Soul On Ice
Well-Known Member
JoePolitix said:
LOL - post of the day
Sheridan wins libel case
- Thread starter junius
- Start date
LOL - post of the day
4thwrite said:Suppose we have to careful, so all i will say is that the route from the Evidence to the Verdict must have been a curious one
[sounds like an 'anti-NOW thing' as much as anything else]
Or could it be that the papers' version of events in court and the 'evidence' was somewhat scewed?
The right-wing press tried to destroy Sheridan just as they did with Scargill and Galloway (and I doubt they have given up yet). Tragic that some of his erstwhile 'comrades' did not stand by him. The SSP has been torn apart and that needn't have been the case. Let's hope the SSP gets its act together and removes those who have fucked up big time over this.
JoePolitix
Gone
junius said:
It's a non-starter for me. A leading working class politician has just beaten Murdoch's evil-empire and it's ludicious pornographic campiagn against him. That's a mojor victory that any socialist worth his salt would be delighted in.
Frankly in comparison I couldn't give a toss about the mediocre hacks of the so-called united left platform etc. It's under the leadership of the anti-Sheradinistas that the SSP has began its terminal decline. You say they're innocent but the jury obviously felt otherwise.
I suspect, and this is just a theory not an accusation btw (wouldn't want to start another liable), that there are more cynical reasons for you're line.
Clearly you're very close to the Alliance for Workers Liberty (sic) who in their own clumsy and sectarian way have "sided" with the anti-Sheradinistas as the lesser evil to the percieved threat of a Sheridan-Galloway alliance north of the border. Again just a theory before you contact your lawyers.
Be assured Joe lad, I would never opt to take you to the cleaners. I oppose any libel laws.
You see Joe that it is the essence of your politics - as long as a job is done on them ( the boss class, the imperialists) it doesn't matter who gets caught in the cross-fire, whether its Iranian workers, SSP politicians etc. Ok, they are mediocrities mostly. None in Tommy's league. That doesn't mean they deserve to be sacrificed for Tommy's ego.
Yours is a negative sort of working class politics, one that puts other classes or superheoes as the key actors in the struggle.
Am I an AWLer?
I glorify Sean Matgamna. Surely I would be tried for such statements in your workers state?
You see Joe that it is the essence of your politics - as long as a job is done on them ( the boss class, the imperialists) it doesn't matter who gets caught in the cross-fire, whether its Iranian workers, SSP politicians etc. Ok, they are mediocrities mostly. None in Tommy's league. That doesn't mean they deserve to be sacrificed for Tommy's ego.
Yours is a negative sort of working class politics, one that puts other classes or superheoes as the key actors in the struggle.
Am I an AWLer?
I glorify Sean Matgamna. Surely I would be tried for such statements in your workers state?
JoePolitix
Gone
Alliance for Workers Liabilty?
A mediocrity, a liar and a hopeless sectarian, you could at least conceal your membership of the A(sic)WL(sic) a tad more convincingly. I mean who else would rush to the "defence" of people at the same time he admits are mediocrities? This is where "third campism" gets you: pitching your tent in the middle of a road means you'll tend to get hit from both directions - although in reality the AWL often set up base in the first camp (eg its support for the occupation of Iraq).
As for the guff about those poor lickle SSPer being "sacrificed" for "Tommy's ego" well are you denying they have any responsiblity for their own actions? It may have escaped your attention but they were testifying against Tommy in a libel action that he's just been completely vindicated in. You've choosen to ignore these facts to persue your own nakedly sectarian agenda.
You say you don't favour lible laws, so presumably you don't think working class leaders should have any legal recourse against the mass media of the boss class? A decent working class militant should simply lie down and allow himself to be defiled in Murdock's porno-comics? What a suprise - an AWL linked hack in a bloc with News International - another fine example of third campism at work.
junius said:
A mediocrity, a liar and a hopeless sectarian, you could at least conceal your membership of the A(sic)WL(sic) a tad more convincingly. I mean who else would rush to the "defence" of people at the same time he admits are mediocrities? This is where "third campism" gets you: pitching your tent in the middle of a road means you'll tend to get hit from both directions - although in reality the AWL often set up base in the first camp (eg its support for the occupation of Iraq).
As for the guff about those poor lickle SSPer being "sacrificed" for "Tommy's ego" well are you denying they have any responsiblity for their own actions? It may have escaped your attention but they were testifying against Tommy in a libel action that he's just been completely vindicated in. You've choosen to ignore these facts to persue your own nakedly sectarian agenda.
You say you don't favour lible laws, so presumably you don't think working class leaders should have any legal recourse against the mass media of the boss class? A decent working class militant should simply lie down and allow himself to be defiled in Murdock's porno-comics? What a suprise - an AWL linked hack in a bloc with News International - another fine example of third campism at work.
If, just if, mind you, the forces of the state have any involvement (on whatever or all sides) then they could not hope for any better outcome than a sectarian knife fight amongst the left.
Discrete use of Occams razor in posession of as many facts as you can gather would be the better order of the day, but some people just cannot resist that sectarian itch can they?
It is as silly to put any credence on narrow court verdicts as it is to believe the Murdoch press, IMO.
Those who launch in, particularly from the 'safety' of English Trot sects on one side or another only serve to add fuel to the intended bonfire of the left in Scotland. One thing you can be sure about people who call others for 'naked sectarianism' and 'hopeless sectarianism' is that they are the kettle calling the pot black.
Listen. Watch. Be silent.
Discrete use of Occams razor in posession of as many facts as you can gather would be the better order of the day, but some people just cannot resist that sectarian itch can they?
It is as silly to put any credence on narrow court verdicts as it is to believe the Murdoch press, IMO.
Those who launch in, particularly from the 'safety' of English Trot sects on one side or another only serve to add fuel to the intended bonfire of the left in Scotland. One thing you can be sure about people who call others for 'naked sectarianism' and 'hopeless sectarianism' is that they are the kettle calling the pot black.
Listen. Watch. Be silent.
JoePolitix
Gone
greenman said:If, just if, mind you, the forces of the state have any involvement (on whatever or all sides) then they could not hope for any better outcome than a sectarian knife fight amongst the left.
Discrete use of Occams razor in posession of as many facts as you can gather would be the better order of the day, but some people just cannot resist that sectarian itch can they?
It is as silly to put any credence on narrow court verdicts as it is to believe the Murdoch press, IMO.
Those who launch in, particularly from the 'safety' of English Trot sects on one side or another only serve to add fuel to the intended bonfire of the left in Scotland. One thing youy can be sure about people who call others for 'naked sectarianism' and 'hopeless sectarianism' is that they are the kettle calling the pot black.
Listen. Watch. Be silent.
That sounds like attempting to shut down open debate to me. Look, the fate of the SSP will be determined not by discussions on message boards but how it's membership responds, only time will tell.
The factional dispute within the SSP aside, a life long socialist has just beaten one of the most powerful forces of reaction in the world today - that surely is a victory for the movement no? And ask yourself, who are more likely to be the sectarians in this dispute - the ones that applaud this fact or the ones that are angry about it?
JoePolitix said:
Calm done Joe, calm. If you want to think I'm in the AWL , I'm fine with that.
Joe, I'm quite happy to defend mediocrities. By definition, most people are medioctities.
I seem to remember a jury vindicated a certain Mr Archer. Look what happened to him.
The left actually has a long and proud history of calling for the scrapping of the libel laws - they are a rich peron's plaything. I note you only refer to 'working class leaders' having legal recourse. You're into superheroes, like Chavez, Fidel, now Tommy.
Well what about mediocre proles who get libelled in the gutter press all the time? What recourse do they have? Fuck all. Unless you think all the workers have a spare half a million in bank to fight the bosses
We should insist on the freest possible press, with the right of reply to any libels. Not allowing the rich like Maxwell to stop the press exposing his vile practices through the use of libel laws.
You're an elitist Joe. Snap out of it.
You've got to understand that the (unreconstructivist) Militant Tendency are so up their own arses on this one.junius said:
The Sheridan fella (bollocks to SWP and bollocks to the millies) was always a fairly independent type of guy.
18 perjurers?
This should be well interesting.
Shut down debate? Never.
Shut down invective, point scoring, ad hominem, possibly legally actionable statements about the honesty or otherwise of individuals, and the kind of stirring that can only benefit the state and reaction? Always.
As you say, time will tell. Neither side is on a particularly favourable wicket here, once the euphoria of sticking one on Murdoch dies down (and no, I don't think anyone on the left is 'angry' about that - just more realistic about the long term possible consequences)
I just think the English-based left are better off listening and only making positive contributions about how to mend some of the damage rather than joining in a sectarian bitchfest over issues which they are at some distance from seeing from a local Scottish perspective.......
Shut down invective, point scoring, ad hominem, possibly legally actionable statements about the honesty or otherwise of individuals, and the kind of stirring that can only benefit the state and reaction? Always.
As you say, time will tell. Neither side is on a particularly favourable wicket here, once the euphoria of sticking one on Murdoch dies down (and no, I don't think anyone on the left is 'angry' about that - just more realistic about the long term possible consequences)
I just think the English-based left are better off listening and only making positive contributions about how to mend some of the damage rather than joining in a sectarian bitchfest over issues which they are at some distance from seeing from a local Scottish perspective.......
IndeedJoePolitix said:
JoePolitix
Gone
junius said:
More risible nonsense. We live in a capitalist country and whether or not to persue a libel claim is clearly a tactical question. In some circumstances, like in Galloway's or Sheriden's, it's perfectly acceptable to hoist the bastards by their own pertard. As for the 'elitist' card, Tommy, like all SSP MSPs, accepts no more than a skilled workers wage and ended up representing himself in court.
Merely demanding the "right to reply" is meaningless in a society where the capitalists have a virtual monopoly on the circulation of the press, this demand just enshrines the present inequity.
I know the AWL's idea of press freedom is to reprint racist cartoons from the rightwing press on it's website, but now it apparently extends to libeling socialists aswell. Pathetic.
JoePolitix
Gone
greenman said:
But Junius started it!
I'm pretty sure that Frances Curran was well up on the slander clapometer when targetting Tommy Sheridan.junius said:
As for Colin Fox...who knows.
JoePolitix said:
Of course, while the libel laws exist, they can be used. But they should be abolished. Remember the ruling class has a lot more to hide than our class has. Agreed?
I support the maximum freedom of the press. Restrictions on press freedom - even racist publications - is counterproductive. Those laws will always affect the left most.
Why don't you try to find out a little more about what's happened in the SSP rather than play the idiot (I've never supported the AWL). You're too clever to be playing that role.
JoePolitix
Gone
junius said:
Flattery, particularly of this backhanded and patronising variety, will get you absolutely nowhere.
Just out interest why don't you join the AWL? Your politics are literally identical to the sort of stuff they espouse. Is it because you still have some sense of residual pride?
JoePolitix
Gone
junius said:
Elitist! Funnily enough I did support the RCG for a little while in my teens, though I was never a paid up member. Ah the joys of selling Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! outside M & S...
JoePolitix
Gone
junius said:
Is that some kind of a threat?
So anyway
Sheridan is going for conveniorship in October.
What chances of this happening?
Is the SSP doomed to failure?
Will the Tommy fella start another party or stick with what he has just now?
So many questions and so many answers
Sheridan is going for conveniorship in October.
What chances of this happening?
Is the SSP doomed to failure?
Will the Tommy fella start another party or stick with what he has just now?
So many questions and so many answers
Who's the AWL?
JHE
.
I'm amazed by the verdict.
I'd love to know what the jurors thought of the SSP Executive Committee members who said that TS had admitted the 'swinging' club story. Did they think the Exec members conspired together to commit perjury to do down their party leader?
I suppose there are a few other possible explanations of the verdict. One is that the jurors didn't care whether TS was telling the truth or the other Exec members were telling the truth, but just disliked the NotW's prurient journalism and decided to find in TS's favour regardless of the truth.
I'd love to know what the jurors thought of the SSP Executive Committee members who said that TS had admitted the 'swinging' club story. Did they think the Exec members conspired together to commit perjury to do down their party leader?
I suppose there are a few other possible explanations of the verdict. One is that the jurors didn't care whether TS was telling the truth or the other Exec members were telling the truth, but just disliked the NotW's prurient journalism and decided to find in TS's favour regardless of the truth.
Who's the RCG?
Looks as if the jurors gave a verdict not in conduit with your obvious anti socialist agenda.JHE said:
Tough...
Similar threads
