Sheridan wins libel case

[danny la rouge]

No. I am pointing out the FAQ.

The cunt accused me of saying something I didn't say. He wouldn't retract...because he's a stupid, ignorant, lying cunt - so far up his own arse he cannot admit to being wrong.

Instead he uses long posts to try and justify his shite...going blah-blah-blah this and that, with no concern for the fact that he has more than once inferred that I am a liar when he unable to support it with facts.


There are not 2 versions of anything, exept in his own little universe. He uses this laughable premise to justify posting accusations that I called someone a liar when I did not.


May I repeat. he's a liar, and has been proven to be one in this thread. And when caught rouge-handed, does not have the courage/honour to stand up and say so. In a thread about lying, no less. In a thread discussing UK politics where he appears to be trying to take the moral high-ground, no less.

A lying cunt. No less. Unlike me.

You, Sirrah, are beyond words. At no point anywhere have I called you a liar, implied you were a liar, or likened you to a liar.

You, however, have accused me of being an SSP member and a "Murdoch lover" http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4915583&postcount=294, then got upset when I accuse you of having a coherent argument, then calling me "disingenuous" (a liar), told me to "fuck off", accusing me of "fucking kiddie shite" http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4915583&postcount=294, then called me a "cunt" and accused me of telling lies http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4920150&postcount=321

Until you began this bizarre exchange you stood accused of nothing other than holding an opinion. This being a place for discussion and exchange of opinions.

I accuse you now as follows - you are incapable of coherent thought, cannot follow an argument, do not understand the implications of anything you say - so far as you understand the words you say - and then accuse others of what in fact you have been guilty of. Now grow up, get somebody to re-read the thread to you, and ask them to explain the difficult bits.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Ah, nice to know that the debate outwith the SSP is just as civil and courteous as within.

 

[Wilf]

Perhaps its time that this thread went iinto hibernation. No doubt it will ride again as there is almost bound to be more Court action (one way or another). At the moment though, its not really adding to the sum total of human happiness

 

[DexterTCN]

JoePolitix. Should be an interesting party conference then.

What now for the SSP?

 

[danny la rouge]

Ah, nice to know that the debate outwith the SSP is just as civil and courteous as within.

I did try to converse with him, but it seems he was unable to conduct conversation. I'm afraid my patience ran out.

I am, however, interested in what the SSP will do now.

Tommy had several options when the story about the unnamed MSP appeared in the NotW. (Remembering, of course, that the stories had been circulating for a while, but for the first time people in the SSP exec realised a NotW journalist had been one of the participants, and that his name was going to surface sooner rather than later):

- he could have made a statement along the lines of "Yes, that was me; I made a fool of my self, but now I'm working through it with my wife".
- he could have said "I'm treating that with the contempt it deserves, what do you expect of the NotW?"
- he could have gone to another paper with his side of the story.

I understand these options were presented to Tommy. He could have remained party leader if he had chosen one of those.

There is another high risk strategy he could have taken. Although it wasn't presented to him. He could have tried "Yes, I enjoy swinging, it's great. What's wrong with that?" I don't know how his electoral base would have received it, and perhaps the public pressure for him to quit as leader would have mounted. But maybe it's time someone in public life gave public opinion a bit of a jolt: people's sex life really isn't something we should be concerned about.

However, he chose instead to brand the exec as liars willing to pin a scandal on him he wasn't involved in, as part of a plot to over throw him. Then to rubbish his sexual partners, and to put at risk of jail everyone likely to be called to court in pursuit of the defamation case he brought. Alan McCombs did in fact go to jail to protect Tommy's confidentiality.

There are those who think Tommy should have been backed by witnesses lying in court. Had the cause been a noble one, then perhaps it might have been considered. But in fact Tommy wanted to drive home lies - not about his sex life, that doesn't matter - but about his former friends and comrades. Quite how they can be expected to work with him after that is beyond me. He has shown himself unworthy of trust, incapable of solidarity, and unable to take responsibility for his actions.

If the SSP wants to win back the trust of the Scottish working class, they'll have to jetison Tommy. How could anyone trust him, vote for him, or have confidence in him ever again?

I know I couldn't.

 

[justuname]

Today's Socialist Worker http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9483 continues the SWP's dance with the truth over this.

It doesn't say that Tommy told the truth - just that "these stories were politically repugnant because they were designed to destroy the reputation of a leading socialist politician".

It doesn't say that those leading SSP members forced by Sheridan to choose between perjuring themselves or telling a court what Tommy said to them told lies - just that they "lined up with the News of the World. These people became “political scabs” in the eyes of many. They had clearly failed to understand the class nature of the court case."

There's a pretty unsavoury history of this sort of thing on the left, including within the SWP - people, usually women, being told to keep quite or lie about a leader's sexual or (not in Tommy's case) abusive activity for the good of the party.

Some people think this is sophisticated class politics. I just think it's hypocrisy, dishonest, wrong and doesn't work.

And it doesn't surprise me that the most vocal supporters of Tommy's position are those involved with the most cult-like factions in the SSP.

 

[danny la rouge]

Indeed, Justuname. And this line about "the class nature of the court case". There was no such thing; Tommy brought the defamation action. And it wasn't part of a class struggle, it was part of his struggle with reality: he couldn't face up to telling his wife what he got up to in his spare time. There's no class struggle there, just a coward sacrificing others for his own Good Name.

 

[JoePolitix]

There are those who think Tommy should have been backed by witnesses lying in court. Had the cause been a noble one, then perhaps it might have been considered. But in fact Tommy wanted to drive home lies - not about his sex life, that doesn't matter - but about his former friends and comrades. Quite how they can be expected to work with him after that is beyond me. He has shown himself unworthy of trust, incapable of solidarity, and unable to take responsibility for his actions.

If the SSP wants to win back the trust of the Scottish working class, they'll have to jetison Tommy. How could anyone trust him, vote for him, or have confidence in him ever again?

I know I couldn't.

Danny - you seem to rule out the possibility that there are people who do not believe that there is sufficient evidence against Tommy to suggest that the NotW accusations are true. The only evidence that begins to even approach credibility come from members of a rival political faction at the top of the party, in other words witnesses open to accusations of bias. This is worth a butchers:

http://www.sundayherald.com/57117

The SSP started to lose public support and confidence after TS was forced to resign as covener. All evidence suggests that he had the support of the SSP rank and file throughout the dispute and that most of the Scottish public were pleased that he won his case. None of which necessarily means that he was telling the absolute truth and that his oponents were nothing more than a bunch of liers, but there is a great deal of arrogance in the certainty you and others have of his guilt (i.e in lying).

As the article above notes after hearing evidence from both factions of the party "the jury could have been forgiven for not knowing whom to believe". The majority of the jury, who heard all the evidence from both sides of the dispute came out in Tommy's favour, again not absolute prove of anything but it does mean that your posts, and the posts of others, but it does mean less room for cockness from some quarters.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Danny can speak for hisself, but...

The only evidence that begins to even approach credibility come from members of a rival political faction at the top of the party, in other words witnesses open to accusations of bias.

Was Ms Trolle a member of the rival political faction? And even though Rosie Kane and many many others now despise Tommy Sheridan, does it mean they were lying?

All evidence suggests that he had the support of the SSP rank and file throughout the dispute

The SSP rank & file were kept most firmly in the dark. They had to read about the saga in the Herald and Scotsman, and of course the Weekly Worker.

and that most of the Scottish public were pleased that he won his case.

Well of course we were. Many of us were very pleased that Gail wasn't humiliated. Doesn't mean we think her old man isn't a horrible sexist git who calls women "witches".

 

[danny la rouge]

The only evidence that begins to even approach credibility come from members of a rival political faction at the top of the party, in other words witnesses open to accusations of bias.

Not strictly true. For one thing, we were only told of rival factions' plots after Tommy's resignation. And the source was probably Tommy. And people now regarded as anti Tommy can be dated as turning against him as a result of his own behaviour in the wake of the story. Keith Baldassara, for example, was a close friend and ally, as well as Tommy's best man.

But the big question for me (one I put to a poster above, but he took it the wrong way) is how do we assess Katrine Trolle's evidence? What was in it for her to say in public in court, in the blitz of the newspaper frenzy, that she had been involved in group sex with Tommy? She hadn't sold her story, she had personal disadvantage in telling it. I understand why people are uneasy about the evidence of those who had received money. (Although I don't think that negates their evidence). But what about Trolle?

(Btw, I read the Herald this Sunday, and there were articles open to less favourable-to-Tommy interpretation. Yours was written in the immediate wake of the verdict, trying to explain the jury's decision).

 

[JoePolitix]

Both Danny and Fully are misrepresenting what I said, I made an effort not to accuse anybody of lying but I did suggest that the case against Tommy isn’t as airtight as they make out, both assume that him telling a pack of lies and slandering his comrades is a given. I admit that I too was a little hasty in my earlier comments on this thread. I want to try and find out a bit more about this extraordinarily complex case but I think the self assured arrogance on both sides of the dispute, particularly south of the border, is wrong.

Not strictly true. For one thing, we were only told of rival factions' plots after Tommy's resignation. And the source was probably Tommy. And people now regarded as anti Tommy can be dated as turning against him as a result of his own behaviour in the wake of the story. Keith Baldassara, for example, was a close friend and ally, as well as Tommy's best man.

Most, if not all as far as I’m aware, of those testifying against Tommy have their origins in the Trotskyist International Socialist Movement of which both Colin Fox and Alan McCombes hail. This current had existed in the SSP since 2001, predating the Tommy Sheriden controversy. This faction, which effectively controlled the SSP for years, dissolved last year. There were strong divisions, one of which was over the question of 50-50 representation for women. Both Fox and McCombes stood for the election of new convenor. Keith Baldrassra, along with the three MSPs: Curran, Kane and Leckie - backed McCombes whilst Tommy backed Fox. This explains Fox’s ambigious position in all of this: he initially supported Tommy, then gave evidence against him and then congratulated him on winning his case, something none of the others did. Fox never really had his foot in either camp, until now that is as Tommy has made it clear he regards Fox as a scab. Fox retained his Trotskyism long after Sheridan had ditched his.

So yes there were fairly concrete factional differences that predate and exacerbated this factional war.

From what I understand the grouping around McCombes, despite controlling the machinery of the party, has little support among the rank and file and Tommy is quids in to regain control of the party come the elections in October.

But the big question for me (one I put to a poster above, but he took it the wrong way) is how do we assess Katrine Trolle's evidence? What was in it for her to say in public in court, in the blitz of the newspaper frenzy, that she had been involved in group sex with Tommy? She hadn't sold her story, she had personal disadvantage in telling it. I understand why people are uneasy about the evidence of those who had received money. (Although I don't think that negates their evidence). But what about Trolle?

I don't know about Trolle, I'd have to find out more about her political affiliations within the SSP, her relationship with Sheriden, whether her evidence was solid and whether or not there were reliable contradictory accounts, alibis etc.

I'm going up to Edinburgh tomorrow for the fringe festival. I hope there will be SSP comrades campiagning on the royal mile, I'd love to assertain the mood up there among party activists.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Both Danny and Fully are misrepresenting what I said, I made an effort not to accuse anybody of lying

I'm sorry if you feel I misrepresented you. I don't think I've done so and apologise if you felt I did so. I had no such intention.

I don't know about Trolle...

Would it be too much to ask that we refer to people in a more respectful way than by their surnames, especially if we don't know them?

 

[JoePolitix]

Would it be too much to ask that we refer to people in a more respectful way than by their surnames, especially if we don't know them?

Sorry, Mevrouw Trolle.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Sorry, Mevrouw Trolle.

She's Danish, not Dutch. And she lives and works in the North East of Scotland!

 

[danny la rouge]

Both Danny and Fully are misrepresenting what I said, I made an effort not to accuse anybody of lying but I did suggest that the case against Tommy isn’t as airtight as they make out, both assume that him telling a pack of lies and slandering his comrades is a given.

I'm sorry if you think I'm misrepresenting you. I have not tried to respresent you at all, merely to represent my point of view. In doing so I have examined the case Tommy has relied on, pointing out its flaws.

Did you see the BBC Scotland programme "Sex, Lies and Socialism", Joe? I understand it was available live on demand online, for those south of the border. The majority of the input was of Tommy talking to camera, with Gail a close second. Anyone who knows about body language will have been left in no doubt who was lying.

You mention Katrine Trolle's political affiliations. I'm amazed that you think there may be even a posibility that there is a political affiliation that would lead a person to make up a story about their own sex life in that way. Remembering that she is an OT, a job subject to criminal records checks and dealing with vulnerable people, and if convicted of perjury and jailed she could lose her job. For what? Tommy had been resigned as convenor 18 months before Katrine Trolle told her story. Which she told for the first time in court, summonsed because the NotW journalist Anvar Khan was at Cupids with Tommy when Trolle accompanied him there.

Second thing you might want to think about, Joe, is the genesis of the alleged plot. I already put this forward for discussion here, but it was lost in that strange exchange. So I'll recap. The thing to remember is that the initial NotW story was about an unnamed MSP. I remember seeing the headline and hearing the Radio Scotland Sunday Morning news programme paper reviewers salivate over who it might be. But that very day the SSP were confrontinmg Tommy over it. He hadn't been named. But they confront him. Why? Was every party in Scotland doing that to their leader? No. So are we really expect to believe they were trying to pin an untrue unnamed story on an innocent Tommy for factional gain? Just randomly. "Ah good, this is what we need. Let's say it was Tommy in the story, that'll sort him". And if so, what was his resignation about? Why go quietly at that point?

No, I think you'll find the anti Tommy feeling in the exec dates from Tommy's behaviour towards them, from his stragegy for dealing with the story. From his dropping everyone in it for his own personal advantage. He was like a cornered animal who didn't want to take the rational routes offered him, and chose instead the one that would cause most damage.

 

[tollbar]

Bye Bye Tommy.

Sheridan has put out a call to the SSP majority this evening calling for a split.

 

[danny la rouge]

Has he? He had to really, before conference. But what a waste of a movement.

You got a link Tollbar?

 

[DexterTCN]

Sheridan, hopefully, will get together with Gorgeous George and either reconstruct the SSP or start a new party.

Those other twats will get some dirt-dishing work from the media - with accompanying sad eyes and glum looks - for a wee while, then fade away.

George and Tommy will revitalise the left in Scotland with any luck.

 

[danny la rouge]

George and Tommy. Oh. God.

 

[Streathamite]

Would it be too much to ask that we refer to people in a more respectful way than by their surnames, especially if we don't know them?

oh c'mon! if you refer to TS as sheridan, surely the same applies to others....

 

[DexterTCN]

I think people can call anyone anything they want in these forums within the normal rules of reasonable behaviour...unless we have a new owner we weren't informed of.

Plumped is certainly free to tell everyone else how to post, just as everyone else is free to ignore him.

 

[danny la rouge]

Any news about these split calls? I can't find them online.

But if the Sheridan/Galloway forcast comes true, will Tommy have George eating out of his hand?

"Tommy, would you like me to be the pussy cat?"
"If I can wear nipple clamps".

 

[Fullyplumped]

oh c'mon! if you refer to TS as sheridan, surely the same applies to others....

I never did, ACTUALLY!

Well only the once. Sorry.

 

[danny la rouge]

OK, link here for Sheridan split call story.

Mr Sheridan said he was sure he and his supporters could "recapture the party apparatus and leadership" in October, but asked if it would be worth it when the United Left would be "a constant thorn in our side".

He said: "I have in mind a new movement that would continue the battle for the vision we all hold dear."

He invited party members to a meeting in Glasgow next month, where they would have "a historic decision to make".

So, he basically wants a vanity vehicle. It's very sad. And eventually evidence he can't ignore will emerge of his hobbies, and he will be exposed - not, as he seems to fear, as a swinger, that doesn't matter - but as being a disloyal betrayer, backstabber, and self-interested scab. And this will destroy the left in Scotland for another generation. All destroyed on the altar of Tommy's ego.

He clearly can't stay and explain how the SSP EC alighted on the idea of pinning that anonymous NotW story on him, randomly, out of the blue. Remember his resignation came before the NotW had named him. How do we explain that?

 

[tollbar]

OK, link here for Sheridan split call story.

So, he basically wants a vanity vehicle. It's very sad. And eventually evidence he can't ignore will emerge of his hobbies, and he will be exposed - not, as he seems to fear, as a swinger, that doesn't matter - but as being a disloyal betrayer, backstabber, and self-interested scab. And this will destroy the left in Scotland for another generation. All destroyed on the altar of Tommy's ego.

He clearly can't stay and explain how the SSP EC alighted on the idea of pinning that anonymous NotW story on him, randomly, out of the blue. Remember his resignation came before the NotW had named him. How do we explain that?

I think you have also to read this in conjunction with the previous Sheridan statements. No more brave talk about taking the party back. I think its now sinking in that despite all the media hype, he hasnt got the necessary support within the party to obtain the clean sweep pf executive positions he would need to return in triumph, and that, just as importantly, he doesnt have the support within Glasgow to come toip of the SSP nominations within the city that he would need to be returned to Holyrood.

How long the so called majority will survive outside the SSP is open to question. Whilst the UL faction is reletively politically heterogeneous the Sheridan/Byrne faction consists of a very unstable mix of the disaffected, regional fiefdoms like that controlled by Steve Arnott in the Highlands and Islands region and the Byrne family in the south of scotland, and of course the cwi and the swp with there own competing interests.

Whether even Sheridan can hold this lot together over any extended period of time is very much open to question.

 

[DexterTCN]

Remember his resignation came before the NotW had named him. How do we explain that

Because he didn't want his party to be dragged through the mud, one would assume.

Funny that you should start calling TS a scab and backstabber, when this is exactly what his so called mates turned out to be, when after winning his historic libel case they tried to block his path back into the party.

One can only assume that you're a fair-weather friend - such a lovely political animal they are.

Which non-entity exactly are you promoting in your little anti-Tommy crusade?

Who exactly is capable of bringing life to the left on the same scale as Tommy and (hopefully) George?

One last thing...Tommy has been arrested many times, protested many times, gone to court and gambled everything (and won), he came from the brutal 80s in Scotland...the collapse of the industries, the poll tax, warrant sales, debt collectors, horrendous unemployment, while other cunts were filling there pockets from denationalised industries and dismissing society as a concept....whatever opinion people hold of him, to call his political actions 'a vanity vehicle' merely confirms your position in these matters. Not so much Trolle as Troll.

 

[JHE]

Caledonian Chutzpah

It's an entertaining move to call a minority faction of the SSP 'the SSP Majority'.

 

[Sue]

I think you have also to read this in conjunction with the previous Sheridan statements. No more brave talk about taking the party back. I think its now sinking in that despite all the media hype, he hasnt got the necessary support within the party to obtain the clean sweep pf executive positions he would need to return in triumph, and that, just as importantly, he doesnt have the support within Glasgow to come toip of the SSP nominations within the city that he would need to be returned to Holyrood.

But with loyal supporters like DexterTCN, who knows what may happen...? Respect Scotland?

 

[Wilf]

But with loyal supporters like DexterTCN, who knows what may happen...? Respect Scotland?

A Muslim-Sex Club alliance? Now that's going to be an interesting one for the SWP to manage :

"Well, the people who go to sex clubs are mainly working class, yeah? So, multiple hot tub activities are basically, err, anti-imperialist, yeah? And anybody who says no is just some anti-coital bigot. RACIST!"

 

[Sue]

A Muslim-Sex Club alliance? Now that's going to be an interesting one for the SWP to manage :

"Well, the people who go to sex clubs are mainly working class, yeah? So, multiple hot tub activities are basically, err, anti-imperialist, yeah? And anybody who says no is just some anti-coital bigot. RACIST!"

'...or one of those evil feminist types that's caused all these problems for poor wee Tommy.'