tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post7024708429290786824..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: Irene LangUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-91372179880420485212010-12-11T18:25:11.683+00:002010-12-11T18:25:11.683+00:00Jessica, there may have been motions of no confide...Jessica, there may have been motions of no confidence in the executive AFTER hundreds left the party, I wouldnt know.<br /><br />The statement you copied was from one faction (about 10% of party members) who WERE advocating that Sheridan take on McCombes and Fox. But, as the statement says, that was for an October conference. That didnt happen.<br /><br />A couple of weeks after the defamation case Rosemary Byrne called for talks about a new party. Tommy Sheridan, at first, agreed with those who said 'stay and fight' but he was soon persuaded otherwise by most of those who left the party.<br /><br />You may be getting mixed up with the damning attack by the RMT when they withdrew their affiliation to the SSP or even some small faction that remained calling for the EC to resign, but by that time Sheridan and a few hundred others had left the SSP.<br /><br />The Glasgow regions candidates election didnt take place, a sheridan vs Fox challenge didnt take place.<br /><br />The only test of Sheridans poplarity or support among the members came at the 2005 and 2006 conferences and the May 2005 NC.<br /><br />In those cases it was clear that the partymembership, supported Sheridan.<br /><br />They are not clear indications of how people would have voted in a subsequent leadership challenge but they are the only indication we have in a test of members.<br /><br />The talk of Sheridan leaving because he had no support was simply the UL spin after the party fell apart.fake feministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-15369720490242220982010-12-11T14:26:56.937+00:002010-12-11T14:26:56.937+00:00@fake fiminist
Saw this and thought of you...
Fa...@fake fiminist <br />Saw this and thought of you...<br /><br />Fascinating<br /><br />The court case seemed to change everything it seems. Even though I remember voting in a motion against the leadership not long after the case had ended. <br /><br />Motion fails, then TS leaves.<br /><br />Jessica<br /><br />Do you recall when/where the motion you refer to was debated.<br />Do you have copy of motions and voting results I presume there will be records.(Much like the record you copied into your post)<br />Also were the various groupings present at this debate, IE. the SSP Majority the UL and rank and file members who are were unaligned. <br />As an unaligned member I do not recall this debate, this of course does not infer what you state did not occur however there should be some record of the event that could help jog my memory?A Rural Socialistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-83124749657145259682010-12-11T01:28:56.247+00:002010-12-11T01:28:56.247+00:00@fake fiminist
Saw this and thought of you...
ht...@fake fiminist <br />Saw this and thought of you...<br /><br />http://sspmajority.typepad.com/sspmajority/<br />"The May NC was a turning point for the Scottish Socialist Party. Delegates reflected the view of the majority of members in their support for Tommy Sheridan and their rejection of the Executives position. Hence the name " SSPMajority" blog and web site<br /><br />The SSP members’ open letter was circulated to give members the opportunity to show their solidarity and support for Tommy in his forthcoming battle against the News of the World. Comrades were angered that reports in the press by unknown party spokespersons continued to give the impression that the party was not behind him. The letter also rejected the views of the new so called United Left ‘anti Sheridan’ platform that emerged after the May NC.<br /><br />The signatures to the open letter reflect the diversities within our party. From Stornoway to the borders, from Dundee to Dunoon, from comrades who are members of platforms and no platforms. <b>United in our solidarity and support for comrade Sheridan and of our aim to build the SSP.<br /><br />The October conference will provide us with the opportunity to make changes to ‘our’ party. The aim of this Blog it to allow members who signed the open letter to share and to assist us in planning for our parties future.</b>"<br /><br />Fascinating<br /><br />The court case seemed to change everything it seems. Even though I remember voting in a motion against the leadership not long after the case had ended. <br /><br />Motion fails, then TS leaves.Jessica Fletcherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Fletchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-23002182132730010132010-12-09T13:17:45.496+00:002010-12-09T13:17:45.496+00:00jessica, you are probably mistaken as the people w...jessica, you are probably mistaken as the people who raised such motions had left the party before the conference. The party split very soon after the court case, we will never know whether Sheridan would have won or lost any vote.<br /><br />There was never a test of Sheridans strength of support or confidence in the leadershiop, it didnt happen.<br /><br />All we can do is speculate what might have happened. You are speculating based on some motions raised in the immediate aftermath of the case that never reached confidence. I am speculating based on the fact that members voted 2-1 to support Sheridan just a month before the court case and elected him as Party chair by a huge margin just months before that.fake feministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-59314724894700976832010-12-08T23:30:37.039+00:002010-12-08T23:30:37.039+00:00fake feminist said...
"No, that didnt happen&...fake feminist said...<br />"No, that didnt happen"<br /><br />Are you saying that motions of no confidence weren't raised against the leadership at the time? Motions that failed? <br /><br />Did I imagine it? Am I lying? Or am I just mistaken? <br /><br /><b>It did happen!</b>Jessica Fletcher P.I.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Fletchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-4530977825388190782010-12-08T21:27:16.442+00:002010-12-08T21:27:16.442+00:00Jessica said: "By strange coincidence this s...Jessica said: "By strange coincidence this split occurs after a failure to oust his enemies"<br /><br />No, that didnt happen, as has been said, the conference was planned for October but the parties split in August.<br /><br />By strange coincidence that happened after Barbara Scott had aken documents to the police, SSP executive members had testified against Tommy Sheridan and then changed the locks on Tommy Sheridans parliamentary office.fake feministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-83347613571070331842010-12-08T20:20:02.405+00:002010-12-08T20:20:02.405+00:00Hi Whatsy.
Where do you think the SSP would be to...Hi Whatsy.<br /><br />Where do you think the SSP would be today if all who left remained, you can see from some of these threads and the hostility of some SSP witnesses that there wouuld have been a poor enviroment to be in.(For all)<br />You should also remember it is a political party (for some)and not a way of making a livelyhood and unlike having to put up with a lousy job where you have to work with people you do not admire, you can choose to leave.A Rural Socialistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-2020632549326771922010-12-08T19:58:48.801+00:002010-12-08T19:58:48.801+00:00Whatsy said...
"Have I got this wrong in the ...Whatsy said...<br />"Have I got this wrong in the SSP/Solidarity case? Why the need to split, rather than just democratically bump off the leaders who are doing stuff the membership don't agree with?"<br /><br />It's a bit crazy isn't it? Some are trying to have us believe that TS had the backing of the membership, but yet for some reason he decided to go away and start a new party. By strange coincidence this split occurs after a failure to oust his enemies. <br /><br />If he had the backing of the members, he would have been able to oust his enemies, and take over the leadership. <br /><br />When you look at the parties now it gives you a clue of who had better support. Solidarity <b>might</b> not even exists as far as I'm aware. The SSP has been ticking by, ith ups and downs, despite some major hardships (like it's previous leader leaving to form a rival party, and getting caught up in an Alice in Wonderland type court case, or two), and it has also been pulling in new members.Jessica Fletcher P.I.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Fletchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-89649933046686881412010-12-08T19:30:17.587+00:002010-12-08T19:30:17.587+00:00board (bored) watcher said...
A Rural Socialist s...board (bored) watcher said... <br />A Rural Socialist said...<br /><br />board (bored) watcher said...<br />It would seem that there are rather a lot of those who followed TS out of the SSP are continuing in their efforts to rewrite the history of the months and years following the split.<br /><br />December 8, 2010 4:48 PM<br /><br />Not correct Iam afraid I have no interest in rewiting history .....<br />Indeed I believe what I have posted is a Factual account it is ok to disagree if you wish.<br /><br />However it is a fact that Alan McCombes did leave the NEC meeting and handed over an avadavit.<br /><br />December 8, 2010 5:42 PM <br /><br />A fact which didn't come out until a week or so ago!<br /><br />A fact that was not and had not been admitted who exactly it was who gave he avadavit. Indeed that part was unknown by all until a week ago.<br />The question I think you should be asking is who also knew of this hidden messenger.<br />It is still a fact that this avadavit was passed over after an NEC 2004.<br />If you have been kept in the dark about why it took to last week for this to be disclosed I can not answer Iam afraid perhaps the NEC have their own truth economy<br />I think you should also be looking elsewhere for rewriters of history.A Rural Socialistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-50726377852717489502010-12-08T19:21:03.480+00:002010-12-08T19:21:03.480+00:00anon 6.21
yes, i know, but it never happened. th...anon 6.21<br /><br />yes, i know, but it never happened. the choice taken by hundreds of members was that it was best to leave and try to build again, without thjose who had hijacked the party.<br /><br />that conference would have been organised by those in the UL who we now know were manipulating events and ignoring democratic decisions. what is the point of more democratic decisions when the ones we had passed were useless.fake feministsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-29352835527677422202010-12-08T19:10:20.259+00:002010-12-08T19:10:20.259+00:00A Rural Socialist said...
board (bored) watch...A Rural Socialist said...<br /><br /> board (bored) watcher said...<br /> It would seem that there are rather a lot of those who followed TS out of the SSP are continuing in their efforts to rewrite the history of the months and years following the split.<br /><br /> December 8, 2010 4:48 PM<br /><br /> Not correct Iam afraid I have no interest in rewiting history .....<br /> Indeed I believe what I have posted is a Factual account it is ok to disagree if you wish.<br /> <br />However it is a fact that Alan McCombes did leave the NEC meeting and handed over an avadavit.<br /> <br /> December 8, 2010 5:42 PM <br /><br />A fact which didn't come out until a week or so ago!board (bored) watchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-68023132170921786172010-12-08T18:21:27.142+00:002010-12-08T18:21:27.142+00:00Fakefeminist there was an emergency SSP conference...Fakefeminist there was an emergency SSP conference called for October in 2006, in an NC in June I believe.<br /><br />Tommy could have retaken the convenership and his allies could have contested for spaces on the EC in a vote then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-74362937479179523842010-12-08T17:42:26.148+00:002010-12-08T17:42:26.148+00:00board (bored) watcher said...
It would seem that ...board (bored) watcher said... <br />It would seem that there are rather a lot of those who followed TS out of the SSP are continuing in their efforts to rewrite the history of the months and years following the split.<br /><br />December 8, 2010 4:48 PM<br /><br />Not correct Iam afraid I have no interest in rewiting history what I have posted is my own views as an unaligned former member of the SSP.<br />Indeed I believe what I have posted is a Factual account it is ok to disagree if you wish. However it is a fact that Alan McCombes did leave the NEC meeting and handed over an avadavit.<br />I can see that some will have no issues with that whatsoever,but for me it was a bretrayal of party democracy.Simple as that no rewriting required.A Rural Socialistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-66618123684985395952010-12-08T16:48:57.599+00:002010-12-08T16:48:57.599+00:00It would seem that there are rather a lot of those...It would seem that there are rather a lot of those who followed TS out of the SSP are continuing in their efforts to rewrite the history of the months and years following the split.board (bored) watchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-73679485248017300032010-12-08T15:51:37.662+00:002010-12-08T15:51:37.662+00:00at that point whatsy, the UL held all of the paid ...at that point whatsy, the UL held all of the paid positions and refused to implement democratic decisions. We saw that in court re the McCombes affidavit.<br /><br />The UL changed the locks on Sheridans parliamentary office. It had gone too far for further political debate IMHO.<br /><br />If we had stayed to fight them, there would have been nothing left to win when the fight was done.fake feministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-31538859787612856142010-12-08T12:56:25.076+00:002010-12-08T12:56:25.076+00:00Hi Whatsy.
I believe that your question would req...Hi Whatsy.<br /><br />I believe that your question would require James to open up another blog. <br /><br />However like yourself I was not a member of a party until the formation of the SSP so I would have classed myself as unaligned ie no involvement with SWP CWI etc, I do not know the position of fake Feminest or Jessica with that regard.<br /><br />You are correct in stating that the leadership is elected by the membership and as such had some leeway in regards to decision making. Although this decision making was expected to inline with policies agreed by the membership.<br />Whilst not required to run each and every decision past the membership it was expected that decisions would be inline with conference decisions. <br />As for the removal of leadership there were a few factions or remnants of older factions within this grouping that had the support of like minded or supported by others in these factions, and for the unalinged like myself and perhaps a few others it was a case of being outnumbered so the removal of this leadership would have been difficult.A Rural Socialistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-21827837827948776872010-12-08T12:28:38.177+00:002010-12-08T12:28:38.177+00:00Whatsy,
you are, of course, correct. While leader...Whatsy,<br /><br />you are, of course, correct. While leader, Tommy Sheridan made decisions and took actions without running to the membership for their blessing every time. That was perfectly acceptable, as he had a democratic mandate given by the membership.<br /><br />A great many Sheridan supporters now think that their "democratic" views should have influenced the actions of SSP members dragged into a court case, during which one side lied. That is not a credible position.<br /><br />Kaiser BrianKaiser Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-75411459090385621592010-12-08T11:34:20.036+00:002010-12-08T11:34:20.036+00:00@Rural Socialist, Jessica, Fake Feminist
A bit of...@Rural Socialist, Jessica, Fake Feminist<br /><br />A bit of a digression here, but as someone who has never been in a party, I'm finding this discussion very interesting.<br /><br />I would have thought that the leadership of a party would be elected by the membership, but then would have freedom to behave as they wish without having to run many decisions past party members. Obviously, at some point they will need to try to get re-elected by the membership or avoid being ousted if they step way out of line. <br /><br />Have I got this wrong in the SSP/Solidarity case? Why the need to split, rather than just democratically bump off the leaders who are doing stuff the membership don't agree with?Whatsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08204921386892706588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-30876232361268857222010-12-08T11:25:30.911+00:002010-12-08T11:25:30.911+00:00Jessica, that is just SSP propaganda, that he left...Jessica, that is just SSP propaganda, that he left because he couldnt win a vote, there wasnt a vote!<br /><br />I left because the party was no longer democratci and had been taken over in a coup by the UL.<br /><br />That is the same for most people. Tommy and a few others had o be persuaded not to stay and fight but it was the right choice at the time.<br /><br />Everything we have seen in court in the last few weeks vindicates that decision. Green, McCombes Leckie etc thought that they were special annointed people and didnt need to bother with petty things like democratic decisions by members.<br /><br />The UL are exposed now for everyone to see.fake feministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-31143983292563762172010-12-08T00:15:04.720+00:002010-12-08T00:15:04.720+00:00Hi Jessica
I too was a member if the SSP and had ...Hi Jessica<br /><br />I too was a member if the SSP and had been one almost from its incecption.<br />However my decision to leave was not due to any great support of T.S. it was more of a realisation that the SSP were not the democratic party that they puported to be. At that time I had grave concerns that the party were using leaks to the media not only in regard to T.S but on a number of other issues the straw that broke this particular camels back was information from an internal NEC meeting being given over to the Herald irrespective of the content I may add.<br />It was and still is my belief that this action was unprecedented for an orginisation of the left and assisted in the damage to the SSP and was carried out in the knowledge of where it would lead.<br /><br />As for Solidarity time will tell however at the moment if I wished to raise an issue with a Socialist MSP where do you suggest I go, for now there is none and I would suggest that that number will not be increased by the SSP now or in the near future.<br />The electorate IMO require to have trust in who they elect, how do you convince these people to elect your candidate when a section of the membership have lost trust in the NEC.A Rural Socialistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-12760372406335802532010-12-07T22:37:03.796+00:002010-12-07T22:37:03.796+00:00@Fake feminist...
That's nonsense. There were...@Fake feminist...<br /><br />That's nonsense. There were motions raised against the <b>leadership</b>(NOT Sheridan) by those on Sheridan's side. <br /><br />If they planned on leaving "such a damaged organisation" then why put these motions forward? (the one in my branch was defeated by a ratio of more than 7 to 1). <br /><br />If support for Sheridan was as great as you claim it was then why the need to leave and form another party? According to you he had more than enough support to easily become 'leader' again, AND remove those he was unhappy with. <br /><br />It was only AFTER the results of the motions of no confidence came back that it was announced he would be leaving with the SWP and CWI to form a new party. In other word he failed. The membership was not behind him. It was time to run away and try and start over. <br /><br />How is Solidarity these days anyway? Does it exist in anything more than name now?Jessica Fletcher P.I.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Fletchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-45453527469527788652010-12-07T19:49:18.884+00:002010-12-07T19:49:18.884+00:00No Jessica, that is just SSP spin, there were a fe...No Jessica, that is just SSP spin, there were a few branches on one side or the other who declared confidence or not for Sheridan but is clear from the NC in May that the leadership clique would lose heavily. The vast majority of those who were against the leadership clique (the members) were in favour of leaving the party rather than fighting to win control of such a damaged organisation. <br /><br />In light of what we have seen in this trial, especially the actions of McCombes and Leckie, its pretty clear that they were right.fake feministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-12288239204354921442010-12-07T14:14:02.938+00:002010-12-07T14:14:02.938+00:00No it doesn't breach any legislation. Mr. S wa...No it doesn't breach any legislation. Mr. S was aware minutes were being taken otherwise why was Ms.Scott there? She had the role of being the Minutes Secretary. He also personally asked the NC to keep the minutes confidential, therefore consenting to them. If the information in them was false or misleading why did he not raise the issue at the nov NC? Also Alan's QC argued that at the time but Lady Smith disagreedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-79199758452556451602010-12-06T20:51:07.393+00:002010-12-06T20:51:07.393+00:00Once SSP said...
"well there wasnt an electio...Once SSP said...<br />"well there wasnt an election after the trial, he joined another party."<br /><br />Tommy tried to get an election by having a motion of no confidence in the leadership. It failed, quite heavily.Jessica Fletcher P.I.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Fletchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-14310001236597162722010-12-06T16:42:24.367+00:002010-12-06T16:42:24.367+00:00Anonymous said...
If you go by Occam and his (t)r...Anonymous said... <br />If you go by Occam and his (t)rusty razor you'd have to accept that the video was genuine!?<br /><br />December 6, 2010 4:22 PM<br />Wikipedia said<br /><br />Evidence of limitation<br />Even if Occam's Razor is empirically justified (also see "Applications" section below), so too is the need to use other "theory selecting" methods in Science. For instance, in order to have even justified Occam's Razor, theoretically a scientist must first identify "the correct explanation" to gauge its complexity. Obviously this must be accomplished using other aspects of the Scientific method besides the Razor itself (or else we would be making a circular argument to support the Razor). Thus, to measure the Razor's (or any method's) ability to select between theories, we must be sure to use a different, reliable "theory selecting" method for corroboration.Legally Challengednoreply@blogger.com