"Only now, in the bleak light of January, is it possible to revisit this shabby little episode in Scottish broadcasting history and to ask one or two unaddressed questions about it."
The full article can be found Here
(the documentary itself is unfortunately no longer available on BBC iPlayer it can however be found online)
19 comments:
To "biased" sorry but I don't publish personal attacks here, especially when they are directed at me,
Best Regards
James
seriously where are all these people coming from? They seem to be turning up from nowhere just to chime in and get themselves noticed for 5 minutes.
Please give us peace.
Good work James.
James,
I hope that you do not mind me reposting my reaction after viewing the BBC documentary on the evening of the announcement of the guilty verdict. It may help some who did not see the no longer available video.
paw said...
I really am disturbed by the appearance of footage of police interviews, in police premises of Tommy Sheridan and Gail. This appears in the BBC Documentary; The rise and Lies of Tommy Sheridan, which was on late in the evening about eight hours after the verdict was delivered by the jury.
It can been seen here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xp4ps/The_Rise_and_Lies_of_Tommy_Sheridan/
For those beyond these shores, This is footage from the police interview room! From about 5 minutes into the program we are shown video in which he admits to having 3 in a bed sex which included an unnamed Scottish Footballer. This event took place, I believe, before Tommy was married.
We also see in other footage which appears to be taken in the same room, footage of Gail Sheridan being interviewed by a police officer. She remains silent during the interview and the officer suggests that she has been trained in this method of approaching police interrogation as this is an known IRA technique for dealing with interrogation.
Where did this footage come from? Well, obviously the police. How can it be legal to show this, even now?
"The BBC has obtained these police interview tapes", says the presenter.
How?
Was the News of the World in any way.
Or is this standard practice? A very bad precedent, anyway.
" I refuse to answer your questions, officer, as a video recording may be given to the BBC, and excerpts broadcast."
It appears that Tommy Sheridan is going to mount an appeal. He has just been handed evidence that the police were out to get him.
I believe that Sheridan was guilty and that the jury did a good job of handling the evidence presented to them.
I also believe that;
- The police targeted him unreasonably.
- The News of the World is an organisation that considers itself above the law, and the legal establishment are quite happy with this.
- The police have a cosy relationship with the news of the World, which led to police investigation of mobile phone being very restricted. In the end Glenn Mulcaire and another were found to be guilty of charges. No one higher in the NotW was charged.
Mulcaire was called to the stand in this case, as we know from this blog, but had a sick note, so was not required to attend. How convenient is that?
So Tommy was guilty, this does not mean they weren't out to get him.
December 26, 2010 1:28 PM
Biased at points but right in others.
Not the Bestest of friends with Solidarity et al but this trial was not in the public interest and the NoTW appeal would have dealt with it all without anybody risking the gaol.
But the article's premise is flawed. The last time the BBC cleared it's shedule for an hour long journalistic film about Sheridan was er 2006 when he won the libel trial and they broadcast 'sex, lies, and socialism' that night. In both cases they will have produced 2 docs, edited them together and attachd bits depending on the verdict
The thing that struck me about the BBC documentary was the amount of time they gave the prosecution witnesses to state their 'story'.
Also, the prosecution witnesses seemed to be interviewed in relaxed surroundings, giving them a certain air of casually telling the truth.
Extraordinary excuse for investigative journalism.
Did they interview any defence witnesses? I suppose someone might have got 12 seconds in amongst those 60 minutes.
Nevermind though, no-one will be disciplined, face prosecution or even receive a single negative comment. All they will do is laugh and joke together in their posh offices, and keep taking the taxpayers money.
Perhaps the Lord Advocate will recommend an investigation into the apparently illegal activities that have gone on in numerous public organisations concerning this prosecution?
Fat chance!
Could the FOI Act be used to find out how the BBC acquired the police interview tapes?
I think they showed the GS interview. As her charges were dropped I can't see the BBC being able to argue that it was in the public interest either to acquire the tape or show it.
The madness of Sheridan dispensing with the services of Findlay and then Scott is now highlighted by the suspension of NOTW news editor Ian Edmondson over new allegations of phone hacking.
To have simply accepted Mulcaire's no reply during the perjury trial will prove to have been a significant error of judgement.
open your eyes.....
"Perhaps the Lord Advocate will recommend an investigation into the apparently illegal activities that have gone on in numerous public organisations concerning this prosecution?
Fat chance!"
i would said you are correct on that one considering the supression of the hollie greig story.
ANNE COLVIN SAID
JAMES/WATSAY
CATCHING ON..I HAVE DECIDED TO BE GOOD .FROM NOW ONE I WILL CONFORM TO THE RULE AS BEST I CAN ...PLEASE CONFIRM TO PAW,,,THAT I AM THE ONE AND ONLY ANNE COLVIN.. HAPPY BLOGIN
RE//THE SIZE AND FALL..
HELEN AND I WERE ASKED TO TAKE PART IN THE PRODUCTION.WITH A 20 MIN SPOT...HOW EVER WE DECLINED.ANNE COLVIN
ER DID I POST?
OK, obviously you did not moderate it.
Ken Roy is an embittered ex-BBC employee (like a lot of us) with an agenda against the blessed McQuarrie. That much is in the public domain. His self-styled 'Scottish Review' bears critical scrutiny, as does his current effort. Some minor points of interest there, but it is a BBC bashing excercise, and frankly much of the writing can be construed as 'barking'.
Far better to consult Lalland Worrier...
Rant over.
"The madness of Sheridan dispensing with the services of Findlay and then Scott is now highlighted by the suspension of NOTW news editor Ian Edmondson over new allegations of phone hacking."
Is it actually the case that Tommy did the dispensing?
The programme can be found on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndNKJqvxHvw
I found it disgusting to even quote Dunblane in the article. Insensitive and not needed. This is done and dusted now and trawling over it week after week is purely redundant.
I stand by James with this!
Agree with jim mclean - seems an increasing no. of people are of a similar mind - appeal by NOTW would have sorted much out, and probably not cost so much.
A good-ish article spoiled by the jibe about the jury reaching its verdict with 'unimpressive speed'.
Kenneth Roy wasn't on the jury as far as I am aware.
Kenneth Roy wrote a series of articles on this issue which were spot on. He happens to be an excellent journalist and, not being part of the Scottish mainstream media, he has no agenda to follow politically.
One of the main points he made was that, in order to feature in the BBC programme, those tapes had to have been with the BBC before the verdict was announced. That drags BBC Scotland, and Lothian and Borders Police into a contempt scenario on top of everything else. Apart from which the tapes are classified and should never have been handed over in the first place or used by the BBC because their acquisition of them was illegal. McQuarrie has major questions to answer.
Post a Comment