Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Campaigns/Events...
Red Justice

Defend Tommy Sheridan

http://www.defendtommysheridan.org

Show support on Monday Organisers of the campaign set up to defend Tommy Sheridan against a political witch-hunt have called on supporters to rally outside of the High Court when Sheridan and his partner Gail appear at a preliminary hearing.  Jim Monaghan, spokesperson for the Defend Tommy Sheridan Campaign, said:

"we are calling on supporters of the campaign, and others with an interest in justice, to come to the court to show their support for Tommy and Gail.  Politicians who claim expenses fraudulently are seemingly immune from the law, yet Tommy is singled out for a massive investigation that is going nowhere.  From the start, this case has been a political witch hunt."

The hearing takes place on Monday 13 July at 10.00am at Edinburgh's High Court.

Defend Tommy Sheridan

Solidarity have called on the Crown Office to explain the millions of pounds of public money allocated to the pursuit of the partys' Co-Convenor, Tommy Sheridan.  Lothian and Borders Police have been investigating the case for nearly two years with, at times, dozens of officers working full-time.  Solidarity Press Spokesperson, Hugh Kerr, said:

"The question of why this investigation was launched, and the resources allocated to it, has never been answered.  This is a waste of public money and a distraction of Police resources that cannot be justified."

Sheridan and his partner Gail are due to appear at a preliminary hearing on Monday 13 July at the High Court in Edinburgh at 10.00am.  Kerr called on Solidarity members to join him in a show of solidarity at the court:

"All socialists, trade unionists and activists should rally against this attack on our comrades.  Tommy Sheridan has never failed to stand by the people in struggle and it's time for us to get behind him to end this politically motivated action."

http://www.solidarityscotland.org
Stevie

I don't mean to be asking stupid questions but what is Tommy Sheridan accused of exactly.

I heard he perjured himself.

I've always had tremendous respect for him, so I'm genuinely asking.
Red Justice

As this is an ongoing case I would prefer not to comment as proceedings are live but support all efforts to clear his name.

Here is the bbc report below:

Sheridan denies perjury charges

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8147950.stm

Former Solidarity MSP Tommy Sheridan and his wife Gail have pleaded not guilty to charges of perjury.

The couple lodged the pleas during a preliminary hearing at the High Court in Edinburgh.

The charges relate to evidence during Mr Sheridan's defamation victory over the News of the World in 2006 following publication of sex and drugs claims.

The couple, who are both aged 45, were charged with perjury in December 2007 following an investigation by police.

The case will be heard in January next year at the High Court in Glasgow, and could be the longest perjury trial in Scottish legal history, with a prosecution witness list currently extending to more than 180 names.
alfred

Here's the indictment.

There are lots of aspects to the charges


http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n...n_perjuy_case_full_indictment.php
Rinty

The introduction of a new allegation from Colin Fox, off his own back, is a new situation in that the SSP members who are backing the News of the World had previously claimed to be "dragged" into court "against their will".

There will be another hearing between now and the trial. probably in the autumn.

It will be interesting to see what develops from the issue raised by Aamer Anwar yesterday re the NotW bugging allegations.
alfred

Rinty wrote:
The introduction of a new allegation from Colin Fox, off his own back, is a new situation in that the SSP members who are backing the News of the World had previously claimed to be "dragged" into court "against their will".

There will be another hearing between now and the trial. probably in the autumn.

It will be interesting to see what develops from the issue raised by Aamer Anwar yesterday re the NotW bugging allegations.



I read the indictment and was surprised by the Colin Fox issue, but I guess if you are asked about something by the police then you will give them an answer.
I think the SSP people were saying before that they felt dragged into court by Tommy.
As for the bugging stuff, I don't see how that relates to the charges on the indictment. I mean, whether there was a bug in the car or not has no bearing on whether Gail Sheridan was in Miami when she claimed to be at home and so on.
Think the defence team will not get far with that and will have to continue the conspiracy narrative.
Should be a cracking three months.
Might even pop up one day.
Rinty

The indictment, of course, is the crown case against Tommy and Gail so is one-sided, I am surprised the Herald reporter didnt use it as a tool for information and instead chose to publish it in it's entireity, never seen that done before.

"As for the bugging stuff, I don't see how that relates to the charges on the indictment."

It doesnt directly but relates to the nature of the investigation and, as a separate issue needs to be addresssed in light of the Guardian reporting that Tommy was one of those targetted by the illegal activity of NotW.  I didnt actually say it was related to the indictment, only that it will be interesting to see.  If the NotW were involved in illegally bugging Tommy then he will likely sue, like the others, and that will effect the case in my opinion.

"I mean, whether there was a bug in the car or not has no bearing on whether Gail Sheridan was in Miami when she claimed to be at home and so on."

Obviously not.  I dont believe that Gail did actually say she was at home when Tommy made that specific call, not from my reading of the court records.  

"Think the defence team will not get far with that and will have to continue the conspiracy narrative."

The defence team havent started yet so it would be a mistake for you to assume they are adopting any specific narrative, most of the case against is easily challengeable in a criminal trial where proof beyond doubt is required.

In my opinion, the next few months and the hearing that will take place before the trial will clarify a lot of points.

"was surprised by the Colin Fox issue, but I guess if you are asked about something by the police then you will give them an answer."

No, you dont need to answer anything that you dont want to.  Fox has voluntarily brought up a meeting and is offering a version of events that will amount to nothing more than hearsay.  What surprises me is that Fox wants to be involved, after the damage it caused the SSP last time, and that the Crown would add this as a charge when it is just a matter of one persons word against another.
alfred

Rinty wrote:


No, you dont need to answer anything that you dont want to.


I generally think it's a good idea to answer questions from the police.
It's likely they will have asked him whether tehre was any attempt to convince him to support Tommy Sheridan.
Anyway, it'll be a fascinating trial if it goes ahead.

As for the Gail thing, she certainly did say she was with Tommy when, according to the Crown, she was in Miami.

I've still got a feeling this might not go to trial.
Rinty

I think Fox volunteered the information.  It wont amount to anything though is it cant be proved to the level required for a criminal conviction.  It will damage Fox though.

"As for the Gail thing, she certainly did say she was with Tommy when, according to the Crown, she was in Miami."

It is only an interpretation of what she said that places her at home when Tommy called directory enquiries.

"I've still got a feeling this might not go to trial."

I dont think Gails case will go to trial but think that they seem determined to go ahead with Tommys case so I disagree about it not going to trial.
alfred

Rinty wrote:
I think Fox volunteered the information.  It wont amount to anything though is it cant be proved to the level required for a criminal conviction.  It will damage Fox though.

"As for the Gail thing, she certainly did say she was with Tommy when, according to the Crown, she was in Miami."

It is only an interpretation of what she said that places her at home when Tommy called directory enquiries.

"I've still got a feeling this might not go to trial."

I dont think Gails case will go to trial but think that they seem determined to go ahead with Tommys case so I disagree about it not going to trial.


I think we believe it will not go to trial for different reasons.
I think the Sheridans will fold.

There's a site called Socialist Unity and someone there claims Sheridan's brother in law is a crown witness. I read the indictment again and that looks to be the case.
Rinty

He is on the list that the Crown wish to call as witnesses, that doesnt mean anything.  It is an extensive list that includes many that were witnesses for Tommy first time around.  

You are barking up the wrong tree on the Sheridans 'folding'.

As you are new to the site I should inform you that I am closely involved with the Sheridans and their defence so possibly have an advantage when discussing this issue.
alfred

Rinty wrote:
He is on the list that the Crown wish to call as witnesses, that doesnt mean anything.  It is an extensive list that includes many that were witnesses for Tommy first time around.  

You are barking up the wrong tree on the Sheridans 'folding'.

As you are new to the site I should inform you that I am closely involved with the Sheridans and their defence so possibly have an advantage when discussing this issue.


The reason I thought he must be a Crown witness is that he appears as c/o the police, which is generally the form when someone has given a statement in support of the case.

Not sure whether being close to the Sheridans gives you an advantage. It seems like the defenders have been wrong a lot of the way, suggesting the case was going nowhere and was to be dropped and so on.


As for Socialist Unity, wow! It's a home for people to scream abuse at each other.

I should form the Social Democratic Ambivalence site! That would be far more civilised.
Rinty

"The reason I thought he must be a Crown witness is that he appears as c/o the police, which is generally the form when someone has given a statement in support of the case."

No, you are mistaken, that is the same as others who are appearing.  You are reading too much into that as is your source in Socialist Unity.

"Not sure whether being close to the Sheridans gives you an advantage. It seems like the defenders have been wrong a lot of the way, suggesting the case was going nowhere and was to be dropped and so on."

The point above highlights the 'advantage'.  Being involved means there are things that I dont need to speculate on, and know as facts re the case.

"As for Socialist Unity, wow! It's a home for people to scream abuse at each other."

Its a typical left 'wasps nest' and anything posted re Sheridan on that site is accompanied by SSP members (under pseudonyms) spreading bile.
alfred

Rinty wrote:
"The reason I thought he must be a Crown witness is that he appears as c/o the police, which is generally the form when someone has given a statement in support of the case."

No, you are mistaken, that is the same as others who are appearing.  You are reading too much into that as is your source in Socialist Unity.

"Not sure whether being close to the Sheridans gives you an advantage. It seems like the defenders have been wrong a lot of the way, suggesting the case was going nowhere and was to be dropped and so on."

The point above highlights the 'advantage'.  Being involved means there are things that I dont need to speculate on, and know as facts re the case.

"As for Socialist Unity, wow! It's a home for people to scream abuse at each other."

Its a typical left 'wasps nest' and anything posted re Sheridan on that site is accompanied by SSP members (under pseudonyms) spreading bile.


I think the bile seems to be flowing both ways. (and I don't have "a source" there. I'm a bewildered observer)

Look, I'm a believer that people are innocent until proven otherwise. If the Sheridan's defence - that they are victims of a conspiracy of lies - stands up, I'll take my hat off to them. I'd welcome your view on that, although I think there are things that can't be discussed for legal reasons.

I don't think Sheridan has many supporters in Scotland these days, if elections are anything to go by.
Rinty

You should put the idea that Sheridans Brother in Law is standing against him out of your mind, its a nonsense reaction by SSP members who are clutching at straws, there are many people listed as c/o police, it means nothing.
alfred

Rinty wrote:
You should put the idea that Sheridans Brother in Law is standing against him out of your mind, its a nonsense reaction by SSP members who are clutching at straws, there are many people listed as c/o police, it means nothing.


Hi,

I think all those listed as c/o police are crown witnesses. That's the form.

Anyway, have PM'd you before I get us into hot water.

All the best
Rinty

No that isnt the 'form' yopu are misinformed.
alfred

Rinty wrote:
No that isnt the 'form' yopu are misinformed.


I'm pretty certain that's the form.
Rinty

Then Gail Sheridans aunt, Annie Healy is also part of the crown witnesses against as is Matt McColl, Rosemary Byrne, Graeme McIver and others.

I can assure you that there is nothing in this and there is no 'form' for guessing what a witness will say based on them using a "c/o police' address.
alfred

Rinty wrote:
Then Gail Sheridans aunt, Annie Healy is also part of the crown witnesses against as is Matt McColl, Rosemary Byrne, Graeme McIver and others.

I can assure you that there is nothing in this and there is no 'form' for guessing what a witness will say based on them using a "c/o police' address.


I'm not guessing what they'll say, I'm just saying that if you are listed as c/o the cops, you'll be called as a prosecution witness.
Rinty

Its a wrong guess.  All of the winesses that gave evidence on Sheridans side in the original case are also listed as "c/o police" including senior solidarity members.

Using a c/o police address is a method of protecting witnesses privacy and has no bearing on what side of the case they are on.

This is a false premise
alfred

Rinty wrote:
Its a wrong guess.  All of the winesses that gave evidence on Sheridans side in the original case are also listed as "c/o police" including senior solidarity members.

Using a c/o police address is a method of protecting witnesses privacy and has no bearing on what side of the case they are on.

This is a false premise


The witnesses who gave evidence for Sheridan are not named on the indictment. You are mistaken, I'm afraid.

Alf
Rinty

they are listed on the Crowns list of witnesses, you are mistaken (remember the 'advantage' that I have).

You refer to a list of 180 witnesses.  Count the names on the indictment, where are the rest?

You are simply wrong.  In any case, its is the practice to protect privacy by listing witnesses as c/o police unless the witness' address is already a matter of public or court record.

Its totally wrong to suggest that it indicates which side of the case they are on.

I spoke to Tommy about 10 minutes ago and told him of the speculation on Socialist Unity and he laughed, speculating that Andy might have flipped because he has lost the last three games of scrabble they played Smile
alfred

Rinty wrote:
they are listed on the Crowns list of witnesses, you are mistaken (remember the 'advantage' that I have).

You refer to a list of 180 witnesses.  Count the names on the indictment, where are the rest?

You are simpley wrong.  In any case its is the practice to protect privacy by listing witnesses as c/o policde unless the witnesses address is already a matter of public or court record.

Its totally wrong to suggest that itindicates which side of the case they are on.

I spoke to Tommy about 10 minutes ago and told him of the speculation on Socialist Unity and he laughed, speculating that Andy might have flipped because he has lost the last three games of scrabble they played Smile




The 180 witnesses figure came from court reports.

Alf.
Rinty

And the report is correct.  There are over 180 witnesses listed by the crown.

The crown have to list every person that they might wish to cross examine, no matter what side their evidence is on.
alfred

Rinty wrote:

The crown have to list every person that they might wish to cross examine, no matter what side their evidence is on.


No, that's completely incorrect. The Crown do not list defence witnesses, the defence does.
Everyone the Crown lists as a witness will have evidence led by the Crown.
The Crown can only cross examine those called by the defence.
Rinty

That just isnt true.  

Both sides have to list witnesses, the Crown dont get to see the list of defence witnesses at first so therefore have to list every potential witness or, if the defence don't list them, they cannot cross examine them.

Yoy are suggesting that expereinced QCs and lawyers have failed to notice that every witness for their side of the case has flipped to the other side.

Ask youself why the press havent seized on the revelation that the Sheridans family and political party have turned against them.  The answer is that the press know that being listed as a pottantial witness to be cross examined by the crown or protecting your home adress is not an indication of the evidence a witness will give.

Yiou are being misled.
alfred

Rinty wrote:
therefore have to list every potential witness or, if the defence don't list them, they cannot cross examine them.



That's rubbish. If they want to examine a witness they list them and lead on them. The crown does not list witnesses it wants to cross examine.

You're either misinformed or spreading untruths.
Rinty

lets just leave it.

You can continue to belive that every member of sheridans family and every witness that gave evidence on Sheridans side has flipped (they are all listed by the crown).

It is quite a big story, makes you wonder why the press havent picked up on it. Smile))
alfred

Rinty wrote:
lets just leave it.

You can continue to belive that every member of sheridans family and every witness that gave evidence on Sheridans side has flipped (they are all listed by the crown).

It is quite a big story, makes you wonder why the press havent picked up on it. Smile))


I didn't say every member of his family has flipped. Is that what you do, Rinty, take something some has said, exaggerate and distort it, and use it to attack their position, even though it's done fraudulently?

Guys like you are ten a penny on the internet. Rolling Eyes

I'm amazed you're a lawyer, to be honest.
Rinty

the family members and every witness in the original case (on both sides) are on the crown's witness list.  You have stated that you interpret this as being on the side of the crown.

I can only inform you from a better position than you have, you can take it any way you want.  And I am not a lwyer, didnt say that I was.
alfred

Rinty wrote:
 And I am not a lwyer, didnt say that I was.


Sorry, made an assumption on the basis that you said you were on the defence team.
Rinty

I didnt say I was on the team, I am part of a group of people who have assisted the defence.

We will have to agree to disagree re the crown list.

If you are correct then we should expect the revelation that Gails aunt and brother-in-law are standing against them to be a big press story.  No?
alfred

Rinty wrote:
I didnt say I was on the team, I am part of a group of people who have assisted the defence.

We will have to agree to disagree re the crown list.

If you are correct then we should expect the revelation that Gails aunt and brother-in-law are standing against them to be a big press story.  No?


Isn't it all subjudice?

There is a difference between standing against someone and giving ebidence for the crown.

IF McFarlane told the cops he didn't go to cupids and it's proved he did, he'll be jailed too.

It's not a game this. Sheridan will destroy more than his own life before this is over.

Alf
Rinty

Of course it isnt a game.  You are forgetting your veneer of an independent Alf and are reverting to the old line. Smile
alfred

Rinty wrote:
Of course it isnt a game.  You are forgetting your veneer of an independent Alf and are reverting to the old line. Smile



I'm not independent on Sheridan. I think he's a liar. Always hated his politics and I'm pleased he's got himself into deep trouble.
Never said I was neutral on the issue, Rinty.

Alf
Rinty

ok "alf"
alfred

Rinty wrote:
ok "alf"


thanks "rinty".

Question  Rolling Eyes
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
ok "alf"
alfred wrote:
thanks "rinty".

Question  Rolling Eyes
I long ago got used to the fact that I am very much the exception in using my real name on the internet. A lot of folk use pseudonyms to disguise who they are. However, that's not the case where Rinty is concerned. His real name is Jim Monaghan. He uses his real name on some other forums, and has never made any secret of it on this one. He is a prominent member of "Solidarity" and sometimes acts as a spokesperson for that party. You, on the other hand, Alf, could be anybody.
alfred

Dave Coull wrote:
Rinty wrote:
ok "alf"
alfred wrote:
thanks "rinty".

Question  Rolling Eyes
I long ago got used to the fact that I am very much the exception in using my real name on the internet. A lot of folk use pseudonyms to disguise who they are. However, that's not the case where Rinty is concerned. His real name is Jim Monaghan. He uses his real name on some other forums, and has never made any secret of it on this one. He is a prominent member of "Solidarity" and sometimes acts as a spokesperson for that party. You, on the other hand, Alf, could be anybody.



I could be anybody. I'm definitely somebody.
I don't really know how knowing all about me would make a difference. Would my views be any more or less valid if you knew where I lived. And how can we really trust anyone on the internet?
I'm a unionist with an open mind when it comes to financial powers for Scotland.
You're not very welcoming, I must say.
Dave Coull

alfred wrote:
You're not very welcoming
There is no particular reason why I should be welcoming towards you. I'm not one of the folk who run this Our Scotland forum
alfred wrote:
how can we really trust anyone on the internet?
Through experience. I know from experience which posters on this forum I can definitely trust (whether I agree with them or not), and which posters I definitely can't trust, and which posters come into the "not sure yet" category. I have never met Rinty, and I disagree with him about many things, but I know he is trustworthy.
alfred

Dave Coull wrote:
alfred wrote:
You're not very welcoming
There is no particular reason why I should be welcoming towards you. I'm not one of the folk who run this Our Scotland forum
alfred wrote:
how can we really trust anyone on the internet?
Through experience. I know from experience which posters on this forum I can definitely trust (whether I agree with them or not), and which posters I definitely can't trust, and which posters come into the "not sure yet" category. I have never met Rinty, and I disagree with him about many things, but I know he is trustworthy.


Wow. Are you a real person?
Holebender

As no-one else has come out and said it yet... alfred, you seem very similar to a previous poster called amber (apart from the statement about unionism, which could be false). Are you related? If not, may I suggest you stop obsessing about the Sheridans and join some of the union versus independence discussions?
alfred

Holebender wrote:
As no-one else has come out and said it yet... alfred, you seem very similar to a previous poster called amber (apart from the statement about unionism, which could be false). Are you related? If not, may I suggest you stop obsessing about the Sheridans and join some of the union versus independence discussions?


I did join some other discussions but this arse Coull popped up and sapped the life out of me (I also recommended the Very Things!).
I am totally engrossed by the Sheridan thing, though, and look forward to his imprisonment. You might see that as obsession. Not much I can do about that.
Anyway, I've said my farewells elsewhere.
Cheerio.
Dave Coull

alfred wrote:
I am totally engrossed by the Sheridan thing
Yes, you are. You're obsessed with it. That's why you reminded Holebender of somebody else. Rinty is also very engrossed by "the Sheridan thing", though from a different point of view from you. And at least he is open about his reasons, unlike you.
alfred wrote:
this arse Coull
Alfred is unable to conduct a rational discussion without resorting to personal abuse. As can be seen from the following:
alfred wrote:
you stupid wee man
"Stupid" is just abuse. As for "wee".............the size-ist prejudice against small men and women and children is both irrational and an assumption without evidence.
alfred wrote:
A***holes like you
More proof that Alfred is unable to conduct a rational discussion without resorting to abuse.
alfred wrote:
are the reason the nationalist cause has such an appalling reputation
In response to my perfectly reasonable point that I'm not a nationalist, not a member of any political party, never even been a member of any political party, don't support any political party, or any politician, and am not seeking to get anybody elected, or to help anybody retain office, the only reply from "alfred" is
Quote:
this aching b***sack Coull
Ignoring the pointless personal abuse, what is significant to note about this exchange is that Alfred didn't take kindly to criticism of a politician he favours.
Holebender wrote:
Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job.
alfred wrote:
could you back up that claim?
Holebender presumably being rather busy drilling for oil, it was Chicmac who backed up the claim. Alfred, unable to provide a counter-argument to the proof provided by Chicmac, criticised the way the evidence was given. When I pointed out that this was what had just happened, Alfred became abusive about me personally. But he has no answer to the justified criticism of that career politician.
Red Justice

alfred wrote:
Holebender wrote:
As no-one else has come out and said it yet... alfred, you seem very similar to a previous poster called amber (apart from the statement about unionism, which could be false). Are you related? If not, may I suggest you stop obsessing about the Sheridans and join some of the union versus independence discussions?


I did join some other discussions but this arse Coull popped up and sapped the life out of me (I also recommended the Very Things!).
I am totally engrossed by the Sheridan thing, though, and look forward to his imprisonment. You might see that as obsession. Not much I can do about that.
Anyway, I've said my farewells elsewhere.
Cheerio.


I can't understand the mentality of someone who wants anyone to go to jail.

Tommy and Gail have a young child to look after.

Tommy is both liked and disliked by some people. However many people who dislike Tommy would not necessarily wish him to be sent down.

I am hopeful justice will prevail and Tommy will clear his name.  I have no doubt that Tommy has a lot of friends outside Solidarity that simply and quite rightly hate Murdoch and his gutter rag News Of The World.
Red Justice

I thought you had gone Alfred?

Why have you sent me a private message?

I only will reply to private messages from friends such as Rinty.

You have your own opinions about this case I have mine. I am confident Tommy will clear his name.

In the meantime I will attack the NOTW and criticise the blatant waste of money and police time spent on this case.
Dave Coull

Holebender wrote:
As no-one else has come out and said it yet... alfred, you seem very similar to a previous poster called amber
I see what you mean about the similarity. In any case, regardless of whether or not "Alfred" may be the same person, one thing is certain, "Alfred" is not quite the innocent he/she pretended to be.
Red Justice wrote:
I have no doubt that Tommy has a lot of friends outside Solidarity that simply and quite rightly hate Murdoch and his gutter rag News Of The World.
I certainly have reason to dislike Murdoch and his gutter rag! Plus, ten years ago, when my American wife was trying to get a visa to settle in this country, and I wrote to lots of MPs and MSPs about this, Tommy Sheridan was just about the only one who took prompt action. So, regardless of anything that he may or may not have done since then, that's a point in his favour.
Red Justice wrote:
many people who dislike Tommy would not necessarily wish him to be sent down.
alfred wrote:
I am totally engrossed by the Sheridan thing, though, and look forward to his imprisonment
Red Justice wrote:
I can't understand the mentality of someone who wants anyone to go to jail.
Especially for a non-violent "crime", if it is a "crime" at all. That is very vindictive of "alfred", and it makes you wonder, WHY?
Stevie

There are not enough Tommy Sheridans.  He is not perfect (who is?) and I suspect got caught up in something here he regrets.  The Scots recognise he is the real deal.  I think his political career is far from over irrespective of the court case.

Frankly, I have little idea of what he did wrong but I'm quite certain his relative misdemeanor is small potatoes next to the snouts in the trough lot in Westminster.
Stevie

How is Tommy's case going?
Rinty

Trial, if it goes ahead will be next year, probably feb/mar time.
landg

'I can't understand the mentality of someone who wants anyone to go to jail'.








thats pretty weird i have to say, you've obviously never been raped, slashed or had your house broken into.
landg

''Tommy and Gail have a young child to look after''.

so. whats that got to do with jailing criminals?
landg

Red Justice wrote:

In the meantime I will attack the NOTW and criticise the blatant waste of money and police time spent on this case.


it's a waste of time investigating perjury. again you do not seem to living in the real world.red 'justice'.
Stevie

The idea that prosecuting T Sheridan is somehow the pursuit of justice is definitely against the general will of the Scots.  

Tommy is largely supported by the majority of Scots because he stood up personally (before he was a politician) against Thatcherism and was subsequently voted in to office.

Nothing will be gained, nothing will be served and nothing should be done.

It's ridiculous.

Can't Kenny MacKaskill step in or somebody step in and stop this nonsense?
landg

Bravehand wrote:
The idea that prosecuting T Sheridan is somehow the pursuit of justice is definitely against the general will of the Scots.

  REALLY? SINCE WHEN? 

Tommy is largely supported by the majority of Scots because he stood up personally (before he was a politician) against Thatcherism and was subsequently voted in to office.

  I THINK YOU'LL FIND HE IS MORE OF SAD CARICATURE OF HIMSELF. THE MAJORITY IF SCOTS? HMMMMMMMMMMM DON'T THINK SO. PLENTY OF FOLK STILL BUYING MURDOCHS PAPERS AND CELEB BB IS OFF AIR.

Nothing will be gained, nothing will be served and nothing should be done.

 YES IT WILL IF FOUND GUILTY OR INNOCENT.

It's ridiculous.

 NO IT'S NOT.

Can't Kenny MacKaskill step in or somebody step in and stop this nonsense?
MAYBE STOP THE TRIAL IF IT GOES AHEAD ON HUMANITERIAN GROUNDS?

landg

THAT DI'NT WORK RIGHT, MY REPLIES ARE IN BOLD IN THE QUOTE BOX. SORRY BOUT THAT.
Ultra

Dave Coull wrote:
I long ago got used to the fact that I am very much the exception in using my real name on the internet. A lot of folk use pseudonyms to disguise who they are. However, that's not the case where Rinty is concerned. His real name is Jim Monaghan. He uses his real name on some other forums, and has never made any secret of it on this one. He is a prominent member of "Solidarity" and sometimes acts as a spokesperson for that party. You, on the other hand, Alf, could be anybody.


Dear Dave,

You seem to be hung up on the fact that people choose to use users names instead of their own names on the internet. Do you subject every new poster to this forum with the same line of question and bullshit about people being untrustworthy because they have a user name?

If you are so paranoid about posters on forums I suggest you give the forums a miss. This is the 3rd or 4th thread which decends into the same paranoia of either someone being a previous poster or liars which I have read since I joined last week.

Maybe it's to do with your little attention seeking episode of giving the NOTW an interview and now you think everyone is out to get you. Who knows? I am sure there are far more interesting people in Scotland who would interest the security sevices. Sadly, you aren't one of them.

As for Tommy Sheridan (better keep it on topic)

Most folk in Scotland were surprised he actually won his libel case due to the amount of evidence and witnesses against him.

Sadly for Tommy he has become a victim of new technologies which can pin point exactly where he was. Oh dear....
Stevie

Ultra wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
I long ago got used to the fact that I am very much the exception in using my real name on the internet. A lot of folk use pseudonyms to disguise who they are. However, that's not the case where Rinty is concerned. His real name is Jim Monaghan. He uses his real name on some other forums, and has never made any secret of it on this one. He is a prominent member of "Solidarity" and sometimes acts as a spokesperson for that party. You, on the other hand, Alf, could be anybody.


Dear Dave,

You seem to be hung up on the fact that people choose to use users names instead of their own names on the internet. Do you subject every new poster to this forum with the same line of question and bullshit about people being untrustworthy because they have a user name?

If you are so paranoid about posters on forums I suggest you give the forums a miss. This is the 3rd or 4th thread which decends into the same paranoia of either someone being a previous poster or liars which I have read since I joined last week.

Maybe it's to do with your little attention seeking episode of giving the NOTW an interview and now you think everyone is out to get you. Who knows? I am sure there are far more interesting people in Scotland who would interest the security sevices. Sadly, you aren't one of them.

As for Tommy Sheridan (better keep it on topic)

Most folk in Scotland were surprised he actually won his libel case due to the amount of evidence and witnesses against him.

Sadly for Tommy he has become a victim of new technologies which can pin point exactly where he was. Oh dear....


Dave has a point, people should be willing to stand by their words with their names.

I chose not to for various reasons (not anything particularly secretive) and Dave hasn't attacked me.  He is far from paranoid about it and he does have a point.  I do hope that I don't write anything where I would be better to hide.

It's also not a bad policy to not shove yourself about too much publicly on the net, you never know...

As for giving the forum a miss, Dave has earned his place as has Aventinian (with whom I disagree but his place is solid despite his annoying assertion from time to time).

Add a few thousand posts before you suggest people should give things a miss.

I suspect the truth is your not terribly happy here yourself but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
landg

it just goes to show what a low-life rag the NOTW is, anyone connected to it or has used it as a platform must have pretty tabloid values.

i'm no fan of sheridan or the NOTW, ideally they would both be left to slug it out, forever more, in some reality tv tanning salon.
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
You seem to be hung up on the fact that people choose to use users names instead of their own names
For me, the widespread use of pseudo-names does seem to be rather an unhealthy trend. I know it seems "normal" to many people at present, but, historically speaking, I think it quite possible that this will prove to be an aberration. One of those fads which happen for a half a century or so, and then go out of fashion. Nevertheless, like I said
Quote:
I accept that some folk may have legitimate reasons for using a pseudoname
HOWEVER
Quote:
for anybody who hides their identity to spread deliberate falsehoods about folk more open than themselves is just despicable.
I then went on to explain
Quote:
The majority of folk don't spread deliberate falsehoods. It is the spreading of deliberate falsehoods which is wrong, and the doing so from behind cover which makes it contemptible.
Bravehand wrote:
Dave has a point, people should be willing to stand by their words
I accept that if somebody wants to express support, or disagreement, with an idea (such as Independence, or Union, or Capitalism, or Socialism, or Christianity, or Atheism, or whatever}, then it's perfectly okay that they should do so anonymously. Likewise, if somebody wants to express support for, or disagreement with, some political party, or other organisation, then it's perfectly okay that they should do so anonymously. But when somebody suddenly indulges in a personal attack, then it seems to me they should have the decency to make it personal at both ends. Anything less is sheer cowardice.
Bravehand wrote:
I chose not to for various reasons (not anything particularly secretive) and Dave hasn't attacked me.
Well, you haven't been spreading any gratuitous personal lies about me. Or about anybody else, so far as I know.
Ultra wrote:
Do you subject every new poster to this forum with the same line of question
Everybody on here was at one time a "new poster". Well, apart from Azzurri, that is. The forum was already long established when I joined.
Ultra wrote:
Do you subject every new poster to this forum with the same line of question
Bravehand has already answered that question.
Bravehand wrote:
He is far from paranoid about it and he does have a point.........It's also not a bad policy to not shove yourself about too much publicly on the net, you never know...
I realise that, at times, I may be too open for my own good. But, from my point of view, secrecy and pretence are unhealthy.
Bravehand wrote:
As for giving the forum a miss, Dave has earned his place as has Aventinian
Although many Unionists have spent some time on this forum, Aventinian has certainly shown far more staying power than most. (I was going to give an honourable mention to "William Cleland" here, but, while certainly not nationalist, William's position is probably a bit too subtle to simply describe as  "Unionist".)
Ultra

Bravehand wrote:
Dave has a point, people should be willing to stand by their words with their names.

I chose not to for various reasons (not anything particularly secretive) and Dave hasn't attacked me.  He is far from paranoid about it and he does have a point.  I do hope that I don't write anything where I would be better to hide.

It's also not a bad policy to not shove yourself about too much publicly on the net, you never know...

As for giving the forum a miss, Dave has earned his place as has Aventinian (with whom I disagree but his place is solid despite his annoying assertion from time to time).

Add a few thousand posts before you suggest people should give things a miss.

I suspect the truth is your not terribly happy here yourself but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


Bravehand,

This is nothing more than a tired old forum frequented by leftie extremist fundamentalist types involved in the murky world of fragmented fringe politics in Scotland.

There are millions of forums out there on the internet. Most people of my generation have moved on to Bebo, Facebook, and Twitter as forums are old hat.

This forum contributers are not really any better than the right wing BNP extremist types and pretty similar in fact that most of the people on here are just as xenophobic, bigoted, and extremist in their point of view. Just at the other extreme end of the political spectrum. Paranoid to the extreme and some of the most disagreeable people you are ever liable to encounter.

If judging people on the sheer amount of posts they have on a forum like this makes you happy, you need to get out into the real world and make some real friends and get a life.

I am neither happy nor sad about a forum like this. It's just not really that important to get worked up about either way in the scheme of things.

Judging by the same top posters and the lack of activity, it's the same dozen people who post on a regular basis. Sadly, I would rather not waste my time accumulating 1000's of posts on here.

TTFN
Ultra

Dave Coull wrote:
For me, the widespread use of pseudo-names does seem to be rather an unhealthy trend. I know it seems "normal" to many people at present, but, historically speaking, I think it quite possible that this will prove to be an aberration. One of those fads which happen for a half a century or so, and then go out of fashion.


I hate to completely rubbish your theory on people using user names as being some sort of fashionable trend in IT, however, having used various forms of the internet for the last 20 years, people have always used users name be it on things like Prestel in the old BBC computer days or the internet as it is now. It is nothing new and recommended by most IT experts as security precautions.

Dave Coull wrote:
Everybody on here was at one time a "new poster". Well, apart from Azzurri, that is. The forum was already long established when I joined.


Considering I have seen 4 seperate threads with the same line of questions to new posters instigated by yourself Dave, this one included, I would like you to answer why you continually abuse new posters like some sort of forum bully and not pass the buck on to one of your cronies. Is it because they don't agree with your extremist views or your opinion matters the most in your world?

Dave Coull wrote:
I realise that, at times, I may be too open for my own good. But, from my point of view, secrecy and pretence are unhealthy.


Yes like giving an interview to the NOTW  Rolling Eyes

When it didn't quite go to plan you spent even more time in blog land claiming you had been mis-quoted and then shunned by most other fringe leftie independence groups as most intelligent folk know what gutter press the NOTW are and not to speak to them.

It's amazing what knowledge you can build up on someone if you know where to look.
azzuri

Ultra wrote:
Bravehand wrote:
Dave has a point, people should be willing to stand by their words with their names.

I chose not to for various reasons (not anything particularly secretive) and Dave hasn't attacked me.  He is far from paranoid about it and he does have a point.  I do hope that I don't write anything where I would be better to hide.

It's also not a bad policy to not shove yourself about too much publicly on the net, you never know...

As for giving the forum a miss, Dave has earned his place as has Aventinian (with whom I disagree but his place is solid despite his annoying assertion from time to time).

Add a few thousand posts before you suggest people should give things a miss.

I suspect the truth is your not terribly happy here yourself but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


Bravehand,

This is nothing more than a tired old forum frequented by leftie extremist fundamentalist types involved in the murky world of fragmented fringe politics in Scotland.

There are millions of forums out there on the internet. Most people of my generation have moved on to Bebo, Facebook, and Twitter as forums are old hat.

This forum contributers are not really any better than the right wing BNP extremist types and pretty similar in fact that most of the people on here are just as xenophobic, bigoted, and extremist in their point of view. Just at the other extreme end of the political spectrum. Paranoid to the extreme and some of the most disagreeable people you are ever liable to encounter.

If judging people on the sheer amount of posts they have on a forum like this makes you happy, you need to get out into the real world and make some real friends and get a life.

I am neither happy nor sad about a forum like this. It's just not really that important to get worked up about either way in the scheme of things.

Judging by the same top posters and the lack of activity, it's the same dozen people who post on a regular basis. Sadly, I would rather not waste my time accumulating 1000's of posts on here.

TTFN


Hi Ultra, welcome to the forums.  Smile

I'll politely disagree with both your view of the posters here and that of the importance of forums. I've no doubt that Scottish politics is a bit of a niche interest, hence why there are so few people here to discuss day-to-day political issues.

To say that young people 'have moved' to bebo and facebook and that forums 'are old hat' is complete nonsense, given that social-networking sites such as those were a completely new development and were not taking users from forums or messageboards. Social networking sites are used to connect with people you already know (mostly), whereas forums such as this are not about connecting with individuals, but discussing your particular topic of interest.

Unmediated access to niche expertise or interests such as 'Scottish politics' is thriving and is very much a part of the now and of the future. In my opinion, this is due to the 'dumbing down' of the media, it not offering stimulating content for those who are interested in said topics in the first place and are thus abandoning 'old media' in favour of places like this.

We don't need the traditional print media any longer in order to spread a message or discuss issues that are important to us as individuals. The internet gives people the chance to connect with each other, and millions of forums such as this one exist on their own particular niche. The beauty of it is that you can create your own site or blog in seconds. Not everyone will care, but some will, and they will find your work. There's no money in it, but dedicated enthusiasts aren't motivated by money. The number of people involved in discussions on this site doesn't matter to me, thus I can't see how it might bother someone else either. If only 1 other person were using this site regularly and share the passion to vigorously defend their views on here, then that is enough for me. Anyone that determines the 'value' of a website based on the number of regular visitors is mistaken, in my humble opinion.

Stick around, you might actually like it here...
Ultra

azzuri wrote:


Hi Ultra, welcome to the forums.  Smile

I'll politely disagree with both your view of the posters here and that of the importance of forums. I've no doubt that Scottish politics is a bit of a niche interest, hence why there are so few people here to discuss day-to-day political issues.

To say that young people 'have moved' to bebo and facebook and that forums 'are old hat' is complete nonsense, given that social-networking sites such as those were a completely new development and were not taking users from forums or messageboards. Social networking sites are used to connect with people you already know (mostly), whereas forums such as this are not about connecting with individuals, but discussing your particular topic of interest.

Unmediated access to niche expertise or interests such as 'Scottish politics' is thriving and is very much a part of the now and of the future. In my opinion, this is due to the 'dumbing down' of the media, it not offering stimulating content for those who are interested in said topics in the first place and are thus abandoning 'old media' in favour of places like this.

We don't need the traditional print media any longer in order to spread a message or discuss issues that are important to us as individuals. The internet gives people the chance to connect with each other, and millions of forums such as this one exist on their own particular niche. The beauty of it is that you can create your own site or blog in seconds. Not everyone will care, but some will, and they will find your work. There's no money in it, but dedicated enthusiasts aren't motivated by money. The number of people involved in discussions on this site doesn't matter to me, thus I can't see how it might bother someone else either. If only 1 other person were using this site regularly and share the passion to vigorously defend their views on here, then that is enough for me. Anyone that determines the 'value' of a website based on the number of regular visitors is mistaken, in my humble opinion.

Stick around, you might actually like it here...


Hi Azzuri,

Thank you for the polite introduction and making me feel welcome.  Cool

I have had a few decent debates on here with a few posters already. So all is not lost.

I disagree re:forums though. Just as easy to create an interest group on Facebook or Myspace for like minded people than it is to build a forum. Also, far easier to build up a network of likeminded people by finding them rather than people coming across your forum by chance. Plus references to rather old stickies and the copyright tag going back a few years suggests this forum may well have had it's day. Just my humble opinion of course. I am sure you are a busy fellow. Plus the amount of posters would no doubt help generate much needed funds by way of Google ads.  Wink

The number of people who would post on here doesn't bother me. People who continually question the motives of new posters and instigate childish name calling deserve to be put in their place.  Smile

I may well stick around as it's been interesting so far.

I look forward to deabting some issues with you meatime.
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
having used various forms of the internet for the last 20 years
It is an illusion that what happens "now" is the last word on what will happen. This illusion was around in the "anything goes" days of the 1920s, it was around when Teddy Boys were jiving to Bill Haley and the Comets in the 1950s, it was around with the hippies of the 1960s, it was around when Francis Fukiyama wrote "The End of History" in 1990, in fact, it is around in every age, but it's an illusion nevertheless. Like I said, something that is fashionable now could turn out to be just
Quote:
One of those fads which happen for a half a century or so
some day, you may look back on what you are writing now, and feel your cheeks turn red with embarrassment at your youthful ignorance.
Ultra wrote:
I would like you to answer why you continually abuse new posters
I don't. There are plenty of people here on this forum who were at one time "new posters" who were not "continually abused" by me. However, I will always respond vigorously to attacks. Quite a few folk of strongly Unionist views, as well as some folk who could perhaps be classified simply as "trolls" deliberately looking for trouble, do turn up on this generally independence-supporting forum and set out just to attack, rather than debate, right from the start. When people do that, it is hypocritical for them to act as if they are shocked by the response. Surely it ought to be possible to argue for an opposing viewpoint without feeling the need to continually attack those who support independence? However, note that, when things have developed into personal abuse, this has generally been started by the aforementioned Unionists and/or "trolls". In your case, it's a matter of record, as can be seen by anybody who bothers to check the archives, that it was you who made personal attacks on me, and not the other way round, and I merely responded.
Ultra wrote:
It's amazing what knowledge you can build up on someone if you know where to look.
I don't believe in trying to hide secrets. I believe in open-ness, as a matter of principle. This can have its disadvantages, obviously, in that anybody who wants to make personal attacks on me can easily find loads of stuff to use. But it is still the case that those who do this from behind cover are cowards.
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
Most people of my generation have moved on to Bebo, Facebook, and Twitter
My wife is on both Twitter and Facebook and she keeps trying to get me to join. But Twitter is limited to 140 characters and it's very difficult to have a discussion with such a limit.
Ultra wrote:
This forum contributers are not really any better than the right wing BNP
The contributors here are better in at least one way: the BNP are racist, most folk on here are not.
Ultra

Dave Coull wrote:
It is an illusion that what happens "now" is the last word on what will happen. This illusion was around in the "anything goes" days of the 1920s, it was around when Teddy Boys were jiving to Bill Haley and the Comets in the 1950s, it was around with the hippies of the 1960s, it was around when Francis Fukiyama wrote "The End of History" in 1990, in fact, it is around in every age, but it's an illusion nevertheless. Like I said, something that is fashionable now could turn out to be just
Quote:
One of those fads which happen for a half a century or so
some day, you may look back on what you are writing now, and feel your cheeks turn red with embarrassment at your youthful ignorance.


Not sure what part of people using user names instead of real names on the net isn't some sort of fashion trend you don't understand. Maybe you just aren't fashionable. People always have used users names. That's the point. It's folk who somehow want to stand out or need attention who use their real names. 15 minutes of fame etc. Media types, extremists...

Then again I may not look back at any forums as they may well just disappear into cyber space once the admins get fed up and hit the delete button like alot of other forums.

Dave Coull wrote:

I don't. There are plenty of people here on this forum who were at one time "new posters" who were not "continually abused" by me. However, I will always respond vigorously to attacks. Quite a few folk of strongly Unionist views, as well as some folk who could perhaps be classified simply as "trolls" deliberately looking for trouble, do turn up on this generally independence-supporting forum and set out just to attack, rather than debate, right from the start. When people do that, it is hypocritical for them to act as if they are shocked by the response. Surely it ought to be possible to argue for an opposing viewpoint without feeling the need to continually attack those who support independence? However, note that, when things have developed into personal abuse, this has generally been started by the aforementioned Unionists and/or "trolls". In your case, it's a matter of record, as can be seen by anybody who bothers to check the archives, that it was you who made personal attacks on me, and not the other way round, and I merely responded.


So 4 threads and counting so far featuring new posters and the main instigator is good ole Dave with the standard unionist bashing or just general abuse because the person doesn't agree with one of lifes dis-agreeable people and dares question your warped view on life nevermind independence.  Laughing

Dave Coull wrote:
I don't believe in trying to hide secrets. I believe in open-ness, as a matter of principle. This can have its disadvantages, obviously, in that anybody who wants to make personal attacks on me can easily find loads of stuff to use. But it is still the case that those who do this from behind cover are cowards.


Yeah your photo for one. Oh dear.....

In the scheme of things, you aren't important or interesting. Get over yourself. It's keeping you occupied and useful replying to me.

From what I have read, these people are far from cowards or anonymous in the world of Scottish politics who have ridiculed you and even a national newspaper has held you up as a fundamentalist figure of fun on independence.

This is my last words to you on here. Like I said to Azzuri, some people are intelligent and have put forward their point of view and I have had a decent debate with them. Folk like you are best just ignored and left to fester in the corner.

Your views are of no consequence.
Dave Coull

I had said all I'd got to say on the subject of Tommy Sheridan by nearly three months ago, and really had nothing to add to that. However, obviously, if somebody makes personal attacks on me under this heading, then I'm going to respond. When "Ultra" first started posting here, I  DISAGREED  with his political views. But there was absolutely nothing personal in it. Things only started to get personal when he started making false personal assumptions about me. Up until that point, there had been disagreements, but not personal ones. I think the first false assumption was when he referred to me as being an "SNP fundamentalist". Since I've never been a member of the SNP, I responded by pointing out how wrong that was. Despite which, he then went on to accuse me of "following the party line". It became clear that, to use a footballing analogy, "Ultra" was "going for the man and not the ball". In other words, attacking on personal, not political, grounds. The next bit of personal abuse from "Ultra" was to accuse me of being "on drugs". Ultra followed that up with
Quote:
Here's more assumptions about you
several of which proved to be clearly wrong, on matters of fact, not opinion, and yet have never been withdrawn.
Quote:
Middle aged
Having been in receipt of an OLD AGE pension for quite a few years, that's false.
Quote:
Unemployed.
False. Retired. Both of these personal assumptions on matters of FACT (not opinion) were wrong, but, instead of acknowledging being wrong, "Ultra" pressed on with more false personal assumptions.
Quote:
local Government/civil service worker type.
Again, false, having worked most of my life in the building industry, mostly as a bricklayer.

Regarding things some other folk have written,
Ultra wrote:
From what I have read, these people are far from cowards or anonymous in the world of Scottish politics
I haven't described anybody who uses their own name as "cowards". "Liars", possibly, in some cases, yes, but not "cowards". In your case, however, you persisted in stating lies about me while using a false name. That is why I described you as a cowardly liar. I think it is reasonable to describe as a "liar" somebody who persists in stating as fact personal things which they just made up about somebody else. If they do this while using a false name (and thus taking no responsibility for their own words) I think it reasonable to describe such a person as a "cowardly liar".
mairead

Ultra and Dave,
This thread has become like a school playground with two stuborn squabbling boys, neither of whom will give an inch.
It is of no great importance and has no significance at whatsoever , whether a user name or a real name is used when posting. What a pathetic thing to be arguing about.
Dave Coull

mairead wrote:
It is of no great importance and has no significance at whatsoever , whether a user name or a real name is used
That wasn't what the disagreement was about.
landg

Dave Coull wrote:
I had said all I'd got to say on the subject of Tommy Sheridan by nearly three months ago, and really had nothing to add to that. However, obviously, if somebody makes personal attacks on me under this heading, then I'm going to respond. When "Ultra" first started posting here, I  DISAGREED  with his political views. But there was absolutely nothing personal in it. Things only started to get personal when he started making false personal assumptions about me. Up until that point, there had been disagreements, but not personal ones. I think the first false assumption was when he referred to me as being an "SNP fundamentalist". Since I've never been a member of the SNP, I responded by pointing out how wrong that was. Despite which, he then went on to accuse me of "following the party line". It became clear that, to use a footballing analogy, "Ultra" was "going for the man and not the ball". In other words, attacking on personal, not political, grounds. The next bit of personal abuse from "Ultra" was to accuse me of being "on drugs". Ultra followed that up with
Quote:
Here's more assumptions about you
several of which proved to be clearly wrong, on matters of fact, not opinion, and yet have never been withdrawn.
Quote:
Middle aged
Having been in receipt of an OLD AGE pension for quite a few years, that's false.
Quote:
Unemployed.
False. Retired. Both of these personal assumptions on matters of FACT (not opinion) were wrong, but, instead of acknowledging being wrong, "Ultra" pressed on with more false personal assumptions.
Quote:
local Government/civil service worker type.
Again, false, having worked most of my life in the building industry, mostly as a bricklayer.

Regarding things some other folk have written,
Ultra wrote:
From what I have read, these people are far from cowards or anonymous in the world of Scottish politics
I haven't described anybody who uses their own name as "cowards". "Liars", possibly, in some cases, yes, but not "cowards". In your case, however, you persisted in stating lies about me while using a false name. That is why I described you as a cowardly liar. I think it is reasonable to describe as a "liar" somebody who persists in stating as fact personal things which they just made up about somebody else. If they do this while using a false name (and thus taking no responsibility for their own words) I think it reasonable to describe such a person as a "cowardly liar".


thats all well and good but it does not change the fact your a fundamentalist bafoon.
mairead

True Dave, the thread was originally about Tommy Sheridan before user/real names came up then the insults and innuendo started.
Could we perhaps take it back to Tommy Sheridan then?
Stevie

Ah yes dear folks.  Would you kindly stop this discussion here and form a separate thread about the merits and demerits of using your real name.  This seems to be surfacing in different places like an unwanted virus.

If it helps, you're both right.

Oh yes, I think this forum is very relevant and twitter just doesn't feel right or lend itself well to focus particularly on a Scottish debating forum in my opinion.

You may be right but you may be wrong.  In any case I like it here.

Oh incidentally, does anyone have up to date info on Tommy's case?
Dave Coull

Bravehand wrote:
form a separate thread about the merits and demerits of using your real name

No.

Because, as I have already pointed out, that isn't what the disagreement was about.
Reluctant Hero

Bravehand wrote:

Oh incidentally, does anyone have up to date info on Tommy's case?


According to the Scotsman, it is supposed to be in January.
landg

ehm, what happened to my post about sheridan going to jail?
Rinty

I think that the issue of pseudonyms is relevant to this thread as, as most of the regular users of this site will know, Sheridan is an issue where people have used a pseudonym to make direct accusations and/or personal attacks.  This is very different from having a political discourse under a pseudonym.

I use a nickname in this site but my own name (Jim Monaghan) most other places.  I make no secret of my name here but prefer to chat here as 'rinty' rather my own name as I am not here as a spokesperson for any person or group, I often am under my real name.

The latest on the case is that there is a further hearing on Oct 26 with the trial likely to be in Feb.

I would advise the mods to err on the side of caution when people discuss issues relating to evidence or witnesses in the actual trial as it is a live proceeding.  One earlier post refers to a newspaper story and isnt actually fact, yet is directly relevant to the case.
landg

landg wrote:
ehm, what happened to my post about sheridan going to jail?


there it is.
Stevie

I agree that people use their pseudonyms to say horrid things as they similarly do with smiley faces added to insults.  

There's no need for that, it's a childish lack of self control let loose.

I keep my identity secret because I don't need any political hassle because I live in another country.

I long for the day when it's the anti-independence Scots that no longer have the upper hand.  That day is coming judging by the poll Lochaber kindly posted.

Still, this thread could happily lose the ID debate in my humble opinion.

Can Tommy stand as an MSP?

If he can would it get the dogs off his back at all?

Can't K McKaskill do something?

I suppose these are old questions...
Alasdair

Bravehand wrote:
Can Tommy stand as an MSP?


Yes

Quote:
If he can would it get the dogs off his back at all?


No

Quote:
Can't K McKaskill do something?


I doubt it, but if he could a) why would he? and b) it would be a gross abuse of power.
Stevie

I got to thinking that if Tommy has a jury trial then it's likely he will have the sympathy of the jurors and a guilty verdict would be avoided.

It's not the same as Ken Dodd being let off by a Liverpool jury but he is well respected by my generation.

Unlike the snouts in the trough criminals in Westminster.
Holebender

For the MSP question, if he is convicted and if he is serving more than a one year sentence he can not stand as an MSP.

Furthermore, there is no sort of immunity from the law if you're an MSP, just ask Lord Watson of Prestonfield (Hotel).
Rinty

It's a jury trial Bravehand, and will be in Glasgow.
Alasdair

Holebender wrote:
For the MSP question, if he is convicted and if he is serving more than a one year sentence he can not stand as an MSP.


Are you sure, I thought it was something of a pre-requisite to be some form of crook/criminal if you intend on entering the political sphere?!
Holebender

Not one who gets caught though.
Stevie

I suspect Tommy will have at least half the jury on his side then.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Campaigns/Events...
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics