Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Tommy Sheridan nominated for "Scot of the Year"

Scottish Television News is reporting that Tommy Sheridan has been shortlisted for "Scot of the Year" in a competition run by a charity ScotsCare, "for showing his fighting spirit"; 
"Sheridan was named as one of 12 original finalists of the annual contest at the beginning of December while his trial was ongoing. He made the shortlist after suggestions from supporters of the charity and people who the charity helps.
Now, the former Scottish Socialist Party leader - after attracting votes - has been named in the top five, beating seven other celebrities"
A full list of candidates for the award can be found Here


jimmy the penguin said...

Link to charity website doesn't work for me, seems to link back to this page.

James Doleman said...

Hello Jimmy, thanks for letting me know, should be fixed now.

Anonymous said...

Scot of the year? For lying, denouncing former sexual partners as liars, and encouraging people to perjure themselves for him?

How about toerag of the year?

Claire G said...

Help ma boab!!

Gawd save Scotland fae this eegit!!

Anonymous said...

Nice one Anon 1:58.
I can think of 100s that should be considered for this and not one of them are celebrities/politicians or sports personalities.

Doctors in hospitals saving lives everyday, therapists helping those with disabilities, aid workers etc

Not these bunch of Jokers nominated.

Paul L said...

The Yorkshire Ripper has campaigned for years to have his 'Life Term' overturned. Why don't we give him some sort of award for his 'fighting spirit'? Tommy lied and dragged others, including his wife, through the courts, as part of his 'fight' for his freedom, even though he knew he was guilty. It's absurd to give him such an award.
The charity should be ashamed. They help homeless scots in London. So does the government. Much less money (several million pounds) is now no longer available to them because Tommy Sheridan showed his 'fighting spirit' (lied). People who would be housed are now living under bridges because of this man. What a disgrace. I knew of this charity before but I will now never ever give to them.

Denizen said...

Doncha just love the bitter and twisted people who are left on this blog.

Just a point - the jury accepted that one of his sexual partners had lied. They seemed to accept that the other had lied on at least one occasion.

Anyway it's quite usual when a sexual relation breaks up for at least one of the partners to denounce the other. Happens all the time. Get over it!

As for courage. Most of the bitter and twisted would take VCs from the dead in order to show how fair they were.

Whatsy said...

"the jury accepted that one of his sexual partners had lied. They seemed to accept that the other had lied on at least one occasion. "

Which of these "other" partners would that be?

Annie said...

Surely TS's fighting spirit in relation to poverty and injustice is worth a vote?

Avid Reader said...

I hope the people who were complaining yesterday that this blog is one-sided - ie pro Sheridan - are still reading it today!

Paul L's comment that

"People who would be housed are now living under bridges because of this man."

is surely stretching it a bit.

Whatever people may think about recent events, there is no doubt that as a politician TS fought hard against homelessness and other social injustices.

firestarter said...

Some of the commenters on this blog seem to forget that the main witnesses in ts's trial,ie the ssp leadership,had been lying to their membership for years with regards to an affidavit.I seem to remember a motion was passed by the ssp to expel anyone who was involved in this.I wonder if any of membership they have left (pardon the pun)will have the gumption or audacity to insist on this happening.As for the scot of the year award, I'm sure TS has helped and fought for more people in this small country of ours,than he has upset by his actions.And here's a thought,if I had a wife as gorgeous and loyal as Gail(which I do)then I would do whatever it takes to keep her and I would not give two f---- who I upset doing so.And I'd bet most of you would do the same.Although thats easy to deny when you can't engage mano-a mano.Or (woman-a-woman)for the Wee Free feminist's!!!

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan Yelp for Heros said...

I, for once salute TS's indefatigability and courage in calling his former comrades 'scabs' and putting his family centre-stage as human shields during his closing speech. The award is richly deserved if only to prove that irony is not dead.

Anonymous said...

My complaint about this site being one sided has, I feel, been vindicated.

James said that he posted things that were not one sided and were to do with the case. I would argue that the Riddoch article and the Kane article are every bit as much of interest than this frivolous article.

Before the case, I was not sure about what was right or wrong about any of the issues that were connected to the case. I am convinced that Mr Sheridan was rightly convicted and, to paraphrase Mr Sheridan, the working class jury found the truth. The law has been upheld, and the ultra leftist personality followers who comment on this blog should accept that.

I think that James or whoever posts these things should review the past few posts. The personality chasing is negating all that went on before. It is spoiling the superb record of the case you have created here.

In my opinion, you could have moved to another blog to speculate (perhaps added a post here to let people know that a speculation site had been set up), and post the frivolous articles about silly awards to Sheridan, doubts about conviction and what ever and preserve the good job you had done.

Thank-you for posting my critical comment a few days ago and thank-you for posting this if you do.


Curious said...

Here's a question for those who know more about the poll tax era. When TS and his comrades were refusing to pay their council rates (and encouraging others to do so) and spending time on protests and in Barlinnie, were they actually holding down jobs or were they claiming dole money. It seems to me that an awful lot of public money money has gone in the direction of the left.

Paul L said...

lol Jamesie, well put.

@AvidReader, honestly, I don't think it's stretching it. We're in a recession. Times are tight. People are dying from lack of money where it's needed. We don't give life-saving cancer treatment to everyone who needs it, because we can't afford it, we have to give it elsewhere. There is a shortage of social housing and treatment/refuge for the homeless. Some people who don't want to still sleep under bridges, for want of the money to treat them and rehouse them quickly and appropriately.
The Sheridan Trial cost £4 Million. That buys a lot of help for the homeless and a lot of cancer drugs, a lot of beds for sick and dying children, a lot of life-saving medicine for the Third World. Instead of it going to the right people, it went on helping Tommy 'fight his fight'.
I was brought up in wealth and in a Tory environment, but I still was inspired by Tommy Sheridan growing up and saw a very strong place for his movement and the pressure that even the far left can put on politics to better serve the needs of the poor and fight their corner. Tommy Sheridan has done more than anyone in the right, any big businessman, to cause massive damage to the far left, and reinforce the prejudices those not in the far left might have about that side of things.
Gail is now being held up as some kind of hero now, for standing by her man. Was this honestly the right thing to do? We all know what he got up to now. She said before that had she found out about any of that, he would be at the bottom of the Clyde with concrete boots. She seems to have assumed a much more forgiving nature. Sound like she lets him walk all over her. Or 'I stand by and will always stand by Tommy' as she puts it.

James Doleman said...

Hello WS. My reason for posting this article was that I think it shows there is still a level of support for Mr Sheridan in sections of public opinion despite the verdic., The Rosie interview (which you can read here in my opinion added not very much to the general debate.

It is an odd time for tjhe blog, next week we will have Mr Sheridan's final plea in mitigation, the judge's sentencing statement and reaction to the sentence to cover, until then I'd accept we are slightly "treading water" but as we are still getting around 1000 visitors a day I do like to post something new when I think it may be of interest.

Thanks again for your feedback.

Best Regards


Wullie McGartland said...

firestarter said...
"And here's a thought,if I had a wife as gorgeous and loyal as Gail(which I do)then I would do whatever it takes to keep her and I would not give two f---- who I upset doing so.And I'd bet most of you would do the same.Although thats easy to deny when you can't engage mano-a mano.Or (woman-a-woman)for the Wee Free feminist's!!!"

Any chance of arranging this into something understandable?

Geraldine M said...


A word of advice - if you want to keep hold of your lovely wife:-

1. Don't commit adultry.

2. Don't go to seedy swingers

3. If you do and get caught -
Don't lie about it and make it
headline news.

Hope this doesn't sound like a 'wee free feminist' - whatever that is????



Say It Ain't So Joe said...

To go off at a tangent (and as the offspring of Scots diaspora who met , married and had their two eldest kids born in London and before they came to their senses, returned home and had me)I am ashamed to say I had no idea that Scots Care existed far less that it had done since 1603.
What an excellent cause - I hope that every one of us who votes makes a donation while we're at it.

Norma Anderson said...

WS @ 5.38 said: "The law has been upheld, and the ultra leftist personality followers who comment on this blog should accept that.

I think that James or whoever posts these things should review the past few posts. The personality chasing is negating all that went on before."

He/She then goes on to thank James for accepting 'critical' posts - ie critical of TS. Now here's my problem with this. Is James only supposed to accept 'critical' posts even though some other readers may have a different opinion. It seems to me that to disagree with WS's view is to lay oneself open to all sorts of name-calling - as seen above. No?

Anonymous said...

i see Limmy's shared his opinion via twitter:

DaftLimmy Brian Limond

Tommy Sheridan has been nominated as Scot of the Year for his "fighting spirit"? Who next, Peter Tobin?

yulefae said...

If your nominated for an award,i dont dont see what TS,SUBO,CM OR EM can do about it,
it would i think that they have done something to deserve to be nominated, some anon,s and other should get a life as this trial may have come to a verdict,but not it,s finale.

And for the the record i,m not a socialist am just a normal person who has an opinion on alot of things,some may agree some may disagree thats life.

ee cruelfae said...


the verdict is really a kind of finale. unless you mean sentencing is really the finale, of course.

there is no finale other than the imprisonment for a long period of time of tommy sheridan.

ee cruelfae

Bunc said...

Scot of the year? What exactly has TS done in the last year then that makes him such a shining example to all of Scotland? Is being found guilty of perjury now something that is celebrated as an achievement in Scotland? This country is in danger of becoming a laughing stock if it makes heroes of liars.

skeptic said...

One could argue Bunc that he stood up in the High Court and took on the state, and, when I was there at least, held his own and better against the Queens Council's and Judges who spend their career in court.

Majority verdict, he nearly pulled it off (you could think)

Anonymous said...

Well, thanks to STV and this blog I'm sure their poll has received a lot more attention from all sides. Maybe they could all take part in a reality tv dance/skate off when Tommy gets out of jail to decide the winner. after all, these are the programmes we the viewing public want... Aren't they?

jim mclean said...

Scotscare in 89/90 was a shite wee charity, if a guy went along for some luncheon vouchers he would have to sit for hours waiting on them. They called it the Scottish Embassy, just of Covent Garden. Not a patch on St Mungo's. Oh and it a 100% Royalist and Unionist founded by the Stuarts, apparently James the I and VI got off his coach in the Strand 1603 and a wee weegie tried to ham and egg him. Looking at their web page it seems to have modernised a bit, so may not be so bad now.

iain brown said...

Aye ,the Sheridan Hate Club are in full swing post verdict.No doubt rubbing their hands and drooling over his fate.Bet they cant wait till the 26th,eh!Dont know about "Scot of the year",some of them are certainly front runners for "Scrote of the year",IMHO.

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan Bucket Collectors Collective said...

Re-branding alert:
If Tommy wins - and he certainly has my vote for not withdrawing -
will the esteemed trustees, administrators and Cheif Executive of the charity take the opportunity to re-name the charity 'Scot Scare' to reflect the potential lack of donations once Tommy is crowned Scot of the Year?

Anonymous said...

Hello James

My reply to Norma seems to have been overlooked. Can you let me know how to change this in order to have my reply placed in the comments section?

"Thank-you for your comment Norma.

If you check my comments, I don't think I have been critical of Mr Sheridan. I have been critical of the road this blog seems to be taking.

I have only been supportive of the working class jury.

My opinion of Mr Sheridan before the case was one of respect for what he had achieved in the Scottish Parliament and during the poll tax demonstrations. I still have that respect for him, but I feel the jury made the right decision.

I think Mr Sheridan made bad decisions on bringing his and other peoples sex lives into court and in hoping his party members would make the non-political decision to go to court and lie for him in order for him to ..what? I am not sure what he was trying to achieve. Keep his sex life secret? Bring down the Murdoch empire? Uphold an image of himself as a nice man? If his reasons were any of these, then I feel he was wrong in doing what he did. I feel politics is politics and others such as a previous Labour leader in Scotland who was caught in an affair, had the sense to know their careers and in turn the good they could do would be better served by not allowing the muck raking press get hold of more.

So, to cut my answer short- my original criticism was not of Mr Sheridan but of the direction of the blog and the ommission of blog posts for equally non- court case articles to this one, like the Riddoch article and the Kane article.

Mr Sheridan, when he stuck to politics, was a fantastically positive cat amongst the pigeons, but I feel he was mistaken in what he did and worse, he should not have dragged unwilling people into courts to talk about his sex life.



Peter said...

Anon 1.01pm,


As a careful observer of these matters I note you (and sometimes others) still imply guilt of a charge that was actually deleted by the Crown itself.

Sheridan did not ask the SSP to "lie for him" as you put it in your post.

What evidence do you have of that? None. Certainly that charge was not upheld in the libel trial or this perjury trial.

Indeed the Crown only brought 1 charge in respect of that matter.

That was that Sheridan allegedly asked Colin Fox (the SSP leader) to lie for him (ie. subornation) at the now infamous Edinburgh Beanscene cafe in 2006.

Evidence emerged in the trial that made this event unlikely to have occurred at all.

Even if it did occur the Fox allegation was very much open to interpretation.

At best (as others have pointed out) it was Tommy saying to Colin that he should not support a set of munutes that he (Sheridan) felt were wholly inaccurate.

If that is subornation I am Petrocelli.

Also this charge was uncorroborated - therefore not even meeting the sufficiency standard necessary for a conviction on it.

So why was the subornation charge pursued by the Crown at all?

That is the intriguing question.

Many regard this and the perjury charges against the 5 others (including Gail) as the Crown simply padding out its charges.

"Overcharging" is a sharp practice in my view - a practice that is specifically warned against in the CPS guidelines in England and Wales.

It's wrong for these reasons:

It has the effect of diverting the defence into defence of charges that should not have been brought - this wastes court time and disrupts the accused right to a fair defence.

It creates an impression of a wide criminal enterprise - much more than was sustainable by its evidence.

It has the effect of allowing the Crown to lead evidence that should not be led (as the charges should not have been brought anyway).

Deletion of the unsustainable charges by the Crown is itself a corrolary to the above tactics.

It leaves a jury with the impression that there has been a careful filtering down of charges by the Crown and what remains for them to consider are stronger charges than they actually are.

So maybe its best not to repeat subornation allegations (as if gospel) when in fact they have been shown to be wholly unsustainable - even by the Crown itself.

NB: The majority of comments on this blog are actually from people who support the Crown case - so you are incorrect there as well. Also the most frequent posters are also mainly those who support the Crown case.

If you take away my posts then those stats increase massively in your favour.



CB said...


Peter's (4:58) last sentence contains some very good advice, by the way.

knock knock said...

peter petrocelli

"Overcharging" is a sharp practice in my view -a practice that is specifically warned against in the CPS guidelines in England and Wales.

It's not going to often I agree with you so don't get to excited this time.

Your right about overcharging, its time to end this false practice. The court system condone it simply because it forces guilty pleas to lesser charges from the accused.

The whole Scottish law system has lost its way. They don't do plea bargaining yet they do behind closed doors. How bizarre! It now runs on a costs basis. The accused may have done it but the risk to cost of gaining a guilty verdict at a trial is what's caculated before proceeding. The ramping up of pressure on the accused serves the system and not them. The false tariff discounts is another piece of nonsense that encourages guilty pleas. If there was a list of terms for each offence at least it would be transparent that the discount was being applied.

The crown only need to get 1 guilty verdict or plea to absolve themselves of being correct to prosecute. Even when there is a dozen charges of equal validity.

Regarding the claim/ complaint against l and b force I think there is good grounds on the release of ANY information related to Mrs s. However Mr s needs to realise the case has turned a corner and he's been found guilty.

So petrocelli that's as close as I think we will agree EVER!

Bunc said...

"If you take away my posts then those stats increase massively in your favour. "

Indeed they do Peter, indeed they do.

I think that on the matter of asking people to lie for him you are technically correct in that the charges over which guilt has been proved do not include that EXPLICITLY.

However one might ask oneself what is established implicitly by the jury verdict.

Is it at all credible, given Sheridan's established guilt, to conclude that one should believe his version of the meeting where it is alleged he admitted matters and asked for support?

I think not. It is hard to conclude anything but that Sheridans version of that meeting is not credible.

Now it is not alleged that Sheridan actually asked people explicitly at that meeting to lie for him ( as far as I recall). BUT the prosecution version of that meeting, the credible version, does suggest that he openly stated that he was going start a knowingly baseless defamation action and wanted people to support him in this. Such support could I suggest only have amounted to either lying or keeping quiet / concealing evidence.

That's perhaps does not techncally amount to actively suborning a witness - im no expert. But it does seem perilously close.

I also spotted you commenting over at the Record Peter - on the story about TS being nominated for the Great Scott award. Still spinning the Guilty verdict as a conspiracy - and not getting much support from most of the ordinary Scots folk there. Keep plugging away though - someone needs to fight for lost causes.

Hufters, New Club said...


As I understand it an Indictment may contain a multiplicity of charges that are then tested by a jury. A jury is free to prove parts , reject parts and, indeed, add parts to the Indictment.
Your argument, I think, is that an Indictment must be read 'in unum' , in other words a story which has to be 100% true or 100% false.

That's just not how it works.

Peter said...

Bunc, - amended for length by me.

If there is a charge of subornation it must be supported by proof surely eg.

Who did he ask "to lie for him"?

When did he ask them to do that?

Where did he as them to do that?

What did he ask them to say?

Did anyone witness any alleged acts of subornation?

Is there any documentary evidence to support the charge eg. emails, letters, texts, voicemail, videos etc.

As I say asking his colleagues not to give evidence for the NOTW regarding allegations that he is denying is not subornation.

Hence the lack of charges on that matter.

I cannot see any evidence led by the Crown which shows the Crown even thought he made such requests for anyone to lie for him - other than Colin Fox charge that is. The Crown deleted that charge itself.



Peter said...

Hi Knock Knock,

Your outing of me as a Scouser is rather undermined by my constant previous references to it on here :)

I did not put my full name on the Record as I did not want to have people think I was taking one side in the rosary beads war with my Father Ted type name.

I did feel that someone needed to take a stand about all the bile about Tommy on there so I stood up.

A bit rougher over there and I do not think this blog should go that way.

Since I weighed in over there a few others have joined in from Scotland on Sheridan's side - so I will leave it to those highlanders to fight the good fight now. I also got it on to a more reasoned debate level - so my work is done :)

I have been to Pollock quite a few times before back in the day with Tommy, Rosie and George and Alan no less. So I was a bit of a pillock spelling pollock wrong - sorry.

Pollock was a bit like were me and me old nan used to live when I was a little lad.

An estate Croxteth on the outskirts of Liverpool created following the slum clearances and movement of the population from the Irish areas of the inner city Scotland Road etc.

I think me Nan and me(at 10yrs)were taller than most of the adult male Pollockites though.

NB: Having seen Galloway on Question Time tonight I think Gail may have a bigger task than previously.



James Doleman said...

To anon

Your comment was not posted due to the reference to a "technicality"

Best Regards


jim mclean said...

Susan Boyle wins