Sheridan wins libel case

[Fullyplumped]

nice sentiments but crocodile tears really, Plumpers, you're a well known Blairite

No tears from me, T'lover, but people should realise that if anyone's going to be done for perjury it could be people from the Sheridan side. Yes - Tommy's trials aren't over yet.

The betrayal and abuse poured on Rosie Kane, who I think is as honest as the day is long, has been a pure disgrace. And if she hasn't been lying, then think who has.

 

[JHE]

It's a disaster for the SSP...

...the main thing is beating the News International machine in the courts.

Assuming that you more or less wish the SSP well, it's not at all clear how you reconcile those two claims.

 

[nwnm]

The SWP want a Scottish Respect with Sheridan as its figurehead.

nope the swp wants an ssp which consistsantly opposesd war in the middle east.

 

[munkeeunit]

As I've already said, I just find this whole thing nauseating from start to finish.

What's so slanderous about group sex?

That all sides are so willing to either openly, or by reaction, portray group sex as the worst possible thing to slander someone with, is indicative only of our societies extreme prudishness, judgementality, sexual repression and immaturity.

But consiering that the left nowadays is so heavily populated with desexed, politically correct, 'new men' I'm not surprised that the left declines to challenge the laughhable, victorian ridiculousness of all of this at it's root.

The best response, imo, would have been to say 'i wish'.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

As I've already said, I just find this whole thing nauseating from start to finish.

What's so slanderous about group sex?

That all sides are so willing to either openly, or by reaction, portray group sex as the worst possible thing to slander someone with, is indicative only of our societies extreme prudishness, judgementality, sexual repression and immaturity.

But consiering that the left nowadays is so heavily populated with desexed, politically correct, 'new men' I'm not surprised that the left declines to challenge the laughhable, victorian ridiculousness of all of this at it's root.

The best response, imo, would have been to say 'i wish'.

No, the only person that has considered group sex slanderous is Tommy Sheridan, who has sued over it.

 

[laptop]

No, the only person that has considered group sex slanderous is Tommy Sheridan, who has sued over it.

And News International, who wouldn't have bothered printing it if they didn't think it was something to which people might object...

 

[JHE]

And News International, who wouldn't have bothered printing it if they didn't think it was something to which people might object...

Sexual tittle-tattle is not only published for the 'benefit' of prospective disapprovers, but also for the prospective titterers, guffawers, titillated gigglers and people who'll say 'Oooh, look at him. I would!' or 'I wouldn't!' etc

 

[William of Walworth]

Orgy of sectarianism continues -- depressing.

 

[munkeeunit]

Orgy of sectarianism continues -- depressing.

Careful with your mentioning of such filthy words.

Orgy is a bad, filthy word.

It is bad.

Clear?

 

[Bear]

I've a question.

How did the court find out that the exec meeting, you know the one with the two sets of minutes, take place?

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

I've a question.

How did the court find out that the exec meeting, you know the one with the two sets of minutes, take place?

They asked, we told them, quite simple really.

It was public knowledge that we held an exec meeting that day. The agreement was to keep the minutes confidential not the fact that the EC had met and decided to recall the convenor.

 

[JimPage]

I've a question.

How did the court find out that the exec meeting, you know the one with the two sets of minutes, take place?

simply due to internal democracy and the taking of minuites so that those who speak on behalf of members can be held accountable for thier actions.
Something which will be a thing of the past if the SWP succeed in their coup against the SSP Membership.

SSP executive yesterday gave unanimous support to the 11 members facing purgery charges. Other that his cheerleeders in the Express and Mirror etc (see yesterdays press) TS seems to have few freinds other than a few loons in the north of scotland who the midges have got to

 

[Bear]

They asked, we told them, quite simple really.

It was public knowledge that we held an exec meeting that day. The agreement was to keep the minutes confidential not the fact that the EC had met and decided to recall the convenor.

Is it true that before the court subpeonad the minutes, certain member(s) of the SSP exec had already given a copy of the ('bad') minutes to the press along with an affidavit swearing that the minute was true?

If that is true, it sounds like they were lining up to trash him rather than being dragged into court kicking and screaming...

 

[fanciful]

You have to ask what were the SSP doing investigating Sheridan's sex life in the first place? Describing his behaviour as "reckless". What's it got to do with them? As for being dragged into court, there's still no compulsion to testify, all they can do is force you to attend, you can say you don't know, you can say you can't remember, or whatever, you can't be forced to speak - so they chose to support the NOW against Sheridan in court - that's the real scandal. And then the compound it by asserting that members have the "right" to know the truth - about what? Sheridan's sex life. No they don't. They have no such right at all. I hope Sheridan wins convenor and expels the lot of them.

 

[junius]

You have to ask what were the SSP doing investigating Sheridan's sex life in the first place? Describing his behaviour as "reckless". What's it got to do with them? As for being dragged into court, there's still no compulsion to testify, all they can do is force you to attend, you can say you don't know, you can say you can't remember, or whatever, you can't be forced to speak - so they chose to support the NOW against Sheridan in court - that's the real scandal. And then the compound it by asserting that members have the "right" to know the truth - about what? Sheridan's sex life. No they don't. They have no such right at all. I hope Sheridan wins convenor and expels the lot of them.

Are you suggesting that they should have committed perjury?

 

[Bear]

You have to ask what were the SSP doing investigating Sheridan's sex life in the first place? Describing his behaviour as "reckless". What's it got to do with them? As for being dragged into court, there's still no compulsion to testify, all they can do is force you to attend, you can say you don't know, you can say you can't remember, or whatever, you can't be forced to speak - so they chose to support the NOW against Sheridan in court - that's the real scandal. And then the compound it by asserting that members have the "right" to know the truth - about what? Sheridan's sex life. No they don't. They have no such right at all. I hope Sheridan wins convenor and expels the lot of them.

I heard (don't know if it's true but none of the supporters of those who testified against Sheridan have denied it commented on it) that before the court asked for the minutes of the meeting certain exec members gave copies of a damaging minute to the press along with an affidavit swearing that the minute was true... If this is true, then I think they deserve to be expelled. Politics isn't supposed to be about liking people, it's supposed to be about uniting behind a set of common goals and working together to make those goals reality, regardless of your personnal feelings about others who share your point of view. It seems to me that those on the far left are incapable of doing this, no wonder the far left is one big fuck up.

 

[junius]

I heard (don't know if it's true but none of the supporters of those who testified against Sheridan have denied it commented on it) that before the court asked for the minutes of the meeting certain exec members gave copies of a damaging minute to the press along with an affidavit swearing that the minute was true... If this is true, then I think they deserve to be expelled. Politics isn't supposed to be about liking people, it's supposed to be about uniting behind a set of common goals and working together to make those goals reality, regardless of your personnal feelings about others who share your point of view. It seems to me that those on the far left are incapable of doing this, no wonder the far left is one big fuck up.

You didn't then here about Alan McCombes going to prison for refusing to hand the minutes to the NOW?

 

[Bear]

You didn't then here about Alan McCombes going to prison for refusing to hand the minutes to the NOW?

Yes I did, obviously he didn't want to help the news of the world but was forced to testify. But was it the same for all of them? Are you telling me that the minutes were never 'leaked' to any newspaper? Or were they? And, if so, by whom?

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Is it true that before the court subpeonad the minutes, certain member(s) of the SSP exec had already given a copy of the ('bad') minutes to the press along with an affidavit swearing that the minute was true?

If that is true, it sounds like they were lining up to trash him rather than being dragged into court kicking and screaming...

No - its not.

While Alan McCombes was held in jail for refusing to hand over the minutes of the SSP exec meeting, a fake set of minutes was handed to NoTW lawyers; these fake minutes included the initials of 11 members of the exec who were present at the meeting. Subsequent to that the NC of the SSP voted to hand over the real minutes to get Alan out of jail

The judge ruled these fake minutes out of order, but the damage had been done - NotW suppoaned the 11 members that they could identify from the fake minutes compared with the four (only three of which were on the exec) that they had suppoaned before.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

I heard (don't know if it's true but none of the supporters of those who testified against Sheridan have denied it commented on it) that before the court asked for the minutes of the meeting certain exec members gave copies of a damaging minute to the press along with an affidavit swearing that the minute was true... If this is true, then I think they deserve to be expelled.

No - they didnt hand in the minutes but someone did sign an affidavit of their recollections of the meeting. That person and their motivations for doing so is still unknown - as is how accurate the affidavit is given the amount of misinformation that is now circulating.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

You have to ask what were the SSP doing investigating Sheridan's sex life in the first place?

We weren't

Describing his behaviour as "reckless". What's it got to do with them?

The IRA were effectively blackmailed for years by the state getting hold of damaging information and using it to blackmail people. That is why reckless behaviour within a socailist movement is damaging

As for being dragged into court, there's still no compulsion to testify, all they can do is force you to attend, you can say you don't know, you can say you can't remember, or whatever, you can't be forced to speak - so they chose to support the NOW against Sheridan in court - that's the real scandal.

No, they chose to tell the truth and defend the history and integrity of the SSP

And then the compound it by asserting that members have the "right" to know the truth - about what? Sheridan's sex life. No they don't. They have no such right at all.

The truth about why he was recalled as convenor, which was because he was prepared to take on an action to extort money from a paper who printed information about his private life, by falsely claiming it was untrue

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Yes I did, obviously he didn't want to help the news of the world but was forced to testify. But was it the same for all of them? Are you telling me that the minutes were never 'leaked' to any newspaper? Or were they? And, if so, by whom?

The minutes were never leaked to any newspaper. Colin Fox convenor of the SSP handed them in to the NoTW lawyers after an NC decision to revoke their confidentiality.

 

[fanciful]

There was an investigation, into Sheridan's "reckless" sex life. Frankly "reckless" or otherwise, it was none of your business. And the SSP are not the IRA!
The "truth"? I don't think so, not only was their version rejected by a jury, they had no business sticking their noses in, in the first place.
They sided with the NOW against Sheridan, that is a scandal, for which they should be expelled. They were instructed to go to court, they did not have to testify. But they chose to support the NOW rather than keep their mouths shut.
If the integrity of the SSP is defended by siding with News International, then it has no integrity to defend.

 

[fanciful]

double post.

 

[JHE]

They were instructed to go to court, they did not have to testify. But they chose to support the NOW rather than keep their mouths shut.

I see. They should have turned up, but refused to give evidence. They'd have been put in prison for contempt of court and would have remained in prison until they changed their minds. You wouldn't want them to change their minds. I suppose you'd prefer them to remain in prison indefinitely, in solidarity with Sheridan's daft vain decision to sue the NotW.

The SSP is destroyed, AFAICS - destroyed by Sheridan's vanity.

 

[JHE]

Minutes of the Exec meeting

These are the minutes eventually handed over by the SSP

Page 1: http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/189/sheridanp1zx1.gif
Page 2: http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/7767/sheridanp2xv8.gif
Page 3: http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1553/sheridanp3uc6.gif
Page 4: http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/7505/sheridanp4jn8.gif

 

[fanciful]

Which just proves my point, what were they doing snooping into Sheridan's sex life in the first place?
It's debatable whether Sheridan should have taken the case to court, personally I don't think he should, but after having done so there was absolutely no obligation on the participants in that meeting to testify against him. There search for the "truth" has lead them to side with the enemies of the labour movement. In fact through their testimony they are now being investigated for perjury from what I understand. So their siding with the bosses has got them nowhere. That is a scandal which is not Sheridan's fault.
They should be held account for it and expelled from the party.

 

[junius]

Which just proves my point, what were they doing snooping into Sheridan's sex life in the first place?
It's debatable whether Sheridan should have taken the case to court, personally I don't think he should, but after having done so there was absolutely no obligation on the participants in that meeting to testify against him. There search for the "truth" has lead them to side with the enemies of the labour movement. In fact through their testimony they are now being investigated for perjury from what I understand. So their siding with the bosses has got them nowhere. That is a scandal which is not Sheridan's fault.
They should be held account for it and expelled from the party.

Why did the SWP member on the EC vote that he resign as convenor?

 

[JHE]

Which just proves my point, what were they doing snooping into Sheridan's sex life in the first place?

They weren't. They held a meeting to decide what to do about the NotW scandal-mongering stories and, according to those minutes, were opposed to TS's plan to lie and cover up.

It's debatable whether Sheridan should have taken the case to court, personally I don't think he should...

Agreed. If he'd just told the media it was none of their sodding business, that would have been a lot better.

...but after having done so there was absolutely no obligation on the participants in that meeting to testify against him.

Do you really not understand that if you don't do what a court tells you to do, you get put in prison and can be kept there until you decide to comply?



Instead of launching his legal action, TS should have shown some solidarity with his party comrades, shouldn't he?

 

[fanciful]

They were, they should have said it was none of their business. Don't know I'm not in the SWP. As I've said I don't think he should have launched the court case. I do understand I've been to court and they can't make you say anything. In fact what they did say looks like it'll get them done for perjury so their compliance hasn't done them any good.