tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post3963123371529886683..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: Gordon MorganUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-64213763186479355942010-12-14T16:44:22.347+00:002010-12-14T16:44:22.347+00:00@ Ca ching - are you saying that everyone is "...@ Ca ching - are you saying that everyone is "on the make", that is is all about money, having a comfortable livelihood?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-48125600972947001852010-12-14T16:37:31.038+00:002010-12-14T16:37:31.038+00:00Mike, the MSP's were all list MSP's. There...Mike, the MSP's were all list MSP's. Therefore they owed their living to getting put as number one on the party list at the next election. The researchers etc were all appointed by the MSP's so if they went, most likely their staff would to.<br /><br />The defence contend that the political fight was so bitter for precisely that reason, one side stood to lose not only their positions (that happens all the time in parties) but also their confortable livelyhood.Ca chingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-8603622811426767712010-12-14T16:30:02.214+00:002010-12-14T16:30:02.214+00:00Yuleface,
If the MSPs and researchers weren't...Yuleface,<br /><br />If the MSPs and researchers weren't dependant on the party for their income, I'd have thought that would suggest Morgan was exagerating the numbers.<br /><br />He's saying 39 people, I'm saying the number is lower.<br /><br />He's trying to imply that all these people, who he claims were depdendent on the party for their liveliehood, were jockeying for position and that this somehow gave rise to a plot against Tommy.<br /><br />Not that this makes any sense anyway (why would people dependent on the SSP for a living decide they all had to do in Tommy anyway), but he's simply got his facts wrong.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-84276414339441346702010-12-14T14:39:47.334+00:002010-12-14T14:39:47.334+00:00Mike said...
39 people dependent on the SSP for th...Mike said...<br />39 people dependent on the SSP for their income?<br /><br />Well, the MSPs weren't. Even if the party was wound up, they'd still get their salaries.<br /><br />Also, the various researchers the party employed were paid out of the money the MSPs gave back to the party, so you can hardly claimn they were dependent on the party either.<br /><br />Methinks Crde Morgan exagerates.<br /><br />Perhaps the SSP expenses Accounts submitted at the end of the fiscal year would shed some light on this. <br />Iam sure that such records would include things like staff cost and overheads of the day to day running of the Party?<br />Staff levels of around forty wether partime time or full time, the numbers suggested would indicate to me if on a minimum wage level would suggest an outlay similar to a small business.<br />As for researchers I beleive like other MSPs or indeed Mps researcher costs can be offset with expenses claims to the Parly.<br />Perhaps Crde Morgan rather than exagerating has underplayed this issue.Legally Challengednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-28586844363113113422010-12-13T11:36:12.446+00:002010-12-13T11:36:12.446+00:00Maybe the High Court is different but at rural She...Maybe the High Court is different but at rural Sheriff Court level where I grub about there is a definite advantage in getting cases into the system just before Christmas/New Year. I suspect it may be less to do with sentimentality than Scottish Court Service wanting to avoid the expense and grief of having Reliance vans trundling about during the festive season tipping bodies into jails where they're operating on skeleton staff anyway.Jack Hacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-64534706340944575902010-12-13T09:34:19.127+00:002010-12-13T09:34:19.127+00:0039 people dependent on the SSP for their income?
...39 people dependent on the SSP for their income?<br /><br />Well, the MSPs weren't. Even if the party was wound up, they'd still get their salaries.<br /><br />Also, the various researchers the party employed were paid out of the money the MSPs gave back to the party, so you can hardly claimn they were dependent on the party either.<br /><br />Methinks Crde Morgan exagerates.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-42960593493756530282010-12-12T20:42:33.265+00:002010-12-12T20:42:33.265+00:00Not anticipating the course of the trial or anythi...Not anticipating the course of the trial or anything, but I bet that you will be able to hear a pin drop in that courtroom before the Verdict is delivered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-52521588112558347122010-12-12T20:39:55.636+00:002010-12-12T20:39:55.636+00:00Where an Accused in found guilty on Xmas Eve or no...Where an Accused in found guilty on Xmas Eve or not is immaterial to whether or not bail is granted. Judicial decisions are not based on sentiment.Court Insidernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-45723163042372702322010-12-12T19:40:22.456+00:002010-12-12T19:40:22.456+00:00Lets wait until we get a verdict before discussing...Lets wait until we get a verdict before discussing those issues please up4it.<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />JJames Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-12972532111621086242010-12-12T19:36:25.736+00:002010-12-12T19:36:25.736+00:00xmas eve, talk about a high stakes game. if you ge...xmas eve, talk about a high stakes game. if you get a result what a xmas that will be but if it goes the other way! would it be norm to put someone on bail pending sentencing if they got found guilty on xmas eve or would it be go to jail do not pass go but get your £10 chrissy bonus (as reported in wkend papers) on entry to the big hoose.up4itnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-55736789309288127982010-12-12T18:04:05.767+00:002010-12-12T18:04:05.767+00:00Campbell, sorry but you cannot discuss things not ...Campbell, sorry but you cannot discuss things not presented to the jury. Discussions you had with crown witnesses about defence witnesses fall into that category.James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-19512025375514471932010-12-12T18:01:28.029+00:002010-12-12T18:01:28.029+00:00It is increasingly looking like that up4it, two we...It is increasingly looking like that up4it, two weeks extra time to allow for "slippage" would bring this trial neatly round to an Xmas Eve climax; of course we might all be sat in Court come the New Year.Smart Moneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-26418971458339032512010-12-12T17:15:19.529+00:002010-12-12T17:15:19.529+00:00well james the smart money is on a xmas eve verdic...well james the smart money is on a xmas eve verdictup4itnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-6022853237811321562010-12-12T16:35:11.996+00:002010-12-12T16:35:11.996+00:00Hearsay:-
If you were at the meeting, you can tel...Hearsay:-<br /><br />If you were at the meeting, you can tell us what was said.<br /><br />If you only spoke to someone at the end of the meeting by phone, you can tell us what you heard in the background (Splitter! Revisionist! Pabloite! Stalinist! Splitter! Wailing and gnashing of teeth; anyone for another Buckie? what's Faslane got to do with it? etc) but you cannot tell us what the other party told you went on at the meeting before the phone call. <br />Simply because as you were not there it is therefore someone else's evidence.Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan Call Centrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-84912407792941599752010-12-12T16:16:46.937+00:002010-12-12T16:16:46.937+00:00Nothing personal up4it, you breached the rules.Nothing personal up4it, you breached the rules.James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-78671935085002431162010-12-12T16:12:50.272+00:002010-12-12T16:12:50.272+00:00hey james you not wanting to post my comments anym...hey james you not wanting to post my comments anymoreup4itnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-59572800412019378652010-12-12T15:47:16.452+00:002010-12-12T15:47:16.452+00:00My understanding is that, in the case of Alison Ka...My understanding is that, in the case of Alison Kane's telephone call, the witness would be reporting someone else's opinion of what was happening at the meeting. As Ms Kane has been a witness and has told the court her opinion directly there is no need for such testimony.James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-80765061770365436952010-12-12T15:43:55.953+00:002010-12-12T15:43:55.953+00:00I'm confused by these hearsay rules: it appear...I'm confused by these hearsay rules: it appears ok for some witnesses to say what someone else said, but not others.<br /><br />Why is Gordon Morgan saying what someone told him on the phone any different from someone claiming that TS had confessed to them?no legal eaglenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-47831103192522250472010-12-12T15:21:37.871+00:002010-12-12T15:21:37.871+00:00Good to see you hard at work typing on a Sunday, J...Good to see you hard at work typing on a Sunday, James. No rest for the wicked, eh! BrendaBrendanoreply@blogger.com