discokermit
Well-Known Member
seems basic, doesn't it. sheridan is a vain idiot but these people are informers.A straight answer to your question. They should have refused to give evidence whatever the cost.
seems basic, doesn't it. sheridan is a vain idiot but these people are informers.A straight answer to your question. They should have refused to give evidence whatever the cost.
That would be contempt of court. The cost would be imprisonment until they relented.
Nobody likes a fucking grass
That would be contempt of court. The cost would be imprisonment until they relented.
And you think they shouldn't ever relent, so that's life imprisonment. Some people would go to prison for life for a good cause. Is Big Tommy Liar's vanity, dishonestly, disloyalty to comrades and greed for 'compensation' a good enough cause?
If a witness fails to attend court or give evidence or produce the required documents, they can be punished for contempt of court. The punishment can take the form of a prison sentence of up to 3 months duration and/or a fine of up to £250
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/witness-at-criminal-trials.htm
I think you exaggerate, you don't get life in prison for contempt of court. The worst that would have happened is they could have been locked up for several months and or be given fines.
Can any of you answer the simple question I asked? In whose interest was the whole farce to begin with?
If you are in contempt of court, the judge can put you in prison until you purge your contempt. If you continue to disobey the court, you remain in prison.
You say that the SSPers, who had asked Tommy not be be a bloody fool, should have refused to give evidence. Do you imagine that at some point in their refusal the court would have said, 'OK, then, you don't have to do what we've told you, after all'?
Nobody is going to do life for perjury for heavens sake.
The fact that you have to resort to melodramic hysterics really does your case no good at allIf you are in contempt of court, the judge can put you in prison until you purge your contempt. If you continue to disobey the court, you remain in prison.
You say that the SSPers, who had asked Tommy not be be a bloody fool, should have refused to give evidence. Do you imagine that at some point in their refusal the court would have said, 'OK, then, you don't have to do what we've told you, after all'?
What happens if a compellable witness refuses to give evidence?
In the circumstances where either party to the proceedings believes that a witness may not attend court voluntarily, they can apply for a witness summons to be issued (an order issued to a person outlining the specific date for their appearance in court). A witness summons can take 2 forms namely, a witness summons requiring a person to give evidence and a witness summons requiring a person to produce documents that are needed as evidence. If a witness fails to attend court or give evidence or produce the required documents, they can be punished for contempt of court. The punishment can take the form of a prison sentence of up to 3 months duration and/or a fine of up to £2500.
You have Tommy's release to look forward to, then!
Nobody likes a fucking grass
Instead of the histrionics any chance you might answer the question?
And for the umpteenth time, George was wrong in what he did.
A political position based on a lie to the woruing'class is not a politics worth defending or supporting. To defend a lie and build o n that is a joke.
As for your question re who benefits I thought it was answered but here is my two pennies worth.
Clearly Sheridan is an idiot and his stupid decision to sue has only benefited the NOTW who are rubbing their hands in glee at the damage this has caused.This entire farce has hurt the left in Scotland and ruined his personal reputation and that is a tragedy. None of that changes the fact that those members of the SSP who gave evidence against him should hang their heads in shame. They are nothing short of informers for the state and for Murdoch. They have disgraced themselves and dragged socialist politics through the mud.
If your socialism is the socialism of rights for people we like and fewer rights for people we don't then I don't want anything to do with your "socialism". Defend Sheridan and retrostpectively defend Archer and Aitken.
To pursue a higher human morality.
Defend Archer and Aitken, who benefit from the base morality that functions in a class society? In which the pursuit is the idea of the “greatest possible happiness”, not for the majority, but for a small minority? Socialism is about a classless society, where a privileged minority doesn't exist. In the end means, and all means are permissible, if it leads to increasing the power of humankind over nature and to the abolition of the power of one class over another.
who's defending him?What is the basis for defending Tommy?
That would be contempt of court. The cost would be imprisonment until they relented.
That would be contempt of court. The cost would be imprisonment until they relented.
A political position based on a lie to the working class is not a politics worth defending or supporting. To defend a lie and build on that is a joke.
I ain't a member of the SSP so dunno if he is. At the ver least the whole episode should have been investigated.