tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post8998727604257812726..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: Tommy Sheridan begins his own defence.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-32558484400041036222010-10-19T12:59:23.268+01:002010-10-19T12:59:23.268+01:00Excuses for who, Joanne? What's your point ca...Excuses for who, Joanne? What's your point caller?Barnabynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-32129873158794354112010-10-19T02:11:21.953+01:002010-10-19T02:11:21.953+01:00According to the Socialist Worker June 2006, "...According to the Socialist Worker June 2006, "Last Sunday, a front page article in the Sunday Herald revealed that soon after that executive committee meeting in November 2004, an unnamed senior SSP official had given the newspaper full details of what had been discussed".<br /><br />No excuses will do !Joannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-57321865091927737282010-10-15T22:10:56.501+01:002010-10-15T22:10:56.501+01:00I've removed a couple of comments, the first b...I've removed a couple of comments, the first because I didn't think it was appropriate the second only because it was an answer to the first.James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-31038765910317279602010-10-15T21:14:33.946+01:002010-10-15T21:14:33.946+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032657864086731953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-43424146391563820972010-10-15T18:27:23.524+01:002010-10-15T18:27:23.524+01:00Like any criminal trial, it's not so much a ca...Like any criminal trial, it's not so much a case of "defending" anything, its about destroying the prosecution case.Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-11596248772106404882010-10-15T18:21:28.420+01:002010-10-15T18:21:28.420+01:00At the of the trial the judge will sum up and Char...At the of the trial the judge will sum up and Charge the jury. If the judge considers that there is sufficient evidence in law to convict tommy & gail he will say so to the jury in a form of a legal direction. Another point is that civil trials are decided on a balance of probabilities; in a criminal trial the case has to be "proved beyond a reasonable doubt"; and we all should know that Scottish juries have three verdicts at their disposal not guilty, guilty and not proven.Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-3741117040413162842010-10-15T18:19:58.883+01:002010-10-15T18:19:58.883+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-249982502842950082010-10-15T18:01:05.447+01:002010-10-15T18:01:05.447+01:00AN other, (its difficult to distinguish one anon p...AN other, (its difficult to distinguish one anon poster from another. I dont underestimate the power of corroborative evidence, was just pointing out the reality of what is actually happening here.<br /><br />the other anon, i'm not sailing close to anything and there is no "again"Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032657864086731953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-27676092817361058772010-10-15T17:55:38.558+01:002010-10-15T17:55:38.558+01:00Jim, above, is not sailing close the wind at all. ...Jim, above, is not sailing close the wind at all. It is not a numbers games. The Crown need to corroborate their case by providing two pieces of evidence not necessarily taken separately but taken together that prove guilt. Tommy & Gail (the Defence) to need need to prove or corroborate anything. If is sufficient for Tommy & Gail to deny the charges and the jury are perfectly entitled to accept that. Of course if the accused remains silent the jury are entitled to draw an inference from that. So, in effect if the Crown presents a case the accused is "forced" into defending it, as by remaining silent will inevitably result in a "guilty" verdict by default.Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-30462036586353550012010-10-15T16:38:58.131+01:002010-10-15T16:38:58.131+01:00Jim you're right of course that it is up to th...Jim you're right of course that it is up to the Crown to prove guilt, so perhaps my wording was unfortunate. However, convincing a jury of innocence is the corollary of being found not guilty or not proven. <br />You are once again correct that it is difficult to establish guilt, particularly after such a long time.<br />However I think you dismiss too readily the power of corroborative evidence by witnesses, and I think you perhaps misunderstand my motives because I don't wish anything to be so in relation to this case.AN Othernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-27426118505932845062010-10-15T15:58:32.630+01:002010-10-15T15:58:32.630+01:00Jim,
You are sailing very close to the wind again...Jim,<br /><br />You are sailing very close to the wind again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-30676592166884412752010-10-15T11:14:20.670+01:002010-10-15T11:14:20.670+01:00Mr. Sheridan, albeit that he should most certainly...Mr. Sheridan, albeit that he should most certainly be considered innocent until such time as a jury might determine otherwise, is also the accused in this matter. As such it is entirely appropriate that he conducts himself from the dock as per any other person who might find them-self in his situation.<br /><br />Let us not forget that it was Mr. Sheridan's choice to dispense with his QC as legal counsel in this matter and not that he was prevented or obstructed in any way from receiving such professional assistance by the state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-16469742972995088472010-10-15T08:47:30.858+01:002010-10-15T08:47:30.858+01:00Anon, you have it the wrong way round, its up to t...Anon, you have it the wrong way round, its up to the crown to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. It is the Crown who have amore difficult job this time round, proving perjury beyond doubt is extremely difficult, thats why it is rarely even attempted.<br /><br />You are wrong to think that the jury can convict on your basis - "why do so many people accuse him", even if you would like it to be so.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14032657864086731953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-91582668740275343642010-10-15T08:14:55.601+01:002010-10-15T08:14:55.601+01:00Chrissie,
it is all about proof. This News of the...Chrissie,<br /><br />it is all about proof. This News of the World stuff is a smokescreen. Let's see the evidence, shall we?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-86687194592057895222010-10-15T06:40:02.313+01:002010-10-15T06:40:02.313+01:00The News of the World is indeed part of the Murdoc...The News of the World is indeed part of the Murdoch empire and deserve all the epithets attributed to them here. <br />However contributors are correct in their assertion that this trial has gone beyond the plucky political activist v the scum of the earth battle of the defamation trial. This is HMA v Sheridan and Sheridan. <br />Tommy may ask some interesting and awkward questions of Coulson but in the end Coulson and the NOTW aren't on trial here. Sooner or later Tommy will be faced with the prosecution asking the question, "Why is it that all these disparate and unconnected people who would have no truck with Murdoch and the News of the World have given the same testimony against you?" <br />Convincing a criminal jury of innocence is a much tougher gig than getting a jury to make an award against a huge company in a civil trial. This is why in all likelihood Coulson's appearance whilst uncomfortable for him, may not be the pivotal moment that many anticipate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-2511345406786401972010-10-14T22:59:56.037+01:002010-10-14T22:59:56.037+01:00And Tommy is also going to call "Glenn Mulcai...And Tommy is also going to call "Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator who was jailed for six months in 2007 for phone-hacking voicemail messages for NoTW", are you still going to persist with your argument that the news of the world has nothing to do with this case and instead it all about proof and the lord of the advocates?Chrissienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-1722555726408362082010-10-14T22:56:38.381+01:002010-10-14T22:56:38.381+01:00the_voice_of_reason
tommy has just called the ex-...the_voice_of_reason<br /><br />tommy has just called the ex-editor of the news of the world (andy coulson) as a witness so how can you say that the news of the world has nothing to do with this case?Chrissienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-8591192330018027492010-10-14T22:43:59.892+01:002010-10-14T22:43:59.892+01:00Chrissie: I hope that you are joking....Chrissie: I hope that you are joking....the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-63377855907758159032010-10-14T22:02:23.605+01:002010-10-14T22:02:23.605+01:00Don't be so silly Anonymous, the News of the W...Don't be so silly Anonymous, the News of the World's filthy fingerprints are all over this case.Chrissienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-35835532206381952442010-10-14T21:30:51.630+01:002010-10-14T21:30:51.630+01:00it's wuite simple, willie. Sheridan is not up ...it's wuite simple, willie. Sheridan is not up against the News of the World, he is accused of a crime against the legal system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-43614456957656652602010-10-14T20:48:50.115+01:002010-10-14T20:48:50.115+01:00the_voice_of_reason
The spirit and general thrust...the_voice_of_reason<br /><br />The spirit and general thrust of what Tam the Bam said was correct; we are not all here to get bogged down in legal technicalities. Your comment went right over my head and I'd expect most other readers too. Oh, and as you've probably guessed I am not a lawyer and most folk who read this excellent blog won't be either.Willienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-90443096575104647802010-10-14T20:29:17.488+01:002010-10-14T20:29:17.488+01:00Tam the Bam:
This is a perjury trial, and as such...Tam the Bam:<br /><br />This is a perjury trial, and as such tommy is NOT "defending himself against the disgusting, right-wing, news of the world part of the tax-dodgy murdoch empire", but against a prosecution brought in the name of the Lord Advocate, alleging that he knowingly and deliberately told lies on oath in a proof. The Advocate Depute has no link to the "NOTW", who are not represented in these proceedings.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-21000017530366907662010-10-14T20:04:59.523+01:002010-10-14T20:04:59.523+01:00"Dave the truthseeker"
Sorry Dave we ca..."Dave the truthseeker"<br /><br />Sorry Dave we cannot publish your comment as you break the contempt of court rules by commenting on the guilt or innocence of one of the defendants.<br /><br />If you would like to redo your quote to avoid that I'll be happy to put it up.<br /><br />Rgds<br /><br />JDJames Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-76012747562281194862010-10-14T19:38:22.870+01:002010-10-14T19:38:22.870+01:00I respect the judge's decision, but in my opin...I respect the judge's decision, but in my opinion Tommy should have been afforded the same access to the courtroom as a regular advocate, it only seems fair since tommy is defending himself against the disgusting, right-wing, news of the world part of the tax-dodgy murdoch empire. All the best Tommy & Gail, Solidarity!Tam the Bamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-65960374047239748992010-10-14T16:50:09.262+01:002010-10-14T16:50:09.262+01:00That makes you a tease for mentioning it Lallands ...That makes you a tease for mentioning it Lallands Peat Worrier and loveandgarbage a spoilsport for having the tweet deleted. Now we are all wondering what the message was - if judges are anything to go by it's probably something daft like not advertising the fake brand of tan that tommy uses or where gail buys her knickers lolMaggienoreply@blogger.com