Sheridan perjury trial opens on Monday
- Thread starter Fullyplumped
- Start date
Hmm, I'd say Tommy and his ego caused all this but there you go.
Oh, they had a small part to play I'll grant you but it was Tommy who ill-advisedly launched the libel action and got himself and his colleagues into this mess. Bit much to be blaming them for Tommy's actions.
Anyway, the rights and wrongs have been debated at great length. Have to agree to disagree.
Anyway, the rights and wrongs have been debated at great length. Have to agree to disagree.
revealing comment.
This is true. The SSP was dependent on Sheridan's celebrity status and couldn't just remove the fucker from all positions of responsibility. How the SSP lost contact with it's working class base is the real question. As the Sheridan affair kicked off the SSP could win MSP seats but couldn't hack winning council seats. They'd become a sort of sexy protest vehicle for fashionable Scots who thought that the only reason Scotland wasn't socialist was because the English wouldn't allow it. Their success wasn't based on solid working class foundations. As soon as the figurehead started playing silly buggers, the whole thing collapsed.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Only in your imagination.
He represented himself the last time and won. Ordinarily it's a very bad idea to represent yourself in a significant Court case, but Sheridan is 1-0.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
PR might have had something to do with the SSP winning MSP seats but not council seats ...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The next bit is what he will jump on (if he's any brains)
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Surely the very fact he went to court in the first place makes clear he's not got any brains.......
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Tommy! Tommy! Tommy!
is, i suspect, what it look like in his brain.
is, i suspect, what it look like in his brain.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Kane's testimony as reported on the Sheridan Trial blog (assuming it's accurate) has been some of the most interesting since the early accounts of three SSP leaders going to the cops to make a complaint against Sheridan.
She has contradicted some of the other prosecution witnesses on the issue of the ratification of the alleged minutes and whether people objected to their ratification.
More interestingly, she has claimed that McCombes gave the infamous affidavit to the Sunday Herald at the same time he was going to jail to protect the SSP's right to confidentiality. Other SSP witnesses for the prosecution have denied knowing who made the affidavit.
She has contradicted some of the other prosecution witnesses on the issue of the ratification of the alleged minutes and whether people objected to their ratification.
More interestingly, she has claimed that McCombes gave the infamous affidavit to the Sunday Herald at the same time he was going to jail to protect the SSP's right to confidentiality. Other SSP witnesses for the prosecution have denied knowing who made the affidavit.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You have some links for this?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Account of her evidence on the affidavit issue:
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/day-8-morning-session_18.html
Account of her evidence on the alleged minute:
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/rosie-kanes-testimony-part-2.html
It's always possible that the blog has something wrong, but its various reports have yet to be contradicted by the mainstream media reporting. The affidavit related evidence was this morning. If accurate it certainly puts an interesting gloss on McCombes' "strategy of defiance".
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/day-8-morning-session_18.html
Account of her evidence on the alleged minute:
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/rosie-kanes-testimony-part-2.html
It's always possible that the blog has something wrong, but its various reports have yet to be contradicted by the mainstream media reporting. The affidavit related evidence was this morning. If accurate it certainly puts an interesting gloss on McCombes' "strategy of defiance".
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
If i had written 'various reports have yet to be contradicted by the mainstream media reporting' i'd be - rightly - laughed out.
Basically you're just saying that this blog says. What other sources are you using to establish credibility? Who does this blog?
Basically you're just saying that this blog says. What other sources are you using to establish credibility? Who does this blog?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
The blog consists of twice daily reports from someone at the trial. It's already been mentioned a few times in this thread and so far the main difference between its reports and the mainstream media reports have been that it is updated on the same day and contain more detail. I specifically said in my initial post that this information was from a blog and that it could concievably be inaccurate.
What are you saying you don't believe? That Kane named McCombes as the person who gave the affidavit to the Sunday Herald? It will be in the papers tomorrow, unless the person writing the blog is a complete lunatic and has just started making things up. And that would be a bizarre thing to just make up, when the lie would be disproved in about 14 hours when the papers come out.
What are you saying you don't believe? That Kane named McCombes as the person who gave the affidavit to the Sunday Herald? It will be in the papers tomorrow, unless the person writing the blog is a complete lunatic and has just started making things up. And that would be a bizarre thing to just make up, when the lie would be disproved in about 14 hours when the papers come out.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I asked
Not interested in why you choose to use it. (I think we both know why). Nor your juvenile 'who are you calling a liar?' tactics. I'm asking you what you're using to establish it's credibility. And your answer is?
Not interested in why you choose to use it. (I think we both know why). Nor your juvenile 'who are you calling a liar?' tactics. I'm asking you what you're using to establish it's credibility. And your answer is?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Did someone shit in your cornflakes this morning?
The blog is clearly by somebody at the trial, called James Doleman. Fedayn said earlier in the thread that he thinks Doleman is ex-SWP. Read the blog for yourself. So far its session by session accounts have been in keeping with the later mainstream reports of the same evidence, although with more detail. That gives it at least a basic level of credibility - not necessarily in its interpretations but as a rough indication of what was said. It would be fairly bizarre for the blogger to just invent the whole Kane/McCombes/Affidavit thing, although it being a blog it is of course conceivable.
If you read the comments, you'll find people arguing back and forth over the rights and wrongs of the affidavit issue, but nobody is claiming that the blogger just invented the evidence. Is that what you are implying? You think it's just made up and that Kane didn't say that? If so, I suppose we'll find out if the blogger is lying in the morning.
As for corroboration, nowhere else has a report of today's evidence yet.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I've not once mentioned the content. I asked you what you're using to establish it's credibility. The answer is? Itself, apparently.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
On an issue where left-wingers are calling each other liars in public, in court, i think you need to be a bit more thorough frankly.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I said from the start that the information is from a blog and prefaced every one of my statements with words along the lines of "If the blog is accurate". That should serve as enough of a health warning.
Do you believe that Kane said that McCombes gave the affidavit to the Sunday Herald or not?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm not after a health warning. Critical thinking should be standard. I'm asking you what critical thinking you've employed in your reliance on this blog.
The content is irrelevant. I'm asking about your methodology.
The content is irrelevant. I'm asking about your methodology.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
My "methodology" is to note something of interest said on a blog, while pointing out that the source is a blog.
The blog by the way is now crawling with comments, not one of which disputes the claim that Kane named McCombes as the person who gave an affidavit to the Sunday Herald. It could, of course, be a fantasy on the part of the blogger, who first lured everyone into a false sense of security by reporting in an apparently accurate manner on the first eight days of the trial and then slipped in the "big lie", but that seems pretty unlikely to me.
The blog by the way is now crawling with comments, not one of which disputes the claim that Kane named McCombes as the person who gave an affidavit to the Sunday Herald. It could, of course, be a fantasy on the part of the blogger, who first lured everyone into a false sense of security by reporting in an apparently accurate manner on the first eight days of the trial and then slipped in the "big lie", but that seems pretty unlikely to me.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Lucky that i didn't either then, that i, in fact, made of point of not doing so. We're all a little clearer now though aren't we? Tommy! Tommy! Tommy! is the methodology. Pick a side, fine, please don't give us this neutral observer guff.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Have you lost it entirely? You didn't either what?
I never claimed to be a neutral observer.
Either the report in the blog is credible or it isn't. I tend to believe it is, based on (a) how bizarre it would be to lie on the subject and how easily found out a lie of that nature would be, (b) the lack of any factual dispute in the dozens of quite contentious and bickering-filled comments and (c) the relative accuracy of the reporting to date. I'm not sure whether you find the report incredible or just object to me mentioning it for some odd reason of your own.
If Kane did not indeed say what she is reported as saying, then I'll certainly admit to having been gullible.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Didn't dispute the claim.
Sorry, your pious neutral act is a bit disgusting.
Sorry, your pious neutral act is a bit disgusting.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
What neutral act?
I hope Sheridan is acquitted. I've never been anything other than clear on that. You are inventing a spurious "neutrality" on my behalf and then whining that it's fake.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No i'm not. I'm questioning what your posts are based on. Fuck all - as is now pretty clear.
Similar threads
