 |
| Bernard Ponsonby |
The full video can be viewed Here
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Tommy Sheridan Interview
The full video can be viewed Here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The full video can be viewed Here
The full video can be viewed Here
101 comments:
Absolutely chilling.
I saw this and the first thing I thought was why does Bernard Ponsonby talk like that? He always talks as if he is reading the news.
He never seems relaxed when reporting and very tense.
I saw this when they first put on the STV website and thought TS was far from convincing. This is my opinion not fact or anything else, but some parts seemed as though he had rehearsed them and other seemed to come off the top of his head and then he would drift off and waffle.
According to the Stv website that interview was broadcast on the 22nd Dec. 2010, which is the day before the verdict.
Was it really shown then?
I just thought that it's got to the point where Tommy believes he wasn't at Cupids, irrespective of the fact of the matter, whatever that may be.
I think the Jury got it right, but I also think Tommy feels genuinely wronged, he's told it till it's true in his head.
I'll rarely quote Alex Salmond, but when he said it was all Tommys own doing he was right. Tommy took it to the court and turned a personal matter into a class struggle matter.
Personally I think it's pretty sad that his acolytes are issuing online threats to hunt down the witnesses and that it's time Tommy drew a line under the whole thing.
The left and the people Tommy long claimed to fight for are the losers.
In the short term at least. Maybe more sincere or less strident voices can be heard from the left in his absence. Maybe the politics rather than the personality can have the limelight for a change.
His greatest achievement was removing the work 'poinding' from the lexicon, even if the act continues in spirit under another name.
His performance in this interview, which unlike the BBC programme, is unedited, is an avert for why nothing he says can never be trusted ever again.
Anonymous,hello, must have watched a different BP interview from you.IMHO,TS came over as completely credible,far from being "rehearsed",and given everything he discussed seemed remarkably controlled and thoughtful in his responses.I have recently celebrated my three score years on this planet,forty of them as a socialist.For those who have read any of my previous posts i have always been "a dont know". What i do know is if TS is to his enemies,such a consummate liar and actor,then he is up for a bunch of Oscars for hoodwinking myself and countless others.As for "waffling".i respectfully suggest you address that comment to yourself.Glad not to be one of so many "Anonymouses".
Why did Bernard Ponsoby not ask TS pertinent questions such as why Gary Clark admitted going to Cupids? He was not part of a political faction and did not testify until compelled to do so in 2010. Similarly why other witnesses unrelated to politics also came forward to identify him?
I personally feel this inteview was very biased in favour of TS giving him a platform to subject us all again to his, in my opinion, absurd political conspiracy theory.
While i have little interest in what TS or others do in their private lives, this case is nonetheless not a victimless crime. To cover his own reckless behaviour TS has branded former friends both within and outside politics liars and in the process destroyed the voice of the left in the Scottish parliament. A great deal of tax payers money has been needlessly spent and the neutrality of our Scottish court system and police force has been brought into question.
I feel personally saddened by this fiasco which TS has created and while i have no animosity towards him on a personal level i also have to state that i feel the verdict was correct as no-one is above the law.
Bernard doesn't exactly challenge him does he?
not a bad interview as such, but it feels scripted and contrived, Tommy speaks in soundbites and emotive guff
i still think it was stupid not to take the stand
Bernard was never going to give Tommy a hard time, but this is still a very revealing interview.
I really feel you can see through Sheridan's act. And the delivery might be strong, but the substance of what he says doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
I think it is, as I said before, chilling. He seems unhinged, to me.
Dear Iain Brown, show me an honest politician and we will no doubt see pigs fly and Partick Thistle win the SPL.
Anyone can clearly see that TS in the video is going over his well rehearsed speeches and by waffle I mean his stupid conspiracy theories that have amounted to nothing.
His so called class struggle is a laugh since he is living an upper middle class lifestlye and has been since becoming an member of Glasgow City Council.
Socialist seems to have changed its meaning through all of this greatly and this is truely a dreadful advert for the Scottish socialist movement.
Very much do as I say not as I do. TS would have been better thought of throughout the country if he had just acted like a man and put his hand up. Those who do know him also agree, not those blinded by conspiracy theories that Mulder and Scully should be investigating.
Anon 12:22 22 December 2010!? - shurely shum mishake, otherwise why did none of us like even notice it.
So the "speculation" about the pre-trial plea-offering was spot on then - cop a guilty plea, 18 months, serve 9 months, a tagging order wouldn't be opposed. I believe that TS is being truthful when he says that he was put under the most enormous pressure to plead guilty. In my opinion that would be a good enough reason to "drop your briefs", just to get away from the constant pressure to "do a deal".
Considering Bernard's behaviour and comments during the trial, he was never going to be anything but lightweight in his questioning.
I thought the following was really illuminating as to how things began to spin out of control for him, as it was written when there was still an easy way back.
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/politics/Sheridanletter.html
anon 3.46 pm
plea bargaining is the norm in the Scottish legal system, TS was just offered what everybody else is offered, hold your hands up, say sorry, halleluja the system works, shorter sentence, and if he did less than a year he could have still stood for Parliament.
Used to like TS, but in this interview he came across as smug or smarmy.
Is it just me or has he lost something? He used to seem really genuine but not in this video.
Jim Mc,
As for plea bargains I particularly like the plea bargain scenes at the end of The Crucible.
It's required reading/watching perhaps for bloggers here especially the socialists.
A man who hold his name dear to the extent of risking severe punishment i its defence.
He is offered a deal.
On consideration he is not prepared to hold his personal name so dear that he is willing to sacrifice his family life for it - he chooses life.
Agrees therefore initially to deal with the devil.
Realises that such a deal will bring down the good names of others on the back of his falsely admitted guilt.
Rejects all deals.
Takes the punishment, retaining his good name and the good name of others - retains the status of a human above animals .... (but loses a lot in that act of doing so).
The accusers and their acolytes stand in shame - their devils bargain and charges in tatters.
The plot thus fails even at the time of its "success".
A good or pleasing fiction? No?
We shall see.
Peter,
you don't do a number about getting off the bevvy outside marks on Argyle Street, do you?
Anonymous Brian
Peter
"There is a misty plot afoot so subtle we should be criminal to cling to old respects and ancient friendships."
The Crucible
But who instigated the plot, who conspired against who?
Peter,
How about trying this other scenario!
The hero of your story and his acolytes have dug so deep a hole to cover his sins, that even the Chilean Miners couldn't escape from it.
A good or pleasing fiction? No?
We shall see.
Good one Jim.
There may well be more Daniel Day Lewis* moments to come yet - hopefully with a more of a In The Name Of The Father ending than the Crucible!
(*Better than Daniel O'Donnel anyday.)
Brian,
That's better Brian.
See lad - when you stop threatening people with defemation actions (thought you would know by ow they often never end well!) you can actually be quite fun.
Cheers,
Peter
> Moderation <
Personal insults don't get published.
> Moderation & Statement Of The Obvious Ends <
Hello Brian, sorry but not sure what you are trying to achieve with comments along the lines you are submitting. We are always happy to receive feedback but if you could try and keep it civil that would be appreciated.
Best Regards
James
With the Orwell prize in mind perhaps we should look to 1984 for a quote peter.
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy.
James,
I am attempting to highlight the ludicrousness of Peter's posts and the defamatory nature of his attacks on Katrine Trolle.
If you're entering prizes, live up to the standards of your fellow entrants.
Hello Brian
I have no problem with that, I would suggest however you do that in a civil way without the personal insults that you made in your rejected comments. There are plenty of sites online that allow that sort of behaviour, this is not one of them.
Best Regards
James
james
i dont know what peter is to you but its relentless his misbelief in mr s's inocence. can you politely tell him that mr s was found guilty by a jury of his peers.
as for orwell's prize if you win it you win it but i wouldn't get wound up about it try concentrating on the 26th of january first.
Jim mclean
If the Party (SSP) abolished the orgasm (and they may well be working on it!) there would have been none of these shenanigans in the first place, and Anvar Khan could have been knitting correspondent rather than sex correspondent of the NOTW.
That's how things will be under socialism, colleagues.
Jim McLean,
.....'There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.' 'There will be no laughter' - well having watched TS - 'the working class hairbo's' performance and that of his old crony George 'Superpuss' Galloway on BB - i'd have to say that's debateable!!!
Mrs Peter sometimes hints that there is a lot of perjury on the issue of orgasms - I don't believe her of course.
simon
.....'There will be no love, except the love of Celebrity Big Brother.'
Peter,
Of course you don't believe her. Perjury - Unheard Off !!!???
Your shortest! and quickest! (comment?) to date - As i'm sure Mrs Peter would agree!!!!
To the anonymous who claim's T has a 'upper middle class lifestlye' he is in way off the mark. Tommy always took only a workers wage in partliament - no more. He also donated a vast amount to the SSP - which I am not sure if it has all been returned. He did big brother who complete honestly about needing the case, he was unemployed after radio program was dropped. Tommy and Gail are both getting Legal Aid as far as I'm aware. Tommy Sheridan has never what could be called anything like an upper middle class lifestyle.
anne.... said
"Tommy always took only a workers wage in partliament"
wrong he took the full ammount and donated half it to the ssp. gail took her full wage as sec/assistant.
"Tommy and Gail are both getting Legal Aid as far as I'm aware"
its been posted on here that slab ended funding when he sacked maggie scot. AA has been paid by the court!
"Tommy Sheridan has never what could be called anything like an upper middle class lifestyle."
how many working class people live in a victorian villa? i dont doubt they worked for it but to say they /he doesnt have a middle class life style is way off the mark. they had a very comfortable life style not like the people he claims to help.
im not saying it is exclusively him living it up at the expense of the people he wants to "help". there are many mp's msp's that say exactly the same yet are reasonably well off.
"Did you have an affair with Anvar Khan?"
"ABSOLUTELY NOT!"
"Did you have an affair with Katrine Trolle?"
"ABSOLUTELY NOT!"
I remember reading an article many years ago about Bill Clinton's body language when he denied having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Aside from his body language (angry, jabbing his finger at the camera), his choice of emphatic words implied that he was desperate to get the denial out, hinting strongly that he was lying and was over-compensating in emphasis as a result. If you don't remember it was: "I DID NOT have sexual relations with THAT WOMAN, Miss Lewinsky".
If it really wasn't true, I think Tommy would be far more relaxed. As says himself later in the interview: he's calm when he goes to court because he knows he right. So, why's he not calm when asked if he had affairs with those two women?
I remember Jack McConnell admitted he had affair when he became FM ten years ago and only political anoraks like me remember it. If Tommy hadn't let his arrogance get the better of him and just contritely admitted it, I'm sure it'd also only be the anoraks who'd remember it too and he'd likely still be sitting in Holyrood as leader of a united socialist movement that actually made gains in 2007. It's such a shame: the Parliament was so much more interesting with them in it and they made a valuable contribution to public debate.
To quote Bill C again: "This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people" and similarly, Tommy only has himself to blame.
Knock Knock its proved he took half his entiltment,did Jack THE hAT? No he was at THE dalziel club with DR reid,point a side,alot of non jurers on here
Stuart
In most political environments, Tommy would have got away with his sexual misdemeanours, and they would soon have been forgotten, or confined to the domain of personal problems.
But he was the leader of the SSP, and it is not so forgiving. Here is Rosie Kane as reported in the Daily Record 26/12/10:
"She told how she finally realised his true character after making a speech on International Women's Day to condemn the sex trade. Sheridan sat boldly by her side despite, only a few weeks before, confessing to the SSP executive that he was a lying sex cheat who had visited sleazy swingers' clubs.
"Rosie said: "It turned my stomach that he sat by my side, clapping and shouting, 'Well done comrade'.
"He knew I was making a point, speaking out against exploitation of women and his intention was to intimidate me. It was then that I realised how bad a man he was."
To Rosie there seems to be no difference between going to a swingers club with Anvar Khan and raping trafficked sex slaves.
And that is the general position apparently adopted by the SSP. Immorality requiring ethical criticism, and non-consensual criminal activity requiring legal sanction are, as far as heterosexual activity is concerned, treated as equivalent in this political universe.
I watched first 10 mins and then remembered I have a life. However a lot of what TS said sounded familiar and I think it's because I saw the BBC Lies and life prog and similar qs were asked. STV website definitely says it was broadcast on 22 dec.
Hello Stuart,
I note that you say Sheridan had affairs. Did he? Lets look at that more closely.
As regards affairs the allegation is that Tommy had sex with 3 women (Trolle, Khan and McGuire) after his marriage to Gail.
That was never proven so your Clinton analogy falls down somewhat!
You may wish, Stewie, to look at the indictments section of this blog and the verdict to see what was actually proven about sex and these 3 ladies.
In the 5 proven charges nowhere does it record that Tommy had sex with these 3 ladies. In summary:
Trolle:
One possible implication of the Trolle indictment (that some choose to draw for their own reasons) is that Tommy had sex with Trolle in her house.
That, however, is not actually the charge - the charge that was proven is that he lied about visiting her home.
Indeed NONE of the specific claims Ms Trolle has publically made about specific sex sessions have been proven in any court.
The "proven" Cupids charge does not even allege he had sex there with Trolle or anyone else.
Indeed when presented with a specific sex claim the jury specifically deleted the indictment that he had sex with Trolle in the marital bed.
My comments may appear counter- intuitive considering the perjury verdict but people do get confused on this matter.
As I say if you look at the proven charges about Trolle it will help show actual sex was not proven with Trolle (or the others) at all.
Ms Khan:
The affair allegations about Ms Khan were also thrown out by the jury - indeed they deleted the whole of the Khan indictment about an affair. This is in tune with the apparent rejection of Ms Khans testimony by the libel jury.
Ms McGuire:
The allegations made by Ms McGuire were not believed by anyone except some in the the SSP and the NOTW. Even the police thought she was lying - check the testimony. So much so that she did not even appear in this case.
Put it this way when Ms McGuire gave evidence in the libel trial the jury did not uphold her claims. Indeed the DEFENCE wanted to call McGuire as a witness FOR the defence in this trial as they felt her NOTW story was so ropey that it would help there case. Unfortunately like Mr Mulcaire she called in sick.
In Conclusion:
As well as reading the 5 proven charges I suggest you read Ms Khan and Ms Guires testimony in this trial and the libel trial; the testimony of the NOTW executives who paid them in this trial and the libel trial; their NOTW sex stories; and Ms Khan's Something Wild book.
That will give you a pretty good picture picture of the
calibre of Khan and McGuire.
It's very surprising to me that having been advised by the police that Ms McGuire was not telling the truth and after the rejection of all the Khan allegations (by two juries) that some here still believe these two ladies sex stories.
Stories that they were well paid for may I add.
But that apparently is what anti-Sheridan bias does to otherwise rational people!
Cheers,
Peter
@ knock knock - any former msp having served two terms in the Scottish Parliament "retires" on a comfortable pension.
I get it Peter.
The jury deleting sections of TS indictment that he had extra-marital affair with AK and sex with KT in his house did not mean that they did not find there was sufficient evidence to convict on those two points of the indictment while finding sufficient evidence that TS was guilty on all other parts. It means the jury thought AK and KT are liars. About everything. Ever.
And the jury finding TS guilty of lying in court about going to Cupids in 2002 (when married) and going to KT's flat (when married) does not in the slightest suggest they thought he had engaged in extra-marital anything. In fact the jury convicted TS of perjury but were convinced he went to Cupid's for the north English air and an international scrabble comp and to KT'S flat for tea and biscuits.
I'm glad you've debunked me of my anti-Sheridan bias. I feel much more rational now.
Peter - does TS not actually admit that he had a relationship with Khan on the interview?
This extract from his letter ( the Sheridan letter cited by an earlier commentator) is revealing I think.
"Who decided that our party should examine and discuss the private lives of comrades at meetings? Who decided that any such confidential discussions should be recorded? Who decided to keep secret copies of such private and confidential discussions? Who decided to deliberately leak to the press and media that such a document existed?"
Why would TS put it this way if either a) the mystery minute was the true record and or b) if at the meeting he had in fact simply denied that the story was true ? If TS is to be believed about what happened at the meeting then why write in these terms?
Put that together with his admission in the police tape about similar group sexual activity and his admission to a relationship with Khan.
Recall the Archer / Aitken cases and how convincing both men appeared to be, how firm they were in the "courage of their conviction" (LOL). Aitken himself says that he almost came to believe himself in his fabricated version because he was fighting for a "greater truth". That's what is going on with TS. He convinced himself about the moral rightness of his greater cause and he's full of hubris. The sadness is that he's clearly still fooling some others.
I am left bereft by this. There is so much male aggression on show.
I feel personally that I have a right to take exception because I have spent 2 months of my life in Ronald McDonald house, hundreds of miles from home whilst my child has been in Yorkhill, on a tube, then in a chair and only months later home. That was eight years ago.
The whole time we were there I saw Tommy not once. I will leave it at that.
Leaving that aside Tommy's comments about getting a 'bad direction' from the judge are senseless. 'The Establishment/Murdoch Empire/Dark Forces" argument falls flat on its face once you realise that TS has got given the softest /fairest High Court judge there is.Not clever.
I would admire the man if he just admitted loving the ladies, it is not as if they said anything that bad. So what if he is married it is for his wife to sort out. It is not that bad a reputation to have really is it?
It would not have stopped him doing his job, maybe that was his release from pressures of his job and life, I am sure people would have understood and forgotten about it the next day.
I think it would have made him a bit more credible as a politician and not standing there like some super hero with no vices polishing his sheild of truth and justice.
In the end it would have shown the man to be human and prone to mistakes just like the rest of us.
I believe McBride QC when he said that TS representing himself will not be the only thing that he regrets about this case.
He was charged at the end of 2007, in three years he could not get a single QC up to date on his case?
Plain truth is a QC will not stand ranting about a conspiracy theory they will present and question not go off on political tirades.
I agree with some of the other comments about Lord Bracadale being rather accepting and allowing the defence some give and take on his questioning. Many other judges would not.
I do fear he will now be regarded as a laughing stock rather than what he stood for. Even if he does get the NOTW & Metro Police case thing to prove his phone was tapped, so what! He was still found guilty of perjury.
Much easier to say you love the ladies than fight a battle that only you and a handful of followers believe in.
"Unless the jury are voice analysts or voice experts, then clearly they have to have doubts that that's me [on the video tape]"
Oops! lol
@ Anonymous 2, good point, maybe it's not Bernard Ponsonby's real voice, but a splicing in of his voice to make us think it's him. ;)
Anonymous said...
@ knock knock - any former msp having served two terms in the Scottish Parliament "retires" on a comfortable pension.
any ideas how much and does it still get paid when and if he gets jailed?
peter..... your relentless this week are you tommy's alter ego?
Is the McNeillage tape gone from the web? Can't find it anywhere
Peter, if you read back my comment, you'll find I haven't said that. I've said Tommy's body is strongly suggestive of his guilt just as Clinton's was.
There's a difference between what's obvious and what can be proved in court.
About sums it up
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/sher-j13.shtml
That's more of an anti-SSP article than anything else.
I can't be bothered with it.
Indeed Whatsy, lets not be "bothered" by facts and truth!.
12.17
As a daily visitor to WSWS it sums it up one side, but the author seems to have a long standing vendetta against SSP. The WSWS has in itself ignored the Scottish Left on the whole when possible and have portrayed Solidarity as mere stooges for the SNP. It has been proposed in the WSWS website the long term aim of the CWI is that Solidarity becomes a Left Cover organisation for the Nationalists and even suggested in at least two articles the TS will be joining the SNP. WSWS it seems shares the concerns that many of us have in relation to the viability of the Left Nationalist project.
Anonymous said...@12:17 PM
Cheers for the sectarian bile.
CB:
You see that Rosie Kane draws an equivalence between consensual legal behaviour and "raping trafficked sex slaves." Illogical, i think.
I think she was drawing attention to the apparent hypocrisy of Sheridan adopting a public political position of condemning the exploitation of women in the sex trade, and then being a participant in aspects of that trade.
Many, if not most, areas of the sex trade are consensual and legal. That does not make it wrong to adopt a political position on it.
Sheridan went to Cupids - a legal establishment for consenting adults. It has the curious door policy common to many sex clubs, massage parlours etc where males are charged a hefty entry fee, yet women gain free entry.
Such clubs invariably attract much more male than female custom. Presumably though, men only keep going back to such clubs if they have a realistic expectation of getting what they pay the entry for. The organisers of such clubs therefore, must take the necessary steps to ensure that their customers are catered for.
Bunc and Stuart and Knock Knock,
NB: I am ignoring the Anons as despite their somtimes valid points if they cannot be bothered entering a name I can't be bothered replying to them.
Bunc:
Oh dear. Lets play catch up as Henry Kelly used to say on Going for Gold. Do you not know Bunc that Tommy "admitted" to a relationship with Khan before his marriage to Gail? He "admitted" that in 2004. Keep up lad.
As I understand it a dalliance with a lively sort before you are married is no great crime - although I appreciate that in arguments between partners it may well appear to be the case ... often to the fellas detriment! :)
Khan has had a few goes now trying to convince juries she was seeing him after his marriage - unfortunately for you neither jury upheld her stories except the NOTW, the SSP, the police and the Crown.
But she got paid well for her sex stories so some here say well done to her - a woman has to make a living somehow some say. Not me.
Some like you even appear to believe her - which says a lot.
The SSP position is that Khan (and the other two) is a "victim" of a predatory male and that it is wrong to seek to question them about their sex claims (that they made public themselves) in court.
Luckily two juries now have had the oppportunity to hear from Khan directly - they made their judgement not to uphold her various exotic claims of affairs.
NB: Having "read" "Something Wild" the approachable Ms Khan does not appear at first glance to be the Blanche Du Bois wallfower, victim type of SSP myth.
Ms Khan does pose some interesting questions in the chapters of her book about sexual etticut most of which seem to be answered Yes.
From her book she appears a very sociable and resourceful lady who will no doubt get over her trauma that the SSP currently claim for her.
Knock Knock:
Your frequent repeated comments that people are posting comments a lot on a comments site seem redundant to me - so what is your point?
On the matter at hand if you believe the 3 ladies come out and say so - don't be coy.
I am merely pointing out that 2 of the ladies (Khan and Trolle) have absolutely no legal support for their claims despite 2 trials.
Trolle may arguably do so but not necessarily - the proven charges do not uphold her sex stories directly.
I do not for the various reasons expressed before believe Trolles accounts of the orgy in Wigan is credible. If you do maybe explain why.
Stuart:
I think your last post sums up the problem with the anti-Sheridan camp on here ... but it gave me a laugh.
Me old Nan used to say "Never trust a man wearing a Trilby" - I will think of her each time you post in future.
Cheers,
Peter
Kubla Khan,
I meant to say that Khan and MCGUIRE (NOT TROLLE) had no legal support for their sex claims after 2 trials. Sorry for confusion.
Trolle possibly does after this trial - depending on interpretation of the verdict.
As no sex was alleged with her in the 5 charges that were upheld it is very difficult to tell.
Remember her account on specific sex acts was rejected by the libel jury and the specific sex in marital bed charge was deleted in this trial.
At BEST that probably leaves her at 1-1 in terms of which jury believed her sex claims.
Cheers,
Peter
"NB: I am ignoring the Anons as despite their somtimes valid points if they cannot be bothered entering a name I can't be bothered replying to them."
Peter, although I agree with 99% of what you say, you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself!. As an "Anon" what makes you think I care if you reply to me or not.
In my opinion the "Ponsonby tape" is nothing more than a "concoction", they may have Tommy's voice/face on the tape but it has been somehow "spliced" or "edited" in. Or an actor/mimic.
You never do see Ponsonby's face, so I thing we should refer to the voice off-camera as "B" for now.
Just because it is referred to as Bernard Ponsonby and James has posted a picture of Mr Ponsonby next to the link, doesn't mean it is him. While it may sound like Mr Ponsonby to many of us, we could all be open to suggestion that it is BP when it is in fact an unnamed mimic or actor.
Don't be daft, I've been watching Ponsonby on TV for as long as I can remember and it sounds nothing like Ponsonby.
Whatever the provenance of the "Ponsonby tape" I'd be pretty certain he did not get 250,000 quid for it.....
Peter...
I never made a comment whether he had sex with khan, trolley and a n other. You say I'm coy on that one! I couldn't care whether he did or didnt that's for him and mrs s to sort out. The fact is he was found guilty of 5 charges out of 18. Guilty is guilty. I suppose you think if you drive at 31 in a 30 your innocent of speeding!
You have remained coy on the fact that I asked you if you thought the crown would use the video tape if after an expert examined it and said it wasn't Mr s? I take it by your continued avoidance you concede that it is indeed Mr s on the tape or do you continue to lose credibility by saying its not him?
I've known Ponsonby since he was this high _
That is no mimic or actor - and it certainly isn't Ponsonby either!
Anon 1.54pm
You have asked for a response before Anon so I presumed it was you Anon - if it was not you Anon then fair point Anon.
If you pick a user name Anon then I will be able to give you the high hat directly Anon and you can then be offended by me specifically Anon rather than generally Anon.
Cheers
Peter
Peter's claim the jury rejected Sheridan's adultery with Khan and Trolle is incorrect.
From the final indictment the jury deleted '(N) that between 1 January 1994 and 28 August 2003 you did have a sexual relationship with said Anvar Begum Khan;'
Having deleted 'that she had been in the house occupied by you at 2005 Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow with you' the jury found '(O) that between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005, both dates inclusive, you did have a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle, and that you had stayed overnight with her at 16 Kingennie Court, Dundee;'
The jury also found '(M) that on 27 September 2002 you did attend said Cupid’s in Manchester with said Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Begum Khan and Katrine Trolle and that you had visited a club for swingers;'
Since Sherian always agreed sexual relations with Khan pre-2000, and the Cupid visit of Sept 2002 was proved in court, all that can reasonably be conjectured from the deletion of (N) is that any additional adultery with Khan between the 2002 Cupid visit and August 2003 was not proved.
Peter's rewrite of the facts would suggest Sheridan arranged for Khan to travel from London and Trolle from Dundee so he could drive them, with 2 close male friends, to a Manchester sex club in order to enjoy a pizza. The verdict was guilty of perjury regarding claims of adultery. If no adultery was proved, the verdict would have been not guilty.
Knock Knock,
The discussion you were in was of Clinton and affairs in relation to Sheridan.
It is the case, however, that you have made no attempt to examine the verdict.
Shouting guilty, guilty, guilty is no substitute for close analysis of the terms of the 5 charges upheld in this latest verdict.
I wholly agree as it happens that these are in essence personal matters.
It is a shame therefore that you and others support continued judicial intervention in what are at the end of the day personal matters.
As for perjury.
One jury (apparently) believed him on all matters.
Another jury, with a lower burden of proof did not (apparently) believe him on some matters.
It's a strange situation that the jury with the lower burden of proof appears to hold sway in your and others minds.
I say (as these are personal matters at which the juries currently stand at 1-1) that it should be Hands of Sheridan.
This waste of public funds on personal matters and the vengeance of the NOTW need not continue further.
Hopefully good sense will prevail to limit any further costs to the public purse.
On the video question you say the Crown would not have entered it as an exhibit unless it was wholly kosher.
Mmmmmm - illogical Captain.
You may have noted that the Crown brought Ms Khan, the Moat House witnesses and Mr & Mrs Cumerbirch to court as well - no doubt thinking them, as with the video, to be the full ticket as well.
Look at their testimony again and your question about the judgment of the Crown answers itself.
To be clear as crystal I do not have a high regard for the good judgment of the Crown in relation to the evidence they led video or otherwise.
If we had believed the Crown case, as many here did, Gail would now be facing a prison sentence and if that were the case people here (as they are now doing with Tommy) would be saying she only had herself to blame.
Many people suspect that the Crown Emperor has no clothes.
Some brave litle boys and girks even come out of the crowds and say it and explain why - maybe we say it too often but it is a truth that bears repeating.
Cheers,
Peter
peter...
not once did i type clinton or get involved in that chain of comments refering to clinton.
so as they say in glesga, "yer wrang there pal.
peter said....
You may have noted that the Crown brought Ms Khan, the Moat House witnesses and Mr & Mrs Cumerbirch to court as well - no doubt thinking them, as with the video, to be the full ticket as well.
these witnesses were not subjected to expert examination prior to the trial. Mr & Mrs Cumerbirch a pair os swingers and no political axe to grind with mr s. conspiricy falls apart with these 2.
peter said...
On the video question you say the Crown would not have entered it as an exhibit unless it was wholly kosher.
Mmmmmm - illogical Captain.
right... they would have had it analysed by an expert, found out it was dodgy, didnt tell the defence and used it anyway. aye right!
mmmmm- there's klingons on the starboard bow.
peter said....
Many people suspect that the Crown Emperor has no clothes.
Some brave litle boys and girks even come out of the crowds and say it and explain why - maybe we say it too often but it is a truth that bears repeating.
on this one your spot on... pot calling kettle
@Peter
You seem to have made another factual error:
"One jury (apparently) believed him on all matters.
Another jury, with a lower burden of proof did not (apparently) believe him on some matters."
The civil trial required the jury to reach a verdict on the balance of probability, whereas the criminal trial required the jury to reach a verdict based on reasonable doubt.
So, the jury with the lower burden of proof found in Sheridan's favour that the NotW probably defamed him, and the jury with the higher burden of proof found that Sheridan lied in court beyond reasonable doubt.
Bearing in mind he was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of lying in the first trial, it may be understandable that the prior civil victory may now be regarded as questionable. It will be interesting to see whether the NotW's appeal will clarify this, no?
Onlooker,
A sensible post that goes to the heart of the matter - but a bit spoilt by overreach IMO.
A sexual affair needs sex so lets just stay focused on what sex was proven by this verdict.
To have a sensible discussion maybe you will accept sex with Khan (and McGuire) was not actually proven at any point in this perjury trial and the libel trial? Yes?
You thinking there must have been sex in Cupids is just not good enough. No?
If we can agree that we can then concentrate on Trolle.
As you were not in the jury (presumably) how do you know sex was proven in the visit to Trolles home?
You say this must be the case as sex was inseparable from the house visit and is so defined in the charge. I say it may not be so clear cut as that.
Your initial analysis bears more examination and I will look at it again.
I will get back to you again but at this point when I look at my indictment sources again.
I will say that commas are important and we all need to be careful were we stick them (cough).
Cheers,
Peter
Again, Peter, you are incorrect. The criminal court has a higher burden of proof than the civil court.
In civil matters, proof need only be most probable. In criminal matters, proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. So a civil jury thought it probable Sheridan had been libelled, while the criminal jury found him guilty of perjury beyond reasonable doubt.
The criminal court has determined the civil jury was misled to their verdict by Sheridan's perjury.
Matters of morals and belief, and what you'd like to be the case, are quite separate from matters of fact.
" The criminal court has determined the civil jury was misled to their verdict by Sheridan's perjury. "
With respect Onlooker the question of what the 2006 jury believed is unknowable and was never put to the jury. We only know the verdict not what the thinking was behind it. Of course you are perfectly free to draw an inference but that would be, in my opinion, speculation.
Whatsy, Libel Appeal: We have been through that before :) In summary I explained that the NOTW perversity appeal (if solely based on perversity)is a very hard one to make out (even with this verdict in hand) and explained in detail why. The Lord loves a tryer - so maybe you could give it a go at explaining why the jury decision in the libel trial could (in any way) be perverse. Maybe give me your top three perversity grounds and see how we do. I can think of only one possible ground and that is doubtful! Burden of Proof: As for which jury had the higher burden of proof you are not right I think - perhaps you are approaching it the wrong way around. To put it simply Tommy had a very much higher hurdle in the libel trial, than in this trial, when it came to the sex allegations. Having passed that very high hurdle..(edited by JD)
Peter, could you start using phrases like "in my opinion" please. That is the last time I will edit a post for you.
Best Regards
James
Onlooker,
As with Whatsy, with respect, you are approaching the burden of proof question simplistically and the wrong way around.
That method is leading to a schoolboy error that I was initialy too polite to label as such in my reply to Whatsy.
I have no such reticence in labelling it as such anymore.
The correct method is to go back to the first trial and work forward to this one and see who had the harder task at which point.
You will work it out.
Basically the person who had the higher hurdle is the person who stands vindicated - or should in any normal, fair, just world.
Morality:
Not sure what your morality point is at all - this verdict is not in my opinion wrong on moral grounds but it is on legal grounds.
Peter
Ok James,
On Burden of Proof. Its a question of looking at who had the higher burden and when.
There is a well known QC who has made a similar point to mine on this site - in a slightly different way but the essence is the same.
In my opinion posters should read his article and they may appreciate then that the libel jury verdict is a sound basis (in my opinion) for Sheridan to take issue with this prosecution and indeed the verdict - if indeed he chooses to do so.
On a related point the NOTW appeal is caught out both by the multiple deletion of charges in this trial and the higher burden that Sheridan had in the libel trial - in my opinion.
Regards,
Peter
@Peter
I must confess to feeling a bit thick, as I'm really struggling to make any sense of your argument.
You seem to be suggesting that when someone is accused of perjury from a civil trial, it is unfair that they should only be required to establish reasonable doubt to be acquitted? What would be an appropriate burden of proof in a criminal trial for someone accused of committing perjury in a civil trial?
If you're not happy with the lower level of reasonable doubt, perhaps you are questioning the very nature of criminal trials, or even the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Or maybe you just don't think anyone should ever be charged with perjury as a result of a civil trial?
Please apply your keen legal mind to help me understand, as I am all confused.
Peter, I'm glad reminded you of a beloved relative but I've just watched that section of the interview again and the way Tommy is vigorously shaking his head as he emphatically denies everything strikes me again as a man desperate to pretend that things that happened just didn't happen.
Another interesting comparison with Clinton was raised by Alan McCombes in the minutes of the meeting at which Tommy confessed. (The minutes, as I'm sure you'll be keen to point out, were proven to be accurate in court) Alan McCombes raised the similarity with Clinton/Lewinsky, pointing out rightly in my opinion that by far the most damaging thing to Bill Clinton was his initial public denial. Clinton probably still thinks to this that it was possible that had they not got the DNA from Monica Lewinsky's dress that he might have got away with it.
In this case, Tommy is continuing to deny his actions despite overwhelming and proven evidence from witnesses and documents. Bill Clinton apologised and begged forgiveness when the game was up for him, which he largely got due to his charisma.
It's my belief that if Tommy just had it in him to admit what he did and apologise to all the people he has hurt and to the wider Scottish public for wasting their money, then his previous reputation could well have won through. Gail appears to be prepared to support him regardless as are many other people and they would follow if he led it. Tommy's failure to take that decision has been far more disasterous for the Scottish left then anything he's done with his willy.
Whatsy,
At a tournament held to clear a good ladies name the noble Knight on his trusty steed clears fence but go on to fall at the last jump which is only one foot off the ground.
The courtiers line up with the King to mock the noble Knight as he is taken to the dungeon for "failing" the Kings test.
The Joker looks out at the twenty fences that were cleared and, seeing that they were 20 times as high as that which was failed, hits the King and his coterie with a pigs bladder on a stick as punishment for their foolishness.
The video is real, I object to the slurs that suggest otherwise. I made the tape, Emily Maitlis came to my house to view it for the BBC and offered me money for it. I thought she ..might have a wire so I insisted she strip down to her creamy basque.
I’m afraid that the continuing publication of Peter’s vexatious, cod-legal ramblings are acting as a big turn off for me and, I suspect, many others.
Whereas I would tune in several times daily for James’s and Whatsy’s straight delivery, Peter’s yer all wrong reverse swing and spin are devaluing the integrity of the reporting for me.
It gives me no pleasure to see a man contemplating prison, even as a result of his own venal stupidity.
When I look at the extensively reported evidence and compare that to the distilled defence strategy and the tactics employed in pursuit of it I can only shrug my shoulders. First rule of acting like you’re invincible: make sure you’re invincible.
I’ll check back on the day of sentencing.
Comparing the relative difficulty or otherwise of reaching the civil standard of proof as against the criminal standard is a fairly empty exercise here but, for what it's worth, in civil proceedings corroboration is not required which, to me at least, might make it easier to achieve a desired verdict in civil proceedings.
The accused might also benefit in criminal proceedings from the fact that the jury has a third option available to it as opposed to the binary nature of a civil verdict.
Peter, I think it's fairly clear to us all now that the verdict the jury has arrived at here troubles you. Tommy Sheridan has every right to subject that verdict to appeal. He may succeed in the enterprise.
For the time being, however, might it not be an idea to allow the jurors the courtesy of accepting that for their part they have tried the case faithfully and reached a true verdict on evidence presented to them? Jurors may have formed a different view from the one you would have on the reliability, credibility or relevance of evidence heard but it doesn't seem to me to be especially civic-minded to keep up this drip-drip of criticism of individuals who are hardly in a position to answer back.
By reliable accounts the solemnity and significance of the verdict the jury was asked to deliver moved some members to tears.
In my opinion what is now becoming a concerted (relentless?) assault on the actions of 14 of your fellow citizens who have simply been doing their civic duty is uncalled for and maybe even a bit small-minded. I suspect that in terms of your politics you are a million miles removed from Conrad Black but when one reads some of your latter postings and some of his protestations there are certain convergences.
Peter
Last contribution from me on this thread- two questions. Would anything ever convince you that TS is guilty? If so what?
KK.
@ Kubla, I would be convinced if there was a trial for perjury about going to sex clubs and having affairs, and after a jury found him guilty, he came out and gave a speech to the press, not mentioning once that there was a miscarriage of justice or that he would fight to clear his name, but instead just ramble about how others like the NOTW were guilty too and why wasn't money being spent chasing them instead. That would convince me.
Oh wait...
Trolle convinced me too. Nothing to gain, stuff to lose by going on public record about her sexy times with Tommy. And she did it. If he's innocent then that's a real tan.
@Peter
I see a few of your comments aren't making it through, but could I just point out that when I asked for help from you and your keen legal mind in alleviating my confusion as to your position, I was expecting you to be a bit more helpful than
"Applying the correct method of answering your question leads you to the inevitable conclusion that my analysis is correct. OK stage by stage. Step 1: a) Ask yourself. Did Sheridan have a harder task in this perjury trial or the libel trial? Yes / No"
I confess, I had to stop reading at that point to avoid suffering an aneurism.
Could you maybe try again in a more simpler words for us stupids?
Aye Whatsy an aneurysm if you get off lightly. But seriously, trying to follow convoluted and twisted logic will slowly and surely drive you round the bend. As a testament to this I am typing this from an Asylum.
STOP reading the damned comments. You don't HAVE to! It is not your duty! The space aliens won't come and get you - You have nothing to fear" Just close the comment box!
Ok Whatsy,
One last go for tonight.
This issue started off today by someone comparing Sheridan to Clinton who confessed to an affair.
Sheridan has not confessed to an affair. So what do we know of the affairs in terms of the two jury decsions?
The jury in the libel trial we presume (but do not know) possibly felt that he did not have affairs with any of the 3 women as they upheld his action.
The jury in this perjury trial possibly felt he did have an affair (with one woman Trolle) but that is not wholly clear.
Which jury had it right? Difficult to say isn't it?
What we can say is that in the libel trial the allegations of the NOTW was that he had extra-marital affairs; had visited a sex club Cupids; had engaged in kinky sex; had orgies; that he was a drink and drug user; that he was a swinger.
A libel proof /trial was held.
The 3 women, many of the SSP and most of the witnesses for the Crown in this case trooped in for the NOTW side and said he was LYING about affairs, CUPIDS etc.
The judge instructed the libel jury that if ANY of these NOTW allegation had been shown by the NOTW to be true then the Sheridan's libel action failed totally.
Many felt that was an overly strict instruction but there it was.
The key point is that ALL the NOTW had to show was that just on the "balance of probabilities" that ONE their stories on any ONE of these matters was substantially true.
They did NOT have to convince a jury the affair allegations were true beyond a reaonable doubt.
As I say it takes a bit of thinking through but you should see that the libel test was actually a much higher hurdle than the trial he has just been through.
He got over the higher hurdle about affairs at the libel stage but failed at the lower hurdle on essentialy the same evidence but people line up to call him an adulterer - apparently forgetting the first verdict with its stiffer test.
That is the conundrum and the unfairness in as plain language as I can muster.
Hello Jessica, sorry that came across as a little mean. I'd delete the same about any other poster.
all the best
James
Thanks Peter, you have made your position so much clearer.
Firstly, a point of fact you got wrong:
“The jury in this perjury trial possibly felt he did have an affair (with one woman Trolle) but that is not wholly clear.”
No. That is wholly clear:
From the charge, subsection O, of which Mr Sheridan was convicted:
“between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005, both dates inclusive, you did have a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle and that you had stayed overnight with her at 16 Kingennie Court, Dundee”
That could not be clearer.
“Which jury had it right? Difficult to say isn't it?”
As perjury has been proved to have been committed during the civil trial, it is not difficult to see why the original defamation verdict may now be questioned, but let us continue anyway...
“The key point is that ALL the NOTW had to show was that just on the "balance of probabilities" that ONE their stories on any ONE of these matters was substantially true.
They did NOT have to convince a jury the affair allegations were true beyond a reaonable doubt.
As I say it takes a bit of thinking through but you should see that the libel test was actually a much higher hurdle than the trial he has just been through.
He got over the higher hurdle about affairs at the libel stage but failed at the lower hurdle on essentialy the same evidence ”
Firstly, come come, there was some fairly significant new evidence – Gary Clark & a certain video tape spring to mind? However, putting that forgetful omission of yours to one side...
In the perjury trial, TS “only” had to establish reasonable doubt on the charge subsections to be acquitted, but failed to convince the jury and was convicted of perjury on 5 subsections of the charge.
So you're saying that because it's harder to win a defamation action than it is to evade a perjury conviction resulting from that action, nobody should ever be found guilty of perjury as a result of a victorious civil action? In fact, nobody should even be charged with perjury as a result of a civil action.
That is the twisted logical conclusion of what you are suggesting.
Of course, you disagree with the verdict of the criminal trial jury and agree with the civil trial jury, but that does not change the logic of your argument. You're looking for some sort of logical perversity between the two verdicts, but even if the verdicts do clash and this cannot be put down to the accused's perjury in the civil trial, the implication is still that you do not believe a perjury charge can ever be brought as a result of testimony in a civil trial.
If you doubt this, or are having a hard time grasping it, please think of the following hypothetical case:
Miss Jones brings and wins a defamation action against Mrs Smith. However, after the verdict the police are asked to investigate possible perjury by one or other of the parties as their accounts differed so dramatically, and around the same time Miss Jones is recorded in full view on camera describing how she had lied to win her case against Mrs Smith. There seems to be no doubt at all that Miss Jones is on the recording and this is verified by experts with unimpeachable records of reliability. In the meantime, Miss Jones's best friend also comes forward, wracked with guilt, to state that she can confirm that Miss Jones had indeed done whatever it was Mrs Smith had alleged.
There is clearly a strong case for charging Miss Jones with perjury. But how, Peter, could she be charged with perjury without risking the legal conundrum your logic suggests will result?
Come on Whatsy have you seen the tape, there is no way that is Miss Jones, for one thing she sound's like a lithuanian on helium in the "tape" and well all know about the shortage of helium in the Baltic states. Secondly while she is in " view" on the tape you must admit that the full face Kermit the frog mask worn throughout the recording cast doubt, despite the 277 wirinesses who testified that the witness wore that mask constantly from the age of 11 and 3/4 until today, on her account.
Finally this is not the place to discuss the role of the News of our Lithuania (NOOL) and it's editor Charlie Cat in the evidence, I would however mention the 12p plus Bus pass given to Ms Smith.
Ah, so it's...
*Moderator Wars*
At least someone seems to have read my post down to the end!
@Sheridan Trial
"have you seen the tape, there is no way that is Miss Jones, for one thing she sound's like a lithuanian on helium in the "tape" and well all know about the shortage of helium in the Baltic states. Secondly while she is in " view" on the tape you must admit that the full face Kermit the frog mask worn throughout the recording cast doubt, despite the 277 wirinesses who testified that the witness wore that mask constantly from the age of 11 and 3/4 until today, on her account.
Finally this is not the place to discuss the role of the News of our Lithuania (NOOL) and it's editor Charlie Cat in the evidence, I would however mention the 12p plus Bus pass given to Ms Smith"
Save that evidence for the actual perjury trial. If Peter allows us to have one.
@Peter
You misunderstand me.
I was not asking you for yet another rehash of your opinions of the trial, witnesses etc.
I was asking you to confront the logic and implications of what you propose.
Your speculation of what the jury might have made of blah blah blah is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
I have engaged with your logic, I ask that you reciprocate. I must insist you address that matter, or I cannot engage with you further.
Miss Jones - perjury trial or not. You have all the information you need. Go.
Whatsy,
Err it was you who indicated you thought the first jury perhaps got it wrong or at least may have reached a different decision if they knew what we now know.
I just thought I would remind you that how they possibly got it right. Also that all the NEW evidence, taken in the round, would not neccesarily have swung them against Tommy. The new stuff was very much a mixed bag of nuts - if you see what I mean.
On me and Ms Jones that is a devil of a question. It's a bit late and those angels on the pinhead are wobbling through lack of sleep so you will forgive me I hope if I give it a go on the morrow.
Peter,
Tell me one thing please! Why do you always conveniently forget the evidence of Gary Clark.The former professional footballer and school friend of TS.
He didn't belong to a political faction. Can't belong to some conspiracy theory to oust Tommy as leader as he didn't come forward till compelled to do so in 2010. He was obviously mortaly embarrassed to admit having gone to Cupids.
So please tell us what is his part in this (in my view) absurd conspiracy theory????
Stuart and others,who "know" TS is guilty because he is reminiscent of Bill Clinton(allegedly),regurgitating Alan McCombes original assertions all i can say is OMFG!Of course you also "know " that McNeillages tape is 100% kosher,no doubt!What amazing powers you possess. Have you ever studied,or believed in the pseudo-science of Phrenology? In byegone days you would doubtless found Sheridan guilty because of the shape of his skull ,forehead and facial features.And of course there is the dead giveaway of how much bodily hair he has especially on his back(according to Gail)!As to the poster who earlier had TS bang to rights because of the Cumberbirches(who allegedly had no axe to grind).Is that the Tony C.who retrospectively "recognised" TS some7/8 years earlier after seeing TS on Big Brother. His wife Irene,who allegedly watched the same episode with him fails to ID ,Sheridan much to the major embarrasment of the Crown.Remember?Not forgetting Mr C. testifying that "Robbie" had asked him(as a favour) to score someones(TSs) name out of the signing -in register.Yes, the selfsame "Robbie" that Ms Tucker (with whom she allegedly had a major fallout) had gone home,leaving her to enter Cupids alone. Said previously that there were not more holes in a string vest in the Crown case(quote TS),but rather more holes in a North Sea fishing trawlers net.Still stand by that today.
Hello Whatsy,
I have considered your Ms Jones analogy as promised. I both engage with it and further develop it here.
The point you appear to be making is that if following a civil trial NEW evidence or NEW witnesses come forward that indicate the victor in that civil trial was lying then the following should happen:
a) the police should always investigate
b) the Crown should always prosecute - if the evidence presented by the police is satisfactory
c) the jury should convict if it believes beyond reasonable doubt that there was perjury in the first trial.
Well IMO that primarily depends on the quality of the NEW witnesses and the NEW evidence doesn't it?
If it is good quality NEW evidence then certainly I agree that the matter could be looked at by the police; the Crown may also be justified in proceeding; and the new jury could then assess the matter.
If, however, the MAJORITY of the NEW witnesses are perhaps not honest people OR are not reliable people OR their evidence is tainted by payments from the loser in the civil trial then the police and Crown could very reasonably decide not to prosecute.
If the new documentary evidence (say of photos) is of doubtful provenance then why proceed?
What if it turned out the losing party had those photos for some time before handing them to the police?
What if it turned out the photographer had been paid by the losing party in the civil trial and had agreed a formal contract to appear in court?
What if it then turned out the photos had been photoshopped?
The police may well then have pause for thought - the police may well decide that the evidence may not be safe.
The Crown should not then not proceed in such circumstances and it therefore should not get to the jury stage anyway.
In the circumstances of debatable new evidence and new witnesses the sensible (and much cheaper) alternative, to me, is that the losing party in the civil trial just appeals the verdict.
They can then present their NEW evidence in that appeal.
The police and the Crown would of course be put under pressure by the losing party to criminally prosecute the winning party especially if that losing party were very powerful.
That pressure should be resisted in my opinion.
The loser should just be directed to the relevant appeal process - as any non-powerful party would be with similarly questionable evidence.
The police of course could always then step in later with a criminal investigation depending on what is revealed in that civil appeal process.
Putting the burden on the common taxpayer by pursuing questionable matters at great expense is not right in my view. All my opinion of course but it is a widely held opinion.
Cheers,
Peter
Hello Simon,
Gary Clarke gave his statement but only after significant police pressure.
We both have no idea what the jury made of it - we were not on the jury.
I will say this.
From his testimony Clarke did not recall any orgy at Cupids or indeed recall travelling onto to a Wigan flat for a separate lengthy orgy - as claimed by Trolle.
Memorable events surely? No? Why the lack of recall? Simon?
In my opinion that people who claim that his evidence and memory is accurate beyond reasonable doubt are therefore stretching it.
That he admitted he was on the drink and medication at the time is also IMO perhaps a relevant issue for reasonable doubt No? Especially as the events supposedly occurred 8 years ago.
Accusing us of Conspiracy Theory again - that old chestnut. You have an opinion - I also have an opinion supported by argument.
Was I a conspiracy theorist for considering it likely that some of the Moat House witnesses had been paid by the NOTW. It turns out they were!
Am I a conspiracy theorist for feeling that that the NOTW operation went beyond Mulcaire and Goodman - lets see.
Many more examples but will leave it there.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter,
A quick reminder: Regardless of the fact that we do not know - nor should we - the specifics of the jury's debate we are able to state with certainty that they found Sheridan guilty of perjury, beyond reasonable doubt.
Crumpled Bob
peter you got to be the best wind up merchant on here as they say in glesga.
there is no point debating any of your points you never conceed any even when the evidence presented is undisputable.
regards
Post a Comment