tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post5248248254447194265..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: Pat SmithUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-64921274529735647142010-12-14T16:40:21.302+00:002010-12-14T16:40:21.302+00:00Peter said...
"Am getting my Macs mixed up -...Peter said...<br /><br />"Am getting my Macs mixed up - easy to do with you lot up there!"<br /><br />Maybe, but you could at least spell the name properly.<br />It's McCombes.Wullie McGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-87756348407267556512010-12-14T15:58:51.754+00:002010-12-14T15:58:51.754+00:00aye, "marching shoulder to shoulder with our ...aye, "marching shoulder to shoulder with our brothers and sisters in the police", aye, that'll be the day...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-61686400347945793002010-12-14T15:49:31.805+00:002010-12-14T15:49:31.805+00:00Peter - what about TS's recent very vocal supp...Peter - what about TS's recent very vocal support for the Police during their recent dispute?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-62135663299230931072010-12-14T04:08:07.623+00:002010-12-14T04:08:07.623+00:00Peter
You say: "I am suggesting that the las...Peter<br /><br />You say: "I am suggesting that the last thing the defence should do is give Crown witnesses a chance (if they were so inclined) to change their dates to fit around and undermine that alibi evidence. ... If people don't think the state would do things like that I would point them to the news tonight and ask them this: If it had not seen it on TV would they ever have thought they would see two police officers seriously assault and humiliate a man in wheelchair suffering from cerebal palsy."<br /><br />Peter, yes indeed I would believe that the state would do such things. I believe even that the state has invaded other countries causing hundreds of thousands of deaths: I believe the British state once ruled and exploited a fifth of the world's population.<br /><br />But in the name of all the gods and little fishes I can't see what this has to do with a case of alleged perjury arising from a court action in which TS was the pursuer.<br /><br />If TS rejects the state and all its works, what possessed him to use its judicial machinery to sue the NoTW for £200k?<br /><br />I agree with you about the Anons by the way.CBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-76370474393893076572010-12-14T01:37:57.719+00:002010-12-14T01:37:57.719+00:00@anon 5.33
Not all of the SSP witnesses presented...@anon 5.33<br /><br />Not all of the SSP witnesses presented in the case were in the United Left group. Colin Fox for example was openly hostile to the group being set up, as he was doing his best to hold the party together right up to the split after the civil case in 2006, and considered it divisive. <br /><br />The 'political' (i.e. former SSP) witnesses called by the defence are those sympathetic to Tommy, of course - generally those who left the SSP with him in 2006. When the SSP split those that left to form Solidarity were those 2 most faction-y of factions - the SWP (whom I believe 2 witnesses so far belong to - Pat Smith and Mike Gonzalez) and the CWI (known in England as The Socialist Party (of England and Wales) [SPEW for fun] - who in an apparently serious Pythonesque twist have started calling themselves "the socialist party scotland" north of the border. Other small SSP factions either stayed with the SSP (eg RCN) or split themselves, with some joining the SNP (SRSM).<br /><br />There were of course individuals not in any platform/faction/grouping on both sides of the split, including some who have been called as witnesses both for prosecution and defence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-64606350797672982032010-12-14T00:40:13.130+00:002010-12-14T00:40:13.130+00:00Hi Mac the Knife
Great name by the way.
The rel...Hi Mac the Knife <br /><br />Great name by the way.<br /><br />The relevance of my reference to the police was in relation to some comments on the blog tonight.<br /><br />Some posters have suggested that the defence witnesses should have gone to the police with their alibi evidence (that appears to fully exonerate Tommy) so the police could check it out and perhaps even drop the charges.<br /><br />I am suggesting that those posters live in an ideal world.<br /><br />I am suggesting that the last thing the defence should do is give Crown witnesses a chance (if they were so inclined) to change their dates to fit around and undermine that alibi evidence.<br /><br />You appear to be with me in that regard. <br /><br />If people don't think the state would do things like that I would point them to the news tonight and ask them this:<br /><br />If it had not seen it on TV would they ever have thought they would see two police officers seriously assault and humiliate a man in wheelchair suffering from cerebal palsy.<br /><br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />PeterPeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-65515673478287064882010-12-14T00:17:27.982+00:002010-12-14T00:17:27.982+00:00Peter - you could add to the list name names. A lo...Peter - you could add to the list name names. A lot of people hold the Police in high regard, even go running to the Police to "grass" people up - you ever watched Cops n Robbers? - it is only through bitter and personal experience that they learn who the Police really represent. And how does this shed light on the matter of alleged Perjury committed by the Sheridans?Mac the Knifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-15882549823717417152010-12-14T00:13:01.881+00:002010-12-14T00:13:01.881+00:00Hi Anon:11.08
Have decided not to reply to Anons ...Hi Anon:11.08<br /><br />Have decided not to reply to Anons as it gets too confusing to track back the conversation.<br /><br />Pick a name and I will respond to your point. <br /><br />Try "Mac the Knife" for size.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />PeterPeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-83239531798681081992010-12-13T23:08:21.823+00:002010-12-13T23:08:21.823+00:00Peter - you could add to the list name names. A l...Peter - you could add to the list name names. A lot of people hold the Police in high regard, even go running to the Police to "grass" people up - you ever watched Cops n Robbers? - it is only through bitter and personal experience that they learn who the Police really represent. And does this shed light on the matter of alleged Perjury committed by the Sheridans?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-67029935167690608062010-12-13T22:53:05.151+00:002010-12-13T22:53:05.151+00:00PETER SAID
"The defence consider that McNei...PETER SAID <br /><br />"The defence consider that McNeilage *EDIT I MEAN McCOOMBES* was prepared to go jail (and indeed went to jail) to cover up his secret involvement in blowing Tommy up in this matter of the affadavit - what else would he do to get him?"<br /><br />Sorry I did it again Rolo. In my defence I was distracted by TV news footage of the Met police tipping a guy with cerebal palsy from his wheelchair, dragging him across the road and giving him a few smacks ... say after me the police are our friends ... help the police ... give statements to the police ...they will treat you fairly...the police are neutral.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-19587116886693302932010-12-13T22:38:16.534+00:002010-12-13T22:38:16.534+00:00Sorry Rolo "my bad" as the kids say - we...Sorry Rolo "my bad" as the kids say - well spotted.<br /><br />Am getting my Macs mixed up - easy to do with you lot up there!<br /><br />I said "McCoombes group" first and meant that - the slip into the "McNeilage group" was not a freudian one but a typo.<br /><br />The McCoombes article written in the period immediately after the libel trial is vital reading in my view.<br /><br />For an understanding of the feelings of the McCoombes/United Left group on the executive (other it appears than Fox) it is unrivalled.<br /><br />At the point of writing it McCoombes and his UL group on the executive were not admitting to he was the author of the affadavit.<br /><br />McCoombe's fulsome defence in that article of the strategy of resistance as a principled attempt to protect Tommys and Gails confidentiality from the media is therefore particularly hilarious (if it were not so sad) <br /><br />Now we know of course that it was McCoombes himself who had given an affadavit to the Herald with the knowlegde of at least one of the United Left faction MSPs (ie. Carolyn Leckie).<br /><br />If the party was not factioned as Tommy says why was new SSP leader Fox not advised of this important little detail by his Chief Policy adviser McCoombes and fellow MSP Leckie.<br /><br />Now we do know of it some have appeared in court to defend McCoombes action in giving the affadavit to the Herald ( to his credit not Fox) as an attempt to keep a record of events in case the "minutes" were disputed later.<br /><br />If McCoombes wanted to protect Tommys confidentiality; if the "confession minutes" are genuine; and if McCoombes was simply worried the "confession minutes" would not be believed later and he therefore wanted a back up record why did he not just give one copy of the minutes confidentially to a notary - rather than giving an indistinct affadavit to a newspaper and thus laying a trail to a set of "minutes" that nearly resulted in Sheridan's destruction by the NOTW.<br /><br />Mmmmm no answer to that one has yet appeared from the McCoombes group.<br /><br />The defence consider that McNeilage was prepared to go jail (and indeed went to jail) to cover up his secret involvement in blowing Tommy up in this matter of the affadavit - what else would he do to get him?<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />PeterPeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-30800184831115685222010-12-13T18:03:31.857+00:002010-12-13T18:03:31.857+00:00@ Peter
You talk about the "McNeilage group&...@ Peter<br /><br />You talk about the "McNeilage group", and "McNeilage's" bid for the leadership, as the man who "created" Tommy.<br /><br />Is this right? I thought big George was one of the Pollok boys from back in the day, but not involved in the jockeying for SSP leadership positions in 2004.Rolo Tomasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-21087624474660123882010-12-13T17:43:16.731+00:002010-12-13T17:43:16.731+00:00Might be worth you reading paragraph one of this r...Might be worth you reading paragraph one of this report anon.Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-6037026164217988232010-12-13T17:33:06.514+00:002010-12-13T17:33:06.514+00:00what are the political affiliations of the defence...what are the political affiliations of the defence witnesses while members of the SSP. IE what platform did they belong. <br />We know which Crown witnesses were from the united left.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-34335349437302399832010-12-13T16:19:32.316+00:002010-12-13T16:19:32.316+00:00CB said
"The jury may wish to reflect on wh...CB said <br /><br />"The jury may wish to reflect on what motive the SSP witnesses could possibly have to perjure themselves by concocting a cock and bull story out of thin air."<br /><br />Hi CB,<br /><br />To understand the ations of the McCoombes group you need to put yourself in their minds and what they regarded as the "Truth".<br /><br />The McCoombes group did not consider they were making it up "out of thin air". <br /><br />Rumours and tittle tattle had circulated about Tommy's personal life for years by his opponents inside and ouside the movement. I remember it back in the 80s and 90s.<br /><br />If you read McCoombes article ater the libel trial group around McCoombes were fully convinced BEFORE the executive meeting that Sheridan was the MSP who was going to be named as the one who went to Cupids - they expected much more revelations besides. <br /><br />They wanted an immediate resignation, on their terms, with no chance of a return. McNeilage then fully expected (as the man who considers himself to have "created" Tommy) to take the leadership.<br /><br />If Tommy had not dug his heels in and pursued his legal action and if Fox had not stood with Sheridans endorsement McNeilage's leadership bid in 2005 would likely have been successful. <br /><br />The bitter state of mind of the McCoombes group towards Sheridan's "guilt" was shown later. The same group championed Trolle and McGuire as innocent SSP women who were the victims of a manipulative sexual predator. <br /><br />McNeilage was not disciplined for creating/filming and selling it to the NOTW. Indeed now McCoombe's has been let off by the SSP for secretly giving the Herald an affadavit even though that strictly against party orders that internal matters be kept from the media. <br /><br />Whether Sheridan denied it or not was not an issue for this group -they "knew" it to be "true" or so wanted it be true for factional reasons they were prepared to cross class lines and follow were the NOTW lead. <br /><br />Others (more rational in my view)on the executive either believed Tommys denials or at least were willing to give Tommy the benefit of the doubt to fight the case out.<br /><br />That those people (outside the McNeilage group) did not want him to pursue a libel action as leader (with all the risks that entailed) was no doubt influenced by the fact that a lot of the leading members of the McNeilage group made it very clear that they felt his denials were false.<br /><br />After garnering opinion the executive meeting adjourned to assess the situation through further discussion with Sheridan.<br /><br />A deal was arranged and the compromise with Sheridan was that he agreed to resign and to continue his legal action whilst remaining as a party MSP. That was the right deal to reach in my view. I, for example, have always argued that if Sheridan was going to do a libel case he should stand down. That does not I mean I believe the NOTW but it is the sensible course of action.<br /><br />That of course was not enough for the McCoombes group who as I say were fully convinced Tommy was "guilty".<br /><br />The "minutes" and the final fail safe of the secret affadavit were therefore insurance for the anti-Sheridan faction to prevent Sheridans return to leadership of the party.<br /><br />Those tools were put to that effect in 2006 and indeed Tommy nearly lost the libel case on the back of that manouvere.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-16995061665042951062010-12-13T15:48:46.062+00:002010-12-13T15:48:46.062+00:00I believe prosecution witnesses also referred to T...I believe prosecution witnesses also referred to Tommy saying something along similar lines regarding the NotW not being able to find a "shred of evidence" on him (don't know if any used the exact phrase, but something similar): though obviously in the context of him just admitting to them that the allegations in the paper did refer to TS.<br /><br />Obviously it makes a lot more sense in the prosecution witnesses version of events. Make of that what you will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-51702023531258046352010-12-13T14:46:21.270+00:002010-12-13T14:46:21.270+00:00Of course, Mrs Smith's remark that it is "...Of course, Mrs Smith's remark that it is "unusual" for a socialist to accuse another socialist of lying tends to support my view above on the tendency to veracity of people in general.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-42138459278337155032010-12-13T14:46:03.287+00:002010-12-13T14:46:03.287+00:00TS obviously in my opinion picked up on the potent...TS obviously in my opinion picked up on the potential fatal implications of the "shred of evidence" comment and that is why my opinion he asked Pat Smith if she could be "confused".<br />And the BBC seem to have picked up on it too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-43318289442426500882010-12-13T14:42:32.703+00:002010-12-13T14:42:32.703+00:00On the SSP lying issue, my take is that it is unli...On the SSP lying issue, my take is that it is unlikely anyone would lie - if people lied 50% of the time there would be no language, so the average rate of lying must be below 50%, probably very much below. My own feeling is that there are no circumstances (e.g. a white lie) that significantly impair this expectation in the SSP case.. <br /><br />Given that, the balance of probabilities is that the majority are telling the truth. But that is not enough to convict, which requires 'beyond reasonable doubt'.<br /><br />That is where the corroborating evidence comes in. And that, as we say, is for the jury to decide.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-73487906634911416242010-12-13T13:43:32.932+00:002010-12-13T13:43:32.932+00:00Is that not a strange formulation - it was not me,...Is that not a strange formulation - it was not me, and by the way they will never find a shred of evidence?<br /><br />The second statement is surely implicit in the first - if it was not you, then there can't be any evidence that it was.<br /><br />I would have thought a more natural statement would be something like "It wasn't me, I'm innocent, how dare they, I would never betray my wife..." Etc.<br /><br />Just reads a little oddly IMHO.Shredless Wheatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-30360110107332282792010-12-13T11:23:16.360+00:002010-12-13T11:23:16.360+00:00"you said they would never find a shred of ev..."you said they would never find a shred of evidence"<br /><br />has different connotations to<br /><br />"you said there could not be a shred of evidence"Lefty Trainspotternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-83661458283365772572010-12-13T09:36:40.906+00:002010-12-13T09:36:40.906+00:00Picking up on PSs "almost verbatim " quo...Picking up on PSs "almost verbatim " quotes in the next day papers.This has jolted my memory of the Dundee SSP meeting addressed by Alan McCoombes( Pre defamation case).This was a closed members only meeting and everyone was told to switch of their mobiles. Similar meetings were held elsewhere with himself and Alan Green.I sat there horrified listening to the litany of accusations made against TS,with McCoombes stating there was much worse still to come out. This was going to be Armagedon for the Party said Alan.Next day,my mind was still reeling and i was struggling to remember everything said.Come to the rescue that mornings Dundee Courier(Rabid anti union DC Thomson publication). Blow by blow account.Suspicions at the time pointed to a couple of branch members leaking/bugging. However the source was most likely to have been McCoombes himself. Anyway i fully believed what he said on the basis that it was inconceivable that longstanding friends,comrades,best man etc. could make this stuff up.I now have very serious doubts. Forget the Wicker Man.Seems more akin to the Omen.McCoombes painted Sheridan like a Damian figure who was hell bent on destroying the SSP.Accordingly he had to be destroyed. For some time i scoffed at TSs accusations of a conspiracy but i am becoming increasingly persuaded. Remember McCoombes testimony that he was prepared "to do anything to protect the Party".So in this context socialists are prepared to do the unthinkable and justify the unjustifiable for the greater cause. Seems to me they have caused profoundly more damage to the SSP than TS,even if guilty as charged. Reminds me of the infamous Lt. Calley at the My Lai massacre trial(during the Vietnam War),"We had to destroy the village to save it"(from the Viet Cong).Mission accomplished.iain brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-46375190975544283952010-12-13T05:34:42.404+00:002010-12-13T05:34:42.404+00:00level-headed larry
You say "You seem to find...level-headed larry<br /><br />You say "You seem to find it difficult to believe that those who hated TS would be willing to lie against TS in court, but no difficulty in believing that others would be willing to lie in court for him."<br /><br />But as I see it, the point Critical Eye is making (and it is at the very core of the question at issue) is that the people who "hated TS" had no need to lie or invent anything in order to get rid of him, as he had already agreed to step down as party leader. The jury may wish to reflect on what motive the SSP witnesses could possibly have to perjure themselves by concocting a cock and bull story out of thin air.<br /><br />Those of Tommy's supporters who were at the meeting may of course be telling the truth about his not confessing to any visit to the sex club, but even if they are they have an obvious motive to do otherwise.CBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-50824336861116495752010-12-13T01:21:34.798+00:002010-12-13T01:21:34.798+00:00What I have in my note is "I was sitting next...What I have in my note is "I was sitting next to you, you said they would never find a shred of evidence, it was certainly not you" <br /><br />I'd not put it in the report as I did not see it as particularly significant but I'll add it to the main post later. <br /><br />JamesJames Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-87765868495533372932010-12-13T01:08:46.998+00:002010-12-13T01:08:46.998+00:00@ Interested - the "shred of evidence" r...@ Interested - the "shred of evidence" remark was actually posted in a (now deleted comment), if you search this blog (search box on the right) you will find many references to TS allegedly saying "shred of evidence". TS even used the phrase in his cross-examination of Bob Bird.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com