h

Neil

Radio has just announced that Tommy has won. Doesn't say if it is the full £200,000but I suspect so.

SLG

On News24 at the moment. Took the jury less than three hours to decide on the verdict. He has won the £200k.

skip

i dont stand shoulder to shoulder with tommy sheridan with all my politics but ive got to say his speech outside the court was gripping stuff. was a bit like galloway appearing at the senate committee. The watching media knew they were going to get something pretty explosive and he delivered as usual. He put the boot into shoddy journalism and the NOTW in angry fashion.

Also he couldn't pass the chance to promote the case of independent socialist scotland, removal of poverty, attack on new weapons and the israeli war machine in lebanon. This was broadcast simultaneously on news 24, radio scotland and 5Live - aside from the court action, this was (in my opinion) the clearest political message from a socialist for a couple of years. It kind of reminds me what they are missing.

I'm interested to see what happens next and the reaction from other socialist party witnesses who gave evidence

SLG

That's the next big issue, eh. What's going to happen within the SSP. Tommy is in a very strong position now though.

I agree about the speech - as good a speech as I've heard from a Scottish politician. He used his platform to maximum effect. Was disappointed to hear Radio Scotland actually cut off the end of it though (his Greta winning the European Cup analogy).

jema

Haven't cought the speech yet, but very good news even though i hear the barstewards are planning an appeal.

October1974

The newspapers is to appeal - so it's not over yet. How can the SSP MSP's work together after this?

Just saw Caroline Leckie on BBC saying 'she will defend her honour in court if needbe'

SLG

Who ever lost was always going to appeal. They always seem to do in these sort of cases. It would take a big turnaround for them to win any appeal though.

Looks like Tommy will be back in for the leadership, meanwhile Leckie and McCombes are not backing down. Fox seems to be quite conciliatory though.

macnumpty

STV (I refuse to use the lowercase) reported that he's going to challenge for the Convenership.. the question is, after all this, will there actually be a party to lead?

Reluctant Hero

Fantastic result.

The speech Sheridan made after he came out of the court even featured on the Beebs News at Six. It was a brilliant speech because it must have been tempting to let his five plus weeks of frustration out, but he conveyed himself with controlled intensity.

Let's not under-estimate the magnitude of this result. To represent yourself against the fire-power that the NOTW could afford to employ was nothing short of David vs Goliath.

A very good day for justice and Scottish politics Cool

Reluctant Hero

For anyone who hasn't seen his speech, if you click on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

In the Video and Audio news menu half way down there is a topic "Sheridan on defamation win". Click on that.

George

Thanks for that Reluctant Hero, I hadn't seen Tommy's speech. I have to say that it was very stirring, his passion for an independent Scotland was clear and will probably do the independence movement no harm at all. The establishment must be concerned that such a charismatic advocate of independence will now appeal even more to disgruntled Labour voters especially if he once again becomes the official figurehead of the SSP. Incidently I remember many years ago a young Tommy coming down to Greenock to block the entrance by sherrif's officers to the home of my mothers neighbour. The unfortunate old soul was the lucky recipient of a warrant sale notice because she couldn't pay her debts. Tommy, along with others, barricaded himself inside the womans house and stopped the sale of her posessions.

azzuri

I'm delighted for Tommy. He's had muck thrown at him from every possible media outlet and he's beat the bastards. I think he was right to bring this case against the NOTW and he has beaten them having represented himself in court - overcoming massive odds!

As far as I'm concerned, I think this will propel his political career to new heights. It remains to be seen what happens to those who betrayed him within the SSP. I think they'd do well to apologise to him in private and back him at the conference to be National Convener. They will never realistically be able to speak out against him again - so he'd be better harnessing any political talents they have to his advantage and at the same time being seen as the bigger man by allowing the SSP in it's current form to continue.

If the SSP splits, no one is a winner - especially not those who support Scottish Independence.

Morph

but in some voters eyes the SSp will now be the same as the Liberals were after the political assasination of Charles Kennedy IMO. Kane et al may have done a lot of damage to the party that even tommy may not be able to heal

azzuri

...what has come out of this clearly Morph is that the SSP needs Tommy Sheridan a lot more than he needs them. It would be complete lunacy for the SSP not to acknowledge this and appoint him Convenor. Lets hope Tommy can make this be seen as a victory for both the SSP and himself - that will hopefully help heal the wounds caused in the party.

Morph

I agree that this has been shown, however it also shows the way some members of the party turned on him so quickly, this may have caused the party lasting damage.

azzuri

I agree, but I think Tommy can heal that damage. He has guaranteed himself political weight for years to come with this victory - he can use some of that to the SSP's advantage.

The SSP now needs a strong leader (I know technically they don't have one!) to heal the wounds created by this case. Tommy can and I believe will do this.

Morph

but will he want to go back. I know that Tommy is a strong politician who does very well for his party, but how much personal hurt wiull have been caused by his fellow party members. Might he not, instead of joining the SSP again, create, as stated above, another independant party along ther same lines as the SSP

azzuri

Does he have the heart to start from scratch again though? I don't think I would have it given all the time he (and others) have put into the SSP.

Morph

He could join a smaller organistation and make them more mainstream. I have little knowledge of any Socialist groups below the SSP in terms of popularity. Although if anyone could help that would be great

Rinty · h

Morph,

The SSP were not against Tommy in this case, on the contrary, they have shown nothing but support for him. Don't make the mistake of thinking that a small group of prominent members make up the party. We have 3,000 members in 72 branches, trades unions affiliated to the party and a mass of support in communities.

At the conference in 2005, after Tommy had stepped down and all of the rumours and stories has been heard by all of the members, Tommy romped home in the Executive Council elections with the most votes ever recorded for that body.

The following year, just 6 months ago, Tommy won the vote to be party Chair overwhelmingly.

At the recent emergency National Council just prior to the court case (150 branch and trade union delegates), the rank and file membership defeated Alan McCombes and others over the strategy for the case and backed a motion that called for "Full political solidarity with comrade Sheridan in his court case against the News of the World".

If anyone will form a breakaway party it will be the others, not Tommy, in my opinion.

He took the opportunity in his press speech outside the court to re-iterate his and the partys commitment to an independent Scotland. He did that because the same group had already started suggesting to the press and others that Tommy would join Respect and dump independence. This was just gossip and designed to split the party. The CWI and SWP are two factions in the party that do not support independence but gave full support to Tommy Sheridan in the case. The suggestions were that Tommy had done a deal with them and he was for the off. It was nothing more than wishful thinking in my opinion.

Colin Fox's statement last night gave me hope. I suspect we will need to go back to go forward and it will not be easy.

We will see an almighty internal battle that will be painted as an attempt to win back the party by some, I see it more as an attempt to destroy what is left before splitting.

Cado

What are the theories kicking around as to why this 'group' within the SSP have it in for TS?

It defies rational explanation from my perspective - TS was a 100% asset to them, he got them where they are today. There have been many comments that the bulk of the party grass roots have a lot of support for TS - I also think he has a lot of respect outside the party also.

Why is this group out to nobble him? I can't make sense of that. The parallel between this and what happened to Kennedy is interesting, again a group within the party (the LibDems) nobbled one of their main assets - both these events are non-sensical IMO.

I understand full well that political parties will be stacked full of ambitious people - each with their own specific view of how they'd like things to be - but to let their judgement fail in such as way as to damage the a party (or any other for that matter) just seems daft. Splits and some difference is good (IMO) - it allows people to see the on-going development of thought and policy within a party, a party with zero splits or difference only exists if everyone within it is a clone.

So - the SSP, what was it? A difference of ideology?, stategy, outlook, jeolosy as to TSs public standing?

What ever your political outlook I think everyone needs to give TS credit - he has built a political movement from scratch - he is an exceptionaly rare character in politics - most other politicians come in on the coat tails of other - talk the talk, walk the walk and smarm their way up the party ranks - they often have very little of their own ideas, enterprise - they're often just middle management types. Even party leaders are just taking over a going concern - very few people can lay claim to creating one.

TS is an entrepaneur within the business of politics - the others are just 'employees' in many regards within a business he's built up. IMO.

Could this be the clash - TS is a 'free-thinker' which the others can't match, that they're out of TSs league and they realise this?

Quick Edit:

ps..this has probably been discussed many times before - feel free to tell me to get off my arse and do some sifting through previous posts....

Reluctant Hero

I read today that Kane, Leckie and another (can't remember if it was Byrne or Curran) issued a statement which pretty much said that they would be unwilling to be reconciliary towards Tommy Sheridan.

If that is the case then I think they are facing political extinction. In fact, did the SSP not withold nominations in the region that Kane is MSP for until after the case?

The thing that surprises me, when I have gone to events where the SSP have been at a couple of years ago, Sheridan and Kane seemed to be best of friends. Or was that just my imagination?

I can see people in Glagow continuing to vote for the SSP at the next election, but outwith Glasgow, I can see their support diminishing. May have to take one step back before they can go forward again.

This case has been a win - win situation for the British establishment regardless of the outcome, because it knocked the left wing movement back a few years. Hopefully the votes lost by the SSP will go to the SNP and then we can shove it right up the establishment.

Morph

could it have been the case RH that it was friendly to advance the lesser ones career? And Kane kicked Sheridan when he was seemingly down, even by his comparison to him being like gretna winning against Madrid in the European final it seemed he thought he may not win.

I agree though that this full senario has affected the SSP in a big way. But i suppose only time will tell.
The fact that Kane, Leckie and the other will not reconciliary is silly. It would be the bigger thing to swallow your pride and say you were wrong and sorry.

Neil

Anthropos

Anthropos

Cado

Civil Court is a world away from Criminal Court.

From my reading of events the whole thing boiled down to "Yes, you did" "No, I didn't" - the jury (a lay and random selection of us, the public) then picks the side they beleive the most. Its all on 'balance of probabilites". The NoTW openly stated in Court (I think) that they willingly embellished the story - bang, that was it done and dusted IMO.

Civil court is just were two sides go to settle an argument about ANYTHING - I'm sure there have been cases of the size of the neighbours hedge - anything and everything. The wider public listens to both sides and then picks a winner, the judge then rubberstamps the outcome ensuring that the result is 'just' and remains within the law.

For Perjury to come to court someone needs ot complain to the police, the police need to investigate and gather evidence, this is sent to the Procurator Fiscal who decides whether to procede or not (public interest/chance of conviction), if it goes ahead it then goes to criminal court where the crown needs to prove beyond all reasonble doubt to a jury that X knowingly lied in court.

So, Perjury is a world away from what happened here - this was just two parties setteling a public disagreement in public using a civic forum which is provided - Civil Court.

What happens now? I think its encumbant on TS to hit the ground running, use the momentum he's gained. The NoTW say they're going to mount an appeal - if he can build his standing amoungst his target constituents enough between now and then - the NoTW will be on very shakey ground - communities don't like the Tabloids and their weathly owners going after their 'heros'.

I'm just thinking of what happened to the Sun in liverpool after Hillsborough - the Sun basically called all Liverpuddlians idiots and blamed the whole disaster of them - to this day the Sun has struggled to shift really any of its papers in Liverpool - the community basicaly banded together to give them a big FO!.

TS could put the NoTW in a similar position by building on this to boost his standing. I wouldn't be surprised if the NoTW back down at some point - everyone SAYS they're going to appeal - doesn't mean they do they, they'll need to take stock of their position in a broader commercial sence. However I think the NoTW have managed to piss off about everyone in the UK, painting it as the slander rag of the 'evil empire' won't do TS any harm at all, doubt there are very few people who are going to stand up and defend the NoTW credibility.

Cado

Quick addition here but something just occured to me.

Perjury and civil court cases.

Civil Court cases come along all time time - people sueing for defamation etc.

Both sides go to court, both sides say that they're right - a jury chooses.

If you want to take this to the logical conclusion - by definition then the Jury is saying that the loosing side is telling lies and must be guilty of perjury.

But this rarely happens - otherwise the loosing side in many civil cases would be immediately marched off to the cells.

OK, getting into technicalities here. Take Archers - when he won his first court case (saying that he didn't shag some woman) - by definition there and then the other side in that case (the mirror?) could be construed to be commiting perjury because they had stated in court that he had (shagged someone else).

You see my point?

I think this perjury thing is going to all flat - otherwise it would happen after every case.

ie John Leslie - got himself vindicated at court over those allegations that he'd diddled ulrika, by definition ulrika should have ended (or whoever made the claims) up in prision becasue presumably they turned up and said the claims where true - but it didn't happen.

Likewise in criminal court when a defendend is found not guilty - doesn't this mean that the assertion by the prosecution that he/she is guilty is a lie?

Jusr because one side won and another lost doesn't automaticaly mean the other is guilty of perjury - otherwise the loosing side in any and every case would get done.

I don't know! Just 'muddeling' things through. Some thoughts.

neil8r

Neil

A civil case works on the balance of probability whereas criminal law requires beyond reasonable doubt. That the jury decided the balance was with Tommy (on the important stuff) would not warrant convicting anybody on the other side beyond reasonable doubt - except the editor who said the NOTW doesn't lie of course - as a journalist they should throw away his key.

What would be required would be for one of the NOTW's tarts to change her story - again.

IF Convenor

Why there can be no perjury investigation (Herald op ed)

It puts me in mind of the famous Oscar Wilde V. the Marquess of Queensberry defamation case. In that case, Wilde lost and was immediately arrested and tried in criminal court for committing homosexual acts. In that case, the verdict was taken to mean that Wilde had committed the acts alleged by Queensberry and a criminal case proceeded on that basis.

jema

Been thinking about Archer a bit, years after the case he won, it all bounced back on him in a big way Laughing

Now Archer must have thought his arse was quite well covered and the risk was worth taking, but Tommys arse we are lead to believe was decidedly uncovered Wink

and the number of witnesses that could come forward to condemn him at any time would be rather large.

He would have to be incredibly stupid to think that if the allegations were true he could escape the truth forever.

Rinty · t

jema, archers case is very different.

there is no chance of a perjury charge and little or no chance of an appeal.

An SSP member (ex member now probably) has handed in her handwritten notes to the police. t cocnsist of a lined pad with handwriting on it Rolling Eyes

She may as well write "OJ killed his wife" on a piece of paper and give it to the police as her handwriiten notes mean nothing in evidence.

Unless someone turns up with a tape or some other forensic or physical evidence the this will also be a case of ome persons word against another.

Insteda of archer you should look at the Bruce Grobelar case, that might be more appropriate.

Amber

Unless someone turns up with a tape, eh?

So, court next month Rinty.