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.

Rinty

Still to be decided if the court cases will go ahead Amber. You are misreading earlier reports re court dates. If a trial is to go ahead there will be a short hearing in September (probably) but the court wont start in earnest until next year.

We should know very soon which, if any, of the seven cases will go ahead.

You are right that the 'certain tape' was the catalyst for a perjury investigation but it wont be the basis of the case against Tommy and/or others. The crown office know this and that is why they spent millions and nearly two years trying to get evidence that gives them a better case.

The tape is tainted to a large extent as evidence due to the way it was used by the NotW and is only an audio tape despite trying to sell it as a video. The video only contains George McNeillage, not Tommy.

I cant see the Crown Office wanting to go into court with voice recognition as their hope of winning. Because Tommy isnt in the video ity is still much the same as the other evidence, one persons word against another. That might be enough for a civil case but not a criminal case.

Amber

Rinty

Theres loads of evidence Amber, as you would expect from an investigation into the court testimony of over 20 people. You rely on reports of the evidence in newspapers so it is understandable that you have a limited knowledge.

I know what evidence is being put forward so far by the police against the seven people charged. In a few weeks there will be a clearer idea of whether there will be courts cases, and what specific charges there are and what specific evidence the charges are based on.

But you will be disappointed if you are waiting for a trial in September. At some point in September the Crown Office will make it's decision and a short formal hearing will follow, if any charges are to proceed. As I said, any trial would then be next year.

The Crown Office will not go ahead with the mcneillage tape as their main evidence as it amounts to very little and certainly not enough to hang a criminal conviction on.

Amber

I hear there will definitely be a trial. You do know that they're past statements and onto precogs, Comical Ali, don't you?

Rinty

"I hear there will definitely be a trial."

No decision has been made yet Amber, but you get to hear so much from so many people, you will, no doubt, have a special 'in' on the information. Perhaps you can eloborate an 'a trial'? Does this mean that you have heard that there will only be one trial and not seven?

"You do know that they're past statements and onto precogs,"

Well, they are at both stages actually Amber, with some people still being interviewed in recent weeks for statements and some people already giving precogs, it's not an either/or thing. I gave a precog to one lawyer for one of the accused a long time ago.

Amber

Rinty

"The crown may take statements without then proceeding, but not precogs."

The Crown have "proceeded" with two of those charged some time ago, maybe you missed it. Your 'revelation' of being a step from statements to precogs just highlights your lack of understanding.

There are seven people charged, two of those cases have proceeded. While intitial statements were still being gathered in some cases others were taking precogs in other cases.

This is not news or evidence of any development on whether this will go to trial or not. The proceeding with the charges against Gail and Tommy were well documented at the time.

There will be a decision taken soon on whether to take any or all of the cases to trial. Your guessing and readings things that arent there wont get you anywhere, you will just have to wait and see.

But why dont you answer my question?

Once again you have told us that you have 'heard' this or that. You have contacts in every aspect of everything Smile

Did you hear that "a" trial is to proceed? If so, did your mole tell you how many trials?

"Look forward to your evidence."

Why?

Amber

I'm looking forward to your evidence because you claim to have evidence that proves the innocence of those charged.

Rinty

I cant discuss evidence here Amber.

You seem to be ignoring my questions again.

Is it because you hadnt 'heard' a trial was going ahead and that you made it up?

Amber

No, Rinty. I don't make things up.
Latest I'm hearing is preliminary hearing will now be October.
Looking forward to your evidence.

Rinty

Amber, all of this is common knowledge to anyone who is involved in any way. You come on hear talking about court in september and now have changed it to october, you say you have heard there is a trial but cant say who and how many trials. Now you have finally caught up and refer to a preliminary hearing.

You cite 'statements and precogs' as some sort of sign on whether trials go ahead or where the situation is at the moment. You are clearly making it up as you go ahead.

I know the exact dates of when the next development is. You will just have to be patient.

I know this is your obsesion but you need better contacts and information or you will just have to wait.

The decision on whether a trial will go ahead has not been taken, whoever is telling you that it has is bullshitting you. Up until very recently the police were still being told to investigate and find more or better evidence as the Crown were not willing to proceed with what they had. That investigation is now more or less complete and a decision will be nade soon. If there is to be a trial, a preliminary hearing will follow soon after that.

Your just an ambulance chaser with a few gossip merchants who 'inform' you with whispers, more gossip and half truths.

Move on amber, you have nothing to do with this case and it is obvious from your posts that you have absolutely no knowledge of what you are talking about. otherwise you would have mentioned the one significant development in recent weeks.

Look at your last nonsense re Kenny Ross. Turned out to be rubbish and yet you have no shame about coming back on here with more rubbish.

Amber

Stop distorting what I said.

Simply, I said there would be court action next month (then corrected myslef).

I also said I had been informed that we would see a trial (actually trials).

These trials will be next year.

Rinty, you clearly have no knowledge of what's going on. You are, after all, the man who insisted until charges were laid that, er, no charges would be laid.

As for one major development - there have been more than one in the last month.

Rinty

Oh amber, you corrected yourself after I had told you. Its pathetic. You have no idea what is going on other than the gossip you hear, usually misinterpreted. You thought there would be a court case in september - just days ago!

There has been a development recently re whether the court proceeding move forward or not. You are not aware of that until now.

Yet you claim there are "major" developments in the last mont.

There has not been more than re dates etc, there couldnt be. The other developments are just you making things up again.

Ambulance chasers like you think that they are fooling people with your made up inside info, but in this forum you are fooling no-one.

Now you are claiming that there will be more than one trial when yesterday it was "a" trial.

Dont you get bored making a fool of yourself time after time?

Amber

Rinty,

There have been a number of developments. Don't attack me if you haven't heard about them.

I note you aren't claiming now that the Sheridans' case won't go ahead.

Amber

Rinty

Groan....

I have no idea what major developments you are talking about. And I am sure that you are not going to eloborate, just your usual whispers, insinuations and hints. I am not 'attacking' you just pointing out that all of your other inside info turns out to be nonsense.

I have no idea whether a case will go ahead and neither do you. Opinions on this are divided. What I do know is that the Crown Office were not happy to go ahead at the last police report and required firyther invesitigation and more evidence. That has been the ongoing situation for two years now.

Perhaps your major developments are the catalyst for a trial going ahead, how would I know? The Crown Office havent made a decision yet.

When you restarted this old thread you claimed a court case in September. When I pointed out the facts to you, you then changed your 'info' to reflect what I told you.

If you know of developments outside of the dates for the next step in the proceedings then good for you. But, you should treat whoever is giving you the info with care as they usually tell you rubbish.

Amber

Actually Rinty, I initially said September because that was my most recent information. I corrected that to October, based on solid information from a contact. It had nothing to do with your response and no sensible reading of our exchange would support your claim.
It is hardly surprising that you know nothing of a number of major developments, given that you previously claimed there would be no action, just days before Sheridan was arrested and charged.
Soon enough, you'll learn the truth. Clearly you're not getting that from your solidarity "comrades".

Rinty

"Actually Rinty, I initially said September because that was my most recent information. I corrected that to October, based on solid information from a contact."

Your contact simply cannot have 'solid' information yet. The date will be set when the decision is made. Your contact, like me and others would make a good guess at October as a reasonable and usual time from when the decision is expected but no date is set.

"It is hardly surprising that you know nothing of a number of major developments"

I don't know of any 'major' developments. I dont believe there are any.

"Soon enough, you'll learn the truth. Clearly you're not getting that from your solidarity "comrades"."

What puizzles me is how you have gone from someone with only a fleeting interest in this and no political membership or allegiances to someone with the inside knowledge from police, crown office etc.

My information on this comes from several people involved, only two of whom are in solidarity.

The other side of the original case, the SSP and NotW, are not kept informed of any of this (or at least shouldnt be) and it is a case between the crown and seven people, the only place your 'information' could come from is the Crown office, the police or Tommy's legal team.

I doubt very much that you are receiving information from the Crown office. Are you saying that the police are passing information to SNP activists so that you can reply on a trivial blog? Why would these contacts feel the need to inform you, someone who claims to have no connection to the case? Do they know you are now repeating it on the internet? I mean, it should be as easy to track down who is giving you information as it was the police leaks to the press. Dont you fear jeopardising this person's position.

Whetever these major developments are it seems odd that they would come so late in the investigation. Unless of course you are making it up.

To me, it seems like you made it up when I told you that there had been a development (i.e. the timetable of events) and you felt the foolish need to top it with 'several major developments'. The development I was referring to was simply that we now know when a decision will be taken. Previously we had a rough idea and now we have a fixed timescale of when things will happen. That is why I knew about when a hearing was likely and you didnt.

Your 'developments' are just your usual nonsense.

You are just an internet pest.

If you were to tell of us the developments then that would enable us to check them, but you wont do that.

Amber

Please stop distorting my words, Rinty.

For the record:

I said there would be court action next month.

I corrected that to october, upon receiving up to date information.

I did not say there would be trials next month.

It is my information that a number of trials will go ahead.

I stated that there have been a number of developments. You will have heard about these.

Rinty, your track record on this is not good. You have previously insisted there would be no charges, you have insisted that the tape was not good evidence, you have claimed state conspiracy, and you have claimed to have evidence that will prove the defendants' innocence beyond all doubt.

Rinty

Amber, nothing you have ever said here has turned out to be anything but nonsense, my views that there would be no perlury investigations or charges were shared by many and, as it has never happened before following a civil case in Scotland, not exactly an off-the-wall prediction.

What we are talking about now is different. It is you who is making predictions and speculating. I know, due to my closeness to those involved, what the actual situation is.

I think it is impossible to imagine that the crown office, still to consider the full case and still even to progress with 5 of the cases, would tell you of an advance position on the decision, why you?

If this was the previous civil case I could imagine that you would have good rumours and clues from the SSP or even the NotW, but they are out of the loop on this and have no clue what is going on. Not unless they are being informed by someone from the police, the crown or the defence.

Frankly, I think you are a delusional ambulance chaser.

The decision will be made soon but hasnt been made yet in any of the seven cases. If the decision is to proceed to a trial there will be a hearing in late september or early october, that simply cannot be decided yet, and isn't.

If you are getting information from the crown or police then you shouldn't jeopardise those peoples positions for the sake of a debate on an internet forum FFS! If you are not I suggest that person giving the the information is merely making obvious guesses.

Looking forward to you 'major developments'.

Amber

The old unprecedented line. What intellectual dishonesty.
Of course, a crime's a crime, whatever the circumstances.
Do you think the defence or those charged are being fully frank with you?

Rinty

Your just being silly now. It isnt an old 'unprecedented line' and that isnt a dishonest view.

You were accusing me of predicting events wrongly in the past.

It is reasonable to make a prediction based on something never having hapeened before.

For instance, If Starnraer have never beaten Rangers at football and they play tomorrow, and I predict that Stranraer wont win, then they do. You could hardly decribe my prediction os being conroversial off the wall or dishonest.

The legeal spokeperson for the BBC famously gave the same opinion, as did many others in the legal progfession. It had never happened before, so that makes it less likely.

Your oether two poinst are now berging on crossing a line into dicussing the actiula case rather than events surroubnding it and procedures. But I will anser them.

A crime IS a crime, but the reality is that, under normal circumstances, we dont investigate whether this particular crime has been commmitted, very rare in criminal cases and never in civil cases. So it is still a reasonable and valid view that it wouldnt happen this time.

No-one is suggesting that the fact it is unprecedented means that it shouldnt be invesitigated. The point is that, when a new development like this happens, there has to be a justification to say why this particular case. Any argument on the investigation being unprecendented os from that angle and has nothing to do woth other arguments re whether or not a crime has been committed or not.

"Do you think the defence or those charged are being fully frank with you?"

What? Do you think they will lie to me about the dates for a decision being made or an intial hearing? Why would they do that? If you are talking about the accusations against some of them then they have nothing to be frank about or not, what I have been questioned by police about has nothing to do with the tabloid stories or the EC meeting where tommy resigned. I had no need for anyone to be frank or otherwise as I willingly gave my statement on the aspects that I was present at and knew about.

Do you think the people that told you Kenny Ross was facing disciplinary action were frank with you?