Tommy Sheridan - The Outcome

[Hibbyradge]

What do you think will happen to Tommy Sheridan when the trial ends?

I think he'll found guilty and they'll throw the book at him for causing his wife to commit perjury too.

8 - 10 until it's reduced on appeal.

[Pretty Boy]

Guilty and 5-7 years, reduced on appeal to 3 years and he'll be out in a year to 18 months.

His wife will get less because her brief will enter a plea in mitigation that Sheridan persuaded her to lie. I expect a suspended sentence and/or community service for her.

[heretoday]

He has brought his party and himself into disgrace.

Put him in jail and he will turn himself into a martyr.

Just set him free to make a fool of himself again.

Mind you the NOTW may not be so charitable.

Unless he does a column for them.

[Hibbyradge]

Mind you the NOTW may not be so charitable.

Unless he does a column for them.

Thankfully, the NOTW doesn't determine judicial sentences!

[matty_f]

What do you think will happen to Tommy Sheridan when the trial ends?

I think he'll found guilty and they'll throw the book at him for causing his wife to commit perjury
.

8 - 10 until it's reduced on appeal.

Found guilty, ordered to repay notw plus costs. Jail term where he will experience a whole new look at swinging...
.

[Betty Boop]

Found guilty, ordered to repay notw plus costs. Jail term where he will experience a whole new look at swinging...
.

Tommy Sheridan has done time before, he will handle it no problem.

[Future17]

I think he'll found guilty and they'll throw the book at him for causing his wife to commit perjury too.

You can't cause someone else to commit perjury. She made a choice of her own free will. Will TS's influence over her or otherwise might affect any potential sentence she receives, it wouldn't affect his.


Found guilty, ordered to repay notw plus costs. Jail term where he will experience a whole new look at swinging...
.

I might be wrong, but I don't think a criminal court can order an amount to be repaid which was awarded in a civil trial.


Tommy Sheridan has done time before, he will handle it no problem.

He's a different (and older) man now. Not quite the "man of the people" he was back then.

[Betty Boop]

He's a different (and older) man now. Not quite the "man of the people" he was back then.

I think he is still very much 'a man of the people', and he is hardly that old at 46. He'll be fine.

[marinello59]

He's a different (and older) man now. Not quite the "man of the people" he was back then.

I think he is still very much 'a man of the people', and he is hardly that old at 46. He'll be fine.

What if he is guilty though? He would not only have perjured himself, he would have been exposed as a man who would rather betray his socialist colleagues than admit to his own failings. Hardly man of the people stuff is it?

[Beefster]

He's a different (and older) man now. Not quite the "man of the people" he was back then.

I think he is still very much 'a man of the people', and he is hardly that old at 46. He'll be fine.

Only if 'Men of the People' cheat on their wives, use swinging clubs, betray life-long friends and lie under oath nowadays.

[Betty Boop]

[QUOTE=Beefster;2631830]Only if 'Men of the People' cheat on their wives, use swinging clubs, betray life-long friends and lie under oath nowadays.[/QUOTE

I suppose it depends if people get all hot under the collar, about what others do in their private lives. Lets not forget he has not been found guilty yet, and is up against the might of the Murdoch empire.

[marinello59]

I suppose it depends if people get all hot under the collar, about what others do in their private lives. Lets not forget he has not been found guilty yet, and is up against the might of the Murdoch empire.

:agree: What politicians do in their real lives doesn't worry me. Up to them.
And you are right, he hasn't been found guilty. But if he is wouldn't be the might of Murdoch's empire that brought him down. His downfall would be caused by his betrayal of his fellow socialists. What ever the result there will be no winners. The SSP, who may be derided as outdated dinosaurs by some, where a much needed voice for those who are seldom heard. The actions of either Sheridan or those he maintains plotted against him have wrecked that. We'll know soon enough who is to blame.

[Betty Boop]

:agree: What politicians do in their real lives doesn't worry me. Up to them.
And you are right, he hasn't been found guilty. But if he is wouldn't be the might of Murdoch's empire that brought him down. His downfall would be caused by his betrayal of his fellow socialists. What ever the result there will be no winners. The SSP, who may be derided as outdated dinosaurs by some, where a much needed voice for those who are seldom heard. The actions of either Sheridan or those he maintains plotted against him have wrecked that. We'll know soon enough who is to blame.

I agree 100% with everything you have said in bold, however IMO others in the SSP were plotting against him before the NOW revelations.

[khib70]

[QUOTE=Beefster;2631830]Only if 'Men of the People' cheat on their wives, use swinging clubs, betray life-long friends and lie under oath nowadays.[/QUOTE

I suppose it depends if people get all hot under the collar, about what others do in their private lives. Lets not forget he has not been found guilty yet, and is up against the might of the Murdoch empire.
He's not up against the Murdoch empire at all. He's being prosecuted for a criminal offence. That means he's up against "the people" you think he's a man of. But if you really think he gives a toss about any person except Tommy Sheridan, you're being very naive. Socialism was just the label he used to set him self up as a hero and a celebrity, and to get his massive ego massaged (and a few other parts as well).

He's not advancing your cause, he's exploiting it and what he sees as "plotting", was probably the real socialists in the SSP getting thoroughly fed up of him climbing the celebrity ladder on the backs of their hard work.

Sorry - quote is from Betty Boop, not Beefster. Don't know if it was me or the system that got it wrong!

But hey, the jury might actually believe that the dozen or so witnesses against him are all part of a conspiracy of lies, that MI5 would waste any of their resources monitoring a loser like him, and that poor Tommy is the victim in all this.

And pigs might fly

[Expecting Rain]

I hope that Sheridan survives, he hasn`t killed anybody, if he is guilty of anything it is trying to save his political skin, he has an ego..............big deal the majority of them have, let him be fined at worst and send out a message to the NOTW that not everybody is interested in their *****y newspaper.

[easty]

I hope that Sheridan survives, he hasn`t killed anybody, if he is guilty of anything it is trying to save his political skin, he has an ego..............big deal the majority of them have, let him be fined at worst and send out a message to the NOTW that not everybody is interested in their *****y newspaper.

No Churchy, it's perjury.

[khib70]

I hope that Sheridan survives, he hasn`t killed anybody, if he is guilty of anything it is trying to save his political skin, he has an ego..............big deal the majority of them have, let him be fined at worst and send out a message to the NOTW that not everybody is interested in their *****y newspaper.
This case isn't about the NOTW. It's a criminal prosecution about him allegedly lying in the highest civil court in Scotland for financial gain.

As for who's interested in the admittedly trashy NOTW:

Average circulation, NOTW 2.8million

Average circulation, Guardian 280,000

[Future17]

I hope that Sheridan survives, he hasn`t killed anybody, if he is guilty of anything it is trying to save his political skin, he has an ego..............big deal the majority of them have, let him be fined at worst and send out a message to the NOTW that not everybody is interested in their *****y newspaper.

I know this has been covered by other posters, but let's make it clear:

1) If he's found guilty in this case, he will be guilty of perjury, not "trying to save his political skin". He will also have demonstrated a callous disregard to the ruin his actions have caused to the lives and reputations of countless others.

2) He beat the News of the World in a civil trial. This is a criminal trial for lying in court. Even if you don't care about the News of the World, you surely care that we should have a reputable, transparent and effective justice system?

[Expecting Rain]

This case isn't about the NOTW. It's a criminal prosecution about him allegedly lying in the highest civil court in Scotland for financial gain.

As for who's interested in the admittedly trashy NOTW:

Average circulation, NOTW 2.8million

Average circulation, Guardian 280,000

khib70, the biggest threat to Tommy and his non political career is himself, Su Bo seels more records than Joni Mitchell, the average circulation quote says more about our population than anything else.

[Expecting Rain]

No Churchy, it's perjury.

Fair comment but i`m surprised that the massively popular NOTW even found Tommy Sheridan newsworthy even by its standards.

[Dashing Bob S]

This case isn't about the NOTW. It's a criminal prosecution about him allegedly lying in the highest civil court in Scotland for financial gain.

As for who's interested in the admittedly trashy NOTW:

Average circulation, NOTW 2.8million

Average circulation, Guardian 280,000

Pop Idol, 8 million viewers

South Bank Show, 800,000 viewers.

Conclusion is?

[Killiehibbie]

Pop Idol, 8 million viewers

South Bank Show, 800,000 viewers.

Conclusion is?South Bank Show is on too late?

[tamsonsbairn]

We had an in depth discussion about this in Tamsons this afternoon, when somebody pipes up if he gets jailed he'll get his erse felt in there. Whoah isn't that how it all started in the first place. :wink: :thumbsup:.

[andrew_dundee]

i voted for not proven/ not guilty

this isn't because he doesnt deserve to be charged, after all i know enough people who are involved in the SSP and Solidarity to know that he is lying about almost everything. However, although i have very good grounds to supect this i know that there is an ongoing trial so i'll say IF he is guilty then he deserves to go down.

my suspicion is that he'll get a not proven- although that can only happen if he makes the jury seriously question the authenticity of that video

a few things

1. this can not be seen as an issue about his private life- bear in mind that he is denying that these charges have anything to do with his private life, he claims the allegations didnt even happen in the first place. the only way this is an intrusion in to his private life is if you accept that these events happened in the first place

2. the stuff about his colleagues selling him out is total crap- i would NEVER commit perjury to defend anyone's right to have an affair and i don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone would ever do it for me

3. if i was going to ever have an affair (if the other half is reading this then please note that i never would) then i certainly wouldn't sue the news of the world for printing the details, on top of that i can also say that i would never have an affair with a NOTW journalist!!!

4. IF Sheridan is guilty (which i believe he is) then he behaved appalingly in his questioning of witnesses. He has used one witnesses use of anti depressants against her, he has brought up one of his former friend's alchahol addictions, he has brought up anothers criminal records, and worst of all he has used at least two women's sexual histories against them to paoint a picture of them being fantasists- truly vile

the tragedy in all of this is that the vanity of one man has effectively ended the most succesful socialist party that Britain has seen in over a generation. The once great socialist leader, who is one of the most gifted orators in contemporary Scottish politics, has been reduced to appearing on Bog Brother and accusing his former friends of lying in court...

[GhostofBolivar]

Guilty and sentenced to be banned from using fake tanning products and sunbeds for a period of no fewer than 8 years.

[marinello59]

Guilty and sentenced to be banned from using fake tanning products and sunbeds for a period of no fewer than 8 years.

An effective deterrent. Jimmy Calderwood won't even drop litter.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Those Tommy Sheridan Puns in Full

Sheridan and his missus are going down.

He really needs banged up.

Sheridan Should Swing

Tommy Sniffs Defeat

etc

[Bad Martini]

This whole tam-gaite thing is stone radge. Consider;

Bloke knobs another who is not his wife.
Bloke lies about it.
Then tries to get out of it using any excuse going.
Bloke gets caught.

That is the size of this one. How much ****ing cash have we wasted in court costs and how much crap has been spouted into the public domain in the vein impression of "news".

Who really, honestly, gives a toss?

Exactly. What I really care aboot is, whether or not someone has found an answer to divert that big **** off 3 mile wide meteorite that's heading towards the earth in 2 years time, probably RIGHT aboot the *****g time Deek walks up the podium at Hampden to lift that Scottish Cup after we put oot the huns and rasellick in the quarters and semi and after we trounce the yams 7-0 in the final....JUST, at the very point, THAT, is when the thing hits the Earth and we're all ****ed...

(We still win it tho, in ma world :devil: :greengrin)

ENDOF

[Betty Boop]

Does anybody know what happened to the other five who were charged with perjury ? Tommy's Father in Law and four others ?

[New Corrie]

Pop Idol, 8 million viewers

South Bank Show, 800,000 viewers.

Conclusion is?

Conclusion is that there are 8 million plebs(although we know the actual number is closer to 50 million) and 800 000 who pretend that Melvyn Bragg being sycophantic with some Indonesiaan Nose Flute Guru is in some way interesting.

[Jack]

:agree: What politicians do in their real lives doesn't worry me. Up to them.
And you are right, he hasn't been found guilty. But if he is wouldn't be the might of Murdoch's empire that brought him down. His downfall would be caused by his betrayal of his fellow socialists. What ever the result there will be no winners. The SSP, who may be derided as outdated dinosaurs by some, where a much needed voice for those who are seldom heard. The actions of either Sheridan or those he maintains plotted against him have wrecked that. We'll know soon enough who is to blame.

I used to think like that and then I though WTF! :grr:

What right do these liars, cheats, swindlers and the rest politicians have to tell me how to run my law abiding life when they are continually found out to be doing all the things they're pontificating that I should not be doing. :bitchy:

So no, what politicians do in their private lives is very important in allowing the public to decide if they are fit and proper enough to represent us. :agree: :agree: :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I have thought for some time that this trial is going to make a great dramatisation. Unfortunately I had Gerard Kelly lined up to play Tommy, anybody care to suggest an alternative?

[Future17]

I have thought for some time that this trial is going to make a great dramatisation. Unfortunately I had Gerard Kelly lined up to play Tommy, anybody care to suggest an alternative?

Jimmy Calderwood. :agree:

[ballengeich]

I have thought for some time that this trial is going to make a great dramatisation. Unfortunately I had Gerard Kelly lined up to play Tommy, anybody care to suggest an alternative?

George Galloway surely.

[steakbake]

I have thought for some time that this trial is going to make a great dramatisation. Unfortunately I had Gerard Kelly lined up to play Tommy, anybody care to suggest an alternative?


Jimmy Krankie would be a passable Tommy Sheridan, though he'd have to "orange-up" for the role.

[steakbake]

George Galloway surely.

Ken Stott would be a shoe-in for a Galloway reimagining. Wonder who we could get to play Saddam?

[CropleyWasGod]

Ken Stott would be a shoe-in for a Galloway reimagining. Wonder who we could get to play Saddam?

Bobby Ball.

[--------]

Pop Idol, 8 million viewers

South Bank Show, 800,000 viewers.

Conclusion is?


Conclusion drawn?

Nobody ever went bankrupt pandering to the lowest taste of the ignorant masses... :devil:

[Dashing Bob S]

Bobby Ball.

Or perhaps his Aussie domicilled lookalike Albert Kidd might come out of retirement to grab the headlines for the first time since May 86, when his two strikes for Dundee at Dens Park late in the dying embers of the final match of the season prevented a devastated Hear...

Well, you know the rest.

[lapsedhibee]

Or perhaps his Aussie domicilled lookalike Albert Kidd might come out of retirement to grab the headlines for the first time since May 86, when his two strikes for Dundee at Dens Park late in the dying embers of the final match of the season prevented a devastated Hear...

I've seen this date crop up before on hibs.net, but never known why. Did something memorable occur then? Some sort of flood, or other watery disaster, perhaps? :dunno:

[IWasThere2016]

H
e'
s

g
o
i
n
g

d
o
o
o
o
w
w
w
w
w
n
!

:bye: Tommy

[Betty Boop]

H
e'
s

g
o
i
n
g

d
o
o
o
o
w
w
w
w
w
n
!

:bye: Tommy

Oooo are you all excited at the thought !

[IWasThere2016]

Oooo are you all excited at the thought !

Defo - he's wrongly been free man IMHO

[Phil D. Rolls]

I've seen this date crop up before on hibs.net, but never known why. Did something memorable occur then? Some sort of flood, or other watery disaster, perhaps? :dunno:

Agincourt?

[Killiehibbie]

Agincourt?

Somme?

[Hibbyradge]

Somme?

Enchanted evening?

[Cropley10]

Defo - he's wrongly been free man IMHO

Except of course the original, civil action was brought by him against NotW. Which he won.

This is now a criminal case to determine whether TS committed perjury in the earlier trial

My view is it will end Not Proven.

Check out sheridantrial.blogspot.com

[Betty Boop]

Except of course the original, civil action was brought by him against NotW. Which he won.

This is now a criminal case to determine whether TS committed perjury in the earlier trial

My view is it will end Not Proven.

Check out sheridantrial.blogspot.com

:agree: The thought of Bob Bird stripping down to his boxers, to buy that tape ! :rolleyes:

[Pete]

I used to think like that and then I though WTF! :grr:

What right do these liars, cheats, swindlers and the rest politicians have to tell me how to run my law abiding life when they are continually found out to be doing all the things they're pontificating that I should not be doing. :bitchy:

So no, what politicians do in their private lives is very important in allowing the public to decide if they are fit and proper enough to represent us. :agree: :agree: :greengrin

I know what you're saying but if they're honest about it then I don't care what they do in their private lives.
It's people telling lies and trying to pull the wool that gets me.

The Nigel Griffiths thing still angers me. He was accused of certain acts and he mocked them saying the allegations were "outrageous". I also remember him saying "prove it".
Once it was proved by means of photographic evidence a grovelling apology was issued. His feet shouldn't have touched the ground and there should have been mechanisms in place to have him replaced as soon as he was proved to be lying.

People like that make me sick and it makes me sick that people like him still have the perks that parliamentary service brings them. He was taking us all for mugs. He was voted into a certain place to represent a certain amount of people and the least they deserve is someone who can represent them without having this sort of thing hanging over them.

How could anyone ever trust anything Nigel Griffiths says ever again after that episode? The most public of denials and then the most public proof of the accusations proving he's a liar. I have no idea how this man was ever employed again.

If Sheridan is found guilty of lying he should be put in the same category as I put Griffiths. A liar and someone who takes the people they represent for mugs.

It's a saying that nobody is perfect but I'm sorry, if you put yourself up for representation then you have to be...or at least try to be. You owe it to your constituants as you are their voice.

[RyeSloan]

It also seems such a loooong trial...I can't belive it is taking this long! Is there any estimate of how much longer this is going to run?

[Betty Boop]

Four perjury charges have been dropped in the trial, leaving Gail to face only one charge of lying under oath, three have been dropped against Tommy.

http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/scottish-headlines/sheridan_trial_allegations_dropped_1_379741

[ancienthibby]

Four perjury charges have been dropped in the trial, leaving Gail to face only one charge of lying under oath, three have been dropped against Tommy.

http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/scottish-headlines/sheridan_trial_allegations_dropped_1_379741

The whole thing has descended into absolute farce!!

Tommy is probably guilty as you can be of all the shenanigans, but the Sun and its revolting associates are too for theirs!!

Discharge all charges against the Sheridans, reduce the £200k to £20k and have the Sun pay all costs!!

Simples!:greengrin

[heretoday]

Frankly, I don't care about the result of this case. It has gone on so long.

As far as I am concerned Tommy would be welcome in my house.

Provided he kept his hands off my wife.

Then there might be trouble among Socialists!

[Minder]

Tommy will soon have a privilege pass for the Saughton sex club.

Brace yourself Tommy.

[AK86]

Tommy has lost it, in more ways than one. Which is really sad because he is a skillfull passionate man. The power has went to his head and i think he thought he was untouchable
IMO there is no doubt he went the "club". The SSP was prepared to stand by him to a certain extent untill he asked them to lie in court
I cannot see how he can walk from this one

[Betty Boop]

Tommy Sheridan acquitted of trying to persuade Colin Fox to commit perjury.

[Cropley10]

If anyone is interested in this trial perhaps I could recommend

http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/

Very, very good reporting and commentary on the trial.

[NAE NOOKIE]

If politicians were made to declare their sexual preferences in the members list of interests along with their financial dealings we would never have these problems.

I really dont care if half of the Scottish or Westminster parliaments like to wear nappies and have custard poured over them by a gimp at the weekend ( lets face it, some of them probably do ) just so long as they are honest and try to do a good job during the week.

[hibiedude]

Not Guilty/Not Proven

The charges are already one by one being dropped

[Phil D. Rolls]

Not Guilty/Not Proven

The charges are already one by one being dropped

I've changed my mind, he obviously didn't do it.

[Hibbyradge]

Gail Sheridan cleared of Perjury.

The plot thickens.

Or rather, dilutes.

[lapsedhibee]

Gail Sheridan cleared of Perjury.

The plot thickens.

Or rather, dilutes.

Once it's been diluted 10 to the 23rd times, it becomes a very powerful plot indeed. (Think I've got that right.)

[Phil D. Rolls]

Looks like Tommy didn't do it and that everyone else was lying. I believe him now, I really really do.

[EskbankHibby]

"no longer necessary in the public interest". What's changed?

What a waste of time and money.

[s.a.m]

"no longer necessary in the public interest". What's changed?

What a waste of time and money.

I wonder if the prosecution thought they'd have a better chance of getting him, if they removed her from the equation.:dunno:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I wonder if the prosecution thought they'd have a better chance of getting him, if they removed her from the equation.:dunno:

is her lying not important to proving his guilt though?:confused:

I actually think he might get away with this, christ knows how because he is guilty as sin:agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

is her lying not important to proving his guilt though?:confused:

I actually think he might get away with this, christ knows how because he is guilty as sin:agree:

Allegedly?

[RyeSloan]

Once it's been diluted 10 to the 23rd times, it becomes a very powerful plot indeed. (Think I've got that right.)

:greengrin:greengrin

Remember though it's the WAY that you dilute it that is key, not merely the fact it is diluted.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Allegedly?

No not allegedly, the dirty bugger done it all alright:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

No not allegedly, the dirty bugger done it all alright:greengrin

Only someone who was there can say for certain. :cool2:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Only someone who was there can say for certain. :cool2:

:wink::greengrin

[Cropley10]

Even more certain TS will get acquitted now I believe.

There is more than enough reasonable doubt. Not proven perhaps but the Crowns case is extremely weak. They can't even agree on the date FFS!

[CropleyWasGod]

In reading all of the reports on the trial, I couldn't help thinking that TS has been very clever in his strategy.

He seems to have wandered off into areas that are not always relevant to the main point of the case... ie whether he lied under oath or not. He has been keen to establish that there was a witch-hunt against him, and to try and build a picture (smoke screen?) of him as a victim. The NOTW, his former colleagues, the police have all had their integrity questioned.

The result, I think, will be that the jury will be so confused about all the extraneous stuff that they won't be able to agree on the central issue.

Not proven, I reckon.

[Betty Boop]

Gail Sheridan cleared of Perjury.

The plot thickens.

Or rather, dilutes.

Did you not say he would get 8-10 years ? :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Did you not say he would get 8-10 years ? :greengrin

Gail might put him on a 10 year sex ban once this is all over....

[bighairyfaeleith]

Gail might put him on a 10 year sex ban once this is all over....

It's alright, with all the pr he has done for that swingers club in manchester, they will surely have given him a lifetime mebership:greengrin

Place must have queues out the door, I seen a post office at great junction street advertising weekend tours of manchester that included visits to Tommys swinging club:greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Did you not say he would get 8-10 years ? :greengrin

I did.

I don't think that now though.

[hibiedude]

I've changed my mind, he obviously didn't do it.

I never said he didn't do it BUT proving it will be difficult.

Out of all the charges he faced at the start of the trial its now down to one and with his wife Gail free of all charges next week Tommy will walk out the high court in Glasgow Thursday/Friday and be a free but lucky man.

[--------]

In reading all of the reports on the trial, I couldn't help thinking that TS has been very clever in his strategy.

He seems to have wandered off into areas that are not always relevant to the main point of the case... ie whether he lied under oath or not. He has been keen to establish that there was a witch-hunt against him, and to try and build a picture (smoke screen?) of him as a victim. The NOTW, his former colleagues, the police have all had their integrity questioned.

The result, I think, will be that the jury will be so confused about all the extraneous stuff that they won't be able to agree on the central issue.

Not proven, I reckon.


:agree:

Hard to see how the jury can pot Tam now that his wife's been acquitted.

It also occurs to me that while one side of this case is now Tommy Sheridan, whom I would not trust as far as I could throw him, the other side is populated by The News of The World...

Not proven would be fair enough, I'd say. "Off you go, Tam, and don't do it again..."

The phrase 'total waste of the tax-payers' money' comes to my mind.

[Betty Boop]

:agree:

Hard to see how the jury can pot Tam now that his wife's been acquitted.

It also occurs to me that while one side of this case is now Tommy Sheridan, whom I would not trust as far as I could throw him, the other side is populated by The News of The World...

Not proven would be fair enough, I'd say. "Off you go, Tam, and don't do it again..."

The phrase 'total waste of the tax-payers' money' comes to my mind.

1.1 million spent by Lothian and Borders Police.

[Killiehibbie]

Looks like the outcome will be as I expected with them not being able to prove very much.

[--------]

1.1 million spent by Lothian and Borders Police.

Tax-payers' monet spent on behalf of a tabloid rag. Ridiculous! :bitchy:


Looks like the outcome will be as I expected with them not being able to prove very much.

Well, if they can't prove it, they can't pot him. Maybe they should havethought harder about bringing the prosecution before they spent the money. :rolleyes:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Tax-payers' monet spent on behalf of a tabloid rag. Ridiculous! :bitchy:


That paints a very cynical picture of British justice. :agree:

[lapsedhibee]

That paints a very cynical picture of British justice. :agree:

I got the same impression. :agree:

[Hibbyradge]

That paints a very cynical picture of British justice. :agree:


I got the same impression. :agree:

I'm just going to brush those comments off.

They really don't suit my palette.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm just going to brush those comments off.

They really don't suit my palette.

This is all getting too surreal for me.

[Removed]

This is all getting too surreal for me.

It's obvious he was framed

[Killiehibbie]

It's obvious he was framedWas that not Roger Rabbit?

[CropleyWasGod]

Was that not Roger Rabbit?

Roger and TS in the same sentence? tee hee...

[Hibbyradge]

Roger and TS in the same sentence? tee hee...

TS and sentence in the same post. :tee hee:

[Hibbyradge]

6 more charges against Sheridan dropped.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12040484

[Pretty Boy]

The longer this case goes the more i come to the conclusion that Tommy will get either a not proven or a not guilty.

I'm also starting to hope this is the case. Whilst i think that his claims of Government/CIA/SSP/Fifa/reptilian conspiracies aginst him are fanciful; the more i read and hear the more i believe the NOTW used some pretty questionable tactics and have either bought or bribed the co-operation of a fair few people.

[CropleyWasGod]

The longer this case goes the more i come to the conclusion that Tommy will get either a not proven or a not guilty.

I'm also starting to hope this is the case. Whilst i think that his claims of Government/CIA/SSP/Fifa/reptilian conspiracies aginst him are fanciful; the more i read and hear the more i believe the NOTW used some pretty questionable tactics and have either bought or bribed the co-operation of a fair few people.

But, like I said, that just covers over the main point of the trial.... did he lie or not?

[Phil D. Rolls]

But, like I said, that just covers over the main point of the trial.... did he lie or not?

I think the most telling evidence came from his ex SSP colleagues. They sounded convincing, and I question why they would all conspire to lie. The other thing is Tommy's lack of a convincing alibi for when the acts are alleged to have happened.

However, by banging on and on and on, he has managed to sew an element of reaonable doubt, and that is all he needs. Personally, if I ever had to shake his hand, I'd count my fingers afterwards.

[Ed De Gramo]

I seen the guy in a pub in Glasgow....drinking coffee....

What sort of animal goes to a boozer and drinks coffee?

[ballengeich]

It seems to me that the defence witnesses are all either Sheridan's family or acolytes. The prosecution witnesses are more disparate and I think that if there had been a conspiracy against him someone would have refused to join it, tipped him off and then appeared as a defence witness.

[matty_f]

Tell you what, though - if I ever need a lawyer I'm calling Tommy in to do it!

[--------]

I seen the guy in a pub in Glasgow....drinking coffee....

What sort of animal goes to a boozer and drinks coffee?


A designated driver?

Someone sensible? :rolleyes:

[Betty Boop]

Tell you what, though - if I ever need a lawyer I'm calling Tommy in to do it!

:agree: He has done a great job of conducting his own defence. Rock on Tommy ! :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

:agree: He has done a great job of conducting his own defence. Rock on Tommy ! :greengrin


I'm with you on this one Betty!!

I have no particular brief for TS, but I despair of this global empire of RMurdoch that seems to think it can buy justice to suit its political objectives!

Add to that tonight's news that even the Daily Telegraph (yes, even the DT) has gone underground, to entrap Vince Cable!!

If TS is quilty, on un-controvertible evidence, of cheating on his wife and family, then he should be found guilty, but I do hope a good Scottish jury finds the charges 'not proven'!!

[lapsedhibee]

If TS is quilty, on un-controvertible evidence, of cheating on his wife and family, then he should be found guilty

:tsk tsk: Bad time of year to be arguing that anyone who's told a lie to his children should be locked up.

[ancienthibby]

:tsk tsk: Bad time of year to be arguing that anyone who's told a lie to his children should be locked up.

Who said that???

Always remember to engage brain before hitting the keyboards!!:devil:

[lapsedhibee]

Who said that???


You did. If TS is found guilty he will be locked up.
Therefore, you hope that if he is found guilty of 'cheating on' his family (presumably this means, or at least includes, lying to them) he will be locked up.

[ancienthibby]

You did. If TS is found guilty he will be locked up.
Therefore, you hope that if he is found guilty of 'cheating on' his family (presumably this means, or at least includes, lying to them) he will be locked up.


That just shows that you do not understand the English language!!

What I said, for clarity, was that he should be found guilty!!

Never made any reference to a sentence!

:na na:

[Betty Boop]

I'm with you on this one Betty!!

I have no particular brief for TS, but I despair of this global empire of RMurdoch that seems to think it can buy justice to suit its political objectives!

Add to that tonight's news that even the Daily Telegraph (yes, even the DT) has gone underground, to entrap Vince Cable!!

If TS is quilty, on un-controvertible evidence, of cheating on his wife and family, then he should be found guilty, but I do hope a good Scottish jury finds the charges 'not proven'!!

Cameron has now stripped him of his responsibility for broadcasting competition policy.

[lapsedhibee]

That just shows that you do not understand the English language!!

What I said, for clarity, was that he should be found guilty!!

Never made any reference to a sentence!

:na na:

I never said that you did.

It is a fact, independent of what you believe or don't believe, that TS will be sent down if he is found guilty.

You said that you hoped he would be found guilty if he was shown to have 'cheated on' people.

It follows, whether you say it or not, that you hope if he is shown to have cheated on people he will be sent down.

The logic goes:

If A then B. (If he has cheated, he is guilty)
If B then C. (If he is guilty, he will be sent down)
If A then C. (If he has cheated, he will be sent down)

It's not rocket surgery.

[Hibbyradge]

Mr Sheridan, who is representing himself, started his summation on Tuesday by apologising to the 12 women and two men on the jury, saying his speech would be "lengthy and time-consuming".

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

The Crown's problem is they are seeking to rely on liars”

Tommy Sheridan
Accused
He added: "But I hope you will understand that my life's at stake.

"I've got a wee girl at home. I've got a loving wife and if you convict me I'll be separated from them for a very long time."

Mr Sheridan told the jury that there was "far too much reasonable doubt for you to find me guilty of any of the remaining six charges".

He went on to criticise Crown witnesses who had given evidence during his civil action against the News of the World in 2006.

Mr Sheridan said the prosecution's problem was that it had relied on witnesses who lacked both credibility and reliability.

The politician told the court about a police raid on his house in December 2007, saying 10 officers were at his home for eight hours, even searching the nursery of his then two-year-old daughter, Gabrielle.

"They turned the tiny pockets of her wee anorak inside out," he said.

[ancienthibby]

I never said that you did.

It is a fact, independent of what you believe or don't believe, that TS will be sent down if he is found guilty.

You said that you hoped he would be found guilty if he was shown to have 'cheated on' people.

It follows, whether you say it or not, that you hope if he is shown to have cheated on people he will be sent down.

Says who??

Are you a member of the Sheridan jury just sneaking out for a quick fag and a wee post on hibs.net??

The logic goes:

If A then B. (If he has cheated, he is guilty)
If B then C. (If he is guilty, he will be sent down)
If A then C. (If he has cheated, he will be sent down)

It's not rocket surgery.


It never was - and it's not even rocket science.:grr:

[Killiehibbie]

It never was - and it's not even rocket science.:grr:Is that brain science you're getting mixed up with:wink:

[lapsedhibee]

Says who?
Says nobody. Simple application of the laws of logic. You're not bound to accept that they have any value, of course. Many don't live their lives by those laws.

[lapsedhibee]

"They turned the tiny pockets of her wee anorak inside out," he said.

That's the clincher for me. No way is TS a perjurer after that. Free The Manchester One! :panic:

[ancienthibby]

Says nobody. Simple application of the laws of logic. You're not bound to accept that they have any value, of course. Many don't live their lives by those laws.


And do juries??

Certainly not in the first TS case!!

[magpie1892]

A designated driver?

Someone sensible? :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure he's teetotal after previous difficulties with the lady booze.

[khib70]

:agree: He has done a great job of conducting his own defence. Rock on Tommy ! :greengrin

You're joking:-

"My life is at stake" (sob!) :violin:

"They even (takes onion from pocket) turned out the pockets of her wee anorak"

:sick:

Presumably he wasn't allowed to actually bring an orchestra into court to accompany his speech. Another conspiracy!

His summation was pure manipulative soap opera (except that most soaps are less cliched and better-written) which failed to refute any of the evidence against him, except along the lines of "they're all lying", and instead relied on melodramatic jury manipulation worthy of the seediest small-town US lawyer.

I really hope he doesn't get away with this twice.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You're joking:-

"My life is at stake" (sob!) :violin:

"They even (takes onion from pocket) turned out the pockets of her wee anorak"

:sick:

Presumably he wasn't allowed to actually bring an orchestra into court to accompany his speech. Another conspiracy!

His summation was pure manipulative soap opera (except that most soaps are less cliched and better-written) which failed to refute any of the evidence against him, except along the lines of "they're all lying", and instead relied on melodramatic jury manipulation worthy of the seediest small-town US lawyer.

I really hope he doesn't get away with this twice.

It's been said that it was his skill as an orator that saved him the last time, juries are swayed by emotion.

[magpie1892]

You're joking:-

"My life is at stake" (sob!) :violin:

"They even (takes onion from pocket) turned out the pockets of her wee anorak"

:sick:

Presumably he wasn't allowed to actually bring an orchestra into court to accompany his speech. Another conspiracy!

His summation was pure manipulative soap opera (except that most soaps are less cliched and better-written) which failed to refute any of the evidence against him, except along the lines of "they're all lying", and instead relied on melodramatic jury manipulation worthy of the seediest small-town US lawyer.

I really hope he doesn't get away with this twice.

Sleep easy. He's screwed.

[Betty Boop]

You're joking:-

"My life is at stake" (sob!) :violin:

"They even (takes onion from pocket) turned out the pockets of her wee anorak"

:sick:

Presumably he wasn't allowed to actually bring an orchestra into court to accompany his speech. Another conspiracy!

His summation was pure manipulative soap opera (except that most soaps are less cliched and better-written) which failed to refute any of the evidence against him, except along the lines of "they're all lying", and instead relied on melodramatic jury manipulation worthy of the seediest small-town US lawyer.

I really hope he doesn't get away with this twice.

He is right to lay it on thick, I know I would if I was facing jail time. You have to question why the Flying Squad raided his house as well, he was accused of perjury not murder. :greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

Sleep easy. He's screwed.

I think quite a lot of folks at that club where screwed:wink:

[khib70]

He is right to lay it on thick, I know I would if I was facing jail time. You have to question why the Flying Squad raided his house as well, he was accused of perjury not murder. :greengrin
You probably would lay it on thick, and so would I. But I suspect both of us would make some attempt to refute the prosecution evidence instead of launching a sentimental tirade which makes "Love Actually" look like hard-edged social realism.

As with Assange, I'm not assuming either guilt or innocence, and I hate the Murdoch press as much as you do. But I suspect there will be a backlash from a Jury that knows when it's being manipulated.

As for the Flying Squad, is there corroboration for this? Tommy also insisted that MI5 were on his case. That despite his being about as big a threat to national security as Alan Carr, Chatty Man (although to Daily Mail readers, that's pretty threatening:greengrin) Regardless of his guilt or innocence the man has a huge conceit of himself, which probably soured his relations with his SSP comrades in the first place. But I don't think any of them, politics aside, were devious or malicious enough to conspire to send him to jail.

[magpie1892]

I think quite a lot of folks at that club where screwed:wink:

Boom, boom!

[magpie1892]

the man has a huge conceit of himself, which probably soured his relations with his SSP comrades in the first place.

His conceit is so enormous that he's going to go to jail - probably for six years or so (out in three, so not the end of the world) - because of it. He should have just kept his head down after the story broke. After all, it's not as if the story was made up. I worked on this story some and you should have seen the stuff they had to leave out...

[Cropley10]

Sleep easy. He's screwed.


His conceit is so enormous that he's going to go to jail - probably for six years or so (out in three, so not the end of the world) - because of it. He should have just kept his head down after the story broke. After all, it's not as if the story was made up. I worked on this story some and you should have seen the stuff they had to leave out...

Lets wait and see shall we....:greengrin All of this is a matter for the jury to decide.

Interestingly, IMHO, there is not a shred of irrefutable evidence against TS. Not even after 52,000 hours of Police time and about 2m quid.

The first ever perjury trial following a civil trial, the longest perjury trial ever too. Which more and more looks like a complete and utter waste of money.

[Cropley10]

You probably would lay it on thick, and so would I. But I suspect both of us would make some attempt to refute the prosecution evidence instead of launching a sentimental tirade which makes "Love Actually" look like hard-edged social realism.

But I suspect there will be a backlash from a Jury that knows when it's being manipulated.

As for the Flying Squad, is there corroboration for this? Regardless of his guilt or innocence the man has a huge conceit of himself, which probably soured his relations with his SSP comrades in the first place. But I don't think any of them, politics aside, were devious or malicious enough to conspire to send him to jail.

Out of interest - where are you getting this info from? Are you saying that TS has NOT tried to refute the prosecution evidence:confused:

FYI - re the Flying Squad - yes there is corroboration. As heard in open court. Which you can contrast with Katrina Trolle being invited in by L&B for coffee and muffins (also heard in open court).

As for your last comment re the SSP - I take it you don't know anything about the SSP/Solidarity and Left Wing Scottish socialism...?

[ancienthibby]

Out of interest - where are you getting this info from? Are you saying that TS has NOT tried to refute the prosecution evidence:confused:

FYI - re the Flying Squad - yes there is corroboration. As heard in open court. Which you can contrast with Katrina Trolle being invited in by L&B for coffee and muffins (also heard in open court).

As for your last comment re the SSP - I take it you don't know anything about the SSP/Solidarity and Left Wing Scottish socialism...?


Jury has been sent home for the night.

I can't cope with all this tension.:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Jury has been sent home for the night.

I can't cope with all this tension.:greengrin

Honestly this will make one heck of a film, could almost be like "It's a Wonderful Life", with Tommy running down a snow covered Argyle Street, crying with happiness that he has got his life back.

[Cropley10]

Jury has been sent home for the night.

I can't cope with all this tension.:greengrin

Funny thing is you could argue that TS has tried to fillibuster his way to having Christmas at home, come what may - yet the jury could return a (guilty) verdict that would see him at Her Majesty's Pleasure just before the day in question!

[magpie1892]

Lets wait and see shall we....:greengrin All of this is a matter for the jury to decide.

Interestingly, IMHO, there is not a shred of irrefutable evidence against TS. Not even after 52,000 hours of Police time and about 2m quid.

The first ever perjury trial following a civil trial, the longest perjury trial ever too. Which more and more looks like a complete and utter waste of money.

Yes, of course. All will be clear soon enough. My opinion is that he's screwed. I see you have your opinion in your third sentence. Your last sentence, too, opines somewhat as well..!

[CropleyWasGod]

Honestly this will make one heck of a film, could almost be like "It's a Wonderful Life", with Tommy running down a snow covered Argyle Street, crying with happiness that he has got his life back.

... and straight onto the train for Manchester.:cool2:

[ancienthibby]

Funny thing is you could argue that TS has tried to fillibuster his way to having Christmas at home, come what may - yet the jury could return a (guilty) verdict that would see him at Her Majesty's Pleasure just before the day in question!

That could be the fatal stroke! If he's blown his case anywhere, then this is it!

I was astonished that he made such an emotive appeal in a court of law - he has, I think, got a degree in law and I also think that it would not be too hard to demolish the crown's case against him. Have not 75% of the Crown's allegations already been dismissed??

I do not condone any perjury, if it could be proven, but it does seem to me that money (most of it ours!) and the media have run away with their obsession of getting TS at any cost!

[Cropley10]

Yes, of course. All will be clear soon enough. My opinion is that he's screwed. I see you have your opinion in your third sentence. Your last sentence, too, opines somewhat as well..!

We can agree to differ on our opinions obviously:greengrin

I don't think he's guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt - that doesn't mean I don't think he might have done some of it. After all it's not what you know, it's what you can prove in a criminal trial.

Out of interest do you think there's any irrefutable evidence, or why do you think he's screwed??

[EskbankHibby]

Funny thing is you could argue that TS has tried to fillibuster his way to having Christmas at home, come what may - yet the jury could return a (guilty) verdict that would see him at Her Majesty's Pleasure just before the day in question!

Could they find him guilty but defer sentencing?

I have changed my mind about the outcome and think it will be not proven, no doubt (in my mind anyway) that TS has told a few porkies but the case highlighted some shadey people/practices on the side of the prosecution/NOTW. Possibly enough for reasonable doubt?

That Sheridan blog is quality by the way, i find myself actually interested in the outcome of this drama, this must be what watching soap operas is like.

[Cropley10]

That could be the fatal stroke! If he's blown his case anywhere, then this is it!

I was astonished that he made such an emotive appeal in a court of law - he has, I think, got a degree in law and I also think that it would not be too hard to demolish the crown's case against him. Have not 75% of the Crown's allegations already been dismissed??

I do not condone any perjury, if it could be proven, but it does seem to me that money (most of it ours!) and the media have run away with their obsession of getting TS at any cost!


He has got a degree in law - but he's up against an AD (Alex Prentice) who has an excellent reputation, so it's no easy matter to 'demolish' the Crown's case.

My view is that the jury will be wanting to get on with last minute Christmas shopping after a very long trial. This could actually work in his favour...

And yes his emotive outbursts don't really have any place in a High Court, but that's the beauty of his strategy to represent himself, he can do this. I think Lord Bracadale will tell the jury to put this out of their minds, which of course they can't really...

[Betty Boop]

His conceit is so enormous that he's going to go to jail - probably for six years or so (out in three, so not the end of the world) - because of it. He should have just kept his head down after the story broke. After all, it's not as if the story was made up. I worked on this story some and you should have seen the stuff they had to leave out...

I thought you worked in Doha ? :greengrin

[--------]

Any bets on "Not Proven"? :cool2:

[magpie1892]

I thought you worked in Doha ? :greengrin

That's right. Since June 30.

I'm in Edinburgh now for Xmas, that OK?! :wink:

[magpie1892]

We can agree to differ on our opinions obviously:greengrin

I don't think he's guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt - that doesn't mean I don't think he might have done some of it. After all it's not what you know, it's what you can prove in a criminal trial.

Out of interest do you think there's any irrefutable evidence, or why do you think he's screwed??

I think he's screwed because the Crown's case is pretty solid. For him to be innocent would need - for the second time - nearly two dozen people to perjur themselves outrageously and the jury is not going to get hoodwinked again. This is why News Corp. appealed immediately in 2006 when they very rarely litigate. They know, as do I, that he's as guilty as sin. Like I said, there were a couple of things that never made it to court (that I canot repeat here for obvious reasons) which put his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt for me. Of course, that matters not one jot to the verdict but while I don't have an unshakeable faith in the justice system, I think it's highly unlikely to miscarry justice in the same case twice in a row.

In 2006, he scraped home 7-4. Not this time...

The basis of Sheridan's defence is 'you're lying x20' and 'I have to spend Xmas with ma wee girl'. It's nowhere near good enough and I will be proper astonished if he walks tomorrow.

[magpie1892]

Any bets on "Not Proven"? :cool2:

I think it will be one or the other, not 'that damned verdict'.

[matty_f]

If he gets found guilty of perjury, will there be a case to answer for this court case as well, as clearly if he's found guilty much of what he said would have been lies as well.:confused:

[magpie1892]

If he gets found guilty of perjury, will there be a case to answer for this court case as well, as clearly if he's found guilty much of what he said would have been lies as well.:confused:

No.

[matty_f]

No.

Was going to ask why not, but I'd imagine that it's for the same reason that everyone that goes to trial and says that they're not guilty doesn't get charged with perjury.

[Betty Boop]

That's right. Since June 30.

I'm in Edinburgh now for Xmas, that OK?! :wink:

Yes thats ok :greengrin


I think he's screwed because the Crown's case is pretty solid. For him to be innocent would need - for the second time - nearly two dozen people to perjur themselves outrageously and the jury is not going to get hoodwinked again. This is why News Corp. appealed immediately in 2006 when they very rarely litigate. They know, as do I, that he's as guilty as sin. Like I said, there were a couple of things that never made it to court (that I canot repeat here for obvious reasons) which put his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt for me. Of course, that matters not one jot to the verdict but while I don't have an unshakeable faith in the justice system, I think it's highly unlikely to miscarry justice in the same case twice in a row.

In 2006, he scraped home 7-4. Not this time...

The basis of Sheridan's defence is 'you're lying x20' and 'I have to spend Xmas with ma wee girl'. It's nowhere near good enough and I will be proper astonished if he walks tomorrow.

Anvar Khan has already admitted to lying about sex allegations, and also feeding the NOW lies to secure a new contract for her column. If the Crown's case is that solid, why did they feel the need to drop all those charges ?

[Cropley10]

If he gets found guilty of perjury, will there be a case to answer for this court case as well, as clearly if he's found guilty much of what he said would have been lies as well.:confused:

The reason TS finds himself in court again is that he was the plaintiff in the civil trial. He took News International NOTW to court for defamation.

The Judge, in that case, was concerned by the wide variances in testimony and concluded that someone was perjuring themselves.

People lie in court everyday - they almost have to, right? TS instigated the action and that is primarily why he finds himself in court now.

[Future17]

They know, as do I, that he's as guilty as sin. Like I said, there were a couple of things that never made it to court (that I canot repeat here for obvious reasons) which put his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt for me.

It's statements like this which makes Hibs.net such a valuable source of comedy. :greengrin

[Cropley10]

I think he's screwed because the Crown's case is pretty solid. For him to be innocent would need - for the second time - nearly two dozen people to perjur themselves outrageously and the jury is not going to get hoodwinked again. This is why News Corp. appealed immediately in 2006 when they very rarely litigate. They know, as do I, that he's as guilty as sin. Like I said, there were a couple of things that never made it to court (that I canot repeat here for obvious reasons) which put his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt for me. Of course, that matters not one jot to the verdict but while I don't have an unshakeable faith in the justice system, I think it's highly unlikely to miscarry justice in the same case twice in a row.

In 2006, he scraped home 7-4. Not this time...

The basis of Sheridan's defence is 'you're lying x20' and 'I have to spend Xmas with ma wee girl'. It's nowhere near good enough and I will be proper astonished if he walks tomorrow.

What part of the Crown's case is solid? As far as I'm aware there is no evidence, tangible, physical, irrefutable, evidence to link TS to the alleged events. If there were the Crown would have presented them, and they have not.

As you know our judicial system is not based on what you or I 'know' - it's based on it being proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you know more feel free to PM me, we're now at the stage where it matters not, the jury have heard all there is to hear.

The basis of his defence is against the Crown's evidence, and that those who testify against him had both motive and opportunity to do so. So be prepared to be astonished, if he's found not guilty (and it's not another 'miscarriage of justice' either, that's the opposite thing).

[Cropley10]

Anvar Khan has already admitted to lying about sex allegations, and also feeding the NOW lies to secure a new contract for her column. If the Crown's case is that solid, why did they feel the need to drop all those charges ?

:whistle:

[hibs0666]

What part of the Crown's case is solid? As far as I'm aware there is no evidence, tangible, physical, irrefutable, evidence to link TS to the alleged events. If there were the Crown would have presented them, and they have not.

As you know our judicial system is not based on what you or I 'know' - it's based on it being proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you know more feel free to PM me, we're now at the stage where it matters not, the jury have heard all there is to hear.

The basis of his defence is against the Crown's evidence, and that those who testify against him had both motive and opportunity to do so. So be prepared to be astonished, if he's found not guilty (and it's not another 'miscarriage of justice' either, that's the opposite thing).

Was any evidence against Gail Sheridan presented at any point in the trial?

[Cropley10]

Was any evidence against Gail Sheridan presented at any point in the trial?

No

[Greentinted]

He has got a degree in law - but he's up against an AD (Alex Prentice) who has an excellent reputation, so it's no easy matter to 'demolish' the Crown's case.

Not being the most erudite, loquacious or indeed gallus I may well be wrong, but surely it takes more than two years to graduate with a law degree (http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sln/blogentry.aspx?blogentryref=7543) (except of course, if you belong to the same dubious qualification club as Gillian McKeith and Ian Paisley)

And for what its worth my opinion is that the weasel will weedle his way out, land a book deal with a movie tie-in (possibly called Champagne Socialist-Swinging The Lead!) and the artificial, perfidious charlatan will come up smelling of lavender, disproving the melodic maxim 'ye cannae polish a turd!"

Just my opinion likes...

[Pretty Boy]

If i were on that jury a couple a few points would certainly establish reasonable doubt in my head.

If the tape which appears to show Sheridan confess, this is a key point in the Crowns case, why was no independent voice expert brought into verify it? Why did the Crown rely on a few people saying 'Aye it wiz Tommy', which was easily countered by Tommy bringing in a few people to say 'naw it wisnae'.

One of the first charges dropped was the charge that Tommy had tried to get Colin Fox to commit perjury. Surely if this charge went then it calls pretty much all of the rest of Colin Foxs' testimony into question. His evidence tied in with that of pretty much all the other SSP party members, does this now mean their evidence is questionable?

If the charge against Gail Sheridan was dropped surely this calls the charge against Tommy Sheridan into question? After all in the civil trial she was pretty much used by Tommy to back up everything he said.

It seems to me that regardless of what Mr Prentice argues this is very much a case of get Tommy at all costs. Prentice is one of the top Deputes out there. If Donald Findlay or Maggie Smith are the people you would want in your corner then he's the man you wouldn't want on the other side. However IMO the way the Crown has handles this case shockingly badly. The law doesn't work on the basis of 'we just know he did it', it has to be proven. Can anyone say, putting aside their personal feelings about Sheridan, that the Crown have provided indisputable evidence that he commited perjury?

[magpie1892]

What part of the Crown's case is solid? As far as I'm aware there is no evidence, tangible, physical, irrefutable, evidence to link TS to the alleged events. If there were the Crown would have presented them, and they have not.

As you know our judicial system is not based on what you or I 'know' - it's based on it being proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you know more feel free to PM me, we're now at the stage where it matters not, the jury have heard all there is to hear.

The basis of his defence is against the Crown's evidence, and that those who testify against him had both motive and opportunity to do so. So be prepared to be astonished, if he's found not guilty (and it's not another 'miscarriage of justice' either, that's the opposite thing).

The Crown's case is circumstantial in part but even if it were wholly circumstantial that's more than sufficient to get a conviction - even a unanimous one (just ask Luke Mitchell). They have testimony from Khan that she had sex with TS - the dates and motives for the revelation are in question but the fact that she testified under oath that they had sexual relations is now before the jury. Likewise the Trolle woman, who TS had a hell of a time with (in court). Then there's the videotape with TS' voice on it and his questioning why it was not 'verified' by an expert as being his voice. Chicken and egg stuff there as if he could have had that evidence withdrawn on the basis of lack of authenticity, it would have been up to him to do it. One might imagine, perhaps, that the legitimacy of the tape had been discussed at the pre-trial stage (just maybe, perhaps, just saying).

We've got numerous witnesses, the SSP minutes and the VT all saying (himself, in the latter) that he transgressed a number of times. What else would you have the Crown present? bedsheets with the 'map of Africa' on them?! To say there is 'no evidence' is way, way wide of the mark - there is lots and lots and lots.

Assuming the 'correct' verdict is reached tomorrow then grab the NoTW on Sunday for many more titbits. It wouldn't really do for me to scoop a previous and occasional employer on here, PM or not. Nothing really freaky though, just more of the same with a few wee twists that are mildly amusing.

[magpie1892]

Can anyone say, putting aside their personal feelings about Sheridan, that the Crown have provided indisputable evidence that he commited perjury?

I don't have any strong feelings either way about TS the man or his politics. I think that the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he perjured himself in 2006, yes.

I also think he's guilty but am able, I feel, to divorce that from the case. He might walk tomorrow, I don't really care, but I think justice will be served and they will throw the book at him. I don't agree with the 'get Tommy' argument. It was his defamation case which started the ball rolling as far as litigation is concerned.

[Darth Hibbie]

Was going to ask why not, but I'd imagine that it's for the same reason that everyone that goes to trial and says that they're not guilty doesn't get charged with perjury.

You are entitled to a fair trial under scots law and pleading not guilty means you want to take the case to trial. For perjury you must have given evidence under oath which Sheridan has declined to do in this case.

[Cropley10]

The Crown's case is circumstantial in part but even if it were wholly circumstantial that's more than sufficient to get a conviction - even a unanimous one (just ask Luke Mitchell). You're right, so much of it is circumstantial, and therefore a matter of opinion [B]

They have testimony from Khan that she had sex with TS - the dates and motives for the revelation are in question but the fact that she testified under oath that they had sexual relations is now before the jury. Likewise the Trolle woman, who TS had a hell of a time with (in court). Then there's the videotape with TS' voice on it and his questioning why it was not 'verified' by an expert as being his voice. Chicken and egg stuff there as if he could have had that evidence withdrawn on the basis of lack of authenticity, it would have been up to him to do it. One might imagine, perhaps, that the legitimacy of the tape had been discussed at the pre-trial stage (just maybe, perhaps, just saying).

[B]I think you maybe right, the VT has been accepted by both sides

We've got numerous witnesses, the SSP minutes and the VT all saying (himself, in the latter) that he transgressed a number of times. What else would you have the Crown present? bedsheets with the 'map of Africa' on them?! To say there is 'no evidence' is way, way wide of the mark - there is lots and lots and lots.

Agreed. I didn't say there was no evidence, there is however nothing 'cast iron'

Assuming the 'correct' verdict is reached tomorrow then grab the NoTW on Sunday for many more titbits. It wouldn't really do for me to scoop a previous and occasional employer on here, PM or not. Nothing really freaky though, just more of the same with a few wee twists that are mildly amusing.

Oh I will don't worry :greengrin

Comments above - hope we find out tomorrow!!

[Cropley10]

You are entitled to a fair trial under scots law and pleading guilty means you want to take the case to trial. For perjury you must have given evidence under oath which Sheridan has declined to do in this case.

Not sure I'm following you there... if you pleaded guilty it wouldn't go to trial, surely?:confused:

The Crown believes TS lied in court when he sued the NotW for a story they wrote about him. I'm not sure whether he declined to swear an oath, or not.

[Darth Hibbie]

Not sure I'm following you there... if you pleaded guilty it wouldn't go to trial, surely?:confused:

The Crown believes TS lied in court when he sued the NotW for a story they wrote about him. I'm not sure whether he declined to swear an oath, or not.

Apologies should say NOT guilty :greengrin

In the original trial he gave evidence under oath. In his current trial he has declined to give evidence and has therefore not been required to take the oath. If that makes any sense?

[magpie1892]

Comments above - hope we find out tomorrow!!

Me too. It's gone on long enough.

Ironically, the dropping of charges against GS and half of the charges against TS has been seen by some as a positive sign for an acquittal/not proven. It's very far from that..!

[Cropley10]

Me too. It's gone on long enough.

Ironically, the dropping of charges against GS and half of the charges against TS has been seen by some as a positive sign for an acquittal/not proven. It's very far from that..!

Depends how you want to interpret that I suppose, but it was interesting to read Lord Bracadale's direction to the jury.

[steakbake]

Me too. It's gone on long enough.

Ironically, the dropping of charges against GS and half of the charges against TS has been seen by some as a positive sign for an acquittal/not proven. It's very far from that..!

Indeed!

I'm no legal expert but from previous work, I know that the crown sometimes drops various charges in order to focus priority on to ones which are more cut and dried.

This is possibly what is happening here. If a jury has to consider a whole variety of charges, each with their own evidence and circumstances, this prolongs decision making and makes the process more complex.

If the area of consideration is focussed very specifically on a few, interlinked charges, then they may find it easier to get the decision they want.

[Cropley10]

Indeed!

I'm no legal expert but from previous work, I know that the crown sometimes drops various charges in order to focus priority on to ones which are more cut and dried.

This is possibly what is happening here. If a jury has to consider a whole variety of charges, each with their own evidence and circumstances, this prolongs decision making and makes the process more complex.

If the area of consideration is focussed very specifically on a few, interlinked charges, then they may find it easier to get the decision they want.

Or of course, there was never any evidence to support the charge, or the Crown witness did such a p*** poor job they had to remove them?

Anyway, here's what Lord Brac' said:

Lord Bracadale concluded by describing how the jury would reach a verdict, from the three available of Guilty, or both acquittal verdicts Not Guilty and Not Proven, instructing them that a majority of the original count of fifteen jurors would be required to find the accused guilty, meaning eight jurors would be required to find Mr Sheridan guilty to convict him of perjury on each of the six remaining subsections of the remaining charge. If they found him guilty on some of these subsections but not others, they should return a guilty verdict “on deletion” of the charges which they did not find the accused guilty. If all subsections resulted in less than eight guilty verdicts, the jury should return a Not Guilty verdict.

[Cropley10]

Could they find him guilty but defer sentencing?

They could, but as he's not on remand I'd think it very unlikely...

[Cropley10]

Not being the most erudite, loquacious or indeed gallus I may well be wrong, but surely it takes more than two years to graduate with a law degree (http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sln/blogentry.aspx?blogentryref=7543) (except of course, if you belong to the same dubious qualification club as Gillian McKeith and Ian Paisley)

And for what its worth my opinion is that the weasel will weedle his way out, land a book deal with a movie tie-in (possibly called Champagne Socialist-Swinging The Lead!) and the artificial, perfidious charlatan will come up smelling of lavender, disproving the melodic maxim 'ye cannae polish a turd!"

Just my opinion likes...

Right enough he hasn't got a (real) degree! He's doin a no bad job tho'.

I think TS might prefer Sunbed Socialist - £200k ya dancer, being a non-drink an aw.

[Betty Boop]

The Crown's case is circumstantial in part but even if it were wholly circumstantial that's more than sufficient to get a conviction - even a unanimous one (just ask Luke Mitchell). They have testimony from Khan that she had sex with TS - the dates and motives for the revelation are in question but the fact that she testified under oath that they had sexual relations is now before the jury. Likewise the Trolle woman, who TS had a hell of a time with (in court). Then there's the videotape with TS' voice on it and his questioning why it was not 'verified' by an expert as being his voice. Chicken and egg stuff there as if he could have had that evidence withdrawn on the basis of lack of authenticity, it would have been up to him to do it. One might imagine, perhaps, that the legitimacy of the tape had been discussed at the pre-trial stage (just maybe, perhaps, just saying).

We've got numerous witnesses, the SSP minutes and the VT all saying (himself, in the latter) that he transgressed a number of times. What else would you have the Crown present? bedsheets with the 'map of Africa' on them?! To say there is 'no evidence' is way, way wide of the mark - there is lots and lots and lots.

Assuming the 'correct' verdict is reached tomorrow then grab the NoTW on Sunday for many more titbits. It wouldn't really do for me to scoop a previous and occasional employer on here, PM or not. Nothing really freaky though, just more of the same with a few wee twists that are mildly amusing.

Why are you ignoring the fact that she admitted to lying about these sexual allegations under cross-examination ? Or are you saying that the Jury won't listen to the cross examination ? Grab the NOW for more titbits ?
Whatever floats your boat ! :rolleyes:

[--------]

Why are you ignoring the fact that she admitted to lying about these sexual allegations under cross-examination ? Or are you saying that the Jury won't listen to the cross examination ? Grab the NOW for more titbits ?
Whatever floats your boat ! :rolleyes:


FWIW, I reckon that the judge's summing-up was hostile to TS - a sort of "Well, you've heard the defence trying to muddle things up, but just ignore all that and listen to the nice prosecutor man and pot the nasty guy..." summation. Judges do that sort of thing when the prosecution needs propping up, after all.

Lots of people don't like TS and want him potted regardless of guilt or innocence (see this thread, for example).

I don't particularly like him, but I don't like the News of the World either. And i think - I HOPE, tbh - that he's manged to create enough reasonable doubt for at least a 'Not Proven' verdict.

That way the NotW will have to pay up and (hopefully) shut up.

[magpie1892]

Why are you ignoring the fact that she admitted to lying about these sexual allegations under cross-examination ? Or are you saying that the Jury won't listen to the cross examination ? Grab the NOW for more titbits ?Whatever floats your boat ! :rolleyes:

As I understand it, she admitted to lying about the allegations but the fact remained that she and TS had had sex on more than one occasion and at no point did she ever recant that part of her testimony. Please tell me if that's wrong - and I am not being facetious.

[Betty Boop]

As I understand it, she admitted to lying about the allegations but the fact remained that she and TS had had sex on more than one occasion and at no point did she ever recant that part of her testimony. Please tell me if that's wrong - and I am not being facetious.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/29/tommy-sheridan-trial-sex-claims

[magpie1892]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/29/tommy-sheridan-trial-sex-claims

I saw that in sunny Doha but it doesn't appear to say that she is withdrawing (oo er!) the allegation that she had sex with TS, just the stuff about spanking, etc.

I've not seen any coverage saying, basically, 'Khan: I did not have sex with TS'. Has that happened or not? It's been testified that TS went to Cupid's with Khan. Did Khan deny that at any point or was the defence flag only about the dates in order to throw doubt on her testimony? I think it's the latter. She's never, AFAIAA, rebutted her testimony of 2006 that she and TS were sexual partners.

[--------]

I saw that in sunny Doha but it doesn't appear to say that she is withdrawing (oo er!) the allegation that she had sex with TS, just the stuff about spanking, etc.

I've not seen any coverage saying, basically, 'Khan: I did not have sex with TS'. Has that happened or not? It's been testified that TS went to Cupid's with Khan. Did Khan deny that at any point or was the defence flag only about the dates in order to throw doubt on her testimony? I think it's the latter. She's never, AFAIAA, rebutted her testimony of 2006 that she and TS were sexual partners.


All that may be true.

But how far is the testimony of a tabloid journalist who has admitted deliberately feeding lies to her 'newspaper' in order to advance her career and publicise a book an acceptable basis upon which to convict someone else of perjury?

It seems a wee bit odd that if the police were looking for evidence of perjury in the aftermath of TS's case against the NotW, they only decided to bring a case against the Sheridans.

Unless, of course, they decided that everyone else involved (including the altogether-to-my-eye-unattractive Ms Khan) was too high-minded and honourable to even think of lying in court... :rolleyes:

The NotW couldn't have the dirty on one or two polis, could they? Lawyers? Judges? :cool2:

[magpie1892]

All that may be true.

But how far is the testimony of a tabloid journalist who has admitted deliberately feeding lies to her 'newspaper' in order to advance her career and publicise a book an acceptable basis upon which to convict someone else of perjury?

It seems a wee bit odd that if the police were looking for evidence of perjury in the aftermath of TS's case against the NotW, they only decided to bring a case against the Sheridans.

Unless, of course, they decided that everyone else involved (including the altogether-to-my-eye-unattractive Ms Khan) was too high-minded and honourable to even think of lying in court... :rolleyes:

The NotW couldn't have the dirty on one or two polis, could they? Lawyers? Judges? :cool2:

To your last question, I think not. News Corp. are really only biting back to save themselves money they would have to pay in damages for running a true story. It was not they who got the legal ball rolling.

How much mind the jury pay to Ms Khan (you don't rate her; well trust me when I say that seeing her close up would have you struggling to hold onto your lunch) is neither here nor there and, of course, not for us to decide. I was proposing that she was one of a number of people who testified to having had sex with TS, seemingly correctly.

I think, overall, her testimony would be adequate for me on a personal level despite the dubious veracity of the 'extras' and the fact that Khan used this as a bargaining chip. She still testified that they were sexual partners. I believe her and I think the jury will as well.

We'll find out if they did believe her and the other dirties TS ****ged imminently, I think! COME ON GUYS!!!

[s.a.m]

Guilty it is, then.

[Hibbyradge]

:hmmm:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037

[BigKev]

Surprised he's been found guilty tbh. Thought with it being in Glasgow he might have got a not guilty verdict.

Still unconvinced by the allegations however.

[Hibbyradge]

Still unconvinced by the allegations however.

Which allegations? That he visited a sex club or that he lied about it in court?

Either way, they were the only things I was sure about.

[AndyM_1875]

Surprised he's been found guilty tbh. Thought with it being in Glasgow he might have got a not guilty verdict.

Still unconvinced by the allegations however.

Am genuinely beyond caring about which way this trial has gone.

What I am annoyed about is how much this has cost the public purse. Massive waste of money is what comes to mind.

[Andy74]

This is a fantastic argument for bringing in the death penalty for perjury.

[marinello59]

I would have been more surprised if he had been found innocent. When some of the charges were dropped to clarify the issue for the jurors his fate was sealed. His willingness to trash the reputations of his fellow Socialists leaves his man of the people tag in tatters. Sad really.

[marinello59]

Am genuinely beyond caring about which way this trial has gone.

What I am annoyed about is how much this has cost the public purse. Massive waste of money is what comes to mind.

Sheridan could have plead guilty and saved that cost. He didn't, he tried to weasel his way out.

[Beefster]

The jury are obviously part of the New World Order conspiracy against Tommy Sheridan. Shame on them.

Edit: Tommy Sheridan on a par with Jonathan Aitken. Who da thunk it?

[BigKev]

Which allegations? That he visited a sex club or that he lied about it in court?

Either way, they were the only things I was sure about.

All the 4 in a bed nonsense, Anvar Khan's whole testimony, McNeilage's testimony and the NotW editor.

These people have also committed perjury imo given discrepancies between there accounts first and second time round.

Certainly a politically motivated prosecution.

[marinello59]

All the 4 in a bed nonsense, Anvar Khan's whole testimony, McNeilage's testimony and the NotW editor.

These people have also committed perjury imo given discrepancies between there accounts first and second time round.

Certainly a politically motivated prosecution.

Really. Who was he a political threat too then?

[magpie1892]

All the 4 in a bed nonsense, Anvar Khan's whole testimony, McNeilage's testimony and the NotW editor.

These people have also committed perjury imo given discrepancies between there accounts first and second time round.

Certainly a politically motivated prosecution.

It was the Tories, most likely.

[EskbankHibby]

BBC article alludes to a scottish footballing personality being embroiled in Tommy's team ****ging exploits.

Got to be McAvennie surely.:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

That man could have hurt a lot of people with his lies, I hope he has time to think about that and maybe say sorry.

[Bishop Hibee]

I'm not surprised at the verdict. The jury made their decision based on the evidence and I'd say the decision is right.

Where the whole thing stinks is the Murdoch juggernaut which rolled along making sure that the prosecution went ahead. It didn't meet much resistance as Sheridan had made many enemies in the Scottish establishment.

How many other perjurers get away with it without prosecution though?

[magpie1892]

That man could have hurt a lot of people with his lies, I hope he has time to think about that and maybe say sorry.

Please. Hell will freeze over before he apologises.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm not surprised at the verdict. The jury made their decision based on the evidence and I'd say the decision is right.

Where the whole thing stinks is the Murdoch juggernaut which rolled along making sure that the prosecution went ahead. It didn't meet much resistance as Sheridan had made many enemies in the Scottish establishment.

How many other perjurers get away with it without prosecution though?

How many perjurers stand to trouser 200k if they get off? How many liars subject the people to a 40 day trial? You fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows.

[magpie1892]

"They know, as do I, that he's as guilty as sin. Like I said, there were a couple of things that never made it to court (that I canot repeat here for obvious reasons) which put his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt for me."


It's statements like this which makes Hibs.net such a valuable source of comedy. :greengrin

He who laughs, last, eh?

[Phil D. Rolls]

"They know, as do I, that he's as guilty as sin. Like I said, there were a couple of things that never made it to court (that I canot repeat here for obvious reasons) which put his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt for me."



He who laughs, last, eh?

:faf: (do I win 200k?)

[IWasThere2016]

Guilty on 5 counts - and rightly so.

Total moron, who deserves all that's coming to him IMHO

"It wasnae me it was everybody else" - aye, ok TS :bye:

Here's hoping they lose the key.

[hibs0666]

As someone on the radio put it, this trial came as a result of a private feud between a ****my newspaper and a two-bit politician.

During that trial, as in very many trials, people told lies. Yet in almost all cases, including cases way more serious than this one, those lies go completely unchallenged on completion of the trial.

So why should the legal establishment decide to move for a perjury trial in this very trivial case?

Something stinks.

[magpie1892]

Something stinks.

Sheridan's attitude to the truth, his so-called politics, his deluded followers, his deluded wife, the public, the Crown, the media, etc.

Positively reeking.

[matty_f]

As someone on the radio put it, this trial came as a result of a private feud between a ****my newspaper and a two-bit politician.

During that trial, as in very many trials, people told lies. Yet in almost all cases, including cases way more serious than this one, those lies go completely unchallenged on completion of the trial.

So why should the legal establishment decide to move for a perjury trial in this very trivial case?

Something stinks.

I think the fact that Sheridan effectively scammed £200k as a result of his perjury is why this one was challenged. The NOTW obviously felt that they were in the right and (rightly) persued the matter.

[hibs0666]

I think the fact that Sheridan effectively scammed £200k as a result of his perjury is why this one was challenged. The NOTW obviously felt that they were in the right and (rightly) persued the matter.

We are told that these charges have nothing whatsoever to do with the newspaper. I, like you, don't believe that for one second. What we should be ore worried about in this case is that a big corporation can exert its influence to ensure that the force of the legal system can be brought to do its bidding.

[hibs0666]

Sheridan's attitude to the truth, his so-called politics, his deluded followers, his deluded wife, the public, the Crown, the media, etc.

Positively reeking.

It was a civil, not criminal, matter between a ****my rag of a newspaper and a minor politician. Strictly small-time in the scheme of things.

I can only hope that the legal establishment takes a similar course of action every time that a murder or rape trial exhibits similar characteristics.

[truehibernian]

We are told that these charges have nothing whatsoever to do with the newspaper. I, like you, don't believe that for one second. What we should be ore worried about in this case is that a big corporation can exert its influence to ensure that the force of the legal system can be brought to do its bidding.

I think the civil action the paper raised was temporarily halted/suspended to allow the criminal case to proceed IIRC.

This result now gives the NOTW some vital ammo for that and barring any exceptional circumstances, they should win that.

[truehibernian]

Oh, and the criminal case for perjury charges were as a result of TS's ex colleagues canvassing opinions and also submitting previously unknown evidence.......so the Crown Office instigated proceedings on this new information.

[ballengeich]

We are told that these charges have nothing whatsoever to do with the newspaper. I, like you, don't believe that for one second. What we should be ore worried about in this case is that a big corporation can exert its influence to ensure that the force of the legal system can be brought to do its bidding.

Are you saying that a perjurer should be allowed to get away with a large sum of money if the money is to come from a newspaper? Were you also opposed to the prosecutions of Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken or should they also have been left with their dishonest gains?

You're right that people lie in all sorts of trials, but in general they're not prosecuted. In this particular case, I do not expect any further investigation into the conduct of the defence witnesses, in line with general practice.

[H18sry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037 Tommy Sheridan post verdict video. The guy in the background ... quality placard placement until the cameraman realises!! :devil:

[truehibernian]

Never saw that....quality :greengrin

Really should be running a side poll though

Gail Sheridan

- Would yi

- Ten pinter

- Nae danger

- Mibbes aye

[Hanny]

Never saw that....quality :greengrin

Really should be running a side poll though

Gail Sheridan

- Would yi

- Ten pinter

- Nae danger

- Mibbes aye

I've heard there's a similar poll running in Barlinnie at the moment :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

As someone on the radio put it, this trial came as a result of a private feud between a ****my newspaper and a two-bit politician.

During that trial, as in very many trials, people told lies. Yet in almost all cases, including cases way more serious than this one, those lies go completely unchallenged on completion of the trial.

So why should the legal establishment decide to move for a perjury trial in this very trivial case?

Something stinks.

I can think of 200,000 reasons why this is different from other perjury cases. If it is a fit up, it's a bloody good one, and has required practically the entire executive of the SSP to get together so that their stories tie up.

On Tommy's side, the only people he could offer up were his family and some close friends.

I despise Tommy, because the SSP was on the verge of doing things in Scotland, and making a difference. Faced with the sort of allegation which would hardly do the party harm, he let his own ego get in the way. He destroyed the left as a force in this country for a generation.

[greenlex]

BBC article alludes to a scottish footballing personality being embroiled in Tommy's team ****ging exploits.

Got to be McAvennie surely.:greengrin
Be funny as, if its Craig Broon. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Are you saying that a perjurer should be allowed to get away with a large sum of money if the money is to come from a newspaper? Were you also opposed to the prosecutions of Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken or should they also have been left with their dishonest gains?

You're right that people lie in all sorts of trials, but in general they're not prosecuted. In this particular case, I do not expect any further investigation into the conduct of the defence witnesses, in line with general practice.

Good point because somebody had to be lying in this expensive trial.


"Is it not time that similar resources were devoted to investigating the activities of the News of the World."

Typical weegie - "mammy daddy polis!"

[Leicester Fan]

Jeffrey Archer got 4 years for something very similar. I hope this guy gets the same.

[johnbc70]

The difference in this case as opposed to other perjury cases is that most people lie in court to protect themselves or someone else, and you can kind of understand that. What Sheridan did was lie in a case he brought himself against the NOTW, a big difference between lying to protect yourself and lying to get 'one over' the NOTW and to also pocket £200K in damages.

The guy on the news summed it up well, you can use perjury as a shield to protect yourself or perjury as a sword to attack. Using it as a sword is very rare and he was rightly punished.

[IWasThere2016]

Disney to make a film about Sheridan - The Lion Kint

[IWasThere2016]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037 Tommy Sheridan post verdict video. The guy in the background ... quality placard placement until the cameraman realises!! :devil:

I was peeing masel' - guy's a legend! :faf:

[hibsdaft]

If it is a fit up, it's a bloody good one, and has required practically the entire executive of the SSP to get together so that their stories tie up.

On Tommy's side, the only people he could offer up were his family and some close friends.

I despise Tommy, because the SSP was on the verge of doing things in Scotland, and making a difference. Faced with the sort of allegation which would hardly do the party harm, he let his own ego get in the way. He destroyed the left as a force in this country for a generation.

yup.

[Ants]

The only two male jurors have reportedly STATED that this was a fair outcome.

Allan McGregor and Frank Mcavennie have stated that they will support Gail Sheridan in any possible position that she requires.

[matty_f]

The difference in this case as opposed to other perjury cases is that most people lie in court to protect themselves or someone else, and you can kind of understand that. What Sheridan did was lie in a case he brought himself against the NOTW, a big difference between lying to protect yourself and lying to get 'one over' the NOTW and to also pocket £200K in damages.

The guy on the news summed it up well, you can use perjury as a shield to protect yourself or perjury as a sword to attack. Using it as a sword is very rare and he was rightly punished.

:agree: I have absolutely no time for the NOTW, but in this case I hope Sheridan is made to pay back every penny.

Sheridan clearly knew the game was up when the NOTW published the original story, but rather than hold his hands up and accept something that would have long since blown over, he sought damages that weren't rightfully his, and cared not a jot for anyone else whose reputations he was damaging by having the brass neck to call them all liars.

I noticed that he didn't feel the need to apologise for it all either, and I'm very sure that he still feels like he's somehow the victim in all of this.


Edit:

From the bbc (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12070917):



For three years my wife and I have faced charges of perjury. Today, I was convicted and Gail was acquitted of any crime. I have fought the power of News International all my political life and I make no apologies for taking on the might of Rupert Murdoch.
Several million pounds of public money was spent investigating me and my wife.
Is it not time that similar resources were devoted to investigating the activities of the News of the World?


This kind of pish really does my head in. Dinnae worry about the £200k you took off the NOTW, Tommy. Dinnae worry about apologising for causing the investigation in the first place.

No, deflect the blame, deflect the attention, avoid responsibility. You'd think he'd at least have had the decency to apologise to his Mrs.

[magpie1892]

Jeffrey Archer got 4 years for something very similar. I hope this guy gets the same.

I had a wee chat with a friend who works for the PA and was in court 4 today. The general consensus among (uninvolved) lawyers, clerks of court, court reporters is:

Six years.

[cabbageandribs1875]

I had a wee chat with a friend who works for the PA and was in court 4 today. The general consensus among (uninvolved) lawyers, clerks of court, court reporters is:

Six years.


hopefully he appeals, and gets it increased to 15 :whistle:

[magpie1892]

hopefully he appeals, and gets it increased to 15 :whistle:

Now, now!

[IWasThere2016]

Tommy Sheridan's new song: Oh I'm the King of the Swingers, used to rule the SSP, unzipped my flies and told some lies, then got done for perjury!

[WeAreHibs]

I can think of 200,000 reasons why this is different from other perjury cases. If it is a fit up, it's a bloody good one, and has required practically the entire executive of the SSP to get together so that their stories tie up.

On Tommy's side, the only people he could offer up were his family and some close friends.

I despise Tommy, because the SSP was on the verge of doing things in Scotland, and making a difference. Faced with the sort of allegation which would hardly do the party harm, he let his own ego get in the way. He destroyed the left as a force in this country for a generation.

:confused:

[Removed]

Tommy Sheridan's new song: Oh I'm the King of the Swingers, used to rule the SSP, unzipped my flies and told some lies, then got done for perjury!

What about the chorus :wink: :greengrin

[hibiedude]

I’m not a fan of Tommy Sheridan or his wacky supporters but since he’s now been found guilty of perjury other must now be pursued who have committed perjury in both trails because if they are not then it looks like it was personal and will be grounds for Tommy’s appeal.

I didn’t think he would have been found guilty to be honest but now that he has he can expect 6-7 years tops

[Betty Boop]

Wow check out the lynch mob on this thread. Its a funny old world, when the Prime Minister can stand before Parliament and spout the biggest load of guff, about weapons of mass destruction, and taking this country to war, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and is never held to account. I don't see many on here advocating that he should spend years locked up for his alleged untruths.There should at least be an investigation to look in to the cost of this trial, and the methods and practices used by the the filthy rag, who paid eight of the prosecution's key witnesses for their testimony. Lothian and Borders Police spent 1.1 million pursuing Tommy Sheridan. Public money well spent?

[hibiedude]

Wow check out the lynch mob on this thread. Its a funny old world, when the Prime Minister can stand before Parliament and spout the biggest load of guff, about weapons of mass destruction, and taking this country to war, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and is never held to account. I don't see many on here advocating that he should spend years locked up for his alleged untruths.There should at least be an investigation to look in to the cost of this trial, and the methods and practices used by the the filthy rag, who paid eight of the prosecution's key witnesses for their testimony. Lothian and Borders Police spent 1.1 million pursuing Tommy Sheridan. Public money well spent?

The media make and break reputations and the Murdock Empire is one of the strongest in the world.

Tommy Sheridan though he was untouchable and will soon pay the price for that mistake.

The points you raise are all valid especially about the weapons of mass destruction lies and the amount both trials will cost the tax payer have to be fully justified.

Sheridan has brought on his own downfall and almost took his wife with him so loyalty in that family is not a two way thing.

[truehibernian]

Wow check out the lynch mob on this thread. Its a funny old world, when the Prime Minister can stand before Parliament and spout the biggest load of guff, about weapons of mass destruction, and taking this country to war, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and is never held to account. I don't see many on here advocating that he should spend years locked up for his alleged untruths.There should at least be an investigation to look in to the cost of this trial, and the methods and practices used by the the filthy rag, who paid eight of the prosecution's key witnesses for their testimony. Lothian and Borders Police spent 1.1 million pursuing Tommy Sheridan. Public money well spent?

Whether it cost £1.1 million or not, the why's and what not's of costs are not the issue......preserving the integrity of the legal system is what counts, regardless of the complainer or accused, and surely everyone, wee Mrs Smith next door to you or the NOTW, has the right to defend themselves or fight for what they see as fair in a court of law ?

There is no lynch mob. Sheridan is today's news, Blair etc will be tomorrow's, and people will have their view on that too.

For me, TS is a two bit politician whose values got swallowed up in his own self importance and the need to be famous. He is the master of his own downfall. Today's chip wrapper IMHO.........won't stop me reading my FHM or Nuts, and occasionally looking at the headline in my colleagues NOTW.

As for public money well spent.......is my (and many others) hard earned tax well spent on the layabouts who choose not to work, the guys and girls who fleece the tax system, paying for someone's methadone or subsidising the council tax that goes unpaid.............the list could be endless and you could open many a can of Heinz Worms......I would like an investigation into those that can work but choose to sit on their erchies and claim benefits......swings and roundabouts eh :agree:

[marinello59]

Wow check out the lynch mob on this thread. Its a funny old world, when the Prime Minister can stand before Parliament and spout the biggest load of guff, about weapons of mass destruction, and taking this country to war, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and is never held to account. I don't see many on here advocating that he should spend years locked up for his alleged untruths.There should at least be an investigation to look in to the cost of this trial, and the methods and practices used by the the filthy rag, who paid eight of the prosecution's key witnesses for their testimony. Lothian and Borders Police spent 1.1 million pursuing Tommy Sheridan. Public money well spent?

Sheridan brought this all on himself. A simple ''sorry, I messed up'' style comment at the time of the story could have saved himself this conviction and the rest of us the cost. Rosie Kane made a telling comment when she said rather than look delighted when he won his civil action he looked haunted as he expected to lose. He's a smart guy, he knew it was a pyrrhic victory.
His worst crime though is the betrayal of those he claimed to give voice too and the comrades he had worked with. His actions wrecked the party that spoke for many who are never heard. Many would dismiss their policies as loony left wing nonsense but they had a knack of exposing the effects of ill thought out Government policies on the every day lives of people. He deserves all he gets.

[H18sry]

:music: Tommy's the king of the swingers,
used to lead the SSP
unzipped his flies,told some lies,
and got done with perjury,
ooby doo in jail they'll push his poo oo oo :singing:

[Peevemor]

:music: Tommy's the king of the swingers,
used to lead the SSP
unzipped his flies,told some lies,
and got done with perjury,
ooby doo in jail they'll push his poo oo oo :singing:

:faf:

[IWasThere2016]

:music: Tommy's the king of the swingers,
used to lead the SSP
unzipped his flies,told some lies,
and got done with perjury,
ooby doo in jail they'll push his poo oo oo :singing:

DO keep up .. # 213 :wink:

[H18sry]

DO keep up .. # 213 :wink: but you only put half the verse :greengrin

[Beefster]

Wow check out the lynch mob on this thread. Its a funny old world, when the Prime Minister can stand before Parliament and spout the biggest load of guff, about weapons of mass destruction, and taking this country to war, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and is never held to account. I don't see many on here advocating that he should spend years locked up for his alleged untruths.There should at least be an investigation to look in to the cost of this trial, and the methods and practices used by the the filthy rag, who paid eight of the prosecution's key witnesses for their testimony. Lothian and Borders Police spent 1.1 million pursuing Tommy Sheridan. Public money well spent?

Were you calling for investigations etc when Aitken and Archer were convicted and imprisoned?

[Hainan Hibs]

I feel quite saddened by the whole thing, mostly due to the downfall of the SSP. I wasn't much of a fan but I welcomed their prescence at Holyrood, they were something different and could've done something special.

Unfortunately ego's took over, and the party is irrelevant now. If only the billy big time attitudes had been kept under control FMQ's could be a lot more interesting than just seeing how Ian Gray can further embarrass himself.

[Betty Boop]

Were you calling for investigations etc when Aitken and Archer were convicted and imprisoned?

I can't remember Aitken and Archer facing perjury charges from a civil case, or the police spending over a million in bringing them to book.

[Betty Boop]

Sheridan brought this all on himself. A simple ''sorry, I messed up'' style comment at the time of the story could have saved himself this conviction and the rest of us the cost. Rosie Kane made a telling comment when she said rather than look delighted when he won his civil action he looked haunted as he expected to lose. He's a smart guy, he knew it was a pyrrhic victory.
His worst crime though is the betrayal of those he claimed to give voice too and the comrades he had worked with. His actions wrecked the party that spoke for many who are never heard. Many would dismiss their policies as loony left wing nonsense but they had a knack of exposing the effects of ill thought out Government policies on the every day lives of people. He deserves all he gets.

Is that the comrades who colluded with a stinking rag to bring down Tommy Sheridan, and his best man who was paid £200,000 to turn over a dodgy tape
? I wonder if they shared it between them, or if he trousered it himself ?

[Big Ed]

Is that the comrades who colluded with a stinking rag to bring down Tommy Sheridan, and his best man who was paid £200,000 to turn over a dodgy tape
? I wonder if they shared it between them, or if he trousered it himself ?

I'm asking because I don't know; but do you mean the other members of the SSP Executive?
What did they do to collude with the NOTW?

[Leicester Fan]

I can't remember Aitken and Archer facing perjury charges from a civil case, or the police spending over a million in bringing them to book.

You want to try a bit harder then.

Anyway;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2010/12/24/nottingham-forest-boss-billy-davies-joined-tommy-sheridan-in-swingers-orgies-claim-two-women-86908-

Nottingham Forest boss Billy Davies joined Tommy Sheridan in swingers orgies, claim two women
:greengrin It's like Christmas has come a day early for me.

[Betty Boop]

You want to think a bit harder then.

Anyway;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2010/12/24/nottingham-forest-boss-billy-davies-joined-tommy-sheridan-in-swingers-orgies-claim-two-women-86908-

:greengrin It's like Christmas has come a day early for me.

Your link's not working bozo ! :greengrin

[Leicester Fan]

Your link's not working bozo ! :greengrin

I can't get it to work for some reason, go on the Daily Records site. Here's the first few lines.


FOOTBALL gaffer Billy Davies has been accused of being so close to old pal Tommy Sheridan they took part in sleazy three-in-a-bed romps together - according to claims by two different women.
The married Nottingham Forest boss, a former Rangers star, was named in separate police statements by journalist Anvar Khan and single mum Laura Smith.
According to their signed statements, given to cops investigating Sheridan's perjury, the women were both originally sexual partners of Sheridan before he suggested bringing in Davies to spice up the action.

[Betty Boop]

I can't get it to work for some reason, go on the Daily Records site. Here's the first few lines.

Woo Hooh 'spice up the action' I bet you guys can't wait for the next instalment !
:greengrin

[truehibernian]

Billy Davies looks more suited to the surrounds of Meerkat Manor rather than Cupids......the beds at Cupids must have wee step ladders for him to be involved :greengrin

[Beefster]

I can't remember Aitken and Archer facing perjury charges from a civil case, or the police spending over a million in bringing them to book.

Eh? You obviously haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Both were charged with perjury after libel trials against newspapers. Archer would have cost just as much (in 90's terms) but if Aitken didn't cost as much to prosecute then it's only because he pleaded guilty.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Loved Colin Fox's assessment of the verdict - "even the dogs in the street know he did it".

[hibiedude]

Papers reporting Cops spent £1m chasing Tommy Sheridan and TV reporting the trial cost tax payers another 4 million

Are people really saying it was money well spent.

So we are in the middle of an economic meltdown and we can afford to chase a waster like Sheridan and his wife too the total cost of 5 million with an appeal due.

[RyeSloan]

I'm not surprised at the verdict. The jury made their decision based on the evidence and I'd say the decision is right.

Where the whole thing stinks is the Murdoch juggernaut which rolled along making sure that the prosecution went ahead. It didn't meet much resistance as Sheridan had made many enemies in the Scottish establishment.

How many other perjurers get away with it without prosecution though?


As someone on the radio put it, this trial came as a result of a private feud between a ****my newspaper and a two-bit politician.

During that trial, as in very many trials, people told lies. Yet in almost all cases, including cases way more serious than this one, those lies go completely unchallenged on completion of the trial.

So why should the legal establishment decide to move for a perjury trial in this very trivial case?

Something stinks.

Only two of quite a few urban myths I've seen about why this case was brought in the first place.

The reality is slightly less dramatic. The judge in the original damages trial was so concerned at the distance between the versions of events given by the witnesses in his trial that he requested an investigation in regards to possible perjury.

If Tommy was telling the truth from the start it could well have been Rosie Kane and co facing the perjury charges but the investigation obviously highlighted that Tommy was in most probability telling total porkies.

When you then take the fact that Tommy had been telling total porkies in a case he himself had brought and then won handsome damages in it would actually have been a travesty if this hadn't been taken further.

So for once this might not have been some sort of Murdoch conspiracy but actually a necessary step to protect the integrity of the legal system. It may have cost a £1m to investigate but it's certainly sent a strong message.

[CropleyWasGod]

Papers reporting Cops spent £1m chasing Tommy Sheridan and TV reporting the trial cost tax payers another 4 million

Are people really saying it was money well spent.

So we are in the middle of an economic meltdown and we can afford to chase a waster like Sheridan and his wife too the total cost of 5 million with an appeal due.

In a perfect world, justice has no cost. However, maybe there's some merit in discussing it..

Turning it round, would you put some sort of cap on expenditure in these cases?

[(((Fergus)))]

According to their signed statements, given to cops investigating Sheridan's perjury, the women were both originally sexual partners of Sheridan before he suggested bringing in Davies to spice up the action.

This is the kind of decision making that Scottish politics will now be deprived of.

[RyeSloan]

Papers reporting Cops spent £1m chasing Tommy Sheridan and TV reporting the trial cost tax payers another 4 million

Are people really saying it was money well spent.

So we are in the middle of an economic meltdown and we can afford to chase a waster like Sheridan and his wife too the total cost of 5 million with an appeal due.

What price justice huh? :greengrin

Rather we spent £5m than let Tommy Sheridan lie his way to £200k.

Maybe we should seek damages from Tommy...after all it was him that caused ALL of this in the first place by seeking damages from the NOTW for story that was by and large accurate.

[matty_f]

What price justice huh? :greengrin

Rather we spent £5m than let Tommy Sheridan lie his way to £200k.

Maybe we should seek damages from Tommy...after all it was him that caused ALL of this in the first place by seeking damages from the NOTW for story that was by and large accurate.

Totally agree with this, tbh. Even to the point raised about charging Sheridan for it.I

I think that the money was justifable because he was found guilty. Had he been proven innocent then serious questions would need to be asked about the spend.

[lobster]

Wow check out the lynch mob on this thread. Its a funny old world, when the Prime Minister can stand before Parliament and spout the biggest load of guff, about weapons of mass destruction, and taking this country to war, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and is never held to account. I don't see many on here advocating that he should spend years locked up for his alleged untruths.There should at least be an investigation to look in to the cost of this trial, and the methods and practices used by the the filthy rag, who paid eight of the prosecution's key witnesses for their testimony. Lothian and Borders Police spent 1.1 million pursuing Tommy Sheridan. Public money well spent?

:agree:

He had to be got and got he was. After all he told some fibs under a ridiculous oath. Meanwhile Blair and Campbell get away with blatant lies that lead to slaughter in Iraq.
Total BS.

[Betty Boop]

Eh? You obviously haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Both were charged with perjury after libel trials against newspapers. Archer would have cost just as much (in 90's terms) but if Aitken didn't cost as much to prosecute then it's only because he pleaded guilty.

I said I couldn't remember. What's your problem with that ?

[hibiedude]

In a perfect world, justice has no cost. However, maybe there's some merit in discussing it..

Turning it round, would you put some sort of cap on expenditure in these cases?

Yes there has to be limit on trials and legal aid because wasting 5 million to stop Sheridan gaining 200,000 from the NOTW is just wrong

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes there has to be limit on trials and legal aid because wasting 5 million to stop Sheridan gaining 200,000 from the NOTW is just wrong

So, in this case for example, you would say...."it's going to cost us £x million. Nah, sod it, let him keep the £200k".

Economically sound, but morally?

[Darth Hibbie]

Yes there has to be limit on trials and legal aid because wasting 5 million to stop Sheridan gaining 200,000 from the NOTW is just wrong

So how else would you suggest it is done?

[hibs0666]

:agree:

He had to be got and got he was. After all he told some fibs under a ridiculous oath. Meanwhile Blair and Campbell get away with blatant lies that lead to slaughter in Iraq.
Total BS.

Absolutely. In the original trial a jury was asked to consider two completely opposite sets of accounts in a civil, not criminal case. That jury decided, for whatever reasons, in favour of Sheridan.

For whatever reasons the judge did not like this outcome and ordered the subsequent investigation.

How many times exactly does the legal system react to the outcome of a trial in this way? I'd really, really love to see the numbers and I fully expect it to be very small.

Sheridan is clearly a sheister, but it is also clear that someone has done a number on him.

[magpie1892]

Sheridan is clearly a sheister, but it is also clear that someone has done a number on him.

That someone is Tommy Sheridan.

[magpie1892]

I said I couldn't remember. What's your problem with that ?

That's not quite what you said. And you know it.