Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Tuesday 7th December Court not sitting


We have just been informed that, unsurprisingly given the current weather conditions in the west of Scotland, that the trial of Her Majesty's Advocate v Thomas Sheridan and Gail Sheridan will not be resuming today.

87 comments:

Dex said...

Apparently Tommy's getting charged with being responsible for the weather.

up4it said...

Aye weather he did it or weather he didn't do it. LOL

Sceptic said...

Breaking, former SSP colleagues claim Sheridan confessed to hiding a giant snow machine in his house in Pollok and using it to bring chaos to Scotland.

More after the jump

Anonymous said...

Now that it has been proved (by the last 3 comments) that Tommy Sheridan is responsible for the weather; he should be arrested and 'Put to the question'

Davie

Frosty said...

Yes, Sceptic. It's an ill will that blows no-one any good as they say. Or in this case a giant snow storm. All a bit too convenient, in my opinion.

Whatsy said...

Shame - I was looking forward to nice warm room to sit in today.

Sceptic said...

I hear that there are still those attempting to deny the TRUTH that Tommy, so called, Sheridan has BETRAYED the working classes of Scotland by bringing down the snow that will disproportionaly affect the poor and homeless.

Those people should be ASHAMED of themselves and questions should, and will, be asked about how they could contradict those brave and noble socialists who have exposed these crimes.

Anonymous said...

@ Whatsy We will now have to ride the buses all day to keep warm.

Hmmm said...

I'm disgusted he would drag poor Gail into this, as we have seen from his diary

"7th December, paralyse nation with snow, HA HA HA HA!-Scrabble later."

Anonymous said...

I would just like to attest that my next doors neighbours grannies best pal told me of TSs dastardly cunning plan to halt proceedings by manipulating climate change from his subterranean bunker. Well he must not get away with it. I demand that conspiricy to pervert the course of justice be immediately added to his indictment.Brrrrrrrrr.

Critical-eye said...

Time for a serious comment on a cold day. It is a substantial part of TS's defence that many prosecution witnesses are unreliable as they have been paid by the NOWT. His defence is not just that they have spiced up an essentially true story (as Anvar Khan has admitted re her NOWT piece), but that their stories have been bought by the NOWT and are completely false. He said several times to the NOWT witnesses that "when newspapers like yours start waving wads of cash people do all kinds of things".

First, it should be noted that several witnesses have been paid expenses only. That anyone would put themselves through the very harrowing procedure of giving evidence in Court for the sake of a couple of nights in a hotel (even fortified with a bottle of champagne)is not credible.

Second, there are many reasons why a newspaper might pay for a story. Some who have a story have to be persuaded by cash to allow the newspaper to publish. Others have what they believe is a story which the newspaper will want to publish, and recognising that they hold valuable property want to be paid for it (this is what happens in a market economy). There is no necessity in either of these cases, that the story is false. There may, of course, be some who come up with a complete cock and bull story simply in the hope of making money from the newspaper (the Cumberbirches?), but these will be the exception.

The lesson is that the credibility of each witness must be examined, you cannot simply infer that their story is entirely false from the fact they have been paid, and even less can you infer this from the fact they have received expenses.

Whatsy said...

I've submitted (and been paid!) expenses claims into 5 figures, probably into six figures in total, and get very annoyed when colleagues who didn't have to do the job I did would complain that I was getting "paid" all that money through expenses.

Anonymous said...

As Douglas Wight said in his testimony, the Sheridans sold their story.

SWP Hedgehog said...

Snow.

Doubt he did it.

Rolo Tomasi said...

Not only is Tommy not responsible for the snow, he is on record saying that in fact there is no snow, and can point to a couple of wee bare patches under some scaffolding to prove it.

up4it said...

All witnesses can claim expenses from the respective party that calls them to give evidence. Some may pay more than others and some may claim more than they should.

Re the call off today we are now heading for an over run.

Peter said...

Critical Eye:

Critical Eye you have with due respect, less knowledge of the extent of the NOTW black bag and suborning operations than that already identified by the HOUSE OF COMMONS.

I have deal with this at length before.

Simply put:

a) We and more importantly the jury, judge, defence and possibly even the police and the Crown do not KNOW the amounts Crown witnesses got paid or were promised to be paid by the NOTW. We only know what the witnesses SAY they got paid and what the NOTW say. The defence does not believe the NOTW - it feels with good reason as they have admitted changing their story repeatedly on payments.

b) The defence have raised the that it is not just about money. The defence has indicated that they consider immunity or high possibilty immunity was promised by NOTW or its agents (to some allegedly not very bright/vulnerable/greedy people) as well as money. Some appear to the defence at least to have been hoodwinked by such promises and are now possibly in hot water themselves. If that is the case the amounts do not have to be as large as you say. The bar is set much lower if it is no/low risk.

c)The defence also considers it signifcant that Sheridans were charged but the NOTW witnesses were given a pass and the gentle touch by the police/Crown - despite the police admitting some had not told the truth in the libel trial.

d)even at this late stage some Crown witnesses have denied under oath that payments and offers of payments. Those payments and offers were then admitted by the NOTW! If the NOTW is correct then your position that people would not risk a lie for the amounts talked about has already fallen apart.

e) the HofC found that the NOTW was out of control under Coulson and there was a "culture of illegality". It found that even the higher ups did not know the true extent of the corrupting and illegal practices(but was sceptical of that)that agents were carrying out.

So .......... how can you know or the jury know what has gone on?

The defence is homing in on this matter as Sheridan was a target in the Coulson period.

This is not a conspiracy theory. The defence is supported by the New York Times, Channel 4, House of Commons and interim Met. Police investigations.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

You spend a lot of time typing this stuff out - but what if it's simply the case that the Sheridans are guilty?

Would you change your support for them if a jury found them guilty?

lets wind people up said...

Tommy worked for Talk 107, part of Talk Sport, part of UTV, largest shareholder Murdoch, so do we assume that all he said on talk107 was bull as he was on the News International payroll

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan Festival Central Cultural Committee said...

[img]http://rlv.zcache.com/snowman_angel_ornament_photosculpture-p1534911393615173743s98_400.jpg[/img]

Comrades: in the present revisionist snow-enforced armistice, could we at least have a Snowperson Competition?

I have supplies of gold tinsel and coathangers if anyone is short of halo material.

anabanana said...

critical eye...good for u some of us did not get involved here for money ..but only to tell the truth.yes the n.o.t.w can be forcefull and push you to take money i e expences that one did not ask for or even want.if only the clock could be turned back..however i will say this one and all. THE FUTURE WILL HOLD SURPRIZES AND MY TRUTH WILL PREVAIL....A C

Peter said...

HOUSE OF COMMONS REPORT INTO NOTW OPERATIONS CONT:

ANON 1.34pm Good question.

Pick a user name and I will let you know. Try "Black Bag".

By the way it is not the typing (my old mum taught me) that takes up the time mate it is the research.

But I have done it for you - no thanks required.

If you want to double check what I say about the NOTW read Hansard, the Select Committee reports, the NYT etc No need for Wiki Leaks it is all public record.

I think is important as a citizen to be informed about the NOTW methods of concealment, payments to police, telecoms staff, bugging and the longstading tactics of the creation of scenarios, documents and other materials etc.

Otherwise you may get hoodwinked.

When I say you I don't mean you of course I mean the type of people who think David Blaine can levitate without assistance cos they saw it on a dodgy video.

Cheers,

Peter

Anonymous said...

Talk Sport owned by Kelvin McKenzie ex-editor of the Sun. Another of Talk Sport's presenters is George Galloway who appeared in Big Brother as did Tommy Sheridan.

Anonymous said...

Alex Salmond who used to(maybe still does) "write" a column in the Sun (part of the "Murdoch Empire") used the argument that you had to infiltrate the enemy to get your message out.

Anonymous said...

Salmond on Saturday - that was his column. TS also said that his appearance on Big Brother was solely to gain a platform for this socialist views. Nothing to do with money or anything like that.

Sceptic said...

Just checked that according to wiki

Talksport (styled as talkSPORT), owned by UTV Radio, is one of the United Kingdom's three terrestrial analogue Independent National Radio broadcasters, offering a sports and talk radio"

UTV

According to this McKenzie did not own the company but was chief exec until 2005, which I assume was lomg before any radio show by Mr Galloway or Mr Sheridan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTV_Radio

Tell me do you chaps make up these stories on your own, or is there a place you get together and work on the collectively? If it is the latter perhaps you could try coming up with tall tales that take more that 1 minute on wiki to debunk.

Peter said...

Critical, Eye Whatsy etc

You may consider that this is limited to a few expenses claims. The defence do not which is presumably why they are pursuing the matter and presumably why the judge has allowed it to.

I thought that the Sun / NOTW record was better known up there. After Hillsborough you would need a lot more than £2 million to get a result down here.

The defence said when wads of cash were waved the truth goes out the window.

But it is not just the cash (that which has been has been revealed) that is the issue.

The defence has indicated that for them it is a deadly cocktail of hidden offers of money, hidden payments, payments denied, immunity and favourable treatment that has poisoned the Crown witness pool. You need to consider the combined effect.

The HOUSE OF COMMONS found that the true extent of the slush fund was unknown but from the iformation it had was very large.
It found the uses to which it was put were found to be malign and often criminal.

The HOUSE of COMMONS found that NOTW operations and payments were hidden behind a firewall of off shore accounts, aliases, false account headings and untraceable cash payments in different currencies and payments promised for the future.

The House of Commons found that agents bribed police officers in high profile cases for tip offs, witness names and contact details etc.

The House of Commons found that the tip of the iceberg of this illegality only came to light when agents in the NOTW overeached themselves and bugged the Princes. Two staff were jailed.

MPs on the committee have since admitted that so pervasive was the malign influence and reputation of its agents that they did not even call Rebekkah Wade as they were fearful of being targeted by the very black bag operations they were uncovering.

If we take Coulson at his word (and the H of C were very sceptical) even he did not know of these black bag operations .
According to the HOUSE OF COMMONS NOTW agents were effectively off the reservation.

It found that armed to the teeth with huge sums of money, know how, police contacts and the means and motive to conduct bribery and bugging and set ups of its targets widespread criminality occured.

Whether that occurred in this case as well is for the jury to decide.

The NOTW have already admitted Sheridan was a high profile target and even officially that a large sum of money was allocated to his pursuit. The defence claim that intensified after his libel trial victory and it is then that the new witnesses came forward, the tape appeared etc.

The defence may bring some of these issues up with Mulcaire andCoulson or they may not - I will not comment on that as it is not allowed.

It is not clear to me how you could know the full extent of the NOTW black bag operations and bribery when Coulson did not (aparently).

Indeed you know less than is already in he public record.

Wrap up warm, heat up your porridge, have a wee dram and read Hansard, NYT etc and get back to me.


Peter

Radio Gaga said...

The police waited until after Tommy finished a shift at the radio station before arresting him.
Totally insensitive, arrogant and oppressive attitude from a public authority. Tommy was on the radio for hours.
Had they no concern for the listening public?

Anonymous said...

Wiki is not the most reliable source of information!

Anonymous said...

Radio Gaga - this just standard Police practice, arresting people at work. The even make the effort of finding out where people work, follow them in, then arrest them in front of their colleagues. Damage maximisation it's called.

John Rogan said...

I am afraid that I haven't had the time to read through this (very informative) blog as much as I would have liked.

However, there was a quote from "Peter" (2nd Dec, 2.18pm) that struck me as odd.-

"I have previously outlined the respect I have for some of the SSP who appear as Crown witnesses who I stood side by side with in many important battles from back when the Redskins were on the Tube. 

Just as my respect for Sheridan is not diminished by what I consider to be his major tactical error in pursuing a libel action my respect for SOME of the comrades opposed to him is not fully diminished - but it is sorely tested. 

I appreciate they have their own pressures and families. They failed a test that I perhaps may not have been able to pass myself. I have no grudge.
"



Now the "Defend Tommy Sheridan" campaign has stated-

"Tommy Sheridan and his witnesses have absolutely nothing to fear from any investigation into matters arising from his original defamation case. Throughout they have conducted themselves with integrity and scrupulous honesty. We do, however, question the basis upon which this investigation has been initiated and conducted."

http://www.defendtommysheridan.org/defend/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=1


What I find strange is the how Peter continues to have respect for some of the SSP comrades when according to Tommy Sheridan and his supporters they have

a) all been lying through their teeth and

b) in collusion with the State and the NOTW.


I'm afraid "Peter", you can't have it both ways. Either Mr. and Mrs. Sheridan have "conducted themselves with integrity and scrupulous honesty" (see above) and the SSP comrades you refer to have been perjuring themselves to put the Sheridans in jail or the Sheridans did commit perjury and Mr. Sheridan slandered his erstwhile comrades as "scabs" and "liars".

Also, if anyone were to deliberately perjure themselves to put innocent people in jail, why should any decent person have any respect for them whatsoever.


And, if Mr. Sheridan has always conducted himself "with integrity and scrupulous honesty", why was his launching of the Libel Trial a "major tactical error"?

Anonymous said...

Peter - I don't really see what the Sun's alleged skulduggery or previous lies has got to do with anything. We all know what the Sun is like. Also you seem to have forgotten the infamous Belgrano incident.

Justsaying said...

"Wiki is not the most reliable source of information"

Not as good as your method of relying on what your mate down the pub told you?

Anonymous said...

The General Belgrano, a ship carrying Argentinan conscripts was sunk by the British Navy while in a supposed "exclusion zone". And the headline in the Sun next day: "Gotcha!" How low can a newspaper sink?

Peter said...

lets wind people up said...

Tommy worked for Talk 107, part of Talk Sport, part of UTV, largest shareholder Murdoch, so do we assume that all he said on talk107 was bull as he was on the News International payroll

December 7, 2010 1:42 PM

Well he is a Ranger's supporter so maybe it was a lot of bull....whoever owned the station.

Nobodys perfect.

Remember I don't want to have Sheridans babies (as you will see in the posts when I explained background).

I just don't think people should keep him and Gail from their baby on the word of witnesss who have admitted to being common criminals and "chancers".

I hang out with a certain crowd when I go gambling in Liverpool and Salford amongst other places but come on I wouldn't leave a bag of chips unattended with that lot never mind me poker chips.

Is the snow thawing yet? Rumours are afoot that Aslan is on the move ...

Anonymous said...

TS has pointed out that there was no snow on 7 December 2011. However if you look at his diary for 7 December 2010 there was in fact snow.

The people who made claims of snow are clearly proved wrong by his diary.

The video tape which shows the back of a man who looks like sheridan, shouting out "F*ck, it's snowing" is a forgery and fatally flawed because he told his mammy that he never swears.

Colin Q said...

Peter

When thoroughly decent socialists like Alan Green, who is not a member of any faction and was generally trusted as an honest broker with then SSP, testify would you call him a crook or a chancer?

Anonymous said...

"baby"?!, Peter - a baby that goes to school? Anyway, you are just being emotive, in my opinion.

James Doleman said...

Hello everyone

Lets avoid getting personal please.

Thanks

J

Anonymous said...

lol Peter, I can now see where you are coming from, there is a lot at "stake" for a lot of people in this trial.

Peter said...

Hi John Rogan,

There is a lot of testimony and comment on testimony in this blog so I appreciate you may not be fully informed.

Please do me the courtesy of clarifying that you fully accept I have nothing whatsoever to do with the Defend Tommy Sheridan web site. I do not.

Your post is structured in a certain way that your post could be miscontrued that I may do. I do not.

I would hope until you do so your comments may not pass the moderator but that is not for me.

Anyway you won't get into a fireside chat with me until you do so. No great shame there many would say.

I am not sure who I respect or not is an issue for the jury so it will not be first on the list of matters I comment on but do me the favour above and I will return it at some point.

I will then answer your question in detail. I think, however, I will reserve the right to retain respect and affection for who I wish.

"Having it both ways" is probably more of Cupids thing - I would rather a cup of tea.

It is not a phrase that gives an accurate assessment of my views. Bit of a blunt tool to be honest John. "Real feelings" can often be confusing to those looking in to the minds of others - combined with politics and principles its a heady brew. Check out The History Man from your local library for some more psychological insights on that theme.

Whilst you are thinking that through don't just read the Defend Tommy Sheridan website read:

- this website
- the New York Times website
- the House of Commons website.


Thanks,

Peter

James Doleman said...

Peter, just FYI comments are all allowed unless they breach the policy.

http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/comment-again.html

Anonymous said...

what will people do when this is over?

up4it said...

When this trial does resume to just say the notw had it in for me doesn't create a defence just muddies the water. Is that the tactic smoke and mirrors to get a not proven. Good old hard evidence is what's needed, one way or another.

Delays so far
Sack the qc
Accused goes sick
Time for new chapters
Prepare for defence
Juror sick
Court official sick
Snow

Delays still available
Judge goes sick
Gs goes sick
A prentice goes sick
Pmcb goes sick
Annwar goes sick
James Coleman goes sick (can't have trial without excellent Blogger)
Burst pipes in high court when thaw comes
Plane crashes into court
Clyde overflows and floods court.
Xmas comes.

I reckon at least 3 of the above will come into play before we get a verdict.

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter said...

Yes James

As I say not a decision for me but there have been threats exchanged over the DTS website.

I want to make it clear that I am not associated with it.

One offs are Ok but if chaff is thrown by other posters in that regard in my directio then trolling it may reasonablly be regarded to be!

NB:I am wholly faithful to this blog alone. Makes sign of the cross.

Peter said...

Anonymous said...

"baby"?!, Peter - a baby that goes to school? Anyway, you are just being emotive, in my opinion.
December 7, 2010 2:52 PM

Hi Anon,

"The baby"

It's just an affectionate Scouseism Anon. (Why not use "The Baby" as a user name)

The baby is the first born - it's not unheard of for teenagers round here to be referred to as such - it's common usage up to 6/7/8 years of age.

As for "emotive" remember what Big George Mc said aboot socialists having "real feelings".

Take care kid.

annabanana said...

james..is there a reason you did not publish me earlier...in responce to peter...just asking as im not sure how these things work thank you for ur time...A C

Anonymous said...

Let's not get into semantics, Peter. What when TS made a statement after his house was "raided", in my opinion the phrase "baby in the house" was not meant as an "affectionate Scouseism". To most people a baby is in a pram, and once they start crawling about and we place them in "buggies" we call them "toddlers". What about "young family" then, Peter. What does that mean in your neck of the woods?

Whatsy said...

@Peter
"the escort lady who claims with Khan and Trolle to have extensive and various exotic sex sessions with Sheridan. Ms Khan also works the NOTW "chancers". The defence do not believe any of the accounts of the NOTW who are self described as"chancers" nor the admitted common criminals. Neither do I. Check the testimony."

Need to be careful there - who is this "escort lady"? Has she been in court yet?

Ms Khan - used to work for NoW "chancers". Doesn't any more. She says they're not on good terms.

The defence "do not believe any of the accounts of the NoW" - well, that's a funny choice of words - surely the defence "know for sure they're untrue" if they describe events Mr Sheridan had no part in.

Also, your quote "Why would the sisters risk jail for perjury anymore than anyone else. They were not paid, they are not common criminals or close relatives."
Not "close relatives"? Are they distant relatives?

Whatsy said...

@Peter again: "b) The defence have raised the that it is not just about money. The defence has indicated that they consider immunity or high possibilty immunity was promised by NOTW or its agents (to some allegedly not very bright/vulnerable/greedy people) as well as money. Some appear to the defence at least to have been hoodwinked by such promises and are now possibly in hot water themselves. If that is the case the amounts do not have to be as large as you say. The bar is set much lower if it is no/low risk."(my bold)

I don't recall this being suggested in court - could you provide a reference to this? The defence certainly have said things like "the NoW think they're above the law", but I don't recall them suggesting witnesses had been promised immunity from prosecution (I assume you don't mean from infection).

I could be wrong of course, as I don't possess your in-depth knowledge of this case, but there's a big difference between thinking you're above the law and promising someone, a witness indeed, you can protect them from the law. So, please help me out by clarifying, briefly, your comment.

Miss Moneypenny said...

"The defence has indicated that they consider immunity or high possibilty immunity was promised by NOTW or its agents (to some allegedly not very bright/vulnerable/greedy people) as well as money." - in my opinion, Peter that kind of stuff is just spinning us off into la-la land. That is the stuff of a James Bond film.

Anonymous said...

Peter, the DTS website doesbnt have comments, I looked for the "threats" you talked about but cannot see them

Anonymous said...

How many of his supporters voted for him? Strange is it not? that so many are out in force running web sites etc but he could not muster enough support to get back a local council seat. I wonder where all the chest thumpers were in May?

If he is sent down how many will be going to visit him in BarL?

Peter said...

Whatsy,

Hi, I did not just get off the boat from the Shetlands mate - don't be so obtuse its unbecoming. You know the score lad.

I say:

"The defence has INDICATED that they consider immunity or high possibilty immunity was promised by NOTW or its agents."

"Indicated" being the key word.

It is not advisable for the defence to state something OUTRIGHT unless they can prove it now. They needed to draw it out carefully in testimony.

If they did not they would find themselves in the same hot water as the young counsel in the libel trial who falsely accused a Crown witness of being a criminal. Tommy sacked him for it.

In this trial for example Tommy has been careful to get the criminals who have appeared to go through their lists of convictions themselves.

The defence obviously do have a problem with witnesss coming to court with what they feel are increasingly bizarre stories - eg that they work with his father.

They indicate that no one would come up with such stuff unless they were on a promise of some sort or another.

Some of the promises have been exposed by the defence. Some have just been indicated.

Particularly Tommy has done that by highlighting testimony and in his questions. Those indications are littered throughout the trial.

They may well be strung together by the defence at a later date.

TBC:

Peter said...

INDICATED CONTINUED

In summary:

Tommy has INDICATED:

a)that Crown witness Trolle received the gentle touch from the police eg. coffee and muffins on the couch, flirty offers to fly out on holidays etc.

The defence obviously is indicating here that such conduct would indicate to a normal person

(never mind a rather silly and flighty person eg. fist punch outside court, flirting with police etc)

that perhaps they will be OK. In some countries and parts of Scotland that conduct would probably constitute an offer of marriage!

By contrast plod abused Gail of being trained by the 'RA and half inched her rosary beads.

b)The defence has highlighted many times that at this point numerous Crown witnesses (appear at this point) have also been let off for their "errors" under oath in the libel trial.

Wereas the Sheridans especially Gail are being persecuted for similar errors (if such they are as we have not yet even seen the Crown case against Gails "errors").

The defence presumably believe that apparent leniency to Crown witnesses is very significant as they keep bringing it up.

The defence maybe are raising it so that the jury will exercise their critical faculties and work out what may or may not have gone on.

Presumably the defence want to create an impression that a witness who has been let off by the police knows that they need to cooperate with the Crown to maintain that favourable status.

c)The defence also established that key Crown witness Trolle had meetings with NOTW lawyers when a police investigation was ongoing.

That has been excused by the NOTW and and Trolle as supposedly a discussions only about the evidence she would give in the libel appeal that has not been fixed yet. Mmmmmm scratches chin.

d) The defence has also indicated its severe concern with the "loss" of whole tranches of emails by the police and the NOTW and Crown witnesses.

If the police and the NOTW had not, rather unfortunately, "lost" all those emails then maybe the defence is indicating the jury would know more about the contact of those contacts.

It is surely a pity for the Crown they were lost. In their absence the defence has INDICATED something fishy went on.

Of course the emails would have revealed everything was above board and coochy coo. Nothing to see here ... move on please.

So that in short (cough) is what I mean by indicating as perhaps you knew anyway ? If not there you are.

You could go back through the testimony and piece it all together or wait and see if Tommy does it for you.

Cheers,

Peter

A Rural Socialist said...

I seem to remeber that Alan McCombes on his release from Saughton Prison after being placed there for defying the Courts access to the Partys internal affairs.
Having given thanks to the membership for their support and vowing to use legal channels to ensure confidentiality.
I find this to be a paradox considering the he himself had breeched confidentiality by providing an avadavit to another media group.
Given the complexities within the SSP it is no wonder that some may think that an inner circle of the NEC thought that they, and not the membership were the SSP.
It does not scan for me that A.McC would have or could acted alone in providing an avadavit.

To hoodwink the membership about keeping confidential information confident whilst all along knowing that this information (not minute)had previously been released.

IMO this may not show actions that can be construed as conspiracy they do however show contempt for party structures.
It does beg the question what else would they be prepared do do.
IMO it lays the SSP/NEC open to severe scrutiny, that is perrhaps too late.

BrickLane said...

Peter, Do you mean that have indicated these things or that they have indicated they allege these things?

You seem a bit confused.

Anonymous said...

We know that Tommy won't be doing if for us Peter - as he will not be taking the stand.

Peter said...

Anonymous said...

Peter, the DTS website doesbnt have comments, I looked for the "threats" you talked about but cannot see them
December 7, 2010 7:38 PM

I never said they were on there Anon.

Hey here is a thought when you make a post just choose a user name so I can keep track who I am corresponding with. Hundreds of Anons makes that difficult. Are you all the same person?

Hate to be a tease but I can tell you that there is indeed a person abroad in the virtual world who appears to feel that independent blogs should not report public testimony nor allow discussion on that public testimony.

I think the person considers it a contempt matter.

As I understand it that is not the correct legal position but he is entitled to his view.

If you search the Interweb you may come across archived documents that record the dispute but I am not going to provide the links to it.

I don't take the DTS meself as I think it is a tad one sided.

I hope there is a Not Guilty as it is the best possible for the SSP, Solidarity, the left and democracy.

I think there should be a Not Guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.

Not confusing to me to hold both positions - it is a dialectic thing perhaps.

I am determindly, via this comments section site, presenting a balanced comments on the Crown and Defence case.

It's just that the Crown case is well so poor in my view that it appears to some that I am not.

But I am willing to consider everything in the round.

When the Crown gets round to producing the forensics on the tape, the GPS tracking, credit cards, CCTV, eye witnesses (believable ones) etc that were leaked about before the trial then I may well revise my view on the strength of the Crown case on a legal basis but maiantin by view on a political basis.

DTS probably would not change its view of the matter whatever happened - but it is called the Defend Tommy Sheridan site so I suppose that is to be expected !!!

It's just important to note that DTS is nothing to do with me at all.

Cheers,

Peter

Peter said...

Whatsy you asked:

Also, your quote "Why would the sisters risk jail for perjury anymore than anyone else. They were not paid, they are not common criminals or close relatives."
Not "close relatives"? Are they distant relatives?

December 7, 2010 6:35 PM

Heh we are all distant relatives Whatsy. Cue Sister Sledge.

(the missus is from Norfolk but enough of that)

Went to a rather select event the other day with the Conductor of the Liverpool Phil Vasily Petrenko.

It was a talk on Mahler.

At the end the guy running it put up a rather racy photo of the lovely Beyonce and traced back her and Mahler's common lineage.

I think if the Crown had anything on the Cardonald Sisters or Mr Brown they would have raised it. No?

Unfortunately for the Crown it the 4 Defence witnesses who have so far appeared were not paid by the NOTW, are not on the ale, not on drugs, had not been flirting with the police and had not changed their evidence.

Ironically although they were very good I actually though the Crown witnesses were way more beneficial for the defence than the defence witnesses.

Another day of Khan and Trolle etc and it would have been the early dart for us all I am sure.

We could then have said our fond goodbyes to each other online but maybe meet up every 5 years online to see if their were any developments .... James willing.

Whatsy said...

@Peter:
Re: “Hi, I did not just get off the boat from the Shetlands mate - don't be so obtuse its unbecoming. You know the score lad.

Hey, not sure what your Shetland provenance nor how long you have been away from such fabulous islands has got to do with the trial, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Shetlanders are some of the most wily of the Scots, and we could do with more of them. I'm not ready to “mate” with you just yet, but I can assure you that you are providing me with much stimulation. However, I didn't know we were keeping score – is this Scrabble again? I am rarely called lad, but if you so wish, I will not be perturbed.

I say:
"The defence has INDICATED that they consider immunity or high possibilty immunity was promised by NOTW or its agents."

"Indicated" being the key word.
... some content edited out by Whatsy...
They may well be strung together by the defence at a later date.
... bit more editing by Whatsy ...
You could go back through the testimony and piece it all together or wait and see if Tommy does it for you.

Anyway, I see you have been kind enough to answer one of my questions. I can see where your confusion lies – you think the defence have indicated many things – whereas I think it is possible you have inferred quite a lot from the evidence presented. Much of which I agree with, some of which I do not. I'm happy for you to say you have inferred that the NoW have promised immunity from prosecution, but I still don't think it's fair to the defence to say they have indicated this. Because they haven't, as far as I can detect. Again, please direct me to specific quotes to the contrary.

Regarding another two questions I directed towards you:

- Need to be careful there - who is this "escort lady"? Has she been in court yet?
- Ms Khan - used to work for NoW "chancers". Doesn't any more. She says they're not on good terms.

I presume from your omission to answer these that you agree with me that Ms Khan doesn't actually work for NoW any more. I dare say she may still have a legal and contractual obligation to testify in court in defence of her work published in the NoW as true, but from Bob Bird's testimony, this seemed to be standard for all stories the NoW run and would take a bit of effort to construe this as “works the NOTW” as you put it.

However I am still curious who you mean by an “escort lady” relating to Ms Trolle & Ms Khan. I recall Ms Tucker testified that she drove some of the Cupid's party on to Ian's house for alleged pizza, amongst other alleged things – maybe she used a Ford Escort for this purpose? If this is what you did indeed mean, I urge you to make better use of capitalisation next time to avoid such confusion.

Anyway, as ever, a pithy reply from yourself on all points would be appreciated. I'm sure you can understand how annoying it is when you go to the effort of typing a long post to the best of your abilities only for people to skim it and answer only a small part of it in a confusingly lengthy way, leading to both parties getting weary and the crucial points lost.

Sheridan Trial said...

Peter, if you see this message could you drop me an email?

Thanks

J

Kamara said...

Peter said: "In light of the Cardonald sisters revelation about Colins supposed statement that he had never seen any minutes re read that testimony. It is revealing how Colin and Alan's pub testimony was structured so that Colin apparently was not there when they were placed on the table and had been whipped back in by the time he returned."

Don't forget that Fox had said in 2006, under oath, that he hadnt seen the minutes until weeks before that defamation came to court.

And Joyce Drummond made these claims in 2006 too, in a debate with Jack "it wasnt me" Ferguson on radio.

As an ex-ssp member I was angry when I heard Green talk of that meeting in the pub. He said he asked Sheridan to drop the case. If he was there in his position as party Secretary he should have been acting for the party. The membership didnt vote for asking Tommy to drop his libel action. Who the hell does Green think he is? And Fox assured Tommy that any costs incurred would be covered if he dropped the case? Where was he getting that? I mean, its not as if there was a spare 200k to be found is it?

Jessica Fletcher P.I. said...

Hi Peter,

Is there any chance you could cut down on the length of your comments or the number of them? I realise it's quite rude of me to ask this, and you obviously feel that it's necessary. It's just that I'm finding that I have stopped reading them as it's taking up quite a bit of my time.

Sorry.

Peter said...

Hi Jessica,

- Dont worry 'bout my feelings.

- No.

Cheers,

Peter

max said...

"the full force of the law "-'secret agents, double dealers and spies - creatures who undoubtedly infest the Scottish Movement today just as they did in the time of Friends of the People and the United Scotsmen',
excerpts from the foreword by Hugh MacDiarmid to the Scottish Insurrection of 1820.

The damage was long done before it was realised that the 1820 Committe was hoachin with them.

Has a contemporary ring about it.

Whatsy said...

@Peter & Jessica:
"Hi Peter,

Is there any chance you could cut down on the length of your comments or the number of them? I realise it's quite rude of me to ask this, and you obviously feel that it's necessary. It's just that I'm finding that I have stopped reading them as it's taking up quite a bit of my time.

Sorry.
----------------------------------

Hi Jessica,
- Dont worry 'bout my feelings.
- No.
Cheers,
Peter
"



This exchange made me laugh - actually - out loud.

Thank you both.

Eraserhead said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James said...

Ive removed all references to "Escort ladies." I'd ask people to show a bit of common sense and calm down a bit.

Anonymous said...

is the trial on today?

Whatsy said...

1:30pm start today, unless we hear otherwise nearer the time.

paw said...

Whatsy said...
1:30pm start today, unless we hear otherwise nearer the time.


Thank goodness for that. The comments section of this blog has been over full with speculation about the defence's case.

Keep up the excellent reporting James and Whatsy. Wrap up warm.

Anonymous said...

thanks for the update.

Rolo Tomasi said...

@Max and Hugh McDiarmid's espionage theory:
The state has its spies, double agents etc of course - see Roger Windsor's very curious behaviour within the NUM during and after the Miners' Strike for a very thought provoking example.

But just because the left has reason to be paranoid, doesn't mean the state is always out to get them. Tragic heroes can destroy themselves through character flaws, without the aid of conspiracies by the state and the forces of reaction.

max said...

re Rolo's observation

Observer had an exposee maybe 9-12(?) months ago around a police offficer who had penetrated a right wing group and ended up on the committe as the secretary if I recall correctly. His actions were not restricted in order that he could prove himself. If as I recall correctly again, there was the general point made that police penetration of organisations was not restricted to right wing groups. As pointed out, one agent rose to become Scargills right hand man. You dont therefore have to be paranoid to think that their would a police and/or other state penetration of the SSP. You would in fact have to be naive to dismiss it.
The term Espionage is misleading here as it has the connotation of states spying on one another whereas Macdiarmid was refering to the penetration of civil groups potentially at odds with the status quo with the intention of knowing their agenda and disrupting them etc if required using planted agent provocateurs.

Rent a Quote said...

"On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it."- Bertrand Russell, "The Scientific Outlook", 1931

Rolo Tomasi said...

@Rent a Quote:

Seems to me there are quite a few of this "youth's" previous associates, best men even, who felt abandoned by him a long time before things came to a head with this sorry court case.

TS seemed much more a threat to the rulers/establishment/forces of reaction 20 years ago with the superb poll tax campaign. Having taken an oath of loyalty to the Queen, and sitting in a nice suit in Holyrood, seems that at least some of his ill-disciplined intelligence had in fact been tamed, so maybe no need for any lethal chambers any more.

"Lethal chamber" is a great phrase though, you could apply it to any number of places where fatal mistakes are made.

Sir Brian Hine said...

Peter - keep those lengthy posts coming....

MFI spy said...

One interesting blast from the past re state agents is Alan Bleasdale's GBH. A young Richie Venton wrote to the Liverpool Echo at the time, complaining that it was a misrepresentation. Bleasdlae replied saying that he had based Andrew Schoffield's character (an MI5 infiltrator) on Venton!

And here we are, with Venton being one of the leading witnessesd against Sheridan

Anonymous said...

You never heard of double agents and agents turning against one another. Past experience has taught us that agents are usually well placed within an organisation (i.e. Joe Gormley - Arthur Scargill's right-hand man) Sometime the head of an organisation is an agent.

Anonymous said...

I think we will have to wait until the "official papers" are released in 30 years time to find out who the "agents" are (if any). It may make for very interesting reading; expect that this story will be chip-paper by then and we will all be either dead/too old to care.

Anonymous said...

More than interesting MFI and thanks for I hadnt known my suspiscions had been presaged so long ago.

max said...

James, is there a problem with my queries to Peter re tape.?

Whatsy said...

>Moderation<
Max and everyone
If you want advice on why some of your posts don't appear, please drop sheridantrial an e-mail rather than post.
>End Moderation<

Bond said...

You know what it's like - you rise to the top of your game, have a massive following at the flicks, have your way with Pussy Galore... then you get a call from Miss Money Penny, Q want you to sell out and do the chat show circuit, and there is big bucks in it... what do you do?

Anonymous said...

James (Bond not Doleman),what are you haverin about?, pay attention you old git, keep in mind the Official Secrets Act you signed and stop phantasising.!