Friday, January 14, 2011

Gail Sheridan to stand for Scottish parliament

Reports are emerging this morning that Gail Sheridan is planning to run for the Scottish parliament at next May's election. The Herald Reports that no formal announcement will be made until after Tommy Sheridan's sentencing hearing on the 26th January and quotes a "friend of the couple" as saying "“Gail has said she has been overwhelmed by the support she has received since the trial and the pressure on her to stand She told me: ‘I realised this was the only move forward for Solidarity and I felt I had to take up Tommy’s mantle. There is everything to fight for and I am fighting to win. Given the strength of support I have received in recent weeks, anything is possible.’”

The Guardian is also reporting the story claiming that the decision was "leaked after attempts by the Sheridans over the last few weeks to form a "broad left" coalition – with Galloway as the lead candidate and Gail Sheridan as his running mate – failed.

As the Scottish Socialist Party have already announced and with George Galloway expected to announce his decision to stand on the Glasgow list week it seems there will now be at least three "left" lists for Glasgow voters to choose from at the 2011 Holyrood poll.

Update 2.00pm
George Galloway has responded to the news of Gail Sheridan's plans stating he is "surprised and hurt" by her decision. You can read his remarks Here

Update 3.10pm
Sky News is reporting remarks made by Graham McIvor, the National Secretary of Solidarity, the party set up by Mr Sheridan and other after they left the Scottish Socialist Party. Mr McIvor has said that no formal decision has been made on the organisation's Holyrood candidates but adds "It is clear from the these reports that people close to Gail believe she should stand" adding "It will be up to the members in Glasgow to make the call."

Update Sunday

Solidarity have now issued a statement on the election issue, this can be found Here


Whatsy said...

"As the Scottish Socialist Party have already announced and with George Galloway expected to announce his decision to stand on the Glasgow list week it seems there will now be three "left" lists for Glasgow voters to choose from at the 2011 Holyrood poll. "

Excellent. Three different lists must mean three times as many socialist MSPs. Good work, comrades.

Alice said...

Good luck with this, Gail! You would make a great MSP. You've certainly got my vote!

Anonymous said...

Gail Sheridan would triumph is should. George Galloway is nothing more than a pathetic caricature of himself. And, let's face it, who in their right-mind would vote for the likes of Fox, Leckie or Kane - it's just not going to happen.

Whatsy said...

The media are fair getting some mileage out of that photo of Tommy & Gail outside the court, aren't they? I hope the photographer gets paid every time it's used...

Annie said...

Excellent news! She will do very well I'm sure and will definitely get my vote.

James Doleman said...

Spolitical editor Bernard Ponsonby said: "Gail Sheridan's candidacy would certainly add some colour to the Glasgow hustings. With George Galloway also likely to stand voters in Scotland's largest city will have the opportunity to vote for some big personalities when they cast their votes on May 5th."TV

Annie said...

I guess gorgeous George (long time since that label was used!) didn’t endear himself to TS by this on his radio show

CB said...

Great!! Scottish socialists will have the opportunity to vote for some "big personalities"!

Haud me back!

But at least Gorgeous G is not likely ever to be accused of covering up sexual exploits.

Anonymous said...

What GREAT news.

Gail will get my 100% support. GO,GO,Gail.

Anonymous said...

Did the Great Man Bernard Ponsonby not stand for election as an MP once or am I imagining things.

Anonymous said...

I would imagine that "Gorgeous" George Galloway will be spluttering into his milk on hearing this news.

James Doleman said...

I believe he stood for the Liberal Democrats in the 1988 Govan by-election anon.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for reminding us, James. So I wasn't hallucinating after all.

knock knock said...


"Excellent. Three different lists must mean three times as many socialist MSPs. Good work, comrades."

think about what your saying? it will split the socalist vote 3 ways. the other parties will be happy with that.

Anonymous said...

George Galloway`s bid for the SP has just fallen off a cliff.

Anonymous said...

This goes to show the true state of scottish socialism.

ALL it has to offer is one women, left to bring up her child alone, going into battle against extreme right-wing parties and policies.

God be with her.

Open your eyes said...

I don't think that the three groupings have totally overlapping votes: I think it might just be possible to get Gail AND George elected.

However, a joint list with those two would be preferable.

yulefae said...

Ge"I'm a Labour man and they're more of a far-left crew,


Well whats the worry auld yin,the labour mob will not interfere with your chance,as the far left will be fighting one another.


Anonymous said...

Long time lurker here finally breaking cover.

"Tommy Sheridan didn't have a better friend in politics than me, and for 30 years nearly” -Galloway to BBC.

George was VERY quick to announce his intent to replace Tommy during the trial, and having campaigned for Tommy in 2007 he has changed his stance on sheridan's decisions quite radically:

Galloway is an opportunistic snake whose actions have shown that he is a "political friend" to noone except himself.

He is cruising glasgow for another highly paid political soapbox, and will possibly dupe some of the Solidarity wreckage into helping him get it.

Given that Tommy couldnt sway the people of Glasgow 4 years ago following his victory, the chances of Gail being able to succeed after his ultimate humiliation and disgrace is negligable.

What a sad state of affairs, I regret I was too young too appreciate what we had in scotland a few years ago, and now I am a campaigning socialist I have inherited a revolting mess of egotism, betrayal and sectaria.

Might as well try. Good luck to all in the coming elections. If non-agression packs are worked out we we might be able to pull a few councillors between us.

firestarter said...

well said yulefea. Ithink galloways best option would be to accept the proposal, otherwise Gail and solidarity will have no other option than to wipe the floor with him.also I do noT agree with other comments that there will be three left slates in glasgow. Two at the most!!!

ps. see you on the 26th yulefea

yulefae said...

Am of to cyprus Firestarter but will catch up with sometime in the near future x

Peter said...

There is never a dull day on this blog is there!

Gail has beat me to it so I will withdraw my candidacy forthwith - saves on translation costs anyway.

Good luck to her.

Ticks a few boxes: trade unionist; socialist; campaigner for justice and womens rights; anti-Murdoch; republican; straight talking; good public speaker; Glasgee born and bred; in favour of independence; resolute; loyal; a high public profile and a clean record.

Presume in favour of independence?

Will be a breath of fresh air for Holyrood I would think.

Against that there are some sectarian vote and the Tommy haters of course.

If this story is true it doesn't quite seem those relationship experts were quite correct when they prediced an imminent rupture in the Sheridan camp.

Are they selling tickets for the hustings debate yet?

Rosie K, George and Gail may be a diverting afternoon.



Dementia Rules said...

How sad looking was galloway on the news this afternoon?

Does he really believe that members of another political party need to get his permission before they throw their name in the hat to put themselves forward as a candidate to stand for their party!

We have managed since the inception of the Scottish Parliament to camaign on the real issues affecting the pepole of scotland without Mr.Galloway, I think we can continue to do so.
Another question is what political party is any and what policies if any will GG be proporting? 4 years ago he was happy to support and campaign for members of Solidarity, what has changed? Certainly not the policies of Solidarity!

I would question the integrity of an individual who is rejected by the voters of London, who then decides to demand the vote of 'old labour' and the left in Glasgow less than a year later.

I think that Gail Sheridan would be an excellent candidate and as peter said a breath of fresh air.
Good luck to her if she is selected to stand.

CB said...


Where on earth is "Glasgee"?

Anonymous said...

this says it all for me.....

Open your eyes said...

Don't Scargill's SLP and the Communist Party normally stand candidates in Glasgow as well?

Crookie Boy said...

I've been an avid reader of this magnificent blog for many weeks, but this is the first time I've raised my head above the proverbial p.

It astonishes me how anyone can see anything positive about Gail Sheridan planning to stand as a candidate. What planet are her supporters on? The whole, ghastly car-crash-in-slow-motion that her husband has stirred up surely means that, in the eye of the citizen voter, she's tarred with the same orange-skinned tan colour as her husband and George too. The Sheridans are a joke. Period.

If out-of-control egos (and/or their impedimenta) are the best that the left cam come up with, then the whole movement will continue to be a laughing stock to the great majority of voters.

I say this as an interested observer who has lived south of the border for many years, but who spent the first half of his life in Pollok.

Critical-eye said...

Perhaps now that George Galloway has become the latest of TS's former friends who have been stabbed in the back by the disgraced ex-MSP, he will cease to defend his former friend by blatantly contradicting himself -

"Despite claiming his friend is not guilty of the perjury charges for which Sheridan was found guilty on 23 December, Mr Galloway told radio listeners that he believed Sheridan had lied about his sex life."

Mhairi McAlpine said...

Just read Galloway's reaction.

How horrible of Tommy not to call his best friend to let him know that he had allowed his wife to stand for her own political party rather than insisting that she joins RESPECT and stands on their list as he suggested to him.

The misogyny of the Scottish pseudo-Left strikes again.

Avid Reader said...

I think people, including those at The Herald, are getting a bit ahead of themselves.

Gail Sheridan might stand, but nothing has been decided yet.

I suggest a look at the Solidarity website, where there is a statement on the Party's election plans. -

James Doleman said...

Ian Hamilton QC

"Let all who love freedom rejoice. The state which permits our bankers to steal millions is in trouble. It may not be big trouble but revolutions sometimes start with a tiny touch of indigestion. This disorder is bound to start quite soon. Its name is Tommy Sheridan."

Anonymous said...


James Doleman said...

I have mentioned this before but for new commentators may I say, Gail Sheridan was acquitted of all the charges presented against her in the High Court. For obvious legal reasons no comment that attempts to cast doubt on that verdict will be posted.

Best Regards


Norma Anderson said...

Nice one James! Perhaps this could be the basis of your report tomorrow. Just think of all the vitriol the Sheridan haters could pour upon your head then! ;-)

Norma Anderson said...

I should make clear I am referring to the Ian Hamilton blog btw. Not the numpties who are still trying to convict Gail.

James Doleman said...

Hello Anne, if a comment was not posted that would be because it breached our policy.
That is available for view here:

Best Regards


Anonymous said...

James, Gail Sheridan is an INNOCENT woman. Anyone suggesting otherwise is just a blooming numpty.

jimmy the penguin said...

Gail Sheridan was aquitted but Tommy Sheridan is guilty of perjury. Fact.

Solidarity as a party is tarnished by the fact that Tommy Sheridan is a liar, and if they select Gail Sheridan as a candidate that will only make it worse, as she (quite understandably) stood by him throughout.

If Solidarity field candidates across Scotland all they will do is ensure the left vote is split and we'll end up with lots of pro cuts, capitalist MSPs.

If Tommy Sheridan had won his case I'd now be calling for the SSP to step aside. But he didn't, he lost. He's guilty of perjury, and the voters are not going to forget that before May.

I'm not asking Solidarity supporters to join the SSP, just to stand aside. Please give ordinary people a shot at electing MSPs standing against the cuts and in favour of a socialist Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Tommy Sheridan is guilty of perjury. Fact. - Not really Jimmy, TS still has to be sentenced, then there is the appeal where in all likelihood TS will be acquitted and pronounced innocent as is his wife.

Neutral Observer said...

I was wondering why my post yesterday wasn't published. Don't think it broke any rules?

Critical-eye said...

Gail Sheridan refused to answer questions at her police interview, and declined to enter the witness box to answer questions while the charges against her still stood. This was her legal right. In the end she was acquitted of all charges.

However, if she decides to stand for the Scottish Parliament, her integrity and honesty will be a matter of public interest. Especially if she continues to maintain her husband's innocence, her possible role in covering up for him will be a legitimate subject of question. The familiar Sheridan plaint, "They are out to get me", does not apply - if she remains a private figure, she may remain the loyal wife proclaiming her husband's innocence, and no questions may be asked; but if she steps into the public arena then public questions may be asked.

James - I do not envy you your task of applying your comments policy in the current twilight situation where there are media reports that she will stand but no formal announcement.

knock knock said...

i for one stand by the jury's verdict. i also stand by the fact that Mrs s has been acquitted.

whether i like or dislike either or both decisions is irrelevant. those outcomes have been decided and live with them we must.

if mrs s does stand good for her but i think it will be a waste of time and effort as the vote for the left will be split to many ways for one faction to benefit.

an explaination for some

Discontinuing proceedings
Where the prosecutor has advised an accused person, or has
stated publicly, that no proceedings will be taken he has no
power to reverse that decision.
However, where the decision has been taken to commence
criminal proceedings the prosecutor remains under a duty
to ensure that the decision remains appropriate in the public
interest. Where there is a change of circumstances or where
the prosecutor receives new information it will be necessary
to consider whether the prosecution should continue. Where it
is no longer in the public interest to prosecute or where it is no
longer considered that there is sufficient evidence the prosecutor
should not proceed with the case.

The prosecutor cannot disclose publicly the detailed reasons
for a decision in a particular case. There are a number of
reasons for this policy; the decision will have been based
on confidential information, for example information relating
to matters such as the credibility, reliability or state of
health of an essential witness or details of police operations.
Furthermore, public disclosure of the reasons for not
proceeding or for accepting reduced pleas may expose the
accused person to accusations of crime in circumstances
where he no longer has the opportunity of defending himself
against such allegations in a court of law.

Anonymous said...

Open Your Eyes#

The Socialist Labour Party has stood in all regions in the Scottish Parliament Elections since 1999. The CPB tends to only stand in Glasgow but in recent elections ie the European they have sided with NO2EU which of course also included TS/Solidarity.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion these "media reports" are just a trial balloon that is being floated to see which way the wind blows, like when a government policy proposal is "leaked" and they then turn round and deny all knowledge.

James Doleman said...

Hello all, I have not mentioned the Socialist Labour party as I have not seen any announcement from them that they intend to stand on the Glasgow list this May. If that is incorrect and there has been such a statement I would of course amend the post.


CB said...

Anon 1:36

I wish your "wind" would blow them all to f***, SSP, Respect, Solidarity - the lot of them; they're taking Scottish socialist voters for fools, making a farce of the entire movement.

Future generations of commentators (and their readers) will laugh with derision at all this.

Anonymous said...

If Mrs. Sheridan does stand then I imagine that News Conferences she attends will not be dominated by interest in Solidarity's Manifesto for Holyrood. Rather there will be questions the Press feel she should have been asked at the trial.

Unfortunately, the option of staring at the wall and refusing to answer will not be an option.

Anonymous said...

James I hope the SLP is standing - They are well clear of this mess.

Anonymous said...

I was thinking awhile back about joining the SLP, I might in the end do just that?, I am going to wait and see how things turn out. One thing I can tell you, I will NEVER go back to the ssp.

Liam said...

Don't worry, Tommy lovers. This sorry saga will be all forgotten about by May - the SSP will romp home in the polls. A landslide here we come.....

James Doleman said...

"Tommy Lovers"?

Lets keep the debate civil please Liam.

Best Regards


CB said...


What's uncivil about Tommy's lovers, if such there be? And surely it's very civil to ask them not to worry. Although I think they have good reason to.

James Doleman said...

It was just the dismissive nature of the term CB. I delete comments about the SSP that have that tone too.

Best Regards


iain brown said...

Liam,dont know which mind altering substance you have been imbibing,with respect, IMHO,as John McInroe famously used to say "you cant be serious!".Want a wager? Should and if Gail S. does eventually go toe to toe with Frances Curran(leaving aside all the other left of centre hats in the ring),i am hereby publically repudiating your assertion that in that particular battle "the SSP will romp home". Dream on,please identify yourself (as i have always done) and should you put your head above the parapet,and agree the bet,then i can assure you that i will honour the result without further challenge.Have laid down the gauntlet,do you wish to reciprocate?

Hamish said...

Apologies for this off-topic comment, but surely the verdict in the 'sleepwalker rapist' trial should convince everyone that it is high time to abolish the 'Not Proven' option. Can any of the learned legal experts who comment on this blog seriously suggest that justice was done in this case?

Also off-topic, but previously discussed, I have served on juries. I have talked freely of my experience as a juror - the court-room, the lawyers, the judge, the witnesses, the court officials, and my fellow jurors. That is my prerogative as a free citizen. How can we know that the jury system works if its operation is shrouded in secrecy?

Anonymous said...

WARD 58 Cardonald (Electorate 5632)
MCFARLANE, John Scottish National Party (SNP) 613
MCINTYRE, Archie Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party 245
NELSON, Isabella Scottish Liberal Democrats 242
SHERIDAN, Gail Scottish Socialist Party 825
SINCLAIR, Margaret Scottish Labour and Co-operative Party 1146 (E)
Majority 321
% Poll 54.8%
Rejected Papers 16

She done not to bad back then

durrrr said...

How can the jury system work if individual jurers (sic) do not speak out in intra-jurer discussions because they feel that their comments will be blabbed to all and sundry after the trial, even though the judge has directed them not to do so.
(Application of Freedom of Speech Fail).
I just told my doctor I might have herpes. Can he go tell the papers? No.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous January 15, 2011 6:49 PM

Thanks for that.

I will make you a prediction.

SHERIDAN, Gail will be elected an MSP.

the_voice_of_reason said...

Anonymous @ 7.53am

While technically, as the court has not passed sentence, the fact remains that the jury has returned a verdict of guilty, the Crown has moved for sentence, and the diet has been adjourned for the purpose of preparing pre-sentence reports. While the court may yet in theory impose probation or an absolute discharge, in reality this will not happen.

In respect of any appeal, it will be early March before grounds of appeal are lodged, and probably April before it is known whether the High Court considers any of the grounds stateable in law, so it seems highly premature to presume that "in all likelihood" the court will do anything.

Unless the verdict is overturned by the High Court, Tommy Sheridan remains in the eyes of the law guilty of perjury. The conviction stands until quashed, and the presumption of innocence no longer applies. Finally, the quashing of a conviction does not involve any judicial declaration of "innocence", merely a recognition that in law the conviction cannot stand and there has been a miscarriage of justice.

the_voice_of_reason said...

Hamish: While I am not familiar in detail with the evidence led in the case of HMA v James Thomas, it is difficult from the very brief press reports to glean anything that would suggest the not proven verdict was inappropriate.

So far as I can see, the Crown led sufficient evidence to allow them to seek a conviction, and the defence led some expert evidence in support of a special defence properly lodged and intimated. Having considered the evidence, a majority of the jury were left with a reasonable doubt, so the accused was acquitted.

In England, in those circumstances, the proper verdict would be one of not guilty. Of course, in that system you can have a "hung jury", as a majority of ten is needed for a verdict, but that's an argument about whether eight is a sufficient majority, not about what the verdict should be when the Crown do not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Watcher 1 said...

"Given the strength of support I have received in recent weeks, anything is possible"
God help us all, is there an asteroid on the way please?

Bunc said...

Gail Sheridan standing? Oh great that's just what the world needs - another political dynasty.

Open your eyes said...

I hope that Gail does stand for Holyrood and gets elected.

She can give those MSP's, who have opportunistically said nothing while this travesty has gone on, a run for their money.

If the present Holyrood can't stand for justice in Scotland, then a different one needs to be elected.

Anonymous said...

Mrs Sheridan has no chance of being elected. None whatsoever.

She may however muddy the waters sufficiently to stop Galloway being elected, which may or may not be why she is standing.

She will off course be restricted in any politial or personal criticism she can level at Galloway given that she had asked to be his running mate and only decided to stand on her own when her request was rejected.

the_voice_of_reason said...

Open your eyes:

I had rather assumed that the reason MSPs said nothing while proceedings were ongoing was not "opportunistic", but based on the long established rule that it is contempt of court to comment upon the conduct of a live criminal prosecution.

Steve said...

If anyone wishes to save themselves a pound, there's nothing on TS or GS in the NOTW today, as per last week.

Lest they be accused of running a vendetta?

Anonymous said...

As MacBeth says when he has done so much damage he feels he cannot go back:

"I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er:
Strange things I have in head, that will to hand;
Which must be acted ere they may be scann'd."

I wish the Sheridan's would just "return." It would make things much better for the left and for the people of Glasgow.

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase Sir Humphrey - a well paid job requring no experience, no qualifications and little intelligence. Only in politics could simply being someone else's spouse make supporters consider you a suitable candidiate for employment.

Open your eyes said...

Anonymmous 10.32: You've hit the nail on the head about why people are Socialists.

The systemic problem with the U.K. is the fact that access to every single career of worth is based upon paternity.

Whether it's the head of state: the Queen, or gaining access to jobs because parents could afford public and private schools, the least suitable people are doing the most important jobs. It's one of the fundamental reasons behind the U.K's economic decline.

Working-class people with ability are doing crap jobs while middle and upper-class people with lower ability are doing the most important jobs.

The legal profession is a prime example of mediocres doing important jobs; just because they went to private and public schools and then gained automatic entry to the top universities.

Wullie said...

Lesley Riddoch's take on Gail standing.

Critical-eye said...

Open your eyes
Many reports in recent years have shown a decrease in social mobility. What these reports do not tell you is that the cause of this is Socialism.

My own parents were working class, but by going to a Grammar School, I had a middle class career. The destruction of the Grammar Schools has been the biggest cause of the decrease in social mobility. The attendant cause has been the ideology of equality which has prevailed in state schools and has discouraged competition and achievement.

Those parents who send their children to private schools are in many cases not rich, but are struggling to make ends meet in order to pay for their children's education, and they do so because academic achievement is prized in these schools.

You refer to mediocres in the legal profession. I can assure you that you do not become an Alex Prentice or a Paul McBride unless you are very bright, hard-working, ambitious, dedicated and competitive.

the_voice_of_reason said...

Open your eyes:
"The legal profession is a prime example of mediocres doing important jobs; just because they went to private and public schools and then gained automatic entry to the top universities."

In this trial alone you could see Lord Bracadale, who drove buses in Clydebank to pay himself through teacher training, Alex Prentice QC, who did not go to University at all, and whose children go to state schools, and Paul McBride QC, who was advised in the 1980s not to go to the bar because he had neither the wealth nor the contacts to succeed.

CB said...

Voice of Reason

I hope Critical Eye reads, and reflects upon, your latest post.

Open your eyes said...

Critical-eye & Voice-of-reason.

Just 5 minutes of searching has enabled me to find the following:

Young Legal Aid Lawyers report 2010

'• Top solicitors and barristers are typically drawn from middle income
families that are significantly better off than the average (up to £800 per
week more than the average family income);
• Typically over 50% of solicitors and barristers attended independent
schools, compared to just 7% of the population as a whole.'

The problem with the type of argument employed is that you are using exceptions to prove the rule: it's a bit like someone saying smoking doesn't kill - my granny smoked all her life and lived to 94 years old.

And by the way, most communist countries had 'grammar' schools. What has the comprehensive system to do with socialism? The problem with the British grammar schools is that they were all disproportionately populated by the children of the middle-classes, who coached their children to get through the 11-plus.

Critical-eye said...

I am not sure what point you are making.

I was not aware of the background of these learned gentleemen which the_voice_of_reason gives - very interesting.

Open your Eyes:- "Access to every single career of worth is based upon paternity." But these gentlemen of the law are where they are today not because of their paternity, but because of their ability and hard work.

CB said...

Critical Eye

"Ability and hard work" - exactly so!

Then why don't you mention these things in your 1:45 post, instead of deploring the state, as opposed to the private, education sector?

Open Your Eyes

What did Soviet Grammar Schools for the offspring of the bureaucratic elite have to do with socialism, for that matter?

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan said...

For all the equality and diversity statistics on counsel collected by the Bar Council it is notable that no data on the:

1. Public school background or

2. any parent/relation in the legal profession (i.e. instructing solicitor an aunt etc)

of pupils or practitioners
seems to be available.

I did cast my eyes over the dozen or so pupils listed at a prominent
'civil liberties' chambers in London. 90% went to Oxbridge.
As good as diversity gets in a supposedly left-wing set!

Open your eyes said...

CB - I don't believe in Grammar schools - I just wanted to make Critical-eye think outside of the intellectual straight-jacket he's in.

Peter said...

As I recall Michael Mansfield went to Keele didn't he? God help him :).

His reasons for doing so are interesting but I will let you buy his book rather than take up space here.

Still a posh boy, of course, but I like him.

CB said...

Open Your Eyes

I wish you more luck with that than I do with your Jan 14th 2:50 pm proposal that we try to get "both Gail AND George elected".

Dear God! Please make that "neither ... NOR".

Red Joker said...

It seems to be all about Gail, George and the SSP. Everyone seems to forget Scargill's Socialist Labour Party has contested every Scottish Parliament election since 1999. In fact in the last elections in Glasgow they received more votes than the SSP. With the vote split 4 ways i don't hold out any hope for any socialist candidate.

James Doleman said...

Hello Red Joker, as I mention above I have not seen any official announcement from the SLP that they are standing in May otherwise I would have mentioned them.

Best Regards


Keeping it in the Family said...

Like Advocate Deputes that are sons/daughter of Sheriffs/Judges etc. Plenty of that!
I am not going to be naming names though...

Anonymous said...

@ Voice_of_Reason - surely Alex Prentice must have an LLb (Law degree), I am almost positive that that is a pre-requite to practising law. Lord Bracadale driving buses in Clydebank?! Wow!

Had enough said...

At the root of it all, if the left can't put aside their differences and agree the best candidate to best represent the socialist cause what does that say about their supposed socialist values. Should the cause not be at the centre of it all and not the opportunity to further inflate individual egos? In anycase people who spend money on cuban cigars or designer handbags and clothing can hardly be described as socialists, and are no more a socialist than the late Donald Dewar who left a fortune to his kids. Do they not think we can tell the difference? Someone like the actor Ricky Tomlinson who recently donated 1m to a Liverpool charity would get my vote if he were able to stand in an election. I know 'champagne socialist' is a well-worn term but it is difficult to think of anything that more aptly describes this hypocracy. Enough please!

Socialist my A!"£ said...

Ricky Tomlinson once said that has has went from being skint to having more money than he knows what to do with. As well as shopping at Farmfoods.

Ricky Tikkitavvi said...


I think it's stretching things to say Gail Sheridan has a legally proven reputation for honesty.

She is an innocent woman, in the eyes of the law, i accept.

Rikky Tikkitavvi

Had enough said...

@Socialist my A!"£

Apparantly he did know what to do with it, at least 1m of it anyway.. he gave it to charity.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if TS has ever had a real (not public sector) job? I know he was born in '64 and became a counsellor in '92 but what about the years in between? As he didn't have the benefit of a sliver spoon, how did he support himself?

Ricky Tikkitavvi said...


I think what happened was that Mrs Sheridan's QC accepted there was a sufficiency of evidence for proceedings to have been brought. He noted this as the AD dropped the charges against Gail, saying he had considered her circumstances.

Of course she is an innocent woman. But to say that her "proven innocence" is a selling point is to deviate from the reality of the world in which we live.


Watcher 1 said...

" no smoke without fire merchants can never be satisfied seemingly."
Peter I trust you include yorself in that cabal??
God save us..

the_voice_of_reason said...

Anonymous @17:51

I have known Alex Prentice since 1984, and can confirm that he sat the Law Society exams rather than taking a University Degree. It's a pretty rare route, but a few still use it.

CB said...

Had Enough 6:08

"Put aside their differences?"

Gorgeous is a staunch unionist, while Gail is presumably for Scottish independence.

Meanwhile the "socialist parties" denounce one another's Great Leaders as scabs, liars, perjurers, mad shaggers, etc. Not so easy to "put aside". If they pretended to, the voters would laugh themselves sick, which I'm sure they'll do anyway.

Peter said...

Gail Sheridan Poll Boost.

I made an error in my earlier post.

I thought the Scotsman poll question was:

"Should Gail Sheridan stand?"

The question was actually

"Would you vote for Gail Sheridan?"

I note the poll result now stands at:

18% Yes - 82% No

With all the usual caveats about poll inaccuracy Solidarity appear to have a relatively popular socialist candidate in Gail.

Jo G said...

I think she shouldn't stand. This is an election. The focus can't be Gail/Tommy/the trial/the outcome/the hatred/the war between the Socialist Parties. The election is more important than that. She needs to respect this. I really don't think she'll get votes. In fact I think generally the public won't touch any of the Socialist Parties with a bargepole.

Ricky Tikkitavvi said...

There is no consensus that it was a face-saving exercise by the crown. Your suggested motive for this wording makes no sense, logically.
I am exasperated by your continuing bizarre analysis.


James Doleman said...

Hello all, if I could just mention again the legal position. Gail Sheridan was acquitted of all charges brought against her in court. The accused in any Scottish trial is innocent until proven guilty, Gail Sheridan was not proven guilty and is therefore innocent of the charges made against her.

If we could all keep that in mind when commentating I'd be grateful.

All the best


Rikky Tikkitavvi said...

I appreciate that one hundred per cent, James. I accept her innocence.
I think suggesting Gail Sheridan's innocence was "proven" is inaccurate.

Peter said...

Hi Rik,

Ok maybe it's not the consensus but its the majority view. It's all opinion though isn't it? Maybe we should agree to disagree? I defend your right to be in the minority - often in it myself.

My opinion is the Crown dropped a weak case against Gail before they got publically snotted.

That is my opinion. I accept you have your own view. That does not make my opinion "bizzare". Play fair. I suggest my view on the weakness of the case against Gail is more widely shared than yours.

Do you really think the Crown dropped a perfectly good case against Gail after 4 and half years and millions of pounds Rik?

At this point people ususally play their joker and say it was a good Crown case but the Crown were very concerned for her personal circumstances - as Prentice said in court. Mmmmm.

Strange that her personal circumstances were exactly the same as when he dragged her into court.

If he was being so nice why make her sit in the dock for weeks listening to Khan and Trolles tales of supposed sex with her husband.

In the house were her and her daughter live and even in her own bed - very nasty stuff to put someone through just to then let them go.

Yes a real gent.

No come on lad - the Crown had (IMO) a speculative case that became such a wholly embarassing case in the course of the trial that they pulled it themselves - before even hearing the defence!



Rikky Tikkitavvi said...


I see no evidence that it's the majority view, either. I see it's your view.


James Doleman said...

Hello Marvin, I'm not posting the position you state as it is not related to the evidence heard in court. There was virtually no testimony presented Mrs Sheridan therefore while the case is live (which it still is) I am not prepared to publish what can only be considered speculation.

In addition you should note that the NOTW in the 2006 trial stated the visit to Cupids happened in 2001, while the Crown stated in this case the visit happened in 2002. I therefore fail to see how you can tell us what a jury in this case decided about dates and evidence they were never presented with.

Best Regards


Anonymous said...

well lets hope something happens between now and May

marvin said...

Thanks for responding. I’m not making any comment on what the Jury decided about dates – with respect that is irrelevant.

I’m stating that in 2006 she gave Mr Sheridan alibis for the nights he was alleged to be at Cupids and also allegedly at an orgy in the Moat House hotel in Glasgow.

This is a historic fact, a matter of public record – not speculation. It would be speculation to posit her motivation, the accuracy of such testimony or whether it constituted perjury. I’ll trust the 2010 jury: she is not a perjurer.

It is directly relevant to the present case. It forms the basis of why she was charged with perjury and put on trial. The fact has never been at issue that she gave those alibis in 2006.

It is also true that in the 2010 trial, a jury found that Mr Sheridan had been at Cupids, despite several alibis offered by defence witnesses.

James Doleman said...

Hello Marvin, and thanks for rephrasing.

"I’m stating that in 2006 she gave Mr Sheridan alibis for the nights he was alleged to be at Cupids"

I think you may have missed the point I made. In 2006 Gail Sheridan did state she was with Tommy Sheridan during the weekend of September 26th 2001. The jury in this case found Mr Sheridan guilty of perjury by denying he had attended Cupids, so so far so good. However the Crown gave a date of the 26th September 2002 for that visit, so how you can claim that this verdict contradicts testimony given by Mrs Sheridan in 2006 escapes me.

On the Moat House point, again the jury never considered that issue as the charge was withdrawn after a key crown witness appeared to perjure himself in the witness box. So again I do not believe you can draw any conclusions on Mrs Sheridan's 2006 testimony in relation to this part of the case as it was never considered by this jury.

Best Regards


marvin said...

Cheers. To clarify - I did not miss your point, as your points about the dates is a factual reflection of the evidence. Nowhere do I contend that the 2010 verdict contradicts her evidence from 2006.

Nor do I allude to any aspect of the Moat House Chapter dropped from the 2010 case. Legally, Mrs Sheridan has no stain on her character.

My contention is that the evidence she gave in 2006, is a matter of public record and can be referred to without prejudice. If others wish to draw inferences from that evidence and the recent verdict, they should be at liberty to choose whether to do so.