Sheridan wins libel case

[danny la rouge]

Better to blame the people trying to make money by selling or publishing the story in the first place, than the one accused who won his day in court. You must be one of those SSP Murdoch lovers.

Katrine Trolle didn't try to sell her story; the first she told it was in court under oath.

And I'm neither a member of the SSP, nor a Murdoch lover. What people like you can't get through their heads is that while people might be pleased the NotW was beaten, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe Tommy's version of events. And that the damage Tommy did to others - innocent parties - in beating the NotW was not worth it.

And Tommy was not "the one accused" in court: he was the one who brought the action. The court case need not have happened. And the reason court case has had this fall out is that Tommy's story was a lie. It doesn't matter to me what Tommy does in his private life. But when he doesn't care what effect his denial of the truth has on others, then I'm afraid he loses my respect. This isn't about "beating Murdoch", this is about what happens when you put others who didn't ask for the publicity (and not everyone called as witnesses had sold their stories. And does selling your story negate the truth of it anyway? Tommy sold his) in difficult positions. This is about Tommy putting his own privacy before others' freedom. Perjury can carry a jail sentence, and people in certain jobs (such as OTs) can lose their jobs if convicted. Tommy knew his version of events was false, and he knew those called as witnesses had to be rubbished in order for him to win, and he brazenly stood and rubbished former friends and comrades.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Some alarming advice from Our Friend In The South -

George Galloway, the former Labour MP and now leader of the far-left Respect in England, has backed Mr Sheridan. He said: "There will have to be change in the SSP. Tommy will have to put to the sword and expel those involved in this conspiracy against him."​

 

[DexterTCN]

Katrine Trolle didn't try to sell her story; the first she told it was in court under oath.

Don't bore me with disingenuous statements mate, I said to save your anger for the people who published the story and sold their story in the first place. If you need to put words in my mouth by implying I was talking about Trolle then no offence but just fuck off because kiddy shite like that doesn't carry much weight here.

If Trolle was dragged into court you're having a laugh if you're trying to convince people it's the fault of the man who sued the news of the screws. Blame the people involved with the original allegations.

And as to your constant bleating about Sheridan's guilt...I'm afraid that's just your opinion, sour grapes and neither here nor there anyway.

 

[danny la rouge]

You're obviously an angry man, Dexter, but since you talk about opinion, let's look at what your opinion is founded on.

Let’s wind this back: when the story about an MSP’s kinky sex life first appeared in the News of the World, he wasn’t named. But many in the SSP knew who it was straight away. The other parties didn’t hold meetings asking their leaders if it was them. But the SSP exec knew. Those who already knew about Tommy’s recreational activities did not know until then that a News of the World reporter had been one of his partners, but this only heightened the likelihood that he would eventually be named. And they wanted to know how Tommy was going to play it if his name was eventually linked with the story.

Now, you’re asking us to believe that what the SSP exec actually thought was: “Well here’s a salacious story, wouldn’t it be great if we could make everyone believe it’s about Tommy although we know him to be innocent”. That’s what you’re asking us to believe. And if so, that the SSP alone out of Scotland’s parties thought they could pin this story on their innocent leader. I’m afraid that’s just frankly incredible.

Never mind how anyone acted after that for the moment. Just mull that one over – a story appears about an unnamed MSP; at this stage as far as the public are concerned it could be anyone, and a bunch of politicians randomly decide they can pin it on their innocent leader? No, sorry.

You then, if you are the devious SSP exec, have to add on top of this people willing to make up sexual relations with Sheridan. Like Trolle. And get people like Tommy's best man to say he confessed. It just doesn't add up.

No matter what Tommy achieved in the past, and it was a lot, you can't over look the sheer flakiness of what he expects us to believe. You profess to believe it. But that only goes to show some people will believe anything if they need to enough.

 

[Bear]

You may have missed Iain Macwhirter's article in today's Herald.

The result is that after the next Scottish parliamentary elections in May, the Scottish Greens could, just conceivably, be participating in government. If Jack McConnell loses as badly as some Labour MSPs believe he could, then there is an opening for a Liberal-SNP coalition, in which the Scottish Greens might hold the balance of power. Especially if, as seems likely, the Greens inherit many of the SSP votes.
​

What it confirms is that parties like the SSP can really only function on the outside of politics as extra-parliamentary organisations. The far left thrives on exclusion from the centres of power. Unburdened by any legislative responsibility, the SSP could devote its time to surfing the alienation of the housing estates of Scotland, backing ethnic minorities and attracting the cameras with its elaborate gestures of nuclear defiance at Faslane. Tommy Sheridan was never happier than when he was in the arms of the police, being carried to the paddy wagon, pursued by the nation's press and TV. Contrast, again, with the Greens, who have largely made the transition from extra-parliamentary politics, and have largely abandoned stunts.​

Nice article, couldn't quite believe this bit though: "The muppet Marxists seem determined to pursue their poisonous vendetta through the courts. The SSP wimmin are now promising to sue Tommy for £2m for impugning their integrity." Oh, wait a minute, yes I could. We're talking about Frances Curran, Rosie Kane and Caroline Lecky here, I guess I could (and do) actually believe it... Himmmmm, so they're suing Tommy because his version of events was different to theirs and the jury believed him... ROTFLMAO! You couldn't make it up! The article is right, "no-one will take the SSP seriously again, in or out of parliament - though Tommy Sheridan could still translate his celebrity into a massive personal vote." Bang on the mark.

If those muppets don't leave the SSP when Tommy gets elected leader, and they manage to get him deselected, then they might find Tommy runs as an independent, the split will finally be completed then and the feminist faction will never get anyone elected ever again.

 

[DexterTCN]

You're obviously an angry man, Dexter,...

No matter what Tommy achieved in the past, and it was a lot, you can't over look the sheer flakiness of what he expects us to believe. You profess to believe it. But that only goes to show some people will believe anything if they need to enough.

Firstly, I'm not angry. I said don't put words in my mouth, for which you did not apologise.

And still, you're bleating on about Sheridan being guilty, after the case is won. And accusing anyone who disagrees with you of 'beleiving anything'.

 

[danny la rouge]

I have not put any words into your mouth, therefore I don't need to apologise. Are you talking about Katrine Trolle? The woman about whom you said "diddums" in response to her feelings at her betrayal by Tommy and the mess he left her in? And regarding "kiddy shite", that doesn't really count as reasoned argument in my book, and in any case i refer you to your use of the word "diddums".

You use the term "guilty" in relation to Tommy. What are you talking about? Tommy was never brought before a court to answer accusations - he brought the defamation case. If you mean did he have sexual relations including group sex with people including Trolle in places including the swingers' club Cupids, then that isn't of any interest to me. Nor do I think it should be the kind of thing newspapers should publish. It is nobody's business. That isn't what he stands accused of. What he stands accused of is failing to face up to his responsibilities (primarily to tell the truth to his wife), and that in order to avoid his responsibilities he has dragged a load of people who did nothing to deserve it through the shite, and put them in danger of jail sentences. Their only crime being inconvenience to Tommy. That is worse than lack of solidarity, that is malicious and deliberate betrayal.

Now, if you choose to believe Tommy, then de facto you are accusing others of lying. Including Trolle. And if you are calling into question accounts from witnesses who sold their stories, then that still leaves you with the accounts of people - including Trolle - who did not sell their story. That is the point you fail to accept. And in reiterating it to you I am not putting words in your mouth, merely trying to get you to understand the implications of your stance.

 

[JHE]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/67821-print.shtml

"Gail Sheridan was quoted in a sympathetic newspaper yesterday saying she would prefer her husband to quit politics, but that the choice is up to him. He suggested last week he may step back and pursue another career, possibly training as a lawyer."​

Allegedly, there's plenty of work available for crooked lawyers, but I find it easier to imagine TS following the Hatton-Galloway path into well-paid media celebrity and the entertainment biz.

 

[Wilf]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/67821-print.shtml

"Gail Sheridan was quoted in a sympathetic newspaper yesterday saying she would prefer her husband to quit politics, but that the choice is up to him. He suggested last week he may step back and pursue another career, possibly training as a lawyer."​

I find it easier to imagine TS following the Hatton-Galloway path into well-paid media celebrity and the entertainment biz.

Its either that or the Aitken/Archer route into Bellmarsh. And if that happens, it will be a spectacular lowpoint for parliamentary socialism in Scotland - there's no winners in this

 

[DexterTCN]

I have not put any words into your mouth, therefore I don't need to apologise.

Now, if you choose to believe Tommy, then de facto you are accusing others of lying. Including Trolle.

Please post a link where I am accusing people of lying in specific regard to what you are talking about, or retract your statement.

 

[danny la rouge]

So, what are we to take from these posts if you aren't accusing anyone of lying? That everyone is telling the truth, including Tommy? I had at least imagined your position to be coherent. If you can explain how you are going to believe and/or support Tommy and not be accusing anyone of lying, then not only will I apologize, I will nominate you for Secretary General of the UN.

Do you understand this statement: "if you choose to believe Tommy, then de facto you are accusing others of lying" I reassert it - it applies to anyone.

Your posts as follows suggest your view:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4891288&postcount=153

“Going against another socialist for the fucking Murdoch rags”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4895992&postcount=178

“I'm with Tommy on this one”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4914194&postcount=287

“those amatuers who backstabbed him”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4915583&postcount=294

“Better to blame the people trying to make money by selling or publishing the story in the first place, than the one accused who won his day in court.”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4916356&postcount=303

“you're having a laugh if you're trying to convince people it's the fault of the man who sued the news of the screws. Blame the people involved with the original allegations.”

 

[JHE]

His position could be coherent. Perhaps he (like Tommy) is denouncing people for not lying.

 

[justuname]

His position could be coherent. Perhaps he (like Tommy) is denouncing people for not lying.

That seems to be the position of the SWP http://www.istendency.net/pdf/IST_Discussion_Bulletin_8.pdf - Tommy's a working class hero with the potential of leading a socialist resurgency in Scotland, the other SSP msps and leaders are ineffective and 'sectarian' so you should support Tommy irrespective of whether he has lied about his ex-comrades or not. As for the women involved, they should have stood by their man and lied to the bourgeois courts and their problems are a result of not doing that.

 

[Fullyplumped]

As for the women involved, they should have stood by their man and lied to the bourgeois courts and their problems are a result of not doing that.

Good point. Tommy has brought the concept of witches back to Scottish politics after an overdue absence of three hundred years, just as George Galloway is bringing back the sword.

 

[Wilf]

Interesting snippet from Jule Bindel in the Guardian's piece on gender/Sheridan:

The battle between Sheridan's opponents and supporters has been a bloody one. There have been claims that some of the men in the party and their affiliates verbally abused the women who refused to back Sheridan. At an emergency national council meeting in May, a number of male members of the Socialist Workers Party heckled the women who spoke against him. "They were shouting, 'You cunt' and 'Shut up, you bitch,'" says Grant. "It was really scary."

full piece at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1839419,00.html

E2A: SORRY - I should have cleared a space for the Sheridan fans to say how the Guardian is liberal, the class enemy. Here it is:

 

[danny la rouge]

His position could be coherent. Perhaps he (like Tommy) is denouncing people for not lying.

But in asking someone to lie in court you are exposing them to being charged with perjury, especially if you have been going about sprinking evidence everywhere as Tommy seems to have. Quite apart from anything else it would have been tactically silly for the SSP to have expose itself to the posibility of being found out to have lied in court.

However the way Tommy set everyone up - with confessions here and there, a tabloid reporter as one of his sexual partners, and references in public to the minutes of the meeting, not to mention the accusation of a premeditated overthrow-by-slur - his comrades were left with little alternative but to do what they did.

 

[Fullyplumped]

That was a good article by Julie Bindel. It's worth following the story in The Scotsman website. They sometimes open a comments column, and the one today had responses from Catriona Grant and Rosie Kane. These women have taken appalling abuse from their comrades and they are fighting back. Unfortunately the Scotsman closed the comments today.

 

[JHE]

Interesting snippet from Jule Bindel in the Guardian's piece on gender/Sheridan:


full piece at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1839419,00.html

Hmm... I'm not sure whether to trust the Guardian on that. It just sounds a little conveniently like a certain sort of feminist's horror story about the 'male left'.



Question for SSP members, Scots or other close observers of the SSP:

Before all this fuss kicked off and TS made the crap decision to sue the News of the Screws, was there a strong division between 'Sheridanites' and the 'United Left'? If there was, what was the political nature of the division?

I have asked before about this - on an earlier thread, IIRC - and the answer I was given was that Sheridan is seen as being less 'nationalist' and less keen on quotas for women candidates. AFAIK, TS agrees with the SSP policy of independence for Scotland, so I guess that any difference on the first point is a minor one of emphasis in campaigning, rather than principle. Disagreements about quotas or similar things can become heated (as we've seen in the Labour party) but don't sound like the sort of thing that would lead to an all-out faction fight in the SSP.

 

[JHE]

But in asking someone to lie in court you are exposing them to being charged with perjury, especially if you have been going about sprinking evidence everywhere as Tommy seems to have. Quite apart from anything else it would have been tactically silly for the SSP to have expose itself to the posibility of being found out to have lied in court.

However the way Tommy set everyone up - with confessions here and there, a tabloid reporter as one of his sexual partners, and references in public to the minutes of the meeting, not to mention the accusation of a premeditated overthrow-by-slur - his comrades were left with little alternative but to do what they did.

Indeed.

Some of the people on this thread who agree with TS seem to think that the 11 Exec members should have kept shtum and gone to prison for contempt of court. None has said how long the 11 should have spent in prison or how they could have got out without agreeing to give evidence.

 

[tollbar]

Hmm... I'm not sure whether to trust the Guardian on that. It just sounds a little conveniently like a certain sort of feminist's horror story about the 'male left'.



Question for SSP members, Scots or other close observers of the SSP:

Before all this fuss kicked off and TS made the crap decision to sue the News of the Screws, was there a strong division between 'Sheridanites' and the 'United Left'? If there was, what was the political nature of the division?




No, There was the division over 50:50 but TS supported that at the time. Sheridan has shifted a long way on the scottish national question in recent years to the extent of appearing and speaking at SRSM events, as has McCombes, Rosie Kane and others.

The division that preceded the current crisis in as far as one can judge it, as it was never public, was over TS relations with some of the msps elected in 2003, putting it briefly, TS was not seen as being a team player by Carolyn Leckie, Rosie and Frances Curran. Rosemary Byrne backed Sheridan as appears to have Colin Fox . As far as I can judge the division was not critical at that time.

TS has now lined up with the forces such as the SWP, CWI and the supporters of Rosemary Byrne who opposed 50:50. On Scottish independance I cant detect that he has moved at all.

 

[DexterTCN]

So, what are we to take from these posts if you aren't accusing anyone of lying? That everyone is telling the truth, including Tommy? I had at least imagined your position to be coherent. If you can explain how you are going to believe and/or support Tommy and not be accusing anyone of lying, then not only will I apologize, I will nominate you for Secretary General of the UN.

Do you understand this statement: "if you choose to believe Tommy, then de facto you are accusing others of lying" I reassert it - it applies to anyone.

Your posts as follows suggest your view:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4891288&postcount=153

“Going against another socialist for the fucking Murdoch rags”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4895992&postcount=178

“I'm with Tommy on this one”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4914194&postcount=287

“those amatuers who backstabbed him”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4915583&postcount=294

“Better to blame the people trying to make money by selling or publishing the story in the first place, than the one accused who won his day in court.”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4916356&postcount=303

“you're having a laugh if you're trying to convince people it's the fault of the man who sued the news of the screws. Blame the people involved with the original allegations.”

Look cunt. Post a link where I accuse them of lying or retract your statement accusing me of it.

This is my last word to you on the subject until you retract your fucking lies, because you've been accusing me of this for a while now and I'm weary of being polite. You'll find that on these forums you are required to back up what you say.

 

[DexterTCN]

So, what are we to take from these posts if you aren't accusing anyone of lying? That everyone is telling the truth, including Tommy? I had at least imagined your position to be coherent. If you can explain how you are going to believe and/or support Tommy and not be accusing anyone of lying, then not only will I apologize, I will nominate you for Secretary General of the UN.

Do you understand this statement: "if you choose to believe Tommy, then de facto you are accusing others of lying" I reassert it - it applies to anyone.

Your posts as follows suggest your view:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4891288&postcount=153

“Going against another socialist for the fucking Murdoch rags”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4895992&postcount=178

“I'm with Tommy on this one”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4914194&postcount=287

“those amatuers who backstabbed him”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4915583&postcount=294

“Better to blame the people trying to make money by selling or publishing the story in the first place, than the one accused who won his day in court.”


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4916356&postcount=303

“you're having a laugh if you're trying to convince people it's the fault of the man who sued the news of the screws. Blame the people involved with the original allegations.”

Look cunt. Post a link where I accuse them of lying or retract your statement accusing me of it.

This is my last word to you on the subject until you retract your fucking lies, because you've been accusing me of this for a while now. You'll find that on these forums you are required to back up what you say.

Please note: There are civil and criminal laws against certain forms of speech like libel, defamation of character, harassment and threats. Please contact us if you see any such content. It is the prerogative of any poster who feels any laws have been violated to pursue legal action. Posters are responsible for what they post, and should realise there may be serious consequences for illegal behaviour.

 

[Wilf]

To Dextertcn - do i read that right - are you actually threatening Danny with legal action? Sweet fucking Jesus

 

[Fullyplumped]

Look cunt. Post a link where I accuse them of lying or retract your statement accusing me of it. ... I'm weary of being polite. .

As danny la rouge said, if you choose to believe Tommy, then by implication (I abjure the use of Latin) you are accusing others of lying. It would be interesting to see you demonstrate support for Mr Sheridan's position that didn't imply that other people had been telling lies. And keep it clean.

 

[danny la rouge]

Look cunt. Post a link where I accuse them of lying or retract your statement accusing me of it.

This is my last word to you on the subject until you retract your fucking lies, because you've been accusing me of this for a while now. You'll find that on these forums you are required to back up what you say.

Bizarre. As I said, I had imagined your position to be coherent.

I'm happy for the record to speak for itself, though.

But just for the sake of community relations I'll try this once more. There are two versions of events put forward, one by Tommy, and one by those who say they either heard him confess to having an energetic sex life or say they took part in it with him, or witnessed him taking part in it. If you* (*and I'm not singling you out Dexter, this is true of everyone. I just don't like saying "one") believe the former then by implication you are saying the latter parties are lying. And if you believe the latter then by implication you are saying the former parties are lying.

You, Dexter, appear (and I have provided links and quotes) to believe Tommy's story. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore it would seem that you, Dexter, do not believe the story of those who would contradict Tommy. Generally in the English language if we say a story is not to be believed, if we say it is not true, we call it a lie, and we call those who try to have it believed liars.

Now JHE put forward the posibility I had overlooked that you might be saying people should have lied. But in that case you are implying that Tommy's version of events is false, and that therefore he is a liar.

So, in summary, there are three positions you, Dexter, might hold in regard to this:

1. Tommy is a liar.
2. Tommy's comrades, former friends, and others are liars.
3. Tommy is a liar, but his comrades should also have lied in his favour.

Whichever one you choose you are calling someone a liar.

 

[danny la rouge]

In fairness I should mention another option: that you have no opinion or interest. But I'm assuming people who don't know/don't care aren't posting on the thread.

 

[DexterTCN]

To Dextertcn - do i read that right - are you actually threatening Danny with legal action? Sweet fucking Jesus

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.

If you* (*and I'm not singling you out Dexter, this is true of everyone. I just don't like saying "one") believe the former then by implication you are saying the latter parties are lying.

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.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Someone's going to use the word "sirrah" soon - you'll see.

 

[Sue]

DexterTCN, you are a fool.

 

[JoePolitix]

Statement by the SSP Majority

For the democratic renewal of the Scottish Socialist Party.

Dear Comrade and Friend,

The SSP has reached a crossroads.

The issues raised by Comrade Tommy Sheridan's titanic victory over the
gutter rag News of the World have underscored a number of political differences, outlook and methodologies within the SSP that have been increasingly apparent over the last few years. The collaboration with the scabs of News International during the trial by leading 'comrades' of the now declared 'United Leff faction, and their camp followers, saw a new and saddening low reached in Scottish socialist politics.

These actions were a shameful and colossal misjudgement from any point
of view of socialist solidarity. Let us never forget that the party NC voted
overwhelmingly in 2004 to respect Tommy's right to take his action, to keep his confidentiality and to keep the party out of the trial. It was the actions of the cabal, in first of all taking and keeping a dodgy minute of the 9th November 2004, and then advertising its existence to the media that saw the party dragged into what should have been, in essence, a private action.

The Executive of the SSP is now a redundant body until we can elect a new
leadership in October. The EC ignored both the spirit and the letter
of the decision by the Emergency National Council of the party to give Tommy "100% political support" in his fight against the News of the World.

We understand the ULN faction have distributed the illegitimate 'minute' of 9th November to party members, together with a sectarian anti-Sheridan rant disguised as official party documentation. We call on genuine socialists to treat this document with the contempt it deserves.

Despite their inevitable protestations to the contrary, the ULN has been a
centralising and bureaucratising tendency. It became clear in the
course of Tommy's defamation trial that these individuals met and caucused
out-with the party structures prior to Executive Committees of the party -
including preparing the stage managing of the meeting which saw Tommy Sheridan resign as Convenor of our party.

The time has come to take our party back!

SSPMajority arose from hundreds of rank and file activists pledging
their full support to Tommy Sheridan in his battle with News International. It is not a platform, a faction, or a network, but exactly what it says on the tin - the majority of SSP members who are heartily sick of the antics of this minority grouping and who now want to see the democratic renewal of the Scottish Socialist Party in time to fight as an effective political force for working people and their families at next year's Scottish Parliamentary and council elections.

The signatories to this Open Letter propose to harness that
democratic, renewing spirit and to utilise the SSPMajority blog and e-mail network to build for National Council in August and Party Conference in October.

We call on all members and branches to

• Take our People not Profits campaign, with its ten key demands out
into the streets, workplaces and communities over the next period, campaigning proudly in the best traditions of the SSP.

• Demand the immediate resignation from their positionS^of all party
workers who co-operated and collaborated with the NOTW and their lawyers, thereby ignoring the clear will of the party as expressed at our Emergency National Council of 28th May.

• Ensure all other decisions of that Council are upheld

• Defend the right of all party members to a private life, without
prurient party judgement or interference.

• Offer the hand of friendship and reconciliation to those party
members who have been genuinely politically mislead or misinformed by the posturings of the ULN faction (declared and undeclared) and who now want to work with the majority to reunify and build a broad, open party. It is not to late for those who made mistakes for reasons they believed to be genuine to return to the fold.

• Organise Majority supporting delegations both to the National Council on
the 27th August, and for Conference in October

• Campaign for the de-selection from the Executive, and all key party
positions, of ULN members and co-travellers, and for the election of SSP
Majority signatories and supporters at the first available opportunity.
Only by taking vigorous and decisive action now can the SSP be put
firmly back on track, and once again become a potential mass pole of attraction for working people and socialist politics in Scotland and internationally.

Signed;-
Tommy Sheridan MSP

Rosemary Byrne TvISP ~

Steve Arnott Highlands and Islands

Mike Gonzalez SW Platform, EC

Penny Howard SW Platform, EC

Sinead Daty CWI Platform, EC

Philip Stott CWI Platform

John Aberdein Author and activist

Anne Macleod Highlands and Islands

GUI Hubbard SW Platform, EC

Jim Walls TGWU Convener, Opencast Miners Scotland

Alan Brown NEC PCS, Vice-President DWP (personal capacity)

Janice Godrich CWI Platform

PLEASE NOTE THIS COMMUNICATION WAS PAID FOR BY INDIVIDUAL
DONATIONS FROM SUPPORTERS OF THE SSP MAJORITY.