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 -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Rinty

Iain Hamilton QC on the Police and the Sheridans

Tommy Sheridan has been vindicated by a jury of his peers. A jury heard the evidence and awarded him damages. It is no part of the duty of our police to prove the jury wrong and a newspaper right.  Edinburgh and Lothians Police are conducting a vendetta against justice itself.

Who can curb these officers who are clearly out of control?

http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/wordpress/
azzuri

He is right enough.

The way Tommy Sheridan is being treated is disgusting in my opinion. He should be treated like everyone else and he clearly isn't. Who is behind this 'witch hunt'?...
Cymro

Quick question though. IF Sheridan and some of his family/defence have committed perjury or there are suspicions they have don't the authorities have a responsibility to investigate that regardless of cost? Would people be as critical if it turned out that there was an investigation into possible prejury by the likes of Tony Blair?

I don't know whether Sheridan et al have broken the law or not. But if there is doubt surely that should be investigated?
Reluctant Hero

But as someone said in another topic, why are Rosie Kane et al not getting investigated?
Rinty

Cymru, that would be a good point of it happened.  But this has never happened following a civil case in Scotland and in every court in Scotland, every day, it is reasonable to assume that one side is lying.

Judges often comment about the police fabricating evidence and yet no investigation follows.

The court case wasnt even over as the appeal has still to be heard.  

Why was it in the public interest to take on this investigation of all the potential perjury cases every day?  Tommy's case want even a criminal trial, it was civil lawsuit.
Aventinian

Reluctant Hero wrote:
But as someone said in another topic, why are Rosie Kane et al not getting investigated?


Presumably because the police didn't think they were lying, or don't believe such an allegation can be proven in a court of law.

The real question is why do Solidarity et al believe that there is some sort of 'witch-hunt' going on? With what justification? Admittedly, Tommy Sheridan does not make a lot of friends, and is something of a general annoyance to quite a few people - but he's no different from countless others. What would be the point of pursuing a vendetta against him? He's already lost his status and the only public attention he receives now is akin to coverage of a travelling circus act.
azzuri

Aventinian wrote:
Reluctant Hero wrote:
But as someone said in another topic, why are Rosie Kane et al not getting investigated?


Presumably because the police didn't think they were lying, or don't believe such an allegation can be proven in a court of law.

The real question is why do Solidarity et al believe that there is some sort of 'witch-hunt' going on? With what justification? Admittedly, Tommy Sheridan does not make a lot of friends, and is something of a general annoyance to quite a few people - but he's no different from countless others. What would be the point of pursuing a vendetta against him? He's already lost his status and the only public attention he receives now is akin to coverage of a travelling circus act.


You're right in a lot of what you say Av but it still doesn't make any sense.

Why THIS case? Why Tommy Sheridan? It certainly has the legal buffs baffled...
Anthropos

azzuri wrote:
Why THIS case? Why Tommy Sheridan? It certainly has the legal buffs baffled...


I watched Newsnight yester evening where Sheridan's spokesman comrade Hugh Kerr was interviewed about the case.

The interviewer started by asking him if he though perjury had taken place during Sheridan's court action, and Kerr agreed that it had.

Then he was asked if he agreed that perjury was wrong and a criminal offence, he agreed that it was.

He was then asked why, if he agreed that perjury had taken place, and that perjury was wrong, the police shouldn't investigate the matter.  All he could say was that perjury investigations didn't usually happen after civil cases.

He is factually correct, but just because it doesn't usually happen did not seem to me a good reason why it should not ever happen or not happen in this case.  Watching it  on television I got the impression that Hugh Kerr didn’t think he had given a particularly good account of himself during the questioning judging by the churlish way he ended the interview.  

If I understand correctly, after the civil action was over the police were ordered to investigate if perjury had taken place.  Presumably if they investigated and found sufficient evidence to charge people with that crime then I don’t see what exactly they should have done differently, should they have just have made a token investigation then claimed there was insufficient evidence and letter the matter drop?  In my opinion probably they should.
Holebender

I just wonder why the police spent so much time and energy on unrelated items like miniature bottles of booze. What do they have to do with perjury?
Aventinian

azzuri wrote:
You're right in a lot of what you say Av but it still doesn't make any sense.

Why THIS case? Why Tommy Sheridan? It certainly has the legal buffs baffled...


Well, for one I don't think Iain Hamilton is perhaps the most objective QC when it comes to matters political.

Why this case? I suppose there's been unprecedented public interest in it, and if indeed it is found to be perjury, it was quite open and blatant.

I think that makes more sense than suggesting that there are great interests that need to devote great amounts of thought to bringing down (is he even up?) Tommy Sheridan.
Aventinian

Anthropos wrote:
If I understand correctly, after the civil action was over the police were ordered to investigate if perjury had taken place.


That's a point, actually. Didn't the judge in the case specifically refer the matter to the police for consideration at the time?

Holebender wrote:
I just wonder why the police spent so much time and energy on unrelated items like miniature bottles of booze. What do they have to do with perjury?


As I understand it, they came across them during the search of the Sheridan's home, contacted BA to see if they'd like to make a complaint about it and that was more or less that.
Cymro

Aventinian wrote:


.....thought to bringing down (is he even up?) Tommy Sheridan.


Yes if you believe some of the stories about places he's said to have visited!
Rinty

No the judge didnt refer the matter. they proceeded following a complaint from a memberof the public.

The judge did make comments, before a decision was taken either way.  After the case the judge did register a complaint but it was re the actions of the lawyer that Tommy Sheridan sacked during the case and not regarding perjury.

If you followed the STV news story last week you will see that thousands of perjury claims are made after cases but they are usually rejected and in the case of civil cases are always rejected.  Only 0.01% of cases end up as trials and of those only a quarter see a conviction, all of them following a criminal not a civil case.

The questions being asked here is why the precedent, that it is a high profile politician involved or the judges comments doesnt answer those questions.

Judges make similar comments in many cases.  In the recent case of the man who accused of training 9/11 bombers, the judge made specific references to police officers involved, in the omagh bomb case just a few weeks earlier the same thing happened.  I am willing to bet that no perjury investigation will ensue from that judges comments.

In similar cases involving high profile politicians it was treated differently.  The two most famous would be Jonathan Aitken and Jeffey Archer.  

Archer was caught by one of his co-conpirators confessing, there was no police investigation.  Following the emergence of that evidence it was then clear that his wife lied in court but no investigation took place, never mind charges.  In the case of Aitken it was the Guardian who pursued him and without the help of the police.  When the evidence emerged against him the police politely asked him to attend a police station the next day which he did, no dramatic scenes a la the arrest of tommy sheridan.

Evidence turned up during the investigation is a different thing, that will now be a case for a jury in a court of law, that is not the point.  The question is why the inestigation in the first place.  At the start of the investigation the evidence was that witnesses contradicted each other in court, something that happens in every court case.  

We are not saying that evidence of a crime should not be tested in court (although the police seem to be hoping it is tested in the tabloids judging by their latest leaks).  the question is why this investigation, why the massive resources and will this now be the norm.

I cannot comment on the evidence against the seven people arrested but suffice to say I would be very surprised indeed if any the last six people arrested see a court case emerging from the charges.  

Hugh Kerr clearly stated that he thought that the NotW lied in court but didnt call for an investigation against them, the jury made that decision and he would, I imagine, question the public interest in pursuing people who lost the case anyway.

None of the points made here so far deal with the question of why?  If it wasnt Tommy Sheridan and it wasnt Rupert Murdoch then would it have gone ahead?  It hasnt before so why now?  If the NotW had won the case against Tommy would we have seen this investigation take place.

Their are reasons, based on sound information, for this campaign, it cannot all publicised but we have good reasons for making these claims from what we know of the investigation so far.

BTW, the investigation was launched follwing a complaint by former tory MSP Brian Monteith.  he said at the time that his reasoning for the complaint was the fact that Colin Fox sat on the Justice Committee, Tommy won the case, so he wanted Fox investigated for perjury.
Amber

That the investigation followed a civil rather than a criminal trial is irrelevant. The investigation was into allegations of a crime. Where and when a crime takes place should have no bearing on any decision to investigate.
Sheridan himself said he hoped others who gave evidence - those he claimed had lied - would be punished. He also welcomed the investigation.
We are seeing a Solidarity PR exercise.
Shouldn't we wait until we see the evidence before deciding whether Sheridan's supporters have a point? I mean, if the police simply rehash the evidence heard in the first trial, then there may be an argument that this has been a waste of time. If there is substantial new evidence, specifically evidence that suggests a conspiracy to commit perjury, then there is a compelling argument that this should have gone ahead.
Rinty

Quote:
"That the investigation followed a civil rather than a criminal trial is irrelevant. The investigation was into allegations of a crime. Where and when a crime takes place should have no bearing on any decision to investigate."


No it is THE relevant question.  The Crown Ofice have to consider whether it is in the public interest to pursue complaints of perjury.  As the STV report pointed out, that only happens in 0.01% of cases and NEVER in a civil case.

That is what makes it a precedent and, therefore, why we need to know why.

Quote:
"Sheridan himself said he hoped others who gave evidence - those he claimed had lied - would be punished. "


Did he?

Quote:
"We are seeing a Solidarity PR exercise."


Whats wrong with that?

Although it is not just Solidarity now with the wider left, mainstream press and legal establishment adding their weight to the questions.  For years we have seen a NotW "PR exercise" against Tommy Sheridan and the police are still leaking information of what they consider to evidence, to the press.  Why shouldnt Solidarity members fight back on the same terms.  We can write too, we can frame arguments in our own context too.  Should we just sit back and say that the press can say what they want but we cant reply?  Some of us dont roll over and submit when people like Murdoch come at you.

Anyway, the campaign is based on fact, facts that are now reaching the mainstream media.
Quote:

"Shouldn't we wait until we see the evidence before deciding whether Sheridan's supporters have a point?"


No, you miss the point entirely.  The question is why order the police to search for evidence in the first place.  No-one is saying that evidence of a crime shouldnt be tested in court (even if the police seem to want to test it in tabloids), what we want to see is the evidence BEFORE the investigation was launched that inspired the Crown Office to kick the thing off.  It couldnt have just been contradictory witness statements in court as that happens every day, it couldnt have been the judges comments as that also happens all the time.

Quote:
"If there is substantial new evidence, specifically evidence that suggests a conspiracy to commit perjury, then there is a compelling argument that this should have gone ahead."


What we are loking for is why the decision was taken.  Who was consulted and why set legal precedents on this particular case.

We are not asking anyone to drop cases if evidence is there, although that looks more likely as it progreses, we are asking to see why this was launched in the first place, why the huge resources, why the police tactics etc.
rosalittlehooses

Because it involves 6 people who were MSP's. Two of whom, at the time,  sat on the two Justice Committees. Add in the fact that these 6 were/are considered socialists, it becomes a gift for the state.

The 6 would know this. from the very beginning. Which would explain why some socialists did not  advocate for the defamation case in the first place.
TS used his judgement, his supporters and advisors used theirs as did those who contradicted him.

The result.......... a possible criminal case, a possible civil case, lots of police time, costs to the tax payer and a blow to the forces for change  in Scotland and the wider UK. But there is the chance that the police will have done a better job of investigating than than the scaby NOTW.

The NOTW is renowned for poor reporting and poor investigating. Whoever is telling the truth should have no worries.You should try to relax on this issue Rinty, you could turn those energies you use for TS towards  the obviously illegal, eg the war on Iraq.

Most of the people in our lands dont really care about TS, Solidarity, SSP and the NOTW but many do care about the war.

Que sera, sera
jimtrot

Reluctant Hero wrote:
But as someone said in another topic, why are Rosie Kane et al not getting investigated?


This question has been raised in time and again on this and other forums.  Usually under the guise of "Why has no one on the NotW side been charged?"  I think we have to assume that the reason is that there is no evidence of perjury being committed by Rosie and the others and, while having no wish to prejudge the matter that there is a prima facie case against those charged.  Of course we could also fantasise that the powers that be made the calculated decision that getting TS (the most iconic socialist politician in postwar Scotland) was a bigger coup than prosecuting three former MSPs and several prominent members of the Scottish Left and that the evidence against this working class hero is a total fabrication.

Another issue that has been raise ad nauseum has been the motives of the State in pursuing the perjury investigation.  It seems to me that those who excercise themselves on this matter are demonstrating a naivite bordering on idiocy.  Of course the Establishment was going to use this opportunity to inflict the maximum damage on the SSP and the Scottish Left in general.  Anyone with a functioning brain cell would have realised this.  TS was advised not to pursue the libel case and to let the matter die but for reasons of hubris he chose to ignore that advice and he is solely responsible for the situation that he and the others that he dragged into this quagmire find themselves today.  So let's ditch the smoking mirrors and all the crying over spilt milk.  The matter will be decided in the courts and all the speculations re the State's motives for  and the cost of the subsequent investigation are simply red herrings.
jimtrot

Rinty wrote:
Cymru, that would be a good point of it happened.  But this has never happened following a civil case in Scotland and in every court in Scotland, every day, it is reasonable to assume that one side is lying.

Judges often comment about the police fabricating evidence and yet no investigation follows.

The court case wasnt even over as the appeal has still to be heard.  

Why was it in the public interest to take on this investigation of all the potential perjury cases every day?  Tommy's case want even a criminal trial, it was civil lawsuit.


I don't know the truth of this statement re perjury in a civil case, Rinty but legal precedents have to start somewhere and is there a difference in law between perjury in a criminal case and perjury in a civil case?  I happen to be in general agreement with you re the Establishment  having an ulterior motive  in pursuing the investigation but I believe that the motive was to damage the Left in Scotland not simply to make a martyr out of Sheridan and he gave them the opportunity to do this.  I also believe that many who went with Solidarity are unwitting dupes in this process.
Dave Coull

Rosalittlehooses wrote “The NOTW is renowned for poor reporting and poor investigating”.

I can confirm this from personal experience. The NOTW did an article about me in which every single statement from them was either a downright lie or a complete distortion, and every single alleged “quote” from myself was in fact a MIS-quote.

I consulted a lawyer. He wrote to the NOTW on my behalf requesting access to a copy of a tape they had made of me, on the grounds that the tape was “data” which they held about me, and therefore I was entitled to access this data about me under the terms of the Data Protection Act. I was certain that their own tape would prove that every alleged “quote” of theirs was in fact a MIS-quote.

The NOTW simply ignored both that first letter and a follow-up letter. Probably they were well aware that the tape would prove what I was saying was true, but they figured I simply wouldn’t have the money to pursue the matter. They were right about that. In the end my lawyer advised me “Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire. The NOTW has dozens of very highly paid legal experts working for them, who specialise in this kind of thing, which I don’t. The NOTW never admit they were wrong about anything, they would prefer to let the matter go to court. And unless you are yourself a billionaire, going into court against the Murdoch Corporation, you are sure to lose. Where the likes of them are concerned, everybody is NOT equal before the law”.

I had to accept my lawyer’s advice, and, not being filthy rich, I was unable to pursue the matter further.

However, let’s try this. The particular News Of The World reporter involved in my case was Jaqueline McGhie. She is deceitful, dishonest, and untrustworthy. I hope she and the News Of The World sue me over that statement. I would then finally be able to bring the truth about them out in court.

Rosalittlehooses also says “Whoever is telling the truth should have no worries”    -    I agree that telling the truth leaves us with a clear conscience. As for lying, as my mother used to say, “what a tangled web we weave when we deceive”. Those who tell lies can have difficulty remembering the exact details of their lies, and can find difficulty in trying to keep their various lies consistent with each other. Of course the so-called “justice” system is, as a qualified member of that system advised me, loaded against the working class. But nevertheless I personally would have no problem over telling the truth in court. So, once again, here is a wee bit of the truth: the News Of The World is owned by a notorious disgusting hypocrite and liar, Rupert Murdoch, and his News Of The World reporter employee, Jaqueline McGhie, is deceitful, dishonest, and untrustworthy.
Amber

I think it would better to defame the news of the world reporter on your own website, Dave, rather than here where you put the site owners at risk of being sued.
The Sunday Herald - George Robertson case was a salutory lesson for us all in this regard.
Dave Coull

Amber wrote “I think it would better to defame the news of the world reporter”

It’s only defamation if it’s not true. What I have said about the News Of The World, its owner Rupert Murdoch, and his employee that particular reporter, is true. What the News Of The World said about me was false. I do not have the money to sue them, but I would be absolutely delighted if THEY were to sue me.

“on your own website, Dave”

I don’t have a website.
Rinty

"You should try to relax on this issue Rinty, you could turn those energies you use for TS towards  the obviously illegal, eg the war on Iraq."

I dont think you know enough about me to offer this advice.  We all choose to use our energies on various things and that doesnt mean that we are not doing anything else.  I am bewildered by your comment.

It is a bit like the right tabloid argument against fox hunting bans etc "MPs should be spending their time doing more important things", that fact is that they were, but we can debate things and work on things without excluding other things.

Part of my role IS to concentrate some efforts on this issue, but I dont think anyone could accuse me personally of not spending energies on the war and occupation in Iraq.

"Because it involves 6 people who were MSP's. "

Then, if that is the case, the Crown Office should have no problem stating this as the reason behind the precedent.  Of course it opens up a debate as all precedents do.  What is more in the public interests to pursue? the possibility of MSPs not telling the truth in a civil case about gossip in a tabloid, or the police lying in criminal cases.  And the six MSPs could easily all simply be remembering things in their own way.  Even the SSP witnesses against Tommy have conflicting memories of the meeting, it would seem to be a poor reason for the investigation, especially given that it would be almost impossible to prove what was said at that meeting to the level of proof required in a criminal charge.

Jimtrot: "I don't know the truth of this statement re perjury in a civil case, Rinty but legal precedents have to start somewhere and is there a difference in law between perjury in a criminal case and perjury in a civil case?"

Yes, Jim precedents do have to start somewhere but when they do they have long-reaching implications as they set a new standard.  The point is that, if we are launching investigations on this scale on a civil case, then people involved in criminal cases would feel that at least the same effort or resources should go into proving a case in that trial.  Also, the precedent is the whole point.  If we are setting a precedent then we should know why.  We are looking for an explanation of why it was decided that this would be the case that sets the precedent.

"This question has been raised in time and again on this and other forums.  Usually under the guise of "Why has no one on the NotW side been charged?"  I think we have to assume that the reason is that there is no evidence of perjury being committed by Rosie and the others and, while having no wish to prejudge the matter that there is a prima facie case against those charged."

The question is not whether the NotW wre charged, it is why they were not investigated to the same extent.  The assumption should be that perjury could have been committed by any witness in the case.  If the various journalists and others involved have had phone records checked against their story, their computers seized and checked, the police demanding minutes and handwritten notes of meetings that that is fair enough.  If, from the start of the case, the police went in with a pre-conceived idea of who was comitting a crime then it looks like a one-sided investigation.

I personally and most people I know, would not be asking why SSP members are not charged.  Most of the SSP members involved were mostly talking about events at a meeting.  I wouldnt see it as in the public interest to pursue this as I dont think that the details of that meeting can be proved to the level of proof required in a criminal case.  But some NotW witnesses could not offer any evidence of their allegations and you would think that this would at least raise enough suspicion for the police to be at least as vigilant investigating their evidence.

"TS was advised not to pursue the libel case and to let the matter die but for reasons of hubris he chose to ignore that advice"

Not by the SSP he wasnt.  I have heard this re-writing of the history of the events many times but it is simply not true.  Individuals may have 'advised' tommy, I wouldnt know, but the SSP didnt advise him to drop the case.  The SSP decision was simply to separate the party from the case.  If Tommy wanted to pursue it he had to step down as convenor to do so.  The SSP never had a policy of Tommy not taking the case.
jimtrot

Rinty wrote:


Jimtrot: "I don't know the truth of this statement re perjury in a civil case, Rinty but legal precedents have to start somewhere and is there a difference in law between perjury in a criminal case and perjury in a civil case?"

Yes, Jim precedents do have to start somewhere but when they do they have long-reaching implications as they set a new standard.  The point is that, if we are launching investigations on this scale on a civil case, then people involved in criminal cases would feel that at least the same effort or resources should go into proving a case in that trial.  Also, the precedent is the whole point.  If we are setting a precedent then we should know why.  We are looking for an explanation of why it was decided that this would be the case that sets the precedent.


I really wish you would stick to the point, Rinty, instead of repeating the same old tired mantra or maybe it isn't so old since I seem to recall that at the outset TS and, I believe yourself on his behalf in you capacity as Press Officer for Solidarity, said that he would be happy to have an investigation.  I wonder if you would be so concerned now with the "waste" of public resources if the evidence had pointed in the other direction.  But, perhaps you could answer my question.  Is there a difference in law between perjury in a civil case and perjury in a criminal case?  And I'd add another one do you believe that perjury is a serious offence and should be prosecuted?  I happen to agree with you about the lack of action in the cases of lying by the police but perhaps in future, this affair will prevent the Establishment from sweeping them under the carpet.

Quote:
"This question has been raised in time and again on this and other forums.  Usually under the guise of "Why has no one on the NotW side been charged?"  I think we have to assume that the reason is that there is no evidence of perjury being committed by Rosie and the others and, while having no wish to prejudge the matter that there is a prima facie case against those charged."

The question is not whether the NotW wre charged, it is why they were not investigated to the same extent.  The assumption should be that perjury could have been committed by any witness in the case.  If the various journalists and others involved have had phone records checked against their story, their computers seized and checked, the police demanding minutes and handwritten notes of meetings that that is fair enough.  If, from the start of the case, the police went in with a pre-conceived idea of who was comitting a crime then it looks like a one-sided investigation.


Where did you get such precise details of the course of the investigation?  Could you post them for the illumination of the rest of us?  Please tell us how you can make this statement re the lack of the inevstigation into the NotW.  Even if what you say is correct, I could hazard a guess that the initial inquiries indicated the direction that the investigation should take but that is only speculation and I'll leave that to you.

Quote:
I personally and most people I know, would not be asking why SSP members are not charged.  Most of the SSP members involved were mostly talking about events at a meeting.  I wouldnt see it as in the public interest to pursue this as I dont think that the details of that meeting can be proved to the level of proof required in a criminal case.  But some NotW witnesses could not offer any evidence of their allegations and you would think that this would at least raise enough suspicion for the police to be at least as vigilant investigating their evidence.


This is just semantics, Rinty, you know very well that if the NotW had been charged then that would have indicated that its witnesses had lied and, in all probability. they would have been charged too.  So, in calling for the NotW to be charged you are , in effect, calling for those who gave evidence for the defendant in the case to be charged.

Quote:
"TS was advised not to pursue the libel case and to let the matter die but for reasons of hubris he chose to ignore that advice"

Not by the SSP he wasnt.  I have heard this re-writing of the history of the events many times but it is simply not true.  Individuals may have 'advised' tommy, I wouldnt know, but the SSP didnt advise him to drop the case.  The SSP decision was simply to separate the party from the case.  If Tommy wanted to pursue it he had to step down as convenor to do so.  The SSP never had a policy of Tommy not taking the case.


Where did I say that the SSP advised Tommy not to pursue the case?  Talk about rewriting history.  I'll repeat.  Sheridan, through, in my opinion, a combination of arrogance and stupidity decided against the adivice of his comrades to go ahead and when it came to saving his skin was willing to sacrifice his party, principles comrades and friends.  A decision that has had dire consequences for the Socialist project in Scotland.  We could bandy words here ad infinitum but we both know the truth of the matter and for reasons known only to yourself, you decided to take the course you did.  Only don't try to pretend it was for reasons of integrity and truth.
Rinty

"But, perhaps you could answer my question.  Is there a difference in law between perjury in a civil case and perjury in a criminal case?"

I dont know why it is a relevant question, but yes there are many differences in law between a civil case and a criminal case.  As a press officer, one difference is in subjudice considerations, also the burden of prof is different.

Howver, the point I am making re this is that we want to know why it is in thepublic interest to allocate the resouces to this,when in the past it hasnt happened in civil cases and has happened in only 0.01% of criminal cases.  There is a difference in consideration for action, in my opinion.  If a PF has to decide in te public interest, it wouls eem to be logical to see the more serious crimes as the ones that need more resorces to investigate.

"And I'd add another one do you believe that perjury is a serious offence and should be prosecuted?"

Yes.  But yu are confusing two issues.  We se judges making comments about perjury in cases all of the time, often against the police.  The issue here is why an investigation into perjury in this case as a priority over those ones.  The point on whether a law was broken is a separate issue that can be dealt with in a court case.

"you know very well that if the NotW had been charged then that would have indicated that its witnesses had lied and, in all probability. they would have been charged too"

I disgree with this totally.  In a perjury investigation all evidence from each withness could be perjury and that has no bearing on the other witnesses.  I dont think there would be any merit in investigating the SSP members re that meeting but do think that some Notw witnesses might still be charged.  I would happily bet that this will not mean that that all of their witnesses will be charged. You are mistaken if you think it works that way.  In fact, most lawyers I hace spoken to are surprised that Tommys witnesses have been charged as it usually DOESNT happen that way, despite your claims.  When Archer was caught lying it mean his wifes evidence in court was also a lie yet she wasn't charged.  Perhaps you can cite me an example to back you claim?

"Sheridan, through, in my opinion, a combination of arrogance and stupidity decided against the adivice of his comrades"

No it was against the advice of SOME comrades.  You have no way of knowing what advice he was given and by how many people.  I ignore the advice of friends all the time,  am sure you do too.  Tommy decided to take the case about a week after he was asked to resign.  By that stage he wasnt talking to many of his comrades and I doubt whether he would listen to them after the meeting the previous week.

So the advice of his friensds and/or comrades is irrelevant to this in my opinion and is a bogus argument.
jimtrot

Rinty wrote:
"But, perhaps you could answer my question.  Is there a difference in law between perjury in a civil case and perjury in a criminal case?"

I dont know why it is a relevant question, but yes there are many differences in law between a civil case and a criminal case.  As a press officer, one difference is in subjudice considerations, also the burden of prof is different.


I am quite well aware that there are differences between civil and criminal cases. Rinty but that wasn't my question.  I will reframe the question. Is there a difference in law between committing perjury in a civil case and doing so in criminal case?


Quote:
Howver, the point I am making re this is that we want to know why it is in thepublic interest to allocate the resouces to this,when in the past it hasnt happened in civil cases and has happened in only 0.01% of criminal cases.  There is a difference in consideration for action, in my opinion.  If a PF has to decide in te public interest, it wouls eem to be logical to see the more serious crimes as the ones that need more resorces to investigate.



As I said previously, I agree that the State has an ulterior motive in pursuing this case but you and I differ on what that motive is as I said on an earlier post.  But, I'll reiterate.  Why did you wait so long to argue that an investigation was/is / would be a waste of public resources?  Initially TS's line (and yours) was that such an investigation would be welcomed as he had nothing to fear and I'll ask again, Would you have been so concerned about public interest and resources if those on the other side of this sad affair had been charged?

Quote:
"And I'd add another one do you believe that perjury is a serious offence and should be prosecuted?"

Yes.  But yu are confusing two issues.  We se judges making comments about perjury in cases all of the time, often against the police.  The issue here is why an investigation into perjury in this case as a priority over those ones.  The point on whether a law was broken is a separate issue that can be dealt with in a court case.


No confusion, Rinty.  You are the one employing obscurantist circumlocution.  Are you saying that because the State for whatever reason does not prosecute some crimes, it should not prosecute any.  Back to Hobbes' "state of nature" is it?  Let's take an analogy.  We know that the State in many cases refused to prosecute members of the Armed Forces for shootings in Ireland but when there was clear evidence, they were forced to.  Would you argue that they shouldn't have because they hadn't in other cases?

Quote:
"you know very well that if the NotW had been charged then that would have indicated that its witnesses had lied and, in all probability. they would have been charged too"

I disgree with this totally.  In a perjury investigation all evidence from each withness could be perjury and that has no bearing on the other witnesses.  I dont think there would be any merit in investigating the SSP members re that meeting but do think that some Notw witnesses might still be charged.  I would happily bet that this will not mean that that all of their witnesses will be charged. You are mistaken if you think it works that way.  In fact, most lawyers I hace spoken to are surprised that Tommys witnesses have been charged as it usually DOESNT happen that way, despite your claims.  When Archer was caught lying it mean his wifes evidence in court was also a lie yet she wasn't charged.  Perhaps you can cite me an example to back you claim?


It wasn't me that branded them as liars, Rinty.  It was Sheridan on the steps of the court and if they had lied under oath do you think they should have been prosecuted?  As for Archer, he probably copped a plea.  Maybe that's a route someone else should consider.

Quote:
"Sheridan, through, in my opinion, a combination of arrogance and stupidity decided against the adivice of his comrades"

No it was against the advice of SOME comrades.  You have no way of knowing what advice he was given and by how many people.  I ignore the advice of friends all the time,  am sure you do too.  Tommy decided to take the case about a week after he was asked to resign.  By that stage he wasnt talking to many of his comrades and I doubt whether he would listen to them after the meeting the previous week.

So the advice of his friensds and/or comrades is irrelevant to this in my opinion and is a bogus argument.


Yes, Rinty I've often ignored good advice and lived to regret as I think TS will for the reasons I have given.  But in saying that, i never attacked the authors of the advice I ignored in the most offensive and insulting terms possible because of my own stupidity.  Nor have I ever dragged my dupes down with me.
Rinty

Jim, constantly repeating that I am not answering your questions is a bit pointless when I continue to answer them.  You may not like the answer, it may give you an idea for a follow up question, but I will continue to answer.

Quote:
Is there a difference in law between committing perjury in a civil case and doing so in criminal case?


There is a difference, and this is the whole point of the campaign, in how police and the Crown Office treat it in terms of whether it is in the public interest to pursue an investigation into whether perjury was committed.  In Scotland, this has never happened before.  What I want to know is why is this the one that is important.  There is also a diference, obviously, to the victims of crminal offences, especially those who have faced police committing perjury in court.  I, and many others, want to know why the details of the NotW stories, already decided by a jury and going through an appeal process, is seen as more important than police lying.

Quote:
Initially TS's line (and yours) was that such an investigation would be welcomed as he had nothing to fear and I'll ask again, Would you have been so concerned about public interest and resources if those on the other side of this sad affair had been charged?


Yes I would be concerned. I see no public interest in it at all.  And I still think that the other side will see charges as well as the seven so far.

Tommy's initial reply was the stock answer to these things, the information that launched the Deefend Tommy Sheridan case came much later.  Sometimes it makes sense to give s stock answer to the press and ity was in the aftermath of SSP members calling for the enquiry and welcoming it. (I dont remember making a statement at the time and didnt say the same as Tommy so I dont know why you say it is or was "my" line)

If. for instance, there was evidence that one of the witnesses against Tommy had given a false statement in court then I dont see the public interest in the money spent to uncover that or a prosecution.  Especially as there was an appeal process going on with the NotW proposing to provide fresh "evidence".  In effect what has happened is that the new evidence or hints at possible evidence, have been investigated with the full resources of the police behind them.  The stories that the NotW were 'working' were passed on to police to do them instead, at the taxpayers expense. I dont see the public interest in terms of allocation of resources.

Quote:
Are you saying that because the State for whatever reason does not prosecute some crimes, it should not prosecute any.  Back to Hobbes' "state of nature" is it?  Let's take an analogy.  We know that the State in many cases refused to prosecute members of the Armed Forces for shootings in Ireland but when there was clear evidence, they were forced to.  Would you argue that they shouldn't have because they hadn't in other cases?


It's a bad analogy and I am saying the opposite of that.  A better analogy would be me comparing the resources and effort spent on an investigation into the shooting of a soldier against that of the resources spent on a soldier shooting a civilian.  If I questioned why clear evidence against a soldier was not pursued when flimsy avidence against a civilian went head than that would NOT be the same thing as saying no-one should be investigated for murder.

I dont invent the reality of our justice system, that reality is that, due to limited resources, the Crown Ofice and police have to prioritise cases and in 99.99% of cases, according to STV, dont see it as 'in the public interest' to allocate resources to perjury investigations into criminal cases.  In civil cases it is slightly more, as 100% of cases are not investigated.

Now, I dont see the problem with questioning why this was prioritised and asking why such large resources were spent on it.  There was a perjury investigation follwing the Chokar murder case.  A fraction of the money and police hours of this case were spent on that.  Don't you think it is legitimate for the Chokar family's lawyer to ask why, if the Crown Office can treat the NotW gossip so seriously, they couldnt do the same for a racist murder?

The rest of your post is just insult trading and not the norm for debate on our-scotland, so I wont get involved.
jimtrot

Rinty

1)   Continually asserting a claim doesn't make a fact.  So claiming that perjury in a civil case is different from committing perjury in a criminal case doesn't make it so.  I'll ask again and try to make my question a bit clearer.  Is it or is it not the case that committing perjury  in a civil case the same crime as committing as committing perjury in a criminal case?

2)   What's a stock answer?  And what does that imply?  Are you saying that TS was at that time actually concerned about what the investigation would uncover?  Was his original position only bravado?

3)   I think we are agreed that the State had an ulterior motive in commencing the investigation, i.e It was out to inflict the maximum possible damage to the Left in Scotland but that motive didn't determine the direction that the investigation would take or the outcome.  In other words the State doesn't really care who they get, rather their aim is to get someone but my concern. as I've said before is the damage that this sorry mess has and, no doubt, will inflict on the Left.

4)  Where are the insults?  Did TS or did he not describe his former comrades as liars and scabs?  If my language was a tad over emotional then I apologise but couched in that language were the facts of the affair  and I certainly don't apologise for recounting them.
Rinty

"1)   Continually asserting a claim doesn't make a fact.  So claiming that perjury in a civil case is different from committing perjury in a criminal case doesn't make it so.  I'll ask again and try to make my question a bit clearer.  Is it or is it not the case that committing perjury  in a civil case the same crime as committing as committing perjury in a criminal case? "

Jim you keep twisting the question to ones that are irrelevant no matter how often I answer your direct questions.  What you are asking is if a crime is a crime and the anxswer to that is, of course.  BUT (a big but) our demand is to establish why this case was given priority,  No-one is claiming that crimes shouldnt be investigated.  What we are saying is that, given this doesnt happen in the normal course of events, why now? So, yes perjury is a crime no matter what case it is committed in.  

Now, if we can get back to the subject, perjury investigations (that is to establish if there actually was a crime) are expensive and difficult to prove, so much so that in all but 0.01% of criminal cases where perjury was alleged, and in no civil cases, the Crown Office decide that it isnt worth pursuing in the public interest.

In this case a different approach has been taken.  We are asking why, we are not suggesting for one second that crimes shouldnt be investigated.

"2)   What's a stock answer?  And what does that imply?  Are you saying that TS was at that time actually concerned about what the investigation would uncover?  Was his original position only bravado?"

No, I didnt say anything even remotely like that, can't you read?  The stock answer to press questions is often a consideration of follow up reporting.  I dont think you will find a statement where Tommy says, that he welcomed such a waste of public money and such ridiculously over the top police tactics.   What subsequently happened was the information that led to us asking questions re the nature of the investigation.  At that stage it is legitimate to pass that information on and to start asking questions.

"3)   I think we are agreed that the State had an ulterior motive in commencing the investigation, i.e It was out to inflict the maximum possible damage to the Left in Scotland but that motive didn't determine the direction that the investigation would take or the outcome.  In other words the State doesn't really care who they get, rather their aim is to get someone but my concern. as I've said before is the damage that this sorry mess has and, no doubt, will inflict on the Left."

If this ever comes to court you will hear why I and others dont agree with this premise.  This investigation was loaded from the start.

"4)  Where are the insults?  Did TS or did he not describe his former comrades as liars and scabs?  If my language was a tad over emotional then I apologise but couched in that language were the facts of the affair  and I certainly don't apologise for recounting them."

The main insult was referring to people who disagree with you as dupes.  Tommys opponents also called him a liar and a monster.  Tommy retracted the scabs statement and I disagreed with it, ask anyone in the SSP my view on using the word scab.  So I dont see why you are bringing this to me.

We are having a dicussion on the nature of and the reasons for the current police investigation.  That you bring up all this internal squabbling suggests to me that your vision is clouded by dislike of Tommy, for whatever reason and you cannot separate the two.  Tommys choice of words against his former comrades is not relevant to the current police investigation.  Is it?

Our-Scotland would no benefit from a rehash of the internal squabbles so let's deal with the issue in hand.

I am going to put all of these sheridan related threads together by locking the others and concentrating all debate on this subject in one thread.  We might as well make it this one.
Amber

Maybe, Rinty, they gave this priority because there was a weight of evidence, such as a video on which we - allegedly - heard Tommy Sheridan admitting that he had gone to the swingers club but that he would sue anyway because there was no proof.
Rinty

"Maybe, Rinty, they gave this priority because there was a weight of evidence, such as a video on which we - allegedly - heard Tommy Sheridan admitting that he had gone to the swingers club but that he would sue anyway because there was no proof."

Yes, perhaps Amber. Or perhaps it is the other reason you gave in an earlier post.  I. and the others involved in this campaign would like to know why.  It should not be a problem for the Crown Office to state clearly why they decided this course of action.

The video didnt feature Tommy Sheridan at all in any part of it.  What we see is a video of George Mcneilage and an 'audio' of what sounds like Tommy, saying things that might be construed as an admission, depending on the context.  

However, That tape would have been tested in a court during the appeal anyway so I dont see how it is in the public interest to allocate public money to do it at that stage.
Amber

But, Rinty, if the tape is genuine, it is concrete evidence of a crime. Why would the police wait to see how it fared in an appeal.
There are tests that can be done on such video/audio. If those tests proved it's genuine, then it's game over.
Rinty

Yes but we don't know if it is genuine or if this was the catalyst for the investigation.  

"If those tests proved it's genuine, then it's game over."

If those tests are presented in court and convince a jury the it will affect a perjury decision, but what tests are you talking about?  Of course it will be up against other experts with other conclusions from tests.

You are not suggesting that the Crown Office would hang a £1M case on voice recognition are you?  It is way down the list of the level of proof required for a criminal case and very difficult to pin down, so I assume that you are referring to other tests.

The courts could have looked at the tape in the appeal case without it costing the public purse or police resources, then, if the police were not satisfied with the outcome, look into it further.

I doubt that the tape is the reason for the investigation.
jimtrot

Rinty wrote:
"1)   Continually asserting a claim doesn't make a fact.  So claiming that perjury in a civil case is different from committing perjury in a criminal case doesn't make it so.  I'll ask again and try to make my question a bit clearer.  Is it or is it not the case that committing perjury  in a civil case the same crime as committing as committing perjury in a criminal case? "

Jim you keep twisting the question to ones that are irrelevant no matter how often I answer your direct questions.  What you are asking is if a crime is a crime and the anxswer to that is, of course.  BUT (a big but) our demand is to establish why this case was given priority,  No-one is claiming that crimes shouldnt be investigated.  What we are saying is that, given this doesnt happen in the normal course of events, why now? So, yes perjury is a crime no matter what case it is committed in.

Now, if we can get back to the subject, perjury investigations (that is to establish if there actually was a crime) are expensive and difficult to prove, so much so that in all but 0.01% of criminal cases where perjury was alleged, and in no civil cases, the Crown Office decide that it isnt worth pursuing in the public interest.

In this case a different approach has been taken.  We are asking why, we are not suggesting for one second that crimes shouldnt be investigated.


God!  That was like pulling teeth but now maybe we'll get somwhere.  First of all, lets do away with the red herrings.  the questions raised by yourself and others  about the motives for and the cost of the investigation might, I'm willing to concede, be valid questions but let's say that all your suspicions on these matters were confirmed, would you agree that any prima facie case against anyone that the investigation uncovered should be tested in court?


Quote:
2)   What's a stock answer?  And what does that imply?  Are you saying that TS was at that time actually concerned about what the investigation would uncover?  Was his original position only bravado?"

No, I didnt say anything even remotely like that, can't you read?  The stock answer to press questions is often a consideration of follow up reporting.  I dont think you will find a statement where Tommy says, that he welcomed such a waste of public money and such ridiculously over the top police tactics.   What subsequently happened was the information that led to us asking questions re the nature of the investigation.  At that stage it is legitimate to pass that information on and to start asking questions.


What I'm asking here is why didn't Tommy or any of his supporters raise the issue of cost, etc. at the time.  While no one, obviously, could have made a precise calculation of what it would cost in terms of money and manpower, it was a pretty good guess, given the number of potential witnesses involved that it would be costly so why wasn't this issue raised at the outset and not after charges had been or it became apparent that they would be brought.  You'll recall better than me the first time the issue was raised.

Quote:
"3)   I think we are agreed that the State had an ulterior motive in commencing the investigation, i.e It was out to inflict the maximum possible damage to the Left in Scotland but that motive didn't determine the direction that the investigation would take or the outcome.  In other words the State doesn't really care who they get, rather their aim is to get someone but my concern. as I've said before is the damage that this sorry mess has and, no doubt, will inflict on the Left."

If this ever comes to court you will hear why I and others dont agree with this premise.  This investigation was loaded from the start.


Can you elucidate?

Quote:
"4)  Where are the insults?  Did TS or did he not describe his former comrades as liars and scabs?  If my language was a tad over emotional then I apologise but couched in that language were the facts of the affair  and I certainly don't apologise for recounting them."

The main insult was referring to people who disagree with you as dupes.  Tommys opponents also called him a liar and a monster.  Tommy retracted the scabs statement and I disagreed with it, ask anyone in the SSP my view on using the word scab.  So I dont see why you are bringing this to me.

We are having a dicussion on the nature of and the reasons for the current police investigation.  That you bring up all this internal squabbling suggests to me that your vision is clouded by dislike of Tommy, for whatever reason and you cannot separate the two.  Tommys choice of words against his former comrades is not relevant to the current police investigation.  Is it?

Our-Scotland would no benefit from a rehash of the internal squabbles so let's deal with the issue in hand.


I've already apologised, Rinty, but imho the only alternative to "dupe" is willing cohort.  That's not intended as an insult.  Either a person believes Sheridan's version of events or they don't and if as I believe, TS is lying then any person who supports him must fall into one of these two categories.

Quote:
I am going to put all of these sheridan related threads together by locking the others and concentrating all debate on this subject in one thread.  We might as well make it this one.


Good idea.
Amber

Rinty wrote:
Yes but we don't know if it is genuine or if this was the catalyst for the investigation.  

"If those tests proved it's genuine, then it's game over."

If those tests are presented in court and convince a jury the it will affect a perjury decision, but what tests are you talking about?  Of course it will be up against other experts with other conclusions from tests.

You are not suggesting that the Crown Office would hang a £1M case on voice recognition are you?  It is way down the list of the level of proof required for a criminal case and very difficult to pin down, so I assume that you are referring to other tests.

The courts could have looked at the tape in the appeal case without it costing the public purse or police resources, then, if the police were not satisfied with the outcome, look into it further.

I doubt that the tape is the reason for the investigation.



The tests - I assume - would be on whether the tape is spliced and manipulated. Tommy Sheridan has already conceded his voice is on there. It shouldn't be too difficult, then, to find drop-outs or changes in frequency when another voice is dropped in.
Of course, maybe when Tommy said he was on the tape it was just a "stock answer".
Rinty

Tommy said that he recognised parts of the conversation from a conversation he had with mcneillage, not at the house where the video is filmed but in a car.  He didnt say that it was his voice just that parts of it could be.

The tests you refer to would not be considered accurate enough from court if second hand.  By that I mean that if he made an audio tape then played it on a tape recorder while filming the other parts then we wouldnt have the opriginal tape so the tests you refer to would be speculative, poluuted by the noise of the video recroding and the background noises fromthat house where the tape was made.

the best those sort of tets could do would be to make claims that it was spliced undecided, they couldnt prove one way or another whether the audio itself was made as a continous tape.

Again, I cant see that being the basis for a police investigation.  Neither you nor I have sen the full tape.

The actual words said on the audio tape could be place in many contexts and are not proof as such of anything as they are non-specific to the details required to prove perjury.

The pretty obvious flaw in the video tape is that Tommy doesnt appear in it.  The producer of the tape, McNeillage, would have made sure he filmed Tommy if it was actually him in the room.  wouldnt he?
Amber

You're obviously a greater expert than me. I'm afraid I'm a littlle confused by this part of your answer:


"The tests you refer to would not be considered accurate enough from court if second hand.  By that I mean that if he made an audio tape then played it on a tape recorder while filming the other parts then we wouldnt have the opriginal tape so the tests you refer to would be speculative, poluuted by the noise of the video recroding and the background noises fromthat house where the tape was made.

"the best those sort of tets could do would be to make claims that it was spliced undecided, they couldnt prove one way or another whether the audio itself was made as a continous tape."


It's like word jazz.
Rinty

Quote:
"It's like word jazz."


It shouldnt be, I will try to say it a simpler format for you by telling a wee story  Wink

I tape a conversation betwen two people on an audio recorder.  If I then give you that tape, an expert could determine certain aspects regarding the accuracy of the tape and whether it had been edited.

But, if I play this tape through speakers and film it, recording the sound of the tape through a video camera's microphone, then pass you this video tape instead of the original audio tape, the expert would not be able to determine the same things with accuracy.  

The reason for this is that the stops and starts that are measurable are that of the video recorder, not the original tape recorder and the additional background noises added from the video recording of the tape.

The best an expert could do in that situation was to establish that the other side couldnt prove it a fake any more than they could prove it accurate.
Amber

Rinty wrote:
Quote:
"It's like word jazz."


It shouldnt be, I will try to say it a simpler format for you by telling a wee story  Wink

I tape a conversation betwen two people on an audio recorder.  If I then give you that tape, an expert could determine certain aspects regarding the accuracy of the tape and whether it had been edited.

But, if I play this tape through speakers and film it, recording the sound of the tape through a video camera's microphone, then pass you this video tape instead of the original audio tape, the expert would not be able to determine the same things with accuracy.  

The reason for this is that the stops and starts that are measurable are that of the video recorder, not the original tape recorder and the additional background noises added from the video recording of the tape.

The best an expert could do in that situation was to establish that the other side couldnt prove it a fake any more than they could prove it accurate.



I suppose if it was recorded on a video camera and is the original copy, they could prove that.
Rinty

Possibly, amber, to an extent, but the video does not have Tommy Sheridan in it, so we are not talking about the video tape as such but the audio parts of it.

Then of course there is the case of whether what is actially said by that audio track does constitute a confession to anything.  All most people have seen are the dited clips from NotW showing what they consider to be the most convincing parts of it.  The video tape is about 45 minutes long and at no time does Tommy appear in it.

As I have said before, no PF in the country would hang a case on voice recognition so the video tape is probably not as importan as you think.

I dont see it as being the reason for this investigation.  You originally said that the reason was the high-profile witnesses and now you are saying it is the video tape.

We can see from recent events with Alexander, Gordon et al that being a high profile politician does not mean that the crown office will instigate an investigation. I think the tape is also unlikely to be the reason.
Amber

Rinty wrote:
Possibly, amber, to an extent, but the video does not have Tommy Sheridan in it, so we are not talking about the video tape as such but the audio parts of it.

Then of course there is the case of whether what is actially said by that audio track does constitute a confession to anything.  All most people have seen are the dited clips from NotW showing what they consider to be the most convincing parts of it.  The video tape is about 45 minutes long and at no time does Tommy appear in it.

As I have said before, no PF in the country would hang a case on voice recognition so the video tape is probably not as importan as you think.

I dont see it as being the reason for this investigation.  You originally said that the reason was the high-profile witnesses and now you are saying it is the video tape.

We can see from recent events with Alexander, Gordon et al that being a high profile politician does not mean that the crown office will instigate an investigation. I think the tape is also unlikely to be the reason.


I suppose they may have some other evidence. There was a thing in the Sunday Mail saying that, using cell location technology, Tommy's phone had been located at cupids on a night he denied being there. That would be strong evidence if it was true.
Rinty

You see the trouble with the police leaking 'evidence' to newspapers is just what has been highlighted by your post.  You say that the report claimed that police had evidence of "Tommy's phone had been located at cupids on a night he denied being there".

What the actual report said was that they had evidence of a his phone in the 'vicinity".  This was not clarified as to whether that meant within a street or two, whether it meant manchester or an even wider vicinity, and it did not state which night or whether it conflicted evidence of others or just Tommy.  Of course, it is a newspaper report and not, as yet, confirmed.  If this evidence is produced in a court case, then it should be tested in court.

I am aboslutely sure that you are wrong in this being the reason.  If it was the case then it would mean that police had this evidence before the investigation was launched.  I think you are again confusing the debate about the reasons behind launching the investigation with the newspaper gossip about possible evidence uncovered in the investigation.

Your interpretation of the Sunday Mail piece shows the danger of police leaks to press.  If you were a juror then that report would have damaged the right of the defendant to a fair trial.
Amber

I think any argument about a case being undermined by leaks to the press is undermined by the fact Solidarity has been revealing things to the press.
For example, I can find no record of police confirming specific charges against rosemary byrne and others. In fact, those charges were confirmed by Solidarity spokesman Jim Monaghan.
Anyway, on the matter of the phone. If it was anywhere near cupids when Tommy Sheridan testified he had phoned from home then he's in trouble.
Rinty

"For example, I can find no record of police confirming specific charges against rosemary byrne and others. In fact, those charges were confirmed by Solidarity spokesman Jim Monaghan."

The police issued a press statement confirming that a 59 y-old woman had been charged with perjury.  I confirmed that this was Rosemary.  The first Solidarity member to be charged after Tommy was charged one week before the press found out and I responded when the press started to ask.

Besides, that is far from being the same thing as leaking evidence. Confirming that someone has been charged does not influence the outcome of a case or a jury.

You are entirely wrong on the sequence of events re the charges.
Amber

I see.
I suspect Solidarity of leaking information in order to create an argument where they cry "no fair. information's been leaked".

And didn't police say a woman had been charged in connection with a perjury investigation?
Rinty

"I think any argument about a case being undermined by leaks to the press is undermined by the fact Solidarity has been revealing things to the press. "

Then you dont understand the law.  The contempt of court laws that relate to subjudice and the reporting of cases is entirely for the protection of the defendant's right to a fair trial, reporting agsinst the prosecution case does not have the same restrictions.  What you seem to be suggesting is that evidence will be considered admissable, even if tainted by press reporting, based on the fact that the other side did it too.  I think you will find that argument would be laughed out of court.

It is plain to see that if people go in to a court believing that evidence exists of Tommy being in the club based on phone tracking, or that he has confessed in a video tape, that could influence the outcome of the case.  But a Solidarity press release confirming that some of their members had been charged couldnt.

The NotW are not stupid and have expensive legal advice.  I am sure they knew when they released the 'video' that their reporting of it could jeopardise the chances of it being used in evidence.  But they went ahead anyway suggesting, to me, that they thought it would be more valuable to their case to get the biased reporting of the tape out there, than to test it in court.

Even Solidarity press releases accusing the police does not undermine the defendants right to a fair trial so you are wrong in this case as well.  Solidarity opinion on the case does not 'undermine' the decisions on whether evidence is considered to be tainted or not.
Rinty

"I suspect Solidarity of leaking information in order to create an argument where they cry "no fair. information's been leaked"."

Then why didnt we say anything when the conrades were charged?  The first of the recent charges took place one week before press started asking questions, the second two days later and the third the day before.  Rosemar Byrne was charged on the tuesday yet the press did not become aware until the Friday.  When they started asking questions it was regarding Rosemary Byrne and had no knowledge of the fact that Jock Penman and Graeme McIver had been charged.  They later found this out from press releases from L&B police. When Gail and Gus were charged a few days later (tiesday) the press were again unaware of the fact that Pat Smith had been charged on the Sunday before.  If we were leaking this to the press we were not doing a very good job were we?

Can you tell me why you suspect Solidarity of this.

You came to this forum stating that I should be more interested in stopping the war in Iraq, yet since, you have only contributed on one issue.  After your arguments being answered, you are now reverting to accusations based on nothing.

Tell me why you suspect this and what evidence you have for it? It seems your whole argument is a SSP-good/Solidarity-bad argument.
Amber

I have never said anything on this board about stopping the war in Iraq. Please keep your revisionism for your own party and its current circumstances. And I'm a supporter of neither the SSP nor Solidarity.
Rinty

My apologies, it was rosalittle hooses that said that, despite only posting about Tommy sheridan herself.  You are an entirely different person.

Not revisionism, just a little mistake.

Dont suppose you are going to offer any evidence on your claims that solidarity are behind the police leaks?
Amber

There you go again, Rinty, putting words in my mouth.
I didn't claim Solidarity was behind the leaks, I said I suspected it.
I suspect it because I believe Solidarity will do whatever they can to avoid a trial.
Rinty

"I suspect it because I believe Solidarity will do whatever they can to avoid a trial."

Didnt you notice that the first trial was instigated by Tommy?  Tommy Sheridan took the NotW to court and won, he was well aware of the likely follow-up consequences.

So your suspicions are based on absolutely nothing?  Just like your arguments.
jimtrot

Rinty wrote:
"I suspect it because I believe Solidarity will do whatever they can to avoid a trial."

Didnt you notice that the first trial was instigated by Tommy?  Tommy Sheridan took the NotW to court and won, he was well aware of the likely follow-up consequences.

.


True but if you get a flukey win you're not usually too keen to have a rematch.
Amber

Rinty wrote:
"I suspect it because I believe Solidarity will do whatever they can to avoid a trial."

Didnt you notice that the first trial was instigated by Tommy?  Tommy Sheridan took the NotW to court and won, he was well aware of the likely follow-up consequences.

So your suspicions are based on absolutely nothing?  Just like your arguments.


So Sheridan went to court aware that he and six others would later be charged with perjury?

Good to see, though, that you recognise Sheridan instigated action. This, of course, weakens the ludicrous notion that he's the victim of a state stitch-up.

My arguments, as you put them, are based on close examination of the initial trial.

Here's a deal you might consider. If Sheridan is found not guilty, I'll apologise and make a donation of 50 quid to a charity of your naming.

If he is found guilty, will you apologise for spinning on his behalf and make a donation to Rape Crisis?
Rinty

Quote:
So Sheridan went to court aware that he and six others would later be charged with perjury?


I didnt say that and you know it.  He went to court knowing that the NotW would do anything to stop paying out when he won, knowing that they wouldnt accept defeat.

Quote:
Good to see, though, that you recognise Sheridan instigated action. This, of course, weakens the ludicrous notion that he's the victim of a state stitch-up.


Now you are just being silly, arguing like some teenager.  Tommy instigated a court action gainst the notW.  Lots of people do this. When the police and crown office decded to get involved, that was what you refer to as a 'stitch-up'

Quote:
My arguments, as you put them, are based on close examination of the initial trial.


Not that close, you werwe wrong on the judges comments.  Perhaps, as you observed the original trial so closely, you will be able to venture an opinion on why the only person caught red-handed giving innacurate evidence during the trial hasnt been charged yet?

And justice in this country is (thankfully) based on how the jury see the evidence, not on your interpretation of a journalists interpretation in whatever paper you read about the trial in.

Quote:
Here's a deal you might consider. If Sheridan is found not guilty, I'll apologise and make a donation of 50 quid to a charity of your naming.


Wat kind of deal is that?  Where is the reason for me to get involved?  I can see no reason for deals with you.

Quote:
If he is found guilty, will you apologise for spinning on his behalf and make a donation to Rape Crisis?


Why should I donate to rape crisis based on some court result that I have nothing to do with?  I dont 'spin' I present a case for why we should be explaining to the public why we have set such an expensive precedent and I put facts on the table here that you cannot counter.
Rinty

Jimtrot,

I am still waiting for you to supply us with the evidence that Tommy called people a coven of witches!  I mean, you out such an importance on it, I wouldnt like to think that it was based on chinese whispers.
Amber

Rinty,

You don't present facts I cannot counter.
For what it's worth, I do not believe that there is a massive state and judicial stitch up. You can offer no facts in support of your claim.
All you do is present a set of circumstances and add your own twisted interpretation.

I believe that Tommy Sheridan stands a very good chance of going to prison for a long time.

And don't insult my intelligence - of course you spin on Tommy Sheridan's behalf.

I look forward to the outcome of this unpleasant business.

Amber
Rinty

Ok amber.  

You offer no reason for your beliefs, you could not counter my arguments for your original statements being wrong and, once again, you dont want to answer my questions.  You claim to have followed the original case but I would imagine that anyone who followed the original case would be aware that a witness gave innacurate evidence during the case, the judge pulled the witness up about it, and the witness admitted it. Surely you have an opinion as to why that person hasn't been charged.

This whole thread was about the reasons for and the conduct during, the police investigation.  You have added nothing to this debate other than you insistence that you think Topmmy Sheridan is guilty of a crime.

I am happy to leave it at that and wait to see what will come out of the investigation.

the facts remain that no civil case in Scottish legal history has been folowed by a perjury investigation.  The investigation was not launched because of the judges comments or because of the profile of thos involved or (your later claims when your first ones fell) because of rumours of evidence that appeared in newspapers a year later.
Amber

It's irrelevant whether it was a civil or a criminal trial. A crime's a crime, Rinty.
Rinty

But it is not irelevant when it never happened before! There is no crime.

It is entirely relevant to ask why the first instance of a perjury investigation in a civil trial has happened.  The judge yesterday said that Heather Mills gave innacurate evidence.  I would take your £50 bet that there will be no perjury investigation.

I notice that you again avoid the question of the witness caught red handed in court.
jimtrot

Rinty wrote:
Jimtrot,

I am still waiting for you to supply us with the evidence that Tommy called people a coven of witches!  I mean, you out such an importance on it, I wouldnt like to think that it was based on chinese whispers.


I'm actually still looking into it but I feel that I might have been wrong in attributing that remark to Sheridan and if that is indeed the case, I apologise and unreservedly withdraw the remark.  However given the diatribes that TS was prone to at the time, re. Scabs, liars and gender-obsessed discussion groups, etc., it's easy to see how I was confused.  We can all make mistakes, Rinty.  After all you attributed a remark to Amber that was a lot less than 18 months old and on this thread.

I, too, am waiting for a reply to my last post.  Namely to this question.  Given that you have finally admitted that perjury in a civil case  is the same crime  as perjury in a criminal case, do you agree that any prima facie case that the investigation has uncovered against anyone should be tested in court?  I would appreciate an unequivocal answer devoid of weasel words about State plots and the motives of the investigation.  In other words, try to stick to the point.
Rinty

Quote:
I'm actually still looking into it but I feel that I might have been wrong in attributing that remark to Sheridan and if that is indeed the case, I apologise and unreservedly withdraw the remark.


No need to apologise, it would be more useful if you questioned those who spun this lie for the last two years, their motives and start to perhaps question their other allegations.

Quote:
However given the diatribes that TS was prone to at the time, re. Scabs, liars and gender-obsessed discussion groups, etc., it's easy to see how I was confused.


It is easy to see how you made this mistake, because some in the SSP encouraged you to belive that it was true.

Quote:
I, too, am waiting for a reply to my last post.  Namely to this question.  Given that you have finally admitted that perjury in a civil case  is the same crime  as perjury in a criminal case, do you agree that any prima facie case that the investigation has uncovered against anyone should be tested in court?


You cannot be serious!  I have answered both of those questions several times.  As I said, evidence uncovered in an investigation should be tested in court.  As for a crime being the same in civil cases then YES it is the same crime.  However, it is never judged to be 'in the public interest' to investigate whether a crime was comitted re perjury in a criminal case.

What I am arguing has never been about whether or not crimes should be investigated or whether perjury is a crime in any case.  What I am satying is that prior to this case, it has never been considered to be in the public interest to investigate.  The Scottish legal system differentiates in respect of civil cases when deciding to investigate perjury, up until now.  It is reasonable to ask why it is in this case that they choose to set a precedent.
jimtrot

Rinty, either you have literacy problems, a poor grasp of English or you are being deliberately obtuse or perhaps any permutation of all three.  Firstly, no one. in the SSP or anywhere else, encouraged me to believe anything that I have said.  My stance is taken from my own experience of the events and the  people involved and my error was due to a misrecollection on my part.  Secondly, and this refers to the remarks I've made at the start of this post, nowhere in your posts do I recall you giving an opinion on whether anyone, against whom there is a prima facie case should stand trial.  So perhaps you can clear this issue up.  Do you, or do you not think that any such person shoud stand trial?  A simple yes or no will suffice and the is no need for any red herrings or confusion of issues.
Rinty

Quote:
Firstly, no one. in the SSP or anywhere else, encouraged me to believe anything that I have said.  My stance is taken from my own experience of the events and the  people involved and my error was due to a misrecollection on my part.


I am surprised as plenty of people in the SSP repeated this lie re Tommy, to the point of it being a constant joke re women on broomsticks etc.

I find it strange that you didnt notice this, didnt hear the allegations and came to an independent conclusion exactly the same as the allegations being made by your party members, without noticing them making the claims.

Quote:
Secondly, and this refers to the remarks I've made at the start of this post, nowhere in your posts do I recall you giving an opinion on whether anyone, against whom there is a prima facie case should stand trial.


There wasnt a prima facie case in this instance otherwise we wouldnt have had to have a £1m investigation.  As I said, criminal evidence should be tested in court.

I answered yes to both of your questions in your last post.  I see no point in doing so as you continue to pretend that I am not answering, but I will keep trying.

Quote:
So perhaps you can clear this issue up.  Do you, or do you not think that any such person shoud stand trial?  A simple yes or no will suffice and the is no need for any red herrings or confusion of issues.


A simple yes didnt suffice in my last post so I am at a loss as to how I can satisfy you.

I dont belive that this was a prima facie case.  But I do belive that anyone who has enough evidence against them should see that evidence tested in court.  I also believe that perjury is perjury no matter whether it was in a civil or crminal case.

What I am talking about, however, is whether it is in the public interest to pursue perjury investigations in civil cases, especially those still subject to appeal. And why this case was the one to set the precedent.
jimtrot

Quote:
Rinty said:  You cannot be serious!  I have answered both of those questions several times.  As I said, evidence uncovered in an investigation should be tested in court.  As for a crime being the same in civil cases then YES it is the same crime.  However, it is never judged to be 'in the public interest' to investigate whether a crime was comitted re perjury in a criminal case.

What I am arguing has never been about whether or not crimes should be investigated or whether perjury is a crime in any case.  What I am satying is that prior to this case, it has never been considered to be in the public interest to investigate.  The Scottish legal system differentiates in respect of civil cases when deciding to investigate perjury, up until now.  It is reasonable to ask why it is in this case that they choose to set a precedent.


Here is the relevant excerpt from the post you refer to, Rinty.  Where does it answer the question as to whether you think that anyone should stand trial if there is a case against them?   Maybe we shoiuld add dementia to the growing list of problems from which you seem to suffer.  but, I'll repeat the question.  Do you think that a person against whom the investigation has produced evidence of having committed a crime should stand trial.  I don't know how I can make the question any clearer.  Maybe you should get Hugh Kerr to clarify it for you although that would be the blind leading the blind.
Rinty

"Do you think that a person against whom the investigation has produced evidence of having committed a crime should stand trial."

You must be mental.  The edited 'excerpt' from my post answers the relevant questions from your previous post even though I have answered several times, no matter how often you change the pedantics/semantics of the questions.

Yes.  For the fifth time.  

BUT (a big but) I still do not see why this particular case was the precedent for investigating whwether there might be evidence.  At the start of the investigation there was no evidence other than the evidence that witnesses had contradicted each other, whichh happens in every case.
jimtrot

Rinty wrote:
"Do you think that a person against whom the investigation has produced evidence of having committed a crime should stand trial."

You must be mental.  The edited 'excerpt' from my post answers the relevant questions from your previous post even though I have answered several times, no matter how often you change the pedantics/semantics of the questions.

Yes.  For the fifth time.  

BUT (a big but) I still do not see why this particular case was the precedent for investigating whwether there might be evidence.  At the start of the investigation there was no evidence other than the evidence that witnesses had contradicted each other, whichh happens in every case.


Deary me, Rinty.  Abuse?  From a moderator?  Tut, tut.  I didn't want put words into your mouth.  If by employing the phrase "Tested in court," you mean that such a person should stand trial then there is no problem but I didn't want to misinterprate your meaning.  It's just that you seem rather loathe to give a clear and unambiguous answer rather you incessantly raise the issue of the State's motive in initiating the investigation.  An issue with which you seem obsessed.  Compulsive Obsessive Behavoiur Syndrome, do you think?  

But, back to the issue.  Given that a number of persons have been charged and, assuming the PF thinks that they have a case against them, what relevance has the State's motives to do with the strength of that case?
Amber

Rinty,

your obssession over why the police tried to find evidence is ridiculous.
We might reasonably assume they believed they would find evidence and then sought it.

Your sophistry is transparent.

Amber
jimtrot

Rinty wrote: