peter said...

Hi Anon:11.08

Have decided not to reply to Anons as it gets too confusing to track back the conversation.

Pick a name and I will respond to your point.

Try "Mac the Knife" for size.

Thanks,

Peter

Mac the Knife said...

Peter - you could add to the list name names. A lot of people hold the Police in high regard, even go running to the Police to "grass" people up - you ever watched Cops n Robbers? - it is only through bitter and personal experience that they learn who the Police really represent. And how does this shed light on the matter of alleged Perjury committed by the Sheridans?

Peter said...

Hi Mac the Knife

Great name by the way.

The relevance of my reference to the police was in relation to some comments on the blog tonight.

Some posters have suggested that the defence witnesses should have gone to the police with their alibi evidence (that appears to fully exonerate Tommy) so the police could check it out and perhaps even drop the charges.

I am suggesting that those posters live in an ideal world.

I am suggesting that the last thing the defence should do is give Crown witnesses a chance (if they were so inclined) to change their dates to fit around and undermine that alibi evidence.

You appear to be with me in that regard.

If people don't think the state would do things like that I would point them to the news tonight and ask them this:

If it had not seen it on TV would they ever have thought they would see two police officers seriously assault and humiliate a man in wheelchair suffering from cerebal palsy.


Cheers,

Peter

Anonymous said...

@anon 5.33

Not all of the SSP witnesses presented in the case were in the United Left group. Colin Fox for example was openly hostile to the group being set up, as he was doing his best to hold the party together right up to the split after the civil case in 2006, and considered it divisive.

The 'political' (i.e. former SSP) witnesses called by the defence are those sympathetic to Tommy, of course - generally those who left the SSP with him in 2006. When the SSP split those that left to form Solidarity were those 2 most faction-y of factions - the SWP (whom I believe 2 witnesses so far belong to - Pat Smith and Mike Gonzalez) and the CWI (known in England as The Socialist Party (of England and Wales) [SPEW for fun] - who in an apparently serious Pythonesque twist have started calling themselves "the socialist party scotland" north of the border. Other small SSP factions either stayed with the SSP (eg RCN) or split themselves, with some joining the SNP (SRSM).

There were of course individuals not in any platform/faction/grouping on both sides of the split, including some who have been called as witnesses both for prosecution and defence.

CB said...

Peter

You say: "I am suggesting that the last thing the defence should do is give Crown witnesses a chance (if they were so inclined) to change their dates to fit around and undermine that alibi evidence. ... If people don't think the state would do things like that I would point them to the news tonight and ask them this: If it had not seen it on TV would they ever have thought they would see two police officers seriously assault and humiliate a man in wheelchair suffering from cerebal palsy."

Peter, yes indeed I would believe that the state would do such things. I believe even that the state has invaded other countries causing hundreds of thousands of deaths: I believe the British state once ruled and exploited a fifth of the world's population.

But in the name of all the gods and little fishes I can't see what this has to do with a case of alleged perjury arising from a court action in which TS was the pursuer.

If TS rejects the state and all its works, what possessed him to use its judicial machinery to sue the NoTW for £200k?

I agree with you about the Anons by the way.

Anonymous said...

Peter - what about TS's recent very vocal support for the Police during their recent dispute?

Anonymous said...

aye, "marching shoulder to shoulder with our brothers and sisters in the police", aye, that'll be the day...

Wullie McG said...

Peter said...

"Am getting my Macs mixed up - easy to do with you lot up there!"

Maybe, but you could at least spell the name properly.
It's McCombes.