Sheridan perjury trial opens on Monday

[DexterTCN]

Tommy Sheridan stood against the police on nukes, warrant sales and the poll tax.

He successfully defended himself against the biggest right-wing media organisation in the known world.

He was then sold out by other so-called ..well fuck I don't know, can't be left and it sure isn't social...amateurs was my description a while back...his party became about the personal and not the political.

They'll get less votes than jedward.

 

[Random]

I am not sure that the status of the victim should determine the severity of the crime. I understand that it is a tempting argumentative line to take but I am not sure it is right.

Who's saying what the capitalist courts should do? All I know is that Sheridan was, for a time at least, a fighter for the working class, and so it's a shame that he's now in jail. Archer I couldn't care less what he gets.

 

[Fedayn]

He successfully defended himself against the biggest right-wing media organisation in the known world.

What courtcase are you referring to because in the Defamation trial the NotW was the defence as Sheridan was the Plaintiff. In the recent trial Sheridan got found guilty and jailed, hardly 'successful'?!

 

[Stoat Boy]

But people who stand up in public life and preach to others (I admit I don't really know what his personal preachings were about) have historically been fair game. So the paper picked him up about his private life ........... no I don't know enough about that.

Would you have been happy if Archer had just got a community sentence?

But I cannot recollect there being anything about him 'preaching' to others with regards to their sex lives. Thats my point. What he chooses to do in his private life should remain just that, private unless there is a very definite conflict of interest with his public life and I cannot see that in this case at all.

As I have said I would be on the opposite side of the political fence on almost everything and anything from this man BUT I cannot for the life of me see any benefit to society from his being incarcarated over this matter.

And ditto with what happened to Lord Archer. He had a reputation for being a very liberal Tory when it came to personal sexual matters in terms of his voting record and the like and he never abused the prostitute he alledgedly paid and so on.

Which is my point.

I cannot see what harm either Sheridan or Lord Archer did to society in terms of how they behaved that represented enough of a threat to society to warrent either man being locked up especially when you see the leniency shown to others who have inflicted both physical and mental anguish on other people.

Now I accept that I have a reputation on here for being a right wing racist and homophobic bastard and I dont mind that much if I am honest but I do like to think of myself as not being hypocritical and for me what people do in their private lives should remain that unless a genuine case can be shown for exposing them. And in both of these cases I fail to see it.

 

[brixtonscot]

It's a pity then that it was his left-wing mates who sold him out to the news of the world for money after he won the original defamation case.

It was Sheridan's insistance on going to court in the first place that dragged his "left-wing mates" reluctantly to go to court and tell the truth.

For that they were reported to the authorities falsely accused of perjury , and Sheridan went to the press accusing them of being scabs

 

[Streathamite]

Stoat Boy, if we take your arguments to their logical conclusion, then there should not be perjury laws on the Statute book, cos that's what he's being done for. Is that what you want, and can you see any practical difficulties with such a move?

 

[Stoat Boy]

Stoat Boy, if we take your arguments to their logical conclusion, then there should not be perjury laws on the Statute book, cos that's what he's being done for. Is that what you want, and can you see any practical difficulties with such a move?

Not at all. I am not saying that they do not deserve some punishment because they broke the law. What I am questioning is the value of locking them up. I cannot see anything beneficial in that. There was not real 'victim' in these crimes but rather just some shitty tabloid newspapers who are deserving of our scorn for even printing that sort of shite in the first place.

Community service would have been more than sufficent in either case.

 

[dennisr]

It was Sheridan's insistance on going to court in the first place that dragged his "left-wing mates" reluctantly to go to court and tell the truth.

For that they were reported to the authorities falsely accused of perjury , and Sheridan went to the press accusing them of being scabs

This is what I saw posted elsewhere. I am unsure but, if so, is basically saying, no they never had to go regardless of the rightness or wrongness of Sheridan's decision. If so the popular and oft repeated myth that his actions 'forced' them into court seems to be just that - a myth :

At a meeting on 9/11/04, there was a discussion about an article in NOTW from October, and a personal discussion about Sheridan’s private life.

Proper procedure would have been to suspend standing orders and not minute this. Barbara Scott ignored common conventions of meetings and took an almost verbatim acocunt, that at the end of the meeting she gave to Alan Green for safe keeping.

People now have different recollections of that meeting; but it was a private meeting that need never have neen in the public domain.

However … … …

The very next day, SSP organiser, Duncan Roawn walked into the NOTW office and voluntarily gave them imfo about the previous day’s exec meeting, and without her knowledge put NOTW on the track of Katrina trolle, alledgeing that she was the one who Sheridan was having an affair with.

Katrina Trolle then gave her story to NOTW.

A couple of days after Rown went to the NOTW, Alan McCombes went to the Herald and gave a sworn affadvit that issues had been discussed at the 9/11/04 meeting which the SSP could have used to force Sheridan’s resignation.

At this point it was inevitable that SSp witnesses would be called if a libel action was commenced, but dragging them into court was not the work of Sheridan, but of McCombes, Scott and Rowan, who made sure that the contested and controversial nature of the 9/11/04 meeting was in the public domain.

 

[trevhagl]

Most court cases aren't fabricated by a lying scumbag.

he LIED you twat. Something we all do from time to time. But 3 fucking years - £120,000 of taxpayers money to keep someone who isn't a threat to anyone in prison

 

[trevhagl]

Not at all. I am not saying that they do not deserve some punishment because they broke the law. What I am questioning is the value of locking them up. I cannot see anything beneficial in that. There was not real 'victim' in these crimes but rather just some shitty tabloid newspapers who are deserving of our scorn for even printing that sort of shite in the first place.

Community service would have been more than sufficent in either case.

crikey now i'm agreeing with Stoat Boy!

 

[weltweit]

Community service would have been more than sufficent in either case.

But Archer and Sheridan are both politicians, both prominent in public life. They have a reputation which is based largely on their utterances. That they can mislead in the course of their politics we all understand, politicians often mislead to better argue their point.

It would be one thing if they were simply being economical with the truth for the purposes of a political argument out in the real world - though this sort of behaviour reduces the repute of the political class somewhat. But they were in court, they know that it is illegal to lie in court, they swore an oath when they took the witness stand, and yet, despite being intelligent enough to know that it is against the law to lie in court, and despite taking an oath, and despite knowing the seriousness of perjury, they did both lie significantly in court.

They did not somehow lie by mistake, it was willful, they knew what they were doing. Hence they deserve the punishent for perjury.

If everyone perjured themselves, the rule of law would fall apart.

And these are public figures.

Community service just would not cut it.

 

[Sue]

The car crash continues...

Gail Sheridan has confirmed she will not be standing for election to the Scottish Parliament in May's vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12297093

 

[Streathamite]

But Archer and Sheridan are both politicians, both prominent in public life. They have a reputation which is based largely on their utterances. That they can mislead in the course of their politics we all understand, politicians often mislead to better argue their point.

It would be one thing if they were simply being economical with the truth for the purposes of a political argument out in the real world - though this sort of behaviour reduces the repute of the political class somewhat. But they were in court, they know that it is illegal to lie in court, they swore an oath when they took the witness stand, and yet, despite being intelligent enough to know that it is against the law to lie in court, and despite taking an oath, and despite knowing the seriousness of perjury, they did both lie significantly in court.

They did not somehow lie by mistake, it was willful, they knew what they were doing. Hence they deserve the punishent for perjury.

If everyone perjured themselves, the rule of law would fall apart.

And these are public figures.

Community service just would not cut it.

You've nailed it precisely here. People as prominent as these 2 - and Aitken for that matter - should be made an example of, simply because perjury is such a serious business

 

[Streathamite]

he LIED you twat. Something we all do from time to time. But 3 fucking years - £120,000 of taxpayers money to keep someone who isn't a threat to anyone in prison

We certainly don't all lie under oath, trev, and are you saying perjury shouldn't be regarded as a serious criminal offence?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Under oath to who?

 

[Streathamite]

Under oath to who?

OK good point, I'm not thrilled about the wording, but the point to me is more about whether lying in a court of law, when giving evidence, should be tolerated> To me, it shouldn't simply because otherwise legal proceedings would be a complete farce

 

[Fedayn]

This is what I saw posted elsewhere. I am unsure but, if so, is basically saying, no they never had to go regardless of the rightness or wrongness of Sheridan's decision. If so the popular and oft repeated myth that his actions 'forced' them into court seems to be just that - a myth :

Well apart frm the fact thet Tommy Sheridan subpoenad them.... And even whilst he knew the subpoena was being put together etc he didn't tell anyone it was coming. So the idea he didn't use legal means to make them goto court is frankly factually incorrect
Tommy also knew full well about the minutes, he knew full well what was in the minutes and agreed that they were held by the EC when it was put to a 'Special' NC meeting at Glasgow Caledonian University 27th November 2004.
That Duncan Rowan-hungover staggered into the NotW offices, the minutes were used and the affa davit which were all unacceptable are factual events are they the only people to 'blame'? Whilst I agree with them not being right again it's more of the same pish that everyone else is to blame except the man who launched the legal action. It's everyone BUT Tommy's fault.

 

[Fedayn]

Under oath to who?

The very same oath that Tommy said 'Graeme McIvor 4 children', to give him his full name in Tommyworld, swore to so it proves he's not lying, that he had 4 kids and swore the oath....

 

[Streathamite]

I must admit, although I hate the idea of a socialist - and one I used to admire - being fucked over by NotW, I'm finding it really hard to muster much sympathy for TS....

 

[Proper Tidy]

The very same oath that Tommy said 'Graeme McIvor 4 children', to give him his full name in Tommyworld, swore to so it proves he's not lying, that he had 4 kids and swore the oath....

My point was that no socialist should be putting an oath to the crown/state/judiciary on a pedestal.

 

[Streathamite]

My point was that no socialist should be putting an oath to the crown/state/judiciary on a pedestal.

so you are saying that socialists should not regard perjury as a law worth respecting (merely one where they should take seriously the worst-case consequences of breaking)?

 

[Proper Tidy]

so you are saying that socialists should not regard perjury as a law worth respecting (merely one where they should take seriously the worst-case consequences of breaking)?

Yep, precisely. Obviously it depends on the consequences for others but I don't see lying to a court as any worse than lying down the pub. Worse consequences, obviously.

 

[discokermit]

OK good point, I'm not thrilled about the wording, but the point to me is more about whether lying in a court of law, when giving evidence, should be tolerated> To me, it shouldn't simply because otherwise legal proceedings would be a complete farce

good to see you sticking up for the bourgeois state.

 

[discokermit]

Yep, precisely. Obviously it depends on the consequences for others but I don't see lying to a court as any worse than lying down the pub. Worse consequences, obviously.

lying down the pub is worse. that's lying to your mates. who gives a fuck about lying to the crown?

 

[Proper Tidy]

lying down the pub is worse. that's lying to your mates. who gives a fuck about lying to the crown?

Aye, I'd agree with that

 

[Fedayn]

My point was that no socialist should be putting an oath to the crown/state/judiciary on a pedestal.

Does that include Sheridan who on numerous occasions did exactly that! Or, yet again, is it another case of one law for everyone else and another for Sheridan?!

 

[Fedayn]

lying down the pub is worse. that's lying to your mates. who gives a fuck about lying to the crown?

If you read the transcript Tommy Sheridan clearly thinks you shouldn't lie to the crown. But, yet again, he's never to be criticised for his own 'bourgeois morality' as regards adherence to the crown!

 

[Fedayn]

Yep, precisely. Obviously it depends on the consequences for others but I don't see lying to a court as any worse than lying down the pub. Worse consequences, obviously.

Whatever the charge or matter at hand? Are there any circumstances when socialists shouldn't lie to the crown/on oath?

 

[Streathamite]

lying down the pub is worse. that's lying to your mates. who gives a fuck about lying to the crown?

so - devil's advocate - say you, or a socialist you respected - got fucked over as a result of someone lying in court, your response would be?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Does that include Sheridan who on numerous occasions did exactly that! Or, yet again, is it another case of one law for everyone else and another for Sheridan?!

Whatever the charge or matter at hand? Are there any circumstances when socialists shouldn't lie to the crown/on oath?

What?

I specifically said it's obviously going to depend on who else would be implicated. I never claimed socialists should lie to the crown - I said I don't think socialists should hold the crown or the judiciary up as sacred. And I never even mentioned Sheridan or the case, I was commenting on Streathamite holding perjury up as some terrible crime. Personally, my only concern about lying to the courts would be 'will I get caught'.

Fed, I know you're close to all this but you need to chill the fuck out.