For Tommy and Gail Sheridan
by Shuggy, 26 February 2008
I don’t really share the ’soft-spot’ most Glaswegians seem to have for Tommy Sheridan. I think he’s a bully, an ego-maniac and a fucking liar. I have nothing but contempt for his grandstanding and the way he slandered life-long trades unionists and socialists in his defamation trial, simply because he couldn’t bring himself to say, “None of your fucking business”, when the allegations of his private life surfaced in the NOTW. I also don’t buy this shit about the ‘unprecedented’ nature of the perjury charge against him. It may be in Scots Law but it follows a pattern set by Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer: lie your ass off that publicly and you’re bound to get the wrong kind of attention.
However, the behaviour of Lothians and Borders polis strikes me as being a little excessive, to say the least. Please don’t believe the crap you hear from the ex-pat Glaswegians floating around the blogosphere who seem to sincerely think Sheridan is the victim of some vast conspiracy. I’ve yet to meet a real one - y’know, somebody who actually lives here - who thinks he told the truth during his trial. I’d assume the jury thought the same. But they probably thought, rightly in my view, that the NOTW were lying too, so given a choice between the two, they found in favour of Sheridan. Because in a beauty contest, he was the least ugly.
And the treatment of Gail Sheridan, I think, shows a certain vindictiveness on the part of Lothians and Borders police. The half-inching of a few minatures is hardly material to the case. Doesn’t she have enough to contend with - what with a small child and the fact that she’s married to a bawbag like Tommy Sheridan? In all I’m afraid I had to agree with that rarest of creatures, a Scottish Tory, in the shape of Alan Cochrane of the Telegraph:
“I may have laughed at his jokes and admired his turn of phrase from time to time but his working-class martyr act has never struck this observer as anything other than self-aggrandisement.
However, as the weeks, months and now years grind on in the seemingly interminable inquiry following his court case victory against the News of the World, a fact has to be faced. It is this: by any standard or criteria of fair play, Mr Sheridan is getting a raw deal.”
Exactly so. I don’t believe for a minute that Tommy’s only crime is to “speak truth to power”, as his supporters would have it. No, he is, in my view, a complete and utter bastard of a man. But the people he’s up against are bigger bastards. Big bastards with power.
Tuesday 26 February 2008 at 0:33
Completely agree.
PS. Hope this pisses off HP Sauce scum.
Tuesday 26 February 2008 at 8:59
Much of the police time of course was spent investigating the 11 SSP people who,the Police have included,told the truth.
Once Toms alibis fell apart,I don’t really think they could’ve done much differently.
Except with the miniatures I guess.
depends on how many there were don’t you think?
Tuesday 26 February 2008 at 10:59
Nice post, great conclusion. Recovering the left from tosspots does not mean becoming the same as the right.
Tuesday 26 February 2008 at 11:25
If Tom & Co. sat down together to construct alibis after finding out the MSPs and others were going to give evidence aginst him, then you’re being very generous to him
Tuesday 26 February 2008 at 11:31
I agree that there is something wiffy about the case against Gail Sheridan, but we don’t yet know whether we are talking about ‘a few miniatures’ or a shedload of them, do we?
Tuesday 26 February 2008 at 12:08
‘a shed load of them’
oh fuck off.
more people should steal from their employers — the fuckers are ripping you off every day you turn up. The plod can fuck off as well.
Tuesday 26 February 2008 at 16:04
Repost that Johnny Cash Youtube about him stealing a car from the plant piece by piece.
Tuesday 26 February 2008 at 16:14
Fitting the engine block down your keks would be a trick.
Tuesday 26 February 2008 at 21:12
Well let him have his day in court (again).
If he’s innocent that is the only answer he can, and should give.
Grandstanding in the papers isn’t the way it’s done.
Answer the charges and prove your critics wrong. Nothing else needed.
Wednesday 27 February 2008 at 0:25
“Well let him have his day in court (again).”
Errr I think that’s the point of the fucking post — he has *had* his day in court — he won! Who else has to have two trials to prove their guilt (or innocence)?
Fuck lawyer scum, fuck the plod and fuck the Murdoch empire.
(hope Gail can find happiness by the way — she seems hard done by by all parties concerned).
Wednesday 27 February 2008 at 0:47
Forgot to mention — fuck BA as well (that is her employer isn’t it?).
Wednesday 27 February 2008 at 1:01
Who else has to have two trials to prove their guilt (or innocence)?
Jonathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer, George Galloway (hopefully)…
Fuck them all.
Wednesday 27 February 2008 at 1:25
No — they didn’t have trials to prove their innocence of the charge first made — they were charged with perjury and that alone (after being found guilty in the first place) - Sheridan is being hounded by way of the plod building up a case against him by insinuation and dirty little tricks all leaked to the meedjia scum by the plod after being found innocent. His missus having a few fucking miniatures in the hoose has nowt to do with owt.
Fuck the plod, fuck Murdoch and fuck lawyer scum (and fuck BA)
Wednesday 27 February 2008 at 8:50
Sheridan was not found innocent, nor was he (or Archer or AItken) found guilty in the verbal injury cases. These are civil law matters. In civil law there is no innocence or guilt, only a decision reached on the balance of probabilities. Archer and AItken were only found guilty in subsequent criminal proceedings. Use of guilt and innocence is inaccurate in this context.
The Sheridan case is unusual, but this arises from the very peculiar circumstances of the giving of evidence in the case. I discussed this on my livejournal yesterday. In the Sheridan case the judge at the proof, Lord Turnbull, expressly warned witnesses of perjury during the case and further said an enquiry was inevitable on perjury. Why? Because it was clear that some people had been lying. At least 15 witnesses gave directly contradictory evidence over a meeting of the SSP executive committee in which there was one item on the agenda. 11 taking the line that Sheridan had admitted matters, 4 that he denied them. The judge pointed out that perjury must have been committed. This is because there was obviously demonstrably wilfully false evidence from one group: either to support the News of the World case and destroy Sheridan’s career, or to support the obtaining of money by deception. Once Lord Turnbull referred matters to the Crown Office they took two months to consider the transcripts of the case to identify whether perjury had occurred. this involves evaluation of whether statements are equivocal or not - among other things. IN relation to these 15 there was no equivocation. Matters were then handed to the police to pursue. So, the police investigation arose via the direct referral from the judge, arising out of the highly unusual circumstances of the case where people were clearly lying - not just having differing recollections of events coloured by perspective. The police then initially had 15 suspects - each of whom would be investigated. But once evidence established the veracity of these 15 suspects’ evidence this would have inevitable consequences for the others in the case. For if the 4 were believed the truth of the News of the World’s witnesses would be questioned. Those who claimed to have been in the hotel, to have had relationships &c would have come under scrutiny (and indeed they may still have been scrutinised). And believing the 11 then questions the accuracy of Tommy’s evidence - and if now denied attending the vclubs, those giving him alibis for the particular days come under scrutiny. This has been no witch hunt, but an investigation following its natural course after the original matter was raised by the judge.