tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post1308804437204383533..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: George McNeilage Cross-examination by Tommy Sheridan, Day 1Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-41782549551834229092010-11-11T22:27:43.937+00:002010-11-11T22:27:43.937+00:00Anon 1:48pm
"
But people already knew, and t...Anon 1:48pm<br /><br />"<br />But people already knew, and they didn't deny it, or take a defamation action out about it."<br /><br /><br />Agreed, but that wasn't my point. It's about what conduct socialists should regard as acceptable - not what they should or should not take out defamation cases over.Iagonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-12333900492071780942010-11-11T18:40:17.021+00:002010-11-11T18:40:17.021+00:00Of course it's not really comparing like with ...Of course it's not really comparing like with like to compare the allegations made against TS with the alleged affair between AM and CL. I don't recall any allegations about the private lives of AM and CL being splashed all over the NoTW. Besides, compared to TS, relatively few people had ever heard of AM or even CL - so maybe nobody cared what they did anyway? <br /><br />On another subject: there are those (including some professional PR people) who have tried to say that even if the allegations against TS are false then for tactical reasons he was somehow wrong to have brought the defamation action. I don't buy that. If something is a malicious lie then the person affected by that lie has every right to sue. That's true whether someone is rich or poor, in the public eye in the way that TS is, or is a person who is not a public figure. This has been reaffirmed time and again - notably in the interesting ECtHR case of Pfeifer v Austria. <br /><br />Of course there's a difference between the right to sue and the act of lying whilst doing so - but then that's what the jury in this case has yet to determine...JudgeNotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-62347825487766908892010-11-11T18:12:32.365+00:002010-11-11T18:12:32.365+00:00Iago - no far from it, wasn't suggesting that ...Iago - no far from it, wasn't suggesting that at all. In fact I actually agree with your comments.JudgeNotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-10978734259346917192010-11-11T13:48:16.178+00:002010-11-11T13:48:16.178+00:00"Final point : now that it has been admitted ..."Final point : now that it has been admitted in open court that McCombes and Leckie had an affair, surely they deserve equally as much - or equally as little - opprobrium as Sheridan ???"<br /><br />But people already knew, and they didn't deny it, or take a defamation action out about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-48327184548079967042010-11-11T03:51:30.942+00:002010-11-11T03:51:30.942+00:00Hi JudgeNot
Couple of things:
You said "
In...Hi JudgeNot<br /><br />Couple of things:<br /><br />You said "<br />In any case nowadays it is naive to think that one can draw a dividing line between the personal and the political - especially in an environment where the media is as powerful and intrusive as it is in the UK. Any politician of any persuasion who thinks otherwise is obviously heading for trouble."<br /><br />and while that is true, I don't think it necessarily would be the end of Tommy's career if it came out that he had been unfaithful to Gail. We can think of lots of politicians who have cheated and survived : Robin Cook, Chris Huhne, Paddy Ashdown, Bill Clinton.<br />And others who have cheated but did not survive : David Mellors, Iris Robinson.<br />THe difference is that politicians who lecture others on how to live have no credibility left when they cheat, what the public hates is hypocrisy.<br />Despite unconvincing attempts to suggest that Tommy's family photos, etc were meant to build an image of him as a 'clean family man', I saw nothing in his conduct or his public comments that suggested he was trying to lecture others on how to live. So, I don't think the voters would necessarily have turned against him.<br /><br />As for the conduct which perpetuates oppression of women... I don't want to try and get you to say something that will see your comment deleted, but just to clarify, are you suggesting that visiting a sex club such as Cupid's is inherently oppressive to women? Or are you referring to other allegations (not necessary to specify what they are at this time)????<br /><br /><br />Final point : now that it has been admitted in open court that McCombes and Leckie had an affair, surely they deserve equally as much - or equally as little - opprobrium as Sheridan ???Iagonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-24763386731817284442010-11-10T19:28:57.608+00:002010-11-10T19:28:57.608+00:00That's a very interesting debate between Delug...That's a very interesting debate between Deluge and Iago - but either way it's premised on the notion of TS being guilty, which of course has not been proven as of now.<br /> <br />Deluge does make some convincing points - but I still think that even if TS had done something as morally reprehensible as what is alleged it is questionable whether it would necessarily be for the SSP to police what its members do in their private lives. I tend to be with Iago on that point.<br /><br />Nevertheless I also understand that a political party, especially a socialist party, ought to set a high standard of personal conduct for its members, especially those in positions of leadership. For example one could not seriously claim to be opposed to the oppression of women whilst at the same time engaging in conduct which perpetrated and/or perpetuated such oppression... <br /><br />In any case nowadays it is naive to think that one can draw a dividing line between the personal and the political - especially in an environment where the media is as powerful and intrusive as it is in the UK. Any politician of any persuasion who thinks otherwise is obviously heading for trouble.<br /><br />I take the position that TS is innocent until proven guilty and so he deserves the support of all socialists. I simply don't understand how anyone on the Left could think otherwise, especially given TS's outstanding track record in countless campaigns over the years. <br /><br />Granted, if I were privy to any evidence to the contrary then I might think differently - but as of right now I have not seen or heard any evidence that convinces me of TS's guilt. <br /><br />So far we have only heard from the Crown's witnesses and as far as I'm concerned "it's not over til it's over".JudgeNotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-13845938816964175332010-11-10T00:48:27.623+00:002010-11-10T00:48:27.623+00:00Test
Comments dont seem to be posting, I am getti...Test<br /><br />Comments dont seem to be posting, I am getting an error message saying that 'the url is too large'???someonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-7465777023529293952010-11-10T00:39:01.533+00:002010-11-10T00:39:01.533+00:00Hi Deluge
"
TS maintains the position that h...Hi Deluge<br /><br />"<br />TS maintains the position that he is 'clean living' and would never go to Cupids, so to hold the position that the SSP are 'moralisers' rather than lying chancers therefore means you accept that Tommy Sheridan committed perjury, otherwise TS didnt go and is just as much of a 'moraliser'"<br /><br /><br />Without wanting cross the boundaries on what it is possible to comment on, I do believe that it is indeed *possible* that TS is a perjurer. My comment was intended to discuss the broader issues arising from the case and the attitudes within the SSP, not the Sheridans' guilt or innocence.<br />I also never used the word 'moralising' which you falsely attribute to me.<br /><br />"If he did go as the crown alleges, then sorry it is not a case of just having an alternative life or alternative relationship - to live that alternative relationship without one partner (Gail) 's consent and behind her back would be a textbook case of an abusive relationship. Having an affair, which involves feelings presumably, or going to clubs for casual sex (which doesn't involve feelings but rather a wish to cheat on your partner in a 'kinky', sterile, distant, anonymous environment, is entirely different and clearly shows a lack of respect for your wife."<br /><br />No, I don't agree that cheating on your partner constitutes abuse of that partner. It may constitute an abuse of the trust your partner placed in you, but that is not the same thing. Gail's integrity as a person would not have been threatened. And, it is for Gail and Gail alone, not anyone else, to determine what the consequences of that should be for the relationship, if the allegations are true. Some people consider cheating to be the worst thing someone in a relationship can do, others do not.<br /><br />"To justify the position that going to Cupids is morally ok we'd have to presume Gail's consent, which there is not a shred of evidence for."<br /><br />Whether it is morally ok depends on your own concept of sexual morality. Some people would not see homosexual sex as morally ok, others would see extramarital sex as morally wrong. Society is evolving to a point where we give each other the freedom to decide our own values and standards. This should be the case here.<br />Moreover, we have no evidence about what Gail's attitude was or would have been either way, beyond her own testimony at the trial - and those who think Tommy perjured himself surely think Gail perjured herself too, so that is not conclusive. And in any case, it's a private matter for the two of them. I would not want someone I work with expressing their opinion on my domestic arrangements, which are nothing to do with them, and the same would go for parliamentary colleagues and fellow executive members.Iagonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-43888590990544187152010-11-09T11:01:48.123+00:002010-11-09T11:01:48.123+00:00The phrase a "Cabal of witches" leaked t...The phrase a "Cabal of witches" leaked to the Scottish media was allegedly from a source close to Tommy, around 2006, I have rarely seen it attributed to comrade T himself but as with the man who Shot Liberty Valance when the legend becomes fact print the legend, these women comrades were also labled Gender Police by another source close to Comrade T.Vinyl Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14143010575470895405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-53998100905752043042010-11-09T10:49:51.039+00:002010-11-09T10:49:51.039+00:00Can I just say, it's not for us to say whether...Can I just say, it's not for us to say whether TS is guilty or not, that is for the jury and I will respect their decision<br /><br />However, on a matter of principle, I have to take umbrage at the people who say 'going to sex cclubs is between tommy and gail and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moraliser' - there has never been any suggestion that Gail Sheridan attends, enjoys, approves of sex clubs - only 2 suggestions. A) that TS went to a sex club with 4 people, none of which were his wife, or B) TS wasn't there at all, would never do such a thing and if Gail ever caught him cheating he'd be at the bottom of the Clyde (make of that 2006 quote what you will).<br /><br />TS maintains the position that he is 'clean living' and would never go to Cupids, so to hold the position that the SSP are 'moralisers' rather than lying chancers therefore means you accept that Tommy Sheridan committed perjury, otherwise TS didnt go and is just as much of a 'moraliser'<br /><br />If he did go as the crown alleges, then sorry it is not a case of just having an alternative life or alternative relationship - to live that alternative relationship without one partner (Gail) 's consent and behind her back would be a textbook case of an abusive relationship. Having an affair, which involves feelings presumably, or going to clubs for casual sex (which doesn't involve feelings but rather a wish to cheat on your partner in a 'kinky', sterile, distant, anonymous environment, is entirely different and clearly shows a lack of respect for your wife. To justify the position that going to Cupids is morally ok we'd have to presume Gail's consent, which there is not a shred of evidence for.<br /><br />So, it's ok that some people hold the position I've outlined (what you've falsely called 'moralising') and it's ok that some people would rather not think if it that way and would rather not judge their pal, so there you go there's your explanation to why a few people's opinion on Cupids is different from the SSP's position, and there's nothing sinister or Mary Whitehouse about it.Delugenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-50056414384757048472010-11-09T00:20:11.537+00:002010-11-09T00:20:11.537+00:00Hi Anon, Nov 7th, 11:19pm
You said
"Hi Lago...Hi Anon, Nov 7th, 11:19pm<br /><br />You said<br /><br />"Hi Lago, apologies for the use of such shorthand, allow me to make mine - and I'd imagine the SSP's - position clearer. I've nothing against any and all sorts of freely chosen sexual and relationship choices anyone might make, and similarly the leadership of the SSP - allegedly - didn't have a problem with TS admitting to the allegations in public and remaining a leading representative of the party. The problem was - as with Bill Clinton, who (according to SSP testimony) was mentioned as a comparison at the executive meeting - that TS is alleged to have wanted to lie about it, in order to protect his own "family man" image (some of you may recall newspaper spreads of his wedding pictures, etc.) and the pretence of fidelity. In other words it was TS's values - or at least those of his public persona and his family life - that were offended by his (alleged) personal behaviour - not those of the SSP."<br /><br /><br />I am aware that this is the official SSP position, but not convinced it is the actual position. I have heard some very senior people within the party refer to TS as a 'sexual predator' in conversation, for example.<br />Then, there was the copy of Frontline circulated after the end of the civil trial. In it, Carolyn Leckie writes that she had initially considered TS' supposed admission to be 'not a resignation matter, but an educational matter'. But if the SSP exec had no principled objection to the supposedly admitted activities, what would the education be about?<br />I think a significant section of the SSP felt that sex/swingers clubs were objectionable in principle, and that is borne out by how many people are testifying that they were 'shocked' 'shattered' etc when they first supposedly found out. I also think that this is not a socialist position.<br /><br />As for the other allegations you mention - which I won't go into out of respect for James' moderating decision - the focus on both trials so far has been on Cupid's, and I haven't seen any really credible evidence yet to back them up.<br />I do agree with your point about how some witnesses have been treated, if it's all true, however.Iagonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-57977506837924178852010-11-09T00:15:21.421+00:002010-11-09T00:15:21.421+00:00@ Anonymous, Nov 7th, 11:19PM (can't you all c...@ Anonymous, Nov 7th, 11:19PM (can't you all choose NAMES????)<br /><br />You said:<br />Hi Lago, apologies for the use of such shorthand, allow me to make mine - and I'd imagine the SSP's - position clearer. I've nothing against any and all sorts of freely chosen sexual and relationship choices anyone might make, and similarly the leadership of the SSP - allegedly - didn't have a problem with TS admitting to the allegations in public and remaining a leading representative of the party. The problem was - as with Bill Clinton, who (according to SSP testimony) was mentioned as a comparison at the executive meeting - that TS is alleged to have wanted to lie about it, in order to protect his own "family man" image (some of you may recall newspaper spreads of his wedding pictures, etc.) and the pretence of fidelity. In other words it was TS's values - or at least those of his public persona and his family life - that were offended by his (alleged) personal behaviour - not those of the SSP."<br /><br />I am aware that this is the official SSP position, if you like. I am not, however, certain that it is the actual position. <br />I have heard very senior people in the SSP refer to TS as a 'sexual predator' in conversation, for example. And perhaps you remember the issue of Frontline which was circulated immediately after the end of the civil case? In it, Carolyn Leckie writes that she had initially considered TS's activities 'not a resignation matter, but an educational matter'.<br /><br />But if the SSP exec did not have any principled objection to what Tommy suposedly omitted, what would the education be about?<br /><br />I think a large section of the SSP objected to sex/swingers clubs on principle, and I think that is a very bad thing.<br /><br />As for the other things you mentioned (which I won't go into out of respect for James' moderating decision) : all i can say is - firstly no-one has testified that such things were admitted to at the meeting in question, and secondly, the focus of both trials so far has been on Cupid's. I haven't seen any credible evidence YET about those other allegations.<br /><br />I do agree with your point about how some of the women have been treated in court though, if its all true.Iagonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-54179802039078146892010-11-08T18:11:58.722+00:002010-11-08T18:11:58.722+00:00sheridan didnt ever refer to anyone as witches but...sheridan didnt ever refer to anyone as witches but the legend that he did has become almost a factAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-26578727408837860972010-11-08T16:38:20.971+00:002010-11-08T16:38:20.971+00:00Fair enough but we can't be having blatant lie...Fair enough but we can't be having blatant lies about the nature of that NCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-54285715334585592172010-11-08T16:22:52.465+00:002010-11-08T16:22:52.465+00:00Lets leave it there peeps, that meeting has been p...Lets leave it there peeps, that meeting has been part of the case so lets leave it.James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-35537612679394842842010-11-08T16:20:45.476+00:002010-11-08T16:20:45.476+00:00Guess you owe me 200k cos I heard them.Guess you owe me 200k cos I heard them.Pay Upnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-58193025503792695942010-11-08T16:20:04.311+00:002010-11-08T16:20:04.311+00:00Iain, CWI were part and parcel of the baying mob a...Iain, CWI were part and parcel of the baying mob at the May 28th 2006 National, and I heard that kind of misogynist language used again and again at one of the most horrendous lynch mob style gatherings I've ever had the misfortune to attend, so please save your outrage. <br /><br />If you weren't there then count yourself lucky!May 28thnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-61867801796318626812010-11-08T16:10:52.413+00:002010-11-08T16:10:52.413+00:00If you honestly think that members of the CWI didn...If you honestly think that members of the CWI didn't use those words during the crisis in the SSP (especially during the events of May 28th National Council) you are incredibly deluded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-2060199391240101042010-11-08T15:44:05.057+00:002010-11-08T15:44:05.057+00:00i am furious at previous remarks re CWI(actually n...i am furious at previous remarks re CWI(actually now Socialist Party Scotland)by blogger "who had no hesitance in saying were guilty of a witches,bitches,slags & c+++s approach to women who dare cross Tommy). I have never been a member or close sympathiser of them having had many past and present sharp disagreements.I can mainly only refer to my experience in Dundee over 20 odd years.But i can categorically state that none of their members have come out with anything like this at any time.And i would confidently wager £200k that no other socialist(SSP members include)could say otherwise. If any individual(s) have and that means from all organisations,then they should have been jumped apon from a great height.But to say this about a whole party is deplorable.And as to them all being mysogenists is patently pathetic and doubly insulting to their women comrades who played prominent roles inside the SSP for years.Gladly the political and personal relationships locally have been much less accrimonious. We have all known and often worked with each other for years and rest assured this would not have been the case if the CWI/SPS were remotely like they have been characterised.I will end by reiterating my anger.Seems the more these kind of people are on the back foot,the more vicious their vitriol becomes.Little wonder that so many have problems being in the same room,let alone the same party.iain brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-74640021981005909632010-11-08T15:14:00.764+00:002010-11-08T15:14:00.764+00:00Looks like fantasist was right on the money
http:...Looks like fantasist was right on the money<br /><br />http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7118James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-79928256872427661752010-11-08T15:13:02.857+00:002010-11-08T15:13:02.857+00:00Fantasist - ROFL !!!! George Galloway??Fantasist - ROFL !!!! George Galloway??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-29642988148334754502010-11-08T15:11:14.252+00:002010-11-08T15:11:14.252+00:00And be laughed out of town by every normal person ...And be laughed out of town by every normal person in Glasgow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-8949312478031817682010-11-08T14:51:03.805+00:002010-11-08T14:51:03.805+00:00Could George Galloway not start a resurgence of te...Could George Galloway not start a resurgence of te left in Scotland? e is considering standing as an MSP, and could probably get a Glasgow List seat.Fantasistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-87130662929987667652010-11-08T13:04:06.051+00:002010-11-08T13:04:06.051+00:00That would be a pretty repetitive book anon!That would be a pretty repetitive book anon!James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-48678127897853796112010-11-08T10:46:46.374+00:002010-11-08T10:46:46.374+00:00We also have the "official files" to lo...We also have the "official files" to look forward to, wonder what they will reveal in 30, 70, 100 years time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com