Big Tommy Liar Nicked in Perjury Probe

[KeyboardJockey]

Quite right, comrade.

The Person of the Great Leader embodies the Truth and Vitality of the Party. The Party embodies the True Interests of the People. We must selflessly serve the Great Leader, in order to serve The People.

If the Great Leader finds that he must shit on his erstwhile comrades, we must support the Great Leader and throw more shit at the renegades who have failed to support the Great Shitter.

Bourgeois ideologues say that the Great Leader has told "lies". History is Truth. The Will of the People is the Engine of History. The Great Leader embodies the Will of the People. The Great Leader speaks for History and Progress. He speaks Deep Truth.

Only Traitors and Petty Minds say that the Great Leader has "lied". History will crush them.

Aha I see you are party to the internal workings of George Galloways political mind.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I'm with you lot, how dare this fucker be the victim of unfounded allegations about his private life from a publication dedicated to furthering the demented right-wing views of it's proprietor? How dare he defend his name in court? What a cunt

I reckon Sheridan should have just rolled over and admitted that the news of the world was telling the truth, even though they weren't, just to make sure that the press is able to hang the sword of Damocles over any public figure they take a dislike to and thus gain even more control over the country than they already have. Because that'd be fucking awesome.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I'm with you lot, how dare this fucker be the victim of unfounded allegations about his private life from a publication dedicated to furthering the demented right-wing views of it's proprietor? How dare he defend his name in court? What a cunt

I reckon Sheridan should have just rolled over and admitted that the news of the world was telling the truth, even though they weren't, just to make sure that the press is able to hang the sword of Damocles over any public figure they take a dislike to and thus gain even more control over the country than they already have. Because that'd be fucking awesome.

Up to a point I agree with you. If Sheridan had said 'OK I like anonymous sex occasionally whats the problem?' which is basically what many of us in Poly or Open relationships do this case would never have blown up to what it has. I've worked for the News of the Screws in the 80's and to be honest if you lie to the Screws over indiscretions like this they will make a lot more of it than it would have been if the target had 'fessed up (I know this as I spent two weeks camped out in the back of a motor outside the house of a senior Labour shadow cabinet minister spying on him and his mistress if the bloke had said 'yes we are having an affair' it might have all blown over )

 

[Frostys Lodger]

Or, of course he could have told them to piss off.

 

[Dave Mullen]

I don't know anything about this sex and drugs scandal. But Tommy Sheridan played a big part in organising the anti-poll tax movement and getting Thatcher kicked out. So he's ok by me, if he lied in court...so what?

And screwed some money out of the NoW.... great!

It was members of the Conservative party that kicked Thatcher out and we've had a Tory government ever since. And yes I do include New Labour. So using the same logic will you say that Sheridan was instrumental in the creation of New Labour.

 

[danny la rouge]

How dare he defend his name in court?

Not quite. More like: how dare he traduce his comrades - how dare he drag people like Katrine Trolle through the courts, calling her a liar, risking her her job, putting her private life on display in the tabloids. He must have known she would be called; she attended Cupids with him and with the journalist who wrote the story. She did not volunteer her version of events; the first we heard of her version of events was when she was dragged into court as a result of his court action. (Link).

Tommy did this to her, to his other former lovers, to people like Alan McCombes, who went to jail rather than breech Tommy's confidentiality (BBC report).

Tommy is a walking time-bomb. Like Archer, he will be brought down by his own vanity.

But none of this need have happened. He was told it was tactically stupid to sue the NotW, when the story they printed was - according to close confidants of Tommy - true. There were other courses of action he could have taken, but he chose the one predicted to cause most damage to his comrades, his former lovers, his party, the socialist movement in Scotland, and, eventually, himself.

 

[Fedayn]

There's some genuine comedy writing on this thread..... Perhaps Tommy could get Dexter to write his stuff for the Fringe next year.

 

[Paul Marsh]

The big guns are lining up behind Tommy - the Partisan Defence Committee has been e mailing political groups asking them to support the great man.........

 

[Fullyplumped]

The big guns are lining up behind Tommy - the Partisan Defence Committee has been e mailing political groups asking them to support the great man.........

What - you mean this bunch?

 

[butchersapron]

That's a great and relevent link pimp. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Not quite. More like: how dare he traduce his comrades - how dare he drag people like Katrine Trolle through the courts, calling her a liar, risking her her job, putting her private life on display in the tabloids. He must have known she would be called; she attended Cupids with him and with the journalist who wrote the story. She did not volunteer her version of events; the first we heard of her version of events was when she was dragged into court as a result of his court action. (Link).

Tommy did this to her, to his other former lovers, to people like Alan McCombes, who went to jail rather than breech Tommy's confidentiality (BBC report).

Tommy is a walking time-bomb. Like Archer, he will be brought down by his own vanity.

But none of this need have happened. He was told it was tactically stupid to sue the NotW, when the story they printed was - according to close confidants of Tommy - true. There were other courses of action he could have taken, but he chose the one predicted to cause most damage to his comrades, his former lovers, his party, the socialist movement in Scotland, and, eventually, himself.

I know this might sound sort of naive, but how is it that Sheridan is being charged with perjury prior the Now appeal? Afterall the jury preferred his version of events at the time. To me that means it is the losing side that ought to be investigated with regards to the veracity or otherwise of their stories? This way Now gets two bites of the cherry.

Surely the authorities should have waited for the outcome of the appeal - and if he lost - make their move?

 

[butchersapron]

Archer and the other one whose names escapes me right now both won their cases then were investigated and convicted. A criminal case always overides a civil one i believe.

 

[danny la rouge]

To me that means it is the losing side that ought to be investigated with regards to the veracity or otherwise of their stories?

According to press reports, there was an investigation into all the witness evidence given, including those who testified that Tommy was lying. Leads were followed up, and a report sent to the PF.



~~~*~~~

Interesting link:

http://www.defendtommysheridan.org/defend/

 

[Fullyplumped]

I know this might sound sort of naive, but how is it that Sheridan is being charged with perjury prior the Now appeal? Afterall the jury preferred his version of events at the time. To me that means it is the losing side that ought to be investigated with regards to the veracity or otherwise of their stories? This way Now gets two bites of the cherry.

Surely the authorities should have waited for the outcome of the appeal - and if he lost - make their move?

It would seem that the police investigation may have unearthed evidence that suggests that a crime has been committed. We should not make the assumption that more charges will not be made, or that others will not face serious charges.

 

[Joe Reilly]

According to press reports, there was an investigation into all the witness evidence given, including those who testified that Tommy was lying. Leads were followed up, and a report sent to the PF.



~~~*~~~

Interesting link:

http://www.defendtommysheridan.org/defend/

According to that it has set some sort of 'precedent in Scottish Law'...as I say taken in account the possible explanations offered on here it still strikes me as rather odd.

 

[Fullyplumped]

According to that it has set some sort of 'precedent in Scottish Law'...as I say taken in account the possible explanations offered on here it still strikes me as rather odd.

I think you mean the reference to the solicitor Alistair Bonnington's comment on the BBC website that perjury prosecutions rarely follow testimony in a civil hearing. Mr Bonnington feels that this sets a precedent. If so, it would be a good one in my opinion. If witnesses in civil or criminal hearings were to be aware that blatant lying would bring a real risk of prosecution, there would be fewer lies in court.

That said, note Mr Bonnington's comment - 'never forget that the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is a high standard to reach.' And don't forget - if this prosecution eventually goes before the High Court, there will be fifteen jurors to persuade. And Tommy and Gail can be very persuasive under pressure.

Meanwhile, someone's put up an ad on Youtube in response to the "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" video.

 

[newbie]

According to that it has set some sort of 'precedent in Scottish Law'...as I say taken in account the possible explanations offered on here it still strikes me as rather odd.

these are public figures, elected to their national parliament, gathered together in a room for a meeting and telling, under oath, completely different stories about what happened. One side or other had to be lying, deliberately and under oath. I don't see perjury charges as being odd at all.

 

[Joe Reilly]

these are public figures, elected to their national parliament, gathered together in a room for a meeting and telling, under oath, completely different stories about what happened. One side or other had to be lying, deliberately and under oath. I don't see perjury charges as being odd at all.

Ok, my point is two fold. One, Sheridan actually won the case. By charging him, and only him (or his side), they are in fact overturning the verdict of the jury: de facto if not de jure. Secondly what's the rush? Why not wait for the NoW appeal, and then if NoW win (or lose) make their move?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Ok, my point is two fold. One, Sheridan actually won the case. By charging him, and only him (or his side), they are in fact overturning the verdict of the jury: de facto if not de jure. Secondly what's the rush? Why not wait for the NoW appeal, and then if NoW win (or lose) make their move?

Good questions, both. I already made the point that more charges and more chargees may be forthcoming. Wait and see. The jury concluded by a majority that Mr Sheridan had been gravely defamed. You might reasonably conclude from that verdict that they believed everything he and Gail and Rosemary Byrne and others said. But they didn't really need to believe them to return the verdict they gave. The judge in the proof said that an investigation was almost inevitable, and the Procurator Fiscal instructed the police to investigate possible perjury. Which brought us here. As far as asking "what's the rush", the issues are quite different. For NotW to succeed I think they only have to show that the jury came to a conclusion that was unreasonable if they had not been misled. The public interest in ascertaining whether a gaggle of MSPs lied in a civil trial under oath before the Court of Session in order that one of them might bag a six figure sum, and in order to damn the reputations of several others, is possibly greater, than whether a rich foreign newspaper was deceived.

Anyway - some music. I noticed this, and was irresistibly reminded of this. It must be the square jaw and manly demeanour. Enjoy!

 

[newbie]

Ok, my point is two fold. One, Sheridan actually won the case. By charging him, and only him (or his side), they are in fact overturning the verdict of the jury: de facto if not de jure. Secondly what's the rush? Why not wait for the NoW appeal, and then if NoW win (or lose) make their move?

I think you're confusing two separate issues.

The jury found that the NoTW libelled TS with their story about sex. Someone upthread speculated that a jury of reasonable people would seek to protect consensual private behaviour from Murdochs foul claws. Really, virtually no-one cares whether he tells fibs about his sex life, except perhaps those directly involved. The NoTW appeal is about sex, who did what to whom in hotel rooms and in clubs.

The alleged perjury is rather different and has nothing to do with sex. TS involved the executive of a major political party and once they were dragged, kicking, screaming and very unwilling, into court it became a lot more serious. One bloke was gaoled to prevent the minutes of that meeting becoming public. Two completely different accounts were presented, and one or other of the accounts had to be a lie. It was only ever a question of which side would get charged. The appeal about salacious sex has no bearing on the perjury trial.

 

[Fullyplumped]

That point, about someone going to jail to watch his back, is very important and adds to the seriousness of the alleged perjury.

 

[Fedayn]

Ok, my point is two fold. One, Sheridan actually won the case. By charging him, and only him (or his side), they are in fact overturning the verdict of the jury: de facto if not de jure. Secondly what's the rush? Why not wait for the NoW appeal, and then if NoW win (or lose) make their move?

A short while after TS won his case Brian Monteith MSP made a complaint that perjury had been committed. The libel trial judge had intimated this himself. As a result of the complaint an inquiry was set up and many people, including witnesses both 'for' and 'against' TS, computers were seized, phone records checked and as a result it seems that as a result of these findings TS has been charged.

 

[Joe Reilly]

A short while after TS won his case Brian Monteith MSP made a complaint that perjury had been committed. The libel trial judge had intimated this himself. As a result of the complaint an inquiry was set up and many people, including witnesses both 'for' and 'against' TS, computers were seized, phone records checked and as a result it seems that as a result of these findings TS has been charged.

Brian Montieth MSP knew this because?

 

[Paul Marsh]

What - you mean this bunch?

Yes.

Still, Tommy needs all the supporters he can get!

 

[danny la rouge]

As a result of the complaint an inquiry was set up and many people, including witnesses both 'for' and 'against' TS, computers were seized, phone records checked and as a result it seems that as a result of these findings TS has been charged.

That is also my understanding.

(And Joe, I know what it says in the Defend Tommy link. But the clue is in the title. I provided the link for information, not because it was the last word on the matter).

 

[Fedayn]

Brian Montieth MSP knew this because?

He didn't 'know' it, however he made a complaint based on the fact that the judge himself remarked that the evidence given by the different witnesses was contrardictory. No doubt Monteith had less than altrustic motives. No doubt that given the case involved 6 sitting MSP's then he used that too.