At 3.40 today the jury in the case of HM Advocate v Sheridan returned and gave their verdict. A hushed court heard the jury's spokesperson declare that by a majority, the verdict was one of guilty on the charge of perjury.
The Clark of the court then asked if their were any parts of the indictment the jury wished to delete. The court was told that the jury wished to remove the parts relating to Anvar Khan and one part of the charge that had stated that said that Mr Sheridan had a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle, the section that she had visited his home in Paisley Road West. These parts of the charge are therefore not proved.
Lord Bracadale thanked the jury for their service and, due to the length of this trial excused them from jury duty for the next eight years. The court then heard from the Advocate Depute who informed the judge of Mr Sheridan's criminal record, which he said were mainly charges relating to "protest activities." Lord Bracadale then asked Mr Sheridan to rise and informed him that he would continue to grant Mr Sheridan bail but when he returned for sentencing, on the 26th of January 2011 Mr Sheridan should "expect to be sentenced to prison". The court then adjourned.
Full report to follow.
126 comments:
I hope his family look after him closely as he will be in a fragile state after all the trauma.
I'm stunned.
Assuming the details I have read in this blog are accurate, I find it hard to believe a jury ci=ould find that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
James and Whatsy, many thanks once again for your tremendous efforts on this blog.
I look forward to hearing from Sceptic, Peter and others on the verdict.
Fantastic work keeping on top of all this, I've been following since day 1,
Not wanting to come across as ungrateful but will you ever be able to fill in all the blanks now that the reporting restrictions have lifted? - I cant help thinking I have been cheated out of some of the sordid details!
Many thanks, and keep up the great work!
I have been following your reporting for a few days now - wish I had discovered it earlier! Superb work by you and your fellow authors, also a great deal of worthwhile comments posted by the various followers.
May I offer you a very big thankyou for the quality of reporting and also extend my great appreciation in respect of the unsociable time you spend doing so.
Fantastic work, well done!!
Regards
John
Just want to give my thanks to the writers of this blog for covering this trial with a dedication and professionalism rarely found in the printed media, never mind in the world of bloggery. Well done and hope you all have a relaxing Christmas break.
If I could remind commentators that today was not the end of the case, it has been adjourned.
The same rules over contempt of court apply, just as much today, as they did on day one. I do not particularly like deleting posts that people have spent time and effort creating so if we could all bear in mind that today's verdict in the case does not create a "free for all" I would be grateful.
Best Regards
James
I agree the evidence Ive read pointed to a not proven verdict at least. Will new perjury charges be brought against any of Tommys supporters who testified?
Thanks James, Whatsy et al for covering this trial in such detail and providing readers with details that the papers didn't. I especially noted the courtesy shown to posters who didn't comply with the blog rules, they were always treated politely and courteously and I think that perhaps helped to set the standard of communication expected between bloggers. In relation to the verdict, unlike the bloggers above, I think on balance it's the right one and I feel that the refusal of TS to take the stand (whilst I accept that it is his right not to do so) was very telling, after all he was happy to speak to the jury for 5 hours but not to defend himself under cross-examination and relying on his witnesses to do that job for him back fired.
Great work, wish I'd found this earlier, so comprehensive, and well-organised too! I thought that the case was now done and dusted, TS is guilty, in what respect has it been 'adjourned'?
Some may think that perjury is a victimless crime. However,the victims of TS's crime should not be forgotten - these are the members of the SSP who testified against TS in the libel case and have had to live for four years branded as "liars" and "scabs". Their courageous stance in deciding to tell the truth in support of a newspaper which they would otherwise have no truck with has now been vindicated, and I for one, whose only interest in this case has been to see justice done, salute them.
James will you be updating us all on the 26th of Jan? I hope so, you and your elves have provided an excellent non-partisan account of the trials progression, a duty which the mainstream media failed us on.
In their absence may I raise a glass to you and wish you all the best over the holiday season. You'll be needing the break.
Would be very happy to paypal you a pint or a dram or two, and I'm sure many other forum users would be as well.
disgraceful report on SSY site youth is no excuse. Solidarity with Tommy and his family.
Hear, Hear 8.10pm I will join you in that endeavour. You guys must be completely shattered!
All the best.
Jeez, the irony that TS could persuade an Edinburgh jury but not a Glasgow one...
Special programme called "The Rise and Lies of Tommy Sheridan" being shown on BBC1 Scotland at 9pm tonight
Anon 8:01 technically the Diet has been Adjourned for Reports until 26 January 2011, so strictly speaking the case has not been "disposed" of as yet.
James, just to add my sincere thanks to those of all the others for the great effort you and Whatsy put into producing these reports since the end of September. You have made a lot of friends out here for the extent and quality of the coverage and for the civil way you treated those of us who occasionally overstepped the mark. Like others, I’d be most keen to contribute towards production expenses if a means can be found to do so.
I’ll leave the comments I'd like to make on the case to a more appropriate time.
SSY Site has a comprehensive article on what Sheridan's pursuit of his agenda cost his former comrades. A great read.
James,
you're wrong as far as contempt is concerned. Judges are above being influenced by the media and any reports. Contempt applies when reports or published words might affect the outcome of the case.
Too late for that now.
I think the verdict was just and proper. Tommy is asking us to believe that his former friends and comrades conspired against him to harm him politically and for monetary gain. It is VERY difficult to persuade a number of people to stick to a story if it is a lie, these people will all have been interviewed by the police separately, anyone thinking these people collectively put there liberty at risk just to ruin Tommy's political career is deluded. If as Tommy suggests these people were lying for monetary gain then would it not be to one of these 'greedy' people's benefit to approach another newspaper and break the story that their was indeed a conspiracy against Sheridan taking place? I'm sure any newspaper would pay handsomely for that information.
After seeing the police interview tapes on BBC1 news this evening where Tommy admits participating in group sex says it all for me really. Tommy the politician I respected, it's a great shame he let ego and celebrity wipe out his integrity...a great shame.
Thanks James and the rest of your team for this excellent blog.
As I have commented before, this case should never have been brought.
It was blatantly obvious that in the original defamation case, many witnesses committed perjury.
Only Tommy and Gail Sheridan were prosecuted.
It is blatantly obvious that in the current trial, many witnesses committed perjury.
Are we going to have perjury cases clogging up our courts ad infinitum?
The Scottish Establishment seem to be very thick. They don't foresee the protest movement which will build up in 2011:
"FREE TOMMY SHERIDAN"
Well, it's over. Some will think justice has been done, others will disagree violently. This trial will be the subject of discussion and debate for a long long time to come.
What all can surely agree about is that this blog has been a fantastic resource for the Sheridan trial junkie community. We owe James and those who helped him a real debt of gratitude.
Is there any chance this blog can carry on, not least for the continuing debate? And of course there are court proceedings still to come: not just the sentencing hearing, but also any appeal TS may launch in respect of his conviction / sentence, as well as the NOW's appeal agaist the original civil trial verdict. James, I hope you feel up to covering it all.
Again, thank you.
I think that this was a just verdict because to my view the evidence as reported here and the verdict are consistent.
The very finding of guilt today will be a severe blow to TS and his family whatever the sentence. A hope would be that the judge considers this when he passes sentence.
Perjury is serious matter for the courts. There will be little to gain though through a highly puntative sentence.
In my opinion the courts would be foolish to make a political martyr out of Sheridan - much as that might potentially suite his interests now.
The bigger question for me is - "Where now for the socilaist left in Scotland?" I will air my own views on that elsewhere.
is he going to appeal?
And one other matter -
What an amazing job you guys have done reorting this trial. You have reported it in detail and with balance both in your posts and in moderating the coments here.
Bunc
Disappointed with the verdict, even though I thought he was guilty. No one on the left in Scotland will benefit from this - except, perhaps, Galloway.
Unlke North East Lad I am not stunned. This is what juries do day in , day out. They hear evidence and give verdicts. Half of me is pleased that justice has caught up with Tommy - that's the half of me that is socially conservative, free-market and pro-Israel.
The other half is desparately sad that an intelligent conviction politician is being hutched when so much monochrome survives and thrives. TS has helped make Scotland a much better , more inclusive society over the last 20+ years. I personally hope that Lord Bracadale looks at the alternatives and imposes a community alternative next month.
@anon 08:22
The report on the SSP Youth site is indeed a disgrace. I'm not sure why they are in such triumphalist mood, whilst barring a miracle Tommy Sheriran is finished as a politacal force. The behaviour of the SSP witnessess has hardly covered them in glory. No one like a liar but no one likes a grass either.
@Critical-eye: "Some may think that perjury is a victimless crime. However,the victims of TS's crime should not be forgotten - these are the members of the SSP who testified against TS in the libel case and have had to live for four years branded as "liars" and "scabs". Their courageous stance in deciding to tell the truth in support of a newspaper which they would otherwise have no truck with has now been vindicated, and I for one, whose only interest in this case has been to see justice done, salute them."
"Courageous stance"?? In going to the police with dirt on a fellow socialist?? Talk about airing your dirty laundry in public.
Ah but TS did it first?
So what? He didn't get anyone sent to prison at least.
Critical-eye I am far from a supporter of TS and I think he is both the author of his own misfortune and morally dodgy from a socialist point of view, both in his behaviour generally, his uncalled for calling comrades scabs and his using of the terrible UK libel laws and thus implicitly backing those laws.
But that doesn't make his opponents heroes! They assisted an investigation which was clearly eager to put TS behind bars.
All I can conclue form the case is:
1. Both TS and his opponents all come out of this smelling like doo-doo, but TS slighlty less becuase hes the one who actually goes to jail, even if it probably is his own fault.
2. Boy that video evidence and some of the crown witnesses must have been compelling - the defence case nearly had me going for a while there.
I'm not sure the contempt of court rules still apply. The jury are no longer involved so can't be influenced by anything they might read on here.
I think we can assume that Lord Bracadale is unlikely to be so influenced.
But it's your blog and your rules.
Like others I'd like to congratulate you on the service you have provided us all, it's been first class.
Maybe when the dust settles you'll continue with a web presence. God knows the left in Scotland are going to need every possible help after this.
The accuracy,impartial and dedicated coverage of this blog is outstanding. As a lawyer having seen the trial first hand, this was a blog to be trusted. I despair at some comments left by the "general public" on legal related affairs on national newspapers but this restores the faith. Whoever is responsible for the site ought to deserve recognition!
Hello, that SSY blog mentioned has made a reference to me so obscene that I cannot even quote it here.
Three hours later it is still there. So, sorry ;lets not talk about that page anymore.
Contempt is a possibility if a judge still has to decide. Happened before with ch4 documentary on birmingham 6 when appeal was due to be heard. Unusual but possible.
Like other readers of this blog, I want to pay tribute to the excellent work James and Whatsy have done. That you can take notes in Court all day and write them up late into the night is a tribute to your dedication and stamina.
Most writers on the blog naturally have their own opinions, but you have been solidly impartial, and there is no trace of bias to one side or the other in your reporting.
George McNeilage...was and is a very smart, clever, cunning actor, played parts in several productions including Taggart, Sweet Sixteen, American Cousins, and The container. Yes folks, this is the same man, check Sweet Sixteen to see him do his stuff...I rest my case.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1233441/
sorry but in the Police interview he admits the group sex thing before he was married and so what. Should it matter if a politician is stright, gay, married, co-habiting, single etc. That is their personal business and they can conduct themselves how they wish within reason obviously. Even if he did cheat on his wife So What.
So I can't see how politically people will change their view of him and the work him and the SSP and solidarity did.
Fact is he was found guilty of telling porkies in court not mis-representing politicaly.
Granted some of his personal decisions don't really echo what he preached or pledged he believed in politicaly but it is hardly something to throw up, what politician does not change when they get a little cash and power?
Plain fact was for the libel case and if he was telling the truth. He has been found not to be.
But I don't think those that said they liked him or his political views should turn on him for this alone.
[COMMENT DELETED CLEAR ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE LORD BRACADALE]
good work and thank you guys!
@huftybuftywufty, I have a feeling that he will receive some sort of "community punishment" - it was the conviction that was important, but that as they say if for Lord Bracadle to decide.
James, many thanks and congratulations on your brilliant work over the past few weeks. You have provided an outstanding service to the public and above all to those interested in the trial and in the way out system of justice works. Having followed it all as closely as I could, I am quite satisfied that the jury made the right decision. Incidentally, that SSY report you referred to - although obscene as you point out, I don't think the criticism was aimed at you but rather at some of the comments made on your site by the pro-TS faction.
As a supporter, though not member, of the SSP I find the SSY blog a total affront in all manners. As an opponent of prison sentences for non violent crimes, in a nation with one of the highest prison populations in Europe, surely here was a chance to start mending fences and for all socialists to call for an alternative to prison for all who go through our court system.I said elsewhere that the SSY should delete the post. That it is still there is sad. Thank you for this Blog, throughout the trial I did not bother reading the press as it was all biased crap and this was the only place where I could place a comment without being abused by one side or another.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC36.html
OPINION OF THE COURT OF AN ISSUE OF POSSIBLE CONTEMPT OF COURT ON THE PART OF AAMER ANWAR
Following today's verdict, I thought it might be helpful to refer to the above 2008 case which extensively defines Contempt of Court in Scotland. By coincidence, it involves Tommy's loyal brief.
Note how the judges said: “Thus language which would be of such an extreme nature that it did indeed challenge or affront the authority of the court, or the supremacy of the law itself, particularly perhaps where the integrity or honesty of a particular judge, or the court generally, was attacked, would be a contempt of court.“
Not 'may' be a contempt of court - but 'would' be a contempt of court.
And if you find yourself charged with contempt of court there is no jury - only judges! Tragically, it is these un-elected, self-regulating elitists who decide if any criticism of the court was - even after a trial has finished - ‘extreme’.
This is without question the most dangerous judgment in the history of Scots Law.
All three of the judges involved in this Opinion went to fee-paying schools and two of them, Lord Osbourne and Lord Kingarth, are members of the crypto-Masonic ‘New’ club in Edinburgh. Wooops! Is it lawful for me to mention this?
James: Please ensure that this fantastic blog remains online.
Re: Gunboat Diplomat.
When you get told to attend court and swear an oath, then in theory you no longer have a choice.
Good socialist or not.
Speaking of good socialists, who instigated the court proceedings?
Wasn't Murdoch, wasn't Cameron, wasn't the crown.
It was the cardonald one!
George McNeilage made a very good point, the money spent on this and the previous trial by the public purse could have actually been of real benefit if it was instead spent on the people Tommy used to claim to represent.
Re: Rolo Tomasi said:
"I look forward to hearing from Sceptic, Peter and others on the verdict."
December 23, 2010 5:19 PM
Rolo,
You have all heard enough from me so to quote a more eloquent Scouser than I:
To the downhearted I say:
"Who is it speaks of defeat? I tell you a cause like ours is greater than defeat can know. It is the power of powers."
As I said earlier Rolo - you wait until the end of a prizefight, you see whose standing and then you know who won. We are only coming up to Round 3 mate be patient.
To the "United Left".
"You may succeed in your policy and ensure your own damnation, by your victory."
To News International:
"We are beaten, we will make no bones about it; but we are not too badly beaten still to fight."
To those who are confused:
"Those who want to divide the workers have resorted to the foulest methods."
To those "comrades" who take the Queens shilling and sup with the state:
"The souls you have got cast upon the screen of publicity appear like the horrid and writhing creatures enlarged from the insect world, and revealed to us by the cinematograph."
To be contiued .....
I'd like to out myself as an SSY and SSP member and Carolyn Leckie's very proud daughter.
My mother has only ever told the truth and has been abused for it. This is the right result.
I haven't read the SSY blog yet.
In fairness to them, they have had to endure silence over the last 4 years on matter that they would probably have liked to scream from the rooftops. At the same time political opponents were running around willy nilly making all kinds of accusations. It's bound to build up towards some sort of outburst. Like I say though. I haven't read it yet.
I note that a few of the regular posters in here are no longer present. I'm sure some of us would like to hear their opinons on the verdict. i.e. Do they accept it? Do they believe the jury to have been mistaken?
btw I helped write that SSY article, and yes it is an explosion of frustration. It's also the absolute truth, and has our usual smattering of JOKES.
We#ve already had people in the spam comments comparing our comments on the CWI to anti semitic comments (TRIGGER WARNING FOR HOLOCAUST: saying we might as well say oven dodgers about jews) so that shows you how worked up and vitriolic Tommy#s supporters are.
We haven't been able to say anything for years, and I'd say to any commenters that it's nothing but the truth, and if you'd been through what we have you'd be angry too.
I'd like to say as well that while James and I come from different political backgrounds, I've appreciated the blog as a resource for when my loved ones were in court and I was unable to attend. I'm sure moderating comments has been a stress; we're getting experience now.
just like to say as well, we believe in restorative justice and don't think a prison sentence accomplishes anything here either. However we still say we warned Tommy, and this was inevitable. This could have been avoided.
Squeak said...
just like to say as well, we believe in restorative justice and don't think a prison sentence accomplishes anything here either. However we still say we warned Tommy, and this was inevitable. This could have been avoided.
December 24, 2010 2:17 AM
So say all who colabotate
Jessica said:
I note that a few of the regular posters in here are no longer present. I'm sure some of us would like to hear their opinons on the verdict. i.e. Do they accept it? Do they believe the jury to have been mistaken.
December 24, 2010 1:47 AM
--------------
Hi Jess,
Yes.
Yes.
Cheers,
Peter
Hello Squeak. May I say that I did not know anything about your responsibility for the article in question. However you must be aware that I was personally the subject of abuse on it, abuse so foul that I would not even reproduce it here.
Of course that is not the most important issue of the day, and I am big and ugly enough to look after myself. However could
I suggest that sexist and abusive language like that is no way to deal with political differences.
Best Regards
James
Hi Jessica & Squeak,
Jess: A crypto defence of an article and the authors before reading it! Not up to your usual standards girl - but will give you time off for admitting your crime. Tut, Tut. At least I went to see Godfather III before trashing it. (oh no ... the horror). Sackable offence on the London Review of Books.
I do think the article is relevant to the court case.
It again reveals that the Defence was correct to point ouut the vitriol extant in the ranks of the United Left faction towards Sheridan.
As for content if you have previously read the Alan McCooombes article in the Scottish Socialist Voice "Crisis in the Party The Truth" (written just after the libel verdict in 2006) then you have pretty much already read the same article - minus the swearing.
I don't want to accuse the youth of plagiarism but Alan may ask for royalties or take it out of their pocket money.
There are two major differences.
They actually support Alan McCoombes giving the affadavit to the Herald. Alan did not.
The formal SSP policy of course was not suppport the giving of affadavits to the media.
That position was supported by err.... Alan McCoombes. In the SSY article Alan Mccoombes rather strangely is defended by the youth(despite Alan's own formal opposition to his own informal action)for giving the affadavit secretly to the Herald. This breach of the SSP policy was justified on the grounds on the grounds that Tommy had briefed the media.
It is not explained why Alan did not come forward and admit it was him at the time of the strategy of defiance.
Could you explain why if you know Squeak?
Also the SSP did not openly support George's actions vis a vis the NOTW. Here the SSY think what George McNeilage did was a bit of a wheeze generally - and certainly do not criticise him for doing it.
Is there any criticism of George's actions you can make Squeak?
There is some progress though.
Although it includes a number of nasty digs at Tam's ma they seem more satire than aything really nast.
There is no wish expressed in the article that she die of cancer for example - so a step forward for the youth there I am sure we all can agree.
Cheers
Peter
bit pished now but just wanted to say I didn't write all of it; it's just a collaboration. Didnae write that bit!
Anyway, aff.
No worries squeak, it is late an we are all tired.
ATB
J
Yet, i have not read anything on these comments that give me any confidence that political lessons have been learned.
As an SPGBer we have long counselled workers organisations never to have a leadership or be structurd in such a way that permits a charismatic personality to hold undue influence. All our EC meetings are open to the public, no secret star-chamber inquisitions, no secret EC minutes with-held from the membership, our own are all posted at our website.
The lesson to be drawn is that the workers party must be open and democratic. The personal private consensual activities of members are of no concern to the party.
1 - the rules of contempt are lifted - this can be evidenced by the contempt of court conviction of McNeilage, and the contempt proceedings of Matt McColl mid trial being published by the BBC. And;
2 - a sentence must both be punative and a deterrant. Our Judicial system relys on people coming to court as witnesses, and telling the truth. For those who lie, what kind of deterrant in community service? it isn't, particularly for those with an axe to grind. In my opinion, all those who lie under oath, should recieve a custodial sentence - this case is no different.
throughout the trial, i thought Tommy did himself a great credit in the way he handled himself and his defence. I hope that this is taken into consideration.
for the avoidance of doubt, all opinions expresses are my own, and do not seek to persuade anyone into my way of thinking.
Finaly to those who attended court everyday and reported the days eveidence on this blog - you have done yourselvs proud, and i thank and congratulate you for your unbiased, fair and balanced reoprting - something that was not available anywhere else.
Watched TS former comrades queuing up on last night's TV to put the boot in.Have they not done enough damage already.....
Jack London's poem came to mind.
After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, He had some awful substance left with which He made a scab. A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a waterlogged brain, and a combination backbone made of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles
@James
Just noticed that it might have been about something else. I'll check back when the hangovers have kicked in and everyone's rested to see if I can make any more sense out of folk. :)
Merry so and so when it comes.
As Victor M. would say, "i cant believe it!" Personally thought it was heading for "not proven",but then this case has highlighted the importance of always being prepared to expect the unexpected. Many on this blog (not myself) have tried to extricate the NOTW/NI from the question of whether TS was guilty,or not.Sheridan has clearly implicated them as being central to the facts in issue. The jury has deliberated,cogitated and now decided on that. So,its one all(unless of course this is an away goal worth double(quadruple or whatever)points. An appeal against any custodial sentence(as the likelihood of "community sentence"/restorative justice is highly fanciful IMHO),is almost certain. Only a fool would speculate upon its outcome. I will however speculate that by the time such an appeal comes about,the NOTW/NI will be heavily exposed(unlike now) to what they have been up to for years.This ,if my hypothesis is correct will only add much credence to Sheridans assertions. Whether than in itself would be sufficient to cast doubt upon the safety of this conviction,of course is highly speculative IMHO. But just a reminder to all the gloaters celebrating this judgement from the rooftops---beware of the unexpected.
Thanks for the all the work. I do hope you look at getting it published in book form, with such interesting additions as the reaction of the jurers to the evidence when it was given. I recognise the restrictions you arte under, but I think it would make any book a lot better.
As to the SSY, I wonder what the miners would have made of them. A group of people dedictated to telling the truth in court. If asked, they would have said who did what, who said what and who was responsible. Afterall a principle is only worth having when it is difficult to stand by it. Otherwise you could end up like Vince Cable.
The 2006 jury were according to TS 'working class'. That was, and remains, a surprising statement either indicating that Tommy had access to information about the personal circumstances of jurors or, far more likely, that in a somewhat binary mindset good things are done by the working class and all bad deeds are at the hands of others.
I can readily understand that TS is keen to spend as much time with his family as he can and it was considerate to remind the jury of that . Did the same thoughts pass through his mind before he agreed to leave them and spend time in the Big Brother house...?
TS made much in his defence of the police investigation, and, in particular, of the five hour interview of his wife at a police station. Having seen the brief excerpts from the interview shown on the BBC, I am sure that impartial observers will agree that what we saw was a police officer properly carrying out his job of investigating the serious offence of perjury, who was asking questions in a quiet and respectful manner, and who, contrary to what has been alleged, did not accuse Mrs S of being a terrorist.
Just to say again what a worthwhile enterprise this has been - many thanks. It's been a strange story. I popped down on occasions to take pics and try to frame the story in the glasgow context.
http://glasgowalbum.blogspot.com/2010/12/swingergate-day-44-sherry-pleads-his.html
I have no brief for Sheridan at all - never liked him - but it was odd to see the man being pursued with such vigour given the quiet shelving of other Scottish stories such as the Purcell one. The BBC Scotland piece last night was nasty, left a bad taste in the mouth - and the PIRA jibe by the cop interviewing Gail Sheridan was repellent to a degree.
Anyway congratulations to you all - it is so unusual to get dispassionate and accurate reporting at this level in Scotland.
One clear lesson has come out of this. A man who represents himself has a fool for a client. Had he kept counsel, he probably could have won. Reasonable doubt? Pretty easy to suggest that a lot of testimony could have been unreliable. Paul McBride pointed out after the trial that giving up counsel was a mistake he would come to regret.
@ Peter
"As I said earlier Rolo - you wait until the end of a prizefight, you see whose standing and then you know who won. We are only coming up to Round 3 mate be patient."
Meanwhile back on earth...
Round 3!??? Sorry, but seems to me that the fight is over, victory to AP on a majority decision, and the defeated has not only lost the purse, but should have clarified what his trainer meant when he told him to "Come out swinging".
Round 3 indeed. I thought I used deadpan in some of my posts, but that deserves the Kissinger prize for satire.
The man told lies for financial gain in a court. If it was Archer, he would be showered in your contempt and rightly so.
Anyone who values the rule of law as the basis of a civilised society should applaud the fact that those lies were rooted out.
Politics has nowt to do with it.
Oh and, not sure if my last comment went through cause it said it was too long and I lost it all and can't be bothered typing it all out again, but:
The bit in the SSY article where we say "gwan yersel George!" clearly only refers to how HILARIOUS it is that he made Bob Bird strip to his undercrackers in a flat in Pollok. That is all.
It is funny how human nature follows a belief pattern, many on here have no objectivity as an independant apolitical reader the evidence was very much stacked against TS. The verdict followed the evidence being accepted as true. There seems little point in attacking one witness in isolation and the one man who was the main contradictor never gave evidence ie TS.
PS The cost of the case is irrelevant and in the end it is TS that has cost the tax payer millions (awaits censors not publishing post)
Aye Peter, Tommy may have lost a minor battle but he has still to win the war. Victory!
What was the majority?
I thought the decision by Lord Bracadale to allow TS home for Chrimbo was an extremely kind and thoughtful gesture allowing TS to fulfil his promise to his daughter. Whilst clearly TS is not the usual type of customer generally being found guilty in the dock at the High Court and obviously is not a risk or threat to society, I had anticipated when the guilty verdict had been read out that TS was going down the stairs. Three cheers to Lord Bracadale for dealing with TS in such a humane manner 2 days before Christmas!!!
Edwin mentions the quiet shelving of other Scottish stories such as the Purcell one.
For visitors he is referring to the failure of the press to report with the same detail that the Labour Leader of Scotland's largest local authority in charge of a massive budget was warned by senior members of the police that he has to be more careful when scoring his cocaine to feed his habit as some of the members of underworld he was dealing with may blackmail him. No charges or investigation into these drug dealings at all, not a penny spent on chasing these suppliers, no charges against this senior politician for possession. One man who is above the law it seems.
To all SSY/SSP who are clebrating an early Christmas yes the jury have deliberated and found Tommy guilty, so you could say that the people have spoken.
However come May the people will be asked to speak again, I believe that very few of them will place their trust in the SSP.
The SSY/SSP will be confined to be an interest group spreading their message via the internet never again will the public return any of them to the Parly.
As for honesty and integrity Squeak perhaps you could ask your mum why when the SSP membership called for an investigation into who supplied the avadavit to the Herald she denied the membership an answer?
I do presume that as a Party that have made integrity a main plank in their arguments will be happy to provide an answer.
Jim,
these are different cases altogether. If Purcell had tried to sue those who revealed his drug use, encouraged members of New Labour to lie for him in court and then labelled them scabs if they refused then you would have a useful analogy. But that didn't happen. TS brought this issue into the the realm of law when he was not compelled to do so - he can't complain when the law runs its course.
I would like to preface my comments first by stating that all those who contributed to this blog have done a magnificant job of keeping those of us interested in this trial informed.
Secondly I would like to make my political affiliations clear - I am a member of the CWI (not in any part of the UK). I knew both Tommy Sheridan and Alan McCoombes while they were members of the CWI but have not met either in close to 20 years. The views I am expressing below are my personal views - not those of the CWI.
The conviction of Tommy Sheridan is a political defeat for the left in Scotland. I couldn't care less who was or was not telling the truth in a capitalist court. I also couldn't care less about the personal behaviour of any of the individuals involved.
For many years the SSP was a becon for those on the left struggling to build a left party to fight for working class people. I pesonally place the blame for the current developments at the door of the SSP leadership and I will explain why.
When I knew Tommy Sheridan 20 years ago it was well known he was (in my home town he would have been called) a bit of a boyo. Alan McCoombes certainly knew it. I don't know if Tommy Sheridan has changed in the past 20 years and, to be honest I couldn't care less. The problem from my perspective is that I would be astonished if any one of the leadership of the SSP were not aware of Tommy Sheridans personal activities with other people. Of course while people were trying to get elected and a party needed to be build - it wasn't seen as a problem. Once significant progress waas made it appears it became a problem for others within the SSP.
The NotW article should never have been discussed at the SSP Executive meeting - it was a personal matter for Sheridan to address. Certainly a couple of individuals could have gone to Sheridan and asked him to temporarily step aside while the issue was dealt with by him - and the SSP should have publically declared that what Sheridan did in his personal life was his business.
Error number one - the issue should not have been discussed. As soon as I heard that the NotW article was out there immediately sirens went off for me and I said to myself that the SSP better not get embroiled in this. I put the blame for this on McCoombes - he should have had the smarts to realise that it would all unravel. I can only conclude that he (and others) saw it as an opportunity to remove Sheridan as Convenor and didn't think through the consequences of their actions.
Error number two - why the hell were minutes recored of the Executive meeting. If people insisted on discussing this then it should have been done completely off the record. I hold both McCoombes and Sheridan responsible for this - McCoombes should have realised the potential impact and Sheridan should have refused to discuss it if it was being recorded as a minute.
Part 2 because of size - my apologies.
From a political perspective their are two aspects which in my opinion have dealt the SSP a fatal blow (and I have serious doubts about the ability of Solidarity to survive either).
1. McCoombes providing an affidavit to the Scottish Herald. By this action he precipitated both the libel trial (the MotW were on very thin ground without it) and more importantly the criminal trial. Squeak says that her mother ever only told the truth. This may be the case - however, in the scheme of things (politically) this is actually irrelevent. I would point out that I would actually find it astonishing if Carolyn Leckie did not know Alan McCoombes intention to provide an affidavit to the Herald and it then begs the question - why the heel didn't she stop him.
2. And even more serious - the SSP support for McNeilage and his £200,000 tape. It is an absolutely disgrace (and one of the most disgusting acts ever by someone who calls himself a socialist, against another socialist) that he made this tape and then sold it to the NotW. And he claims he did it with the support of the SSP leadership. If the current SSP leadership had any modicum of principles McNeilage would have been publically tossed out of the SSP on his ear and condemned for his actions.
The court has decided that Sheridan has lied - that may be the case. But despite all the claims of the high moral ground - we do know that several members of the SSP leadership did tell porkies to the libel trial, to the police and to the criminal trial (when they were caught out).
In my opinion it is the actions of the SSP leadership that has led to a situation that Tommy Sheridan could end up in jail. Certainly the MotW are going to be licking their chops about what they will be able to say about him in the next edition - and by extension ridicule the left in Scotland (and particularly the SSP). The task of building a mass party of the working class has been set back many years as a result of this debacle and all those involved (and particularly the SSP members involved) should ahng their head in shame at giving the state and the establishment the ammunition to carry out this current assault on socialists.
poor poor tommy.
it started so bright a those years ago.now its just fading away.
anyways has anyone heard how FRANK THE BANK ROBBER got on? i didn't think he done it but you never know how its going to turn out.
@keith - TS is not a miner. He is a major headache. Now thankfully we can stop comparing politics and sex/lies as if they are one in the same. What principle was defended here? What battle against injustice waged? What workers life improved by the libel case?
TS went to court and lied purely to defend his image as a monogamous, heterosexual male. There was not a shred of politics in his case. He didn't "throw an egg at thatcher" (a comparison one comrade once made), he didn't punch a nazi or break a window at Millbank - he had sex and he lied about it - and asked others to perjure themselves purely to defend his image as a family-man hetero breeder superhero.
Mr Doleman the comment on our page was a reference to the behaviour of some folks on here - something you will be all too familiar with no doubt.
And Jim McLean - couldn't agree more. If Tam hadn't been a bam then he could be in parliament and a significant number of socialists could be in the City Chambers holding these people to account. In fact the details of the Purcell case (before it broke in the press) were brought to you exclusively and first by...SSY.
Move on, rebuild a movement of equals and never confuse political struggle with getting your hole again.
So sad that this verdict is a cause for celebration by two groups of people - the SSP and News International.
By your friends shall they know you.
Lovebug: I know Tommy isn't a miner. I also know that he has been convicted of having extra-martial sex and lying about it in court. After reading this blog I was surprised how poor the evidence against him was, especially after spending close to £2m on police time.
However I didn't make the matter of telling the truth in court a matter of political principle, the leadership of the SSP did. If telling the truth in court is a principle then as they did in this case they would do it again if summoned after witnessing workers in struggle break the law. If it isn't a matter of principle, well........
It doesn’t give any compassionate soul pleasure to contemplate a man going off to prison for a lengthy spell. But Tommy Sheridan is beyond reasonable doubt the author of his own downfall. I suspect now that his eventual sentence may very well include a punitive element for all those he pulled through the system, labelling them scabs and liars. Almost everybody whose version did not concur with Tommy’s.
It will be of little consolation to him that some seemingly repulsive characters also played bit parts. The names Bird and Coulson might spring to a reasonable mind. Anvar Khan’s performance throughout could well dissuade ordinary people from ever speaking to journalists again in their lives. It was surely suggested by their evidence that whilst they felt they had a duty to earn a lot of money for themselves and their employers by exposing “the truth” about public figures they did not feel that that duty extended to a similar burden of candour about their own activities.
By his own television admission Sheridan could have spared his wife a three year ordeal culminating in a trial at the High Court, and obtained for himself what may shortly appear to be relatively modest sentence, by accepting the inevitable and pleading guilty early doors. Dispensing for the second time with legal representation in court was another reckless gamble. One wonders what advice Donald Findlay offered that also resulted in his exit from the case, though it is tempting to speculate. Throughout this entire sorry saga one thread gleams: Tommy’s woeful judgement in almost everything he touched.
As an active socialist and trade unionist I am not at all ashamed to say that I have broken the law on numerous occasions.
I have been on picket lines which broke the Tory/New Labour anti-union laws, I have refused to accept the direction of the Police on demos, I have been involved in occupations and sit down protests over the last 35 years.
I will never feel comfortable again working with people who seem to have so enormous a respect for the law of the ruling class that they are prepared to give evidence against comrades to the Police.
How can we ever be sure that they wouldn't use underhand methods like filming people without their knowledge in order to supply it to an anti-working class newspaper like the Sun or the News of the World for a price ?
I would urge other socialists to be aware of these possibilities when interacting with the SSP in future.
Let me repeat again. TS was NOT "in struggle". He was in bed. It's like saying "would you cross a picket line you scab?" when someone crosses a road.
We break laws, we lie about it and continue to do so when necessary and support others in doing so - but if I saw someone murder an old lady I would grass on that person. Im not saying TS killed yer granny but I am making the point that everyone is pretending not to get - there was no struggle here, nothing to scab on.
We as a movement have an extra responsibility to hold our leaders to account. Call me hyperbolic if you like but when you lose the ability to challenge your so called leaders you might as well pack your bags for Siberia.
Thankfully its not that bleak. We are entering a period of massive struggle. The students didnt need a glorious leader - they have thousands of leaders and so do we. Lets lead ourselves as far away from these dark days as we can.
I note the the SSP Statement 24.12.10:
"What is more important is that all those who have been falsely denounced by him and his allies as liars, plotters, perjurers and forgers have been cleared."
That is not quite correct is it? I suggest there may be a bit of wishful thinking there. The jury was considering specific matters it was not not a more general good health verdict on the Crow witnesses.
The leader of the SSP Colin Fox, for example, claimed that Tommy met him and allegedly suborned him at the Beanscene cafe. The Crown pulled the charge before it was established one way or the other that Colin was truthful.
Now that it appears Tommy's location that morning was not in an Edinburgh hotel as Colin had claimed it is open for any interested parties ie. police, journalists, private investigators or Sheridans team to investigate the matter. It often happens in high profile cases that wrinkles like this are looked into and significant matters emerge.
As for the 3 women who the NOTW claimed Sheridan had adulterous affairs with.
1) Ms McGuire: Ms McGuire was an SSP member who claimed she had an affair with Sheridan. The NOTW paid her for a story. The jury in this trial did not find that Ms McGuire had told the truth in the libel trial as the Crown did not bring her as a witness. The police considered it likely that she was not telling the truth. Quite why the SSP believe her story is not yet clear.
2) The jury did not find that Ms Khan told the truth in the libel trial. In as much as we can tell at this point the jury did not believe the claims of Ms Khan of sexual relationship continuing with Sheridan after he was married. I say that as they deleted that part of the indictment.
3) Ms Trolle:
Ms Trolle was an SSP member who claimed to have had affairs with Sheridan. Ms Trolle denied offers by the NOTW to her in the civil trial and this trial. The NOTW confirmed these offers in this trial. The jury did not make a judgment on that matter of who was telling the truth as it was not part of the indictment. It may be lloked into in the future or it may not. (See Megrahi/Lockerbie appeal for context)
TBC:
@keith79
Matters of principle: You seem to be suggesting that some principles, such as telling the truth, are not worth having, but should be applied selectively in different cicrcumstances.
As well as being horrifically morally relative (who is to judge when truth telling is the right thing or not?), it sounds alarmingly like the end justifying the means. Now which moustache wearing hero of the revolution coined that phrase?
People who take the view that committing perjury to defend Tommy's lies and infidelities is justified because he is a left winger scare the bejesus out of me: what sort of society would be built in such an image?
Maybe those still in thrall to Tommy should devote their future energies to busting him out of jail, if commiting crime for such a great leader is no issue at all. I'm sure there's more than a few would swing for him.
Verdict CONT:
Indeed there are a lot of unsual aspects to this matter of Ms Khan and Ms Trolle.
Particularly the indictment deleted by the jury concerning Ms Khan relates to Ms Trolle is a point of interest.
The jury deleted indictments that Tommy had sex with Ms Khan but appear to have upheld an indictment that he had visited Cupids in Manchester.
Ms Khan and Ms Trolle BOTH gave testimony that they were driven there by Tommy TOGETHER and indulged in group sex TOGETHER with Tommy.
Ms Trolle gave evidence that the sex was lengthy and that Ms Khan was barely conscious by the end of it.
The jury, however, found that Sheridan had not had sexual relations with Ms Khan after he was married.
So that does not appear to me at this point to hang together with the other parts of the verdict about Cupids.
As Ms Trolle's and Ms Khans rafts are so tightly bound together on this specific matter of the Cupids I would suggest it MAY be regarded as legally perverse of the jury to split them apart and believe just one of the women. (IF that is what they did).
If there was no such trip to CUPIDS then there does not seem to be much grounds to hold Ms Trolle as a credible witness for the other alleged sex.
Similarly Ms Trolle's very detailed evidence abou sex in the marital bed was not upheld.
If the jury chose to disbelieve her on that matter then its odes beg the question why they gave her credibility on other matters.
If there was no such trip then presumably the verdict on SSP meeting confession evidence could fall away as well as it would be unsafe.
Also we perhaps do not know yet fully who got paid by the NOTW.
There was disputed evidence on that matter.
If any significant payments or offers were not disclosed to the jury then it would be a serious matter. See (Megrahi/Lockerbie appeal for legal context).
The forensics concerning the NOTW video is perhaps the dog that has not barked yet as well.
It is on matters such as perversity, problems with lack of disclosure and forensics that appeals hinge.
There may be an appeal in this mattter or there may not be. We do not know.
Simply put I was a Crown witness in these matters I would not yet be counting my chickens as that old scouser Jim Larkin may or may not have said once.
Peter ..... I like the way you ate trying to turn this as a perverse verdict. However re the tape and the missing forensic I believe the tape was examined by crown experts and found to be Mr s. If it wasn't him do you not think the crown would be risking everything by using it?
So where does that leave you, Mr s and us?
I believe that you and Mr s will always say it isn't him on the tape. As for the rest of us I think when it comes out that it has been forensically proven to be him will just believe justice has been done.
I'm sorry to say to you what I've just said. You truly believe tommy and everything he stands for but maybe you will stand back and be able to see out of the goldfish bowl.
Peter: You state above that
"The jury, however, found that Sheridan had not had sexual relations with Ms Khan after he was married."
As a matter of law, the jury did not find it proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sheridan had sexual realations with Ms Khan at that time, which is somewhat different.
131.The Daily Record joins conspiricy.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2010/12/24/nottingham-forest-boss-billy-davies-joined-tommy-sheridan-in-swingers-orgies-claim-two-women-86908-22804398/
Wonder if Tommy will sue them too
its all about the hegelian dialectic
@Peter
I'm really enjoying reading your efforts at finding grounds for appeal.
However, there was only one little problem:
"Ms Trolle's very detailed evidence abou sex in the marital bed was not upheld.
If the jury chose to disbelieve her on that matter then its odes beg the question why they gave her credibility on other matters."
That particular charge was never corroborated, as I recall - similar to Fox's Beanscene allegations. Doesn't make the witness any more or less credible as a result - as Prentice went to great pains to point out to the jury - just that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict.
Apart from that, keep plugging away.
Good grief Peter, careful what you're saying here re contempt. For one minute I thought the jury had delivered a verdict.
I know, my name is going in the book as well...
Frank, SSY don't hold you accountable for all the countless horrible comments and smears that have been left by other people on your blog about us and the SSP and various witnesses.
If someone wants to say that about some of the comments on your blog then that doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, take it up with them in the comments - don't ask us to take it down as if we're responsible for it. I've never asked you to take down any horrible comments left on your blog about my friends and comrades. I've not asked anyone on SU to take down vile lying comments left about my boyfriend, it's Andy Newman's problem if he wants to let his site be as horrible as that, and they stand as a public testament to how disgusting some Sheridanistas are (although I did ask him to do SOMETHING once BNP trolls easily invaded and blended in with the arguments of the "scabby scabby scab scab scab" crap of the Sheridan brigade - letting the BNP take over the "socialist" blogosphere is a step too far).
Again I'll repeat - the comment in question you've taken offence to was clearly not directed at you but directed at some of the comments on the blog that you run. No one in our comments section called you the c-word.
I'm simply not falling for the SWP-ish faux-indignation over the c-word, that's a derailing argument that's been far too frequently treaded and I have no interest in arguing it again.
Thank you for the invaluable service you provided with this blog. Please stop moaning around the interwebs about SSY's blog comments being to your dissatisfaction as if it's our problem though when you could just deal with it yourself in our comments if it really bothers you, ta!
Actually, had second thoughts Frank - we'll cut you a deal. We'll delete the reference to the c-word in relation to some of the comments left on this blog if you delete every reference to the word 'scab' and every comment that pours scorn on Barbara, Carolyn, Rosie, Katrine etc.. Deal?
To reply to a few of Peter's points.
The SSP never adopted a position that it believed Ms McGuire or Ms Khan.
I have had a look at train times and it is perfectly possibly that TS spent the night at a hotel in Cumnock, travelled to Edinburgh, and had time to meet Colin Fox in Beanscene before the executive meeting at 1 p.m..
@ J Waldon
"I will never feel comfortable again working with people who seem to have so enormous a respect for the law of the ruling class that they are prepared to give evidence against comrades to the Police."
I presume however that you would be prepared to work with people who ask their comrades to lie to cover up their tedious sexual exploits and protect their family-man image, then when their comrades refuse, slander them in the capitalist press and have them forced into court anyway, then when they still refuse to lie, denounce them as scabs while on the payroll of the capitalist press?
I would put it to you that by carrying on in this manner, Tommy had already forfeited any right to solidarity from his former comrades.
Peter,
It's interesting to ponder on the possibility of an appeal.As I understand it the appeal court will not try to substitute its own findings in fact for those of the jury.
The main issues would be:-
1) Did the Crown introduce evidence that it was not entitled to.
2) Did the Crown fail to disclose material to the defence which could otherwise undermine the crown case or strengthen the defence case
3)Was Mr Sheridan prevented from introducing evidence which would have been helpful to his case.
4) Was there 'oppression' (narrow term of Scots Law applies here not portmanteau trot usage)
5)Did the judge mis-direct the jury.
I'd have thought that somewhere along the line there will be something somewhere that an appeal can hang on so to that extent TS might as well go for it. On the other hand he should consider that an appeal bench are even less like a political rally than a jury is.He should stick with a good brief for once in his puff and let somebody else do the talking..
And, sorry Peter, I don't think that any appeal will spend much time pondering journey times between Hamilton , Glasgow and Manchester and all the other stuff that you've pondered over at such length. The jury did that. Move on, there's nothing to see now...
He may not have been worthy of your solidarity, but no socialist would have taped another and sold it to the News of The World.
That would seem to be the central point to those of us who have watched from the sidelines while the SSP conducted themselves in the most reactionary way possible
"He may not have been worthy of your solidarity, but no socialist would have taped another and sold it to the News of The World.
That would seem to be the central point to those of us who have watched from the sidelines while the SSP conducted themselves in the most reactionary way possible"
well put
Hello Sarah, I'm happy to post your opinions however may I make one point?
My name is James. Friends and family know me as "Frank" since that was my Father's name. He was "big Frank" and I was "wee Frank
As Sarah you are not "frieds or family, as far as I know, I would ask if you would use my givren name. I know that may sound a bit petty but it matters to me, especially at this time of year when I miss my dad.
Thanks (and happy Christmas)
J (aka F)
JAmes
Oh and PS Sarah, there was always an email address posted here that allowed people to complain directly about comments to me. Whenever that was done the comment in question was removed. I would argue that if people had an issue with a particular comment why did they not take the first, simple step of asking for it to be removed?
Sarah, please don't remove any comments on the SSY site, it's been an invaluable tool for me to explain to non Scottish friends what the SSP are like. Pretty much any of the posts on there explain the differences between the SSP and the rest of the left far more eloquently than I ever could. Keep up the good work :-)
It's that time of year again and on a point which may be of interest to Dr Nicky (who got a bit of stick from me - perhaps harshly -for his bible faux pas)and Tommy's mum may I quote Jim Larkin one last time ....
"There is no antagonism between the Cross and socialism!
A man can pray to Jesus the Carpenter, and be a better socialist for it.
Rightly understood, there is no conflict between the vision of Marx and the vision of Christ.
I stand by the Cross and I stand by Karl Marx.
Both Capital and the Bible are to me Holy Books."
--------------
As regards George McNeilage, Keith Baldersarra, Alan McCoombes and Colin Fox they now have the festive season time to reflect on their actions.
Our Jim (who also did a bit of jail after running into powerful interest) may well have begged the question What Would Jesus Have Done? (never mind Leon).
Render unto Caesar or stand with the leper?
Anyway I think even Tommy will be having a break from all this for a few days so a Merry Xmas to even the practising atheists here (like me).
And for those others as Dave Allen used to say "May your god go with you."
without being too sycophantic,i also applaud Whatsy,and especially Frank(James) because thats whom i have always known you as.So many points.To judi,thats it. Sheridan could flummox those sad(middle class,presumably) Edinburghers,but he couldnae con us(presumumably,working class),Weedgies(no offence meant). Oh,the irony indeed.To Anonymous(what one i have no idea),who blames Sheridans downfall due to representing himself.Seems to me he hit the jury for 5 or so hours with everything but the kitchen sink.Thats why i restate my(mistaken) belief it was heading for "not proven".To the other (maybe same,who knows) Anonymous replying to Edwin & Jim Mclean(hope hes not Dundee Utds. ex-manager,ho,ho!)stuff re. Steven Purcell. Yes,you make some valid poits. However,you totally dont get it do you?Again,"none so blind as those who will not see".Seems to me that Sheridans heinous crime is being Sheridan. The combined might of the police,NOTW,Crown,aided and abetted by so many ,especially SSP has produced this outcome. Thats not some wild fantastical conspiracy theory,its clearly the facts and not(this time anyway)IMHO.Funny how there are those ,especially on the Left who see conspiracies everywhere.Then there are others who always repudiate such claims. Then there are those who are selective about which conspiracies they believe and champion.I digress. To return to Mr Purcell alleged coke habit stuff which he himself(and his underground criminal suppliers) walk away from.Its maybe a pity(joking of course) that the polis hadnt taken Sheridan aside and gave him warnings about his close associates blackmailing him and bringing him down!Locally ,there has been a high profile criminal investigation and convictions of six men"concerned in the supply of drugs"(as the papers described to deluge Dundee with a flood of heroin). One(though not the MR BIG) is a multi millionaire property businessman from Forfar. He has been told to expect a 3year (max) sentence. Yet TS faces the possibility of up to 5 years for perjury. Speaks volumes for our wonderful judicial system ,doesnt it? Lastly, to all those triumphant moral Truth crusaders out there. Over the festive period,if you didnt get a good book from Santa,never mind. I would commend you utilise some of your ,hopefully,spare time to read Leon Trotskys "Their Morals and Ours"(1938). LOL . And again Frank & Whatsy,well done. Merry Marxmas.
I've just noticed the comment above about George McNeilage being a professional actor, playing parts in several productions including Taggart, Sweet Sixteen, American Cousins, and The container.
Why on earth didn't TS raised that point in court? It felt like I'd been smacked in the mouth when I read it.
Hello Keep, it was mentioned in court during Mr McNeailage's cross examination, that section did not survive editing through.
In summary TS put it to GM that he had appeared in a number of films and was a professional actor. Mr McNeilage responded that his part was small, and rarely speaking parts.
TS asked if GM had learned from the film director Ken Loach about his technique of one actor having a script while the other improvised and suggested this was how the disputed tape was mad, GM described this as "nonsense" and a "fantasy"
The poor people of Scotland have lost.
This fallout is sad, in the heartbreaking sense more than any other.
Tommy was an inspirational, charismatic leader who was undoubtedly key to the amazing success of the SSP in a short period of time, culminating in the gobsmacking result of 6 MSPs in our new young Parliament. Who knows what heights may have been scaled from there?
Somewhere along the line, he lost the plot in his personal life. Nobody's business but his.
But he asked others to lie for him too. Seeing it as a politically disastrous strategy, as well as wrong, they said no - but neither did they reveal the truth, for 2 whole years, and even then it had to be prised out them in court. In an arena which would not have existed were it not for Tommy going on the offensive.
Tommy took up arms against a paper despite knowing it was pretty much telling the truth. He could have written about it, shouted about it, denied it outside court till he was blue in the face, or ignored it altogether - either way, it would not have ended in jail, and the SSP may not have splintered.
Make no mistake - he was architect of his own misfortunes, for reasons of personal embarrassment and ego. He was prepared to take a whole progressive movement down with him, and he did. That is a very big misjudgment for anyone who calls himself a socialist.
Socialism is about the movement; the collective. The movement would at one time have taken a bullet for Tommy, but it seems he wouldn't take even a self-inflicted wound for it.
We should all be hanging our heads in sorrow at what may have been right now, but this wayward son should be hanging his lowest of all.
I would suggest that those who went to the police with "evidence" with the intention of getting Mr Sheridan jailed are those who should avoid ever calling themselves socialists. We are told they were upset about being called liars, many things upset me in life but I have yet to wander to to Fettes with the media in tow to try and get a comrade jailed.
The SSP leadership may feel smug now, we all saw them on TV this week. I would suggest however that their pariah status will not take long to become obvious, even to them.
When Tommy Sheridan is, as sees inevitable, put in jail the SSP will be finished as a force in Scotland. End of.
"When Tommy Sheridan is, as sees inevitable, put in jail the SSP will be finished as a force in Scotland. End of."
The SSP was finished when they joint the NOTW, in my view. The SSP leaders my try and talk their why out of it and blame Sheridan. Before blaming others look at your own actions. No one on the left could celebrate any out come, why are the SSP celebrating with the NOTW.
Rolo Tomasi said that the SSP "had to have it prised out of them"........you are having a laugh my friend. The SSP leadership were briefing against Sheridan to anyone who would listen (including the press), and McCombes went through a pantomime of going to jail for contempt of court when he had already given an affidavit to the Herald which included the minutes - it's all in the blog - don't buy this "more in sorrow than anger " bollocks that Leckie and co are peddling.
There were numerous ways that the SSP could have disassociated themselves from the original libel case, and they initiated the perjury trial by going to the Police with the minutes and the NOTW with McNeilage's tape.
Nobody had to "prise" information out of the SSP, they offered it with a big red pretend socialist bow on the top !
They are collaborators, pure and simple.
Oh get real people. Your party's most publicly influential figure goes rogue and starts attacking the party leadership in the press while launching "a fightback" within the ranks to overthrow that leadership (all on the basis of him being caught with his willy oot let's not forget) and you don't fight fire with fire?
You probably won't find any in the SSP who now think that they shouldn't have just ratified and published the executive minutes, but this was naively avoided in order to protect TS's dignity. Everything that followed was damage limitation. Perhaps the SSP's actions were not completely beyond reproach - either those of elected leaders or individuals acting alone - but compare those to Tommy's crime: smashing the gains of a globally influential left unity project to cover his libido. Who will history forgive? I know who my money's on.
Those who think otherwise are either misinformed, star-struck or happy to see the SSP crushed for their own sectarian reasons.
Tiara Misu (or what ever yr name is @5.38) One of the shorter but more pertinent posts re the verdict. Well done..
"a globally influential left unity project"
I'm glad to see the SSP's penchant for self-grandiose rhetoric has not been lost in the aftermath of this case.
"Who will history forgive"
Ah the old history will judge line, much used by those who had erred, Blair after Iraq and Hitler in the bunker spring to mind as examples of that sort of argument.
The day Tommy Sheridan goes to jail is the day you are finished, I don't need to await the verdict of history to know that.
I don't think "history" will forgive George McNeilage for taping Tommy Sheridan and selling it to the News of The World !!!
Matt P, yes I would be very "happy to see the SSP crushed", I think their role in this horrible case has been reprehensible, and unfortunately if they are not crushed they will do the same to someone else whose sexual predilictions they don't approve of.
A thoughtful piece Rolo. Like me – like many – perhaps you can only replay this tragedy in disbelief.
I’m afraid I have to take issue with you on a couple of points though, and they may be fundamental to the self destruction we have all witnessed. I can’t see that there was any plot worthy of the name that extended further forward more than a few minutes.
There was, there is, only ever one trick, one gear: charge, tackle, get in tae thum. The ultimate potential of the people is fatally hamstrung by this red mist, by such lack of discipline, by such poverty of judgement.
The toffs have not prevailed for hundreds of years by charging at every red rag ever waved in front of them. Labour largely hated Blair. Arguably Cameron is even less popular with the Tories. They’ve learned to take a hit, regroup, plan ahead, bide their time, focus on the big prize, maintain discipline, divorce ego from strategy.
Contrast this with the vitriolic personal divisions of the Scottish left in response to this case. Divided and conquered. And then some.
Why did the gentrification of Tommy Sheridan so inflame his own kind? If that’s in dispute as well, see TS’s answer to Brian Taylor as replayed on the BBC laugh-in at the expense of socialism. How did Tommy learn to effortlessly answer the question so dishonestly? How might his answer be distinguished from the vile sophistry of Blair and Brown, Clegg and Cameron?
What is so wrong or unusual if Alan McCombes did write some, most or all of Sheridan’s newspaper columns? Campbell wrote Blair’s, I assume Coulson writes Cameron’s. That’s not a “mouthpiece”, that’s a figurehead. That’s how it works. Progress was being made by adopting that model. Where was the discipline that brought the necessary self restraint? The judgement that put the interests of the collective above the ego trip of the individual? They were self evidently absent. The movement was sacrificed to restrain one ego. Why?
Tommy’s little foibles are not unique, even in recent history. Jeremy Thorpe had a similar addiction to danger and the Libbies now sup at the table of power.
I look at the causes of Scottish socialist destruction – maybe decimation is a more accurate word but they’re neither pretty – and I get it. It can’t fly. The individuals harness or hijack the collective to escape it and the collective kills the individuals in jealous hatred, self destructing in the process. How terminally sad for the people.
Say It Ain't So Joe said...
Peter,
It's interesting to ponder on the possibility of an appeal.As I understand it the appeal court will not try to substitute its own findings in fact for those of the jury.
The main issues would be:-
1) Did the Crown introduce evidence that it was not entitled to.
2) Did the Crown fail to disclose material to the defence which could otherwise undermine the crown case or strengthen the defence case
3)Was Mr Sheridan prevented from introducing evidence which would have been helpful to his case.
4) Was there 'oppression' (narrow term of Scots Law applies here not portmanteau trot usage)
5)Did the judge mis-direct the jury.
I'd have thought that somewhere along the line there will be something somewhere that an appeal can hang on so to that extent TS might as well go for it. On the other hand he should consider that an appeal bench are even less like a political rally than a jury is.He should stick with a good brief for once in his puff and let somebody else do the talking..
And, sorry Peter, I don't think that any appeal will spend much time pondering journey times between Hamilton , Glasgow and Manchester and all the other stuff that you've pondered over at such length. The jury did that. Move on, there's nothing to see now..
---------------------
Hello Say It Aint So Joe,
An interesting post that I will come back to.
There are a number of grounds of appeal that I have identified that I would like to post.
Maybe for any discussion about possible grounds of appeal could be dealt with in a new thread maybe with some legal guidance from James as to what can and cannot be said.
Or I could just post it and see if it gets past our vigilant moderators.
------------
Unfortunately Joe you finished your post with what to my mind was a silly statement.
I know the difference between questions of and questions of law.
You are not quite correct by the way. Matters of fact can be raised not just of law can be raised - on the very strict test of perversity and in certain jurisdictions.
I maintain my view that there are potentially grounds to regard the decision as legally perverse. The correct jurisdiction for that matter is something I am not clear on and which I will come back to.
The journey times issue is NOT one of these perversity issues - to my mind at least. Indeed nowhere have I suggested that journey times would be a ground of appeal that I would raise.
The journey times between Manchester and Glasgow were, however, relevant earlier in the trial as if Tommys alibis were to be believed he was in Glasgow/Hamiliton until the late evening and therefore could not have been at orgies in Manchester & Wigan as the Crown say.
As the jury (APPEARS) to believe Tommy was in Cupids on 27.11.02 the alibis (APPEAR) perhaps now to fade away.
But if the jury accepted the alibi evidence AND that there was a visit to CUPIDS the journey times issue would have been relevant to consideration of perversity as the alibi and visit could not possibly in my calcualtion of timkes both be correct.
This matter of journey times and alibis may well get a run out in the grounds of resisitance to the NOTW challenge to the libel verdict.
But I do not think it will form an appeal ground in this matter and therefore did not suggest it.
So Joe for suggesting that I said something I did not you are now on my naughty list of posters who serve up red herrings and erect "straw men".
You will of course be placed back on my nice list if you withdraw that part of your comment.
Cheers,
Peter
@Peter
Re: "As the jury (APPEARS) to believe Tommy was in Cupids on 27.11.02 the alibis (APPEAR) perhaps now to fade away.
But if the jury accepted the alibi evidence AND that there was a visit to CUPIDS the journey times issue would have been relevant to consideration of perversity as the alibi and visit could not possibly in my calcualtion of timkes both be correct. "
Peter - as you well know, the deliberations in the jury room are not officially known and cannot be grounds for appeal or be part of any subsequent court case that may arise.
I may not have the legal brain you possess, but I'm pretty sure there is no need for your (APPEARS) - they did believe TS was in Cupids, by at least an 8-6 majority.
Any perversity in that part of the verdict is not evident in the logic of the verdict, without knowing the deliberations the jury went through to reach that verdict. And we won't ever know that. Any remaining perversity you might detect would appear to be between what you hoped the jury would conclude and what they did actually conclude. I don't believe this is grounds for appeal.
I'm glad you came to that conclusion, too, no matter how you arrived at it.
As for "I know the difference between questions of and questions of law" - I'm sure it's a typo, but I couldn't help tittering. Please forgive me.
Re: Whatsy said...
@Peter
I'm really enjoying reading your efforts at finding grounds for appeal.
However, there was only one little problem:
"Ms Trolle's very detailed evidence abou sex in the marital bed was not upheld.
If the jury chose to disbelieve her on that matter then its odes beg the question why they gave her credibility on other matters."
That particular charge was never corroborated, as I recall - similar to Fox's Beanscene allegations. Doesn't make the witness any more or less credible as a result - as Prentice went to great pains to point out to the jury - just that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict.
Apart from that, keep plugging away.
December 24, 2010 9:38 PM
Hello Whatsy,
For your further enjoyment I have prepared various grounds of appeal in between my Turkey butties, boxes of Black Magic and Wallander.
I will post these shortly.
I am also enjoying your efforts to uphold the verdict and your attempts to undermine the various grounds I have raised that show the possible perversity of this verdict.
With respect to your efforts in that regard I do think you will have to get up a bit earlier though to catch this particular worm.
The Crown you will note did NOT withdraw the points on the indictment relating to the Marital Bed - even though, as you rightly say, it lacked any corroboration for that indictment.
You may wish to ponder why they did not also withdraw the Marital Bed matter if corroboration was at issue.
I suggest if the Crown had removed the Marital Bed issue before Tommys summing up it could been fatal for the Crown. Consider the following.
TBC:
Corroboration and Deletions Issue Cont:
Tommy would possibly focused on the fact of the removal of that indictment as proof that the Crown did not have faith in the evidence of Ms Trolle.
It would have led to the undermining of the main Crown witnesses Trolle. As the jury did not uphold Khans evidence of an affair (and indeed MGuire did not even appear) if the Crown had removed this Marital Bed claim it could have meant that none of the 3 women were believed about sex claims.
That would have led to a Bizzarro World situation that the Crown could not show the women were telling the truth about sex but would ask that Tommy be found guilty for allegedly admitting to such alleged sex to the SSP executive!
So what was the Crown to do? Rock and a hard place for them.
Leaving it in, however, led to the now rather bizaare situation where the jury requested to remove it.
You seem to INDICATE (although you cannot KNOW this) that this charge was deleted by jury as it understood it could not be upheld on the technical legal question of corroboration rather than simply just not believing Ms Trolle evidence on this specific matter.
If you follow your logic through Whatsy it does appear that you consider that the charge should not have been put to the jury.
By consequence I consider your logic leads to a suggestion that the jury knows more about the law of corroboration than the judge, the Crown and the Defence who should have stopped that charge proceeding to the jury.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm not sure that is sustainable Whatsy. But I do not wish to put words in your mouth so maybe you could explain your point further.
I suggest IMHO that it is rather more likely the jury simply did not believe the evidence of Ms Trolle on the Marital Bed issue. I suggest that the technical, but important, issue of cooroboration was not behind their request for deletion of it.
If that is so it leaves us with a rather perverse situation of the jury not upholding a central indictment on the Marital Bed issue - to which there were only two possible explanations.
Either Tommy is telling the truth about the Marital Bed or Ms Trolle is telling the truth.
They cannot both be telling the truth.
This cannot be regarded as a problem of recollection as Ms Trolle has tried to explain away her other apparent errors of memory.
So I ask again how is it possible for the jury to accept Ms Trolle was telling the truth about the sex elsewhere if they did not (as it APPEARS they did NOT here) accept her very detailed evidence on the Marital Bed issue.
IF (and I stress if) Trolle cannot be believed about her very detailed evidence on the Marital Bed issue can she (beyond a reasonable doubt) be trusted on the other matters.
Of course the jury may have just been nice to Gail by deleting this hurtful indictment but it just does not add up to me.
This Marital Bed deletion issue taken with the apparent collapse of the Khan indictment about an alleged ongoing affair (as that charge was also deleted) raises concerns as to logic.
The deletion of the Khan evidence of the ongoing affair must in my mind bleed over into other evidence and speicifically undo (in my opinion)her evidence of the sex on the Cupids trip.
I do therefore regard the possible illogicality of this verdict as reaching the strict standard necessary to show perversity. I am not sure how this can be raised in Scotland if at all but I am looking at it. All simply my opinion of course.
Cheers,
Peter
@Peter
Re: If you follow your logic through Whatsy it does appear that you consider that the charge should not have been put to the jury.
As do you:
The Crown you will note did NOT withdraw the points on the indictment relating to the Marital Bed - even though, as you rightly say, it lacked any corroboration for that indictment.
The jury may have logically and sensibly concluded that there was sufficient, reliable, credible & corroborated evidence to convict TS for having lied about having an affair with Trolle – e.g. the assignation in the Dundee flat with two witnesses – but that there was no corroboration of the visit to the Sheridan home, so even if they fully believed Trolle regarding this, they could not convict – hence the deletion.
Both you and I believe the Crown may well have made an error on keeping this in the charge, and while I reckon the most likely resolution of this was that the jury dealt with it pretty sensibly by deleting it, you reckon it was a perverse verdict because it was too sensible of the jury to have done such a thing, so instead they must have thought Trolle was lying, but convicted TS on this charge anyway. Nice logic! Perverse indeed.
I guess you have a lower opinion of the jury than I do. Oh well.
And then "By consequence I consider your logic leads to a suggestion that the jury knows more about the law of corroboration than the judge, the Crown and the Defence who should have stopped that charge proceeding to the jury. "
I'm not sure that really matters much, but Bracadale dealt with one of Sheridan's objections about a charge being put to the jury without corroboration (can't remember which one) by saying he would advise the jury fully on the corroboration required to convict, and it would be up to them to apply this in their deliberations on the evidence and charges. Whether uncorroborated charges should ever make it to the jury at the end, I don't know. I look forward to you, or someone with a good level of relevant legal expertise, enlightening me.
Regarding your comment “I am also enjoying your efforts to uphold the verdict and your attempts to undermine the various grounds I have raised that show the possible perversity of this verdict.”, I'm pleased I'm providing you with some enjoyment on these cold days. I'd rather you look on my efforts as intended to improve your arguments for an appeal, rather than as undermining them, as I'm sure you'd agree a logical appeal would be much more likely to succeed than a frivolous one.
Whatsy,
Just seen your post 7.57pm
The question is out there?
Why did Prentice put an uncorroborated charges to the jury?
You indicate that I think it was a mistake. Thats not quite right is it.
I think you think it was a "mistake" corrected by the judge and then by the jury - but you do not know what the discussed at all so that is speculative.
I think that as Prentice must know the law on corroboration it could not be a "mistake".
There is a possibility therefore that it was a deliberate device and if it was sufficiently legally improper (may or may not) that it may be one of the matters that could undermine the safety of this verdict.
As we were not in the jury room we have no idea how this (possible) device could have affected the jury.
As you say we need someone to explain this to us.
I still do regard it as very problematic that the jury could delete the evidence of Khan of an affair and delete the Trolle evidence of the marital bed but apparently uphold their other testimony.
That matter in development :) for as (discussed)it is very tricky to overturn a jury verdict on grounds of perversity - which the NOTW will no doubt find to be the case in the libel appeal.
Cheers
Peter
@Peter
Re: "I think that as Prentice must know the law on corroboration it could not be a "mistake"."
So you're saying Prentice, hardly the most flamboyant and brash of QCs, intentionally put a small uncorroborated element of one segment of a charge to the jury, risking they would acquit on that whole segment as a result.
I don't see what could be gained by doing that, especially when there had been multiple deletions already. If Prentice was indeed as infallible as you seem to assume (I must confess I did not spot your high regard for Prentice's talents when the trial was in progress), he could easily have deleted this little portion of the charge without much a to-do, and still got the conviction that the jury eventually delivered.
As to the rest of your post, if even you are uncertain of its merits as grounds for appeal, I suggest we quietly set it aside and trust the appeal judge will not be troubled by it.
I'm still stunned by this verdict - the changing testimonies by the crown witnesses and and the revelations over the last few weeks - one particular off the cuff remark by Rosie Kane about taking bets in parliament about who the MSP was in the NOTW article- was this really the best use of her time? - and the votes that got her there? - unbelievable that she could ever represent people in poverty and their interests.
Anon 11.03pm
The thespic Ms Kane's performances in the parliament and her (less enjoyable) turns on the stand in the libel trial and the perjury trial are now stuff of legend.
The interview that our Rosie gave to the Daily Record after the perjury trial gives her measure.
Put it this way - I used to be in favour of PR.
Cheers and HNY,
Peter
PS: Why not pick a user name next time you post Anon.
It is then easier for posters to discuss with you rather than multiple Anons.
Try putting "Sarah Bernhardt" in the URL / name function you will get the BAFTA for wit.
Post a Comment