Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Rinty

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 · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3797

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'?...
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Cymro · Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:40 am Post subject:

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 · Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject:

But as someone said in another topic, why are Rosie Kane et al not getting investigated?
_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/

Rinty · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject:

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3797

Anthropos · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 15 Jul 2006 Posts: 323

Holebender · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject:

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?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Aventinian · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject:

Cymro · Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:35 am Post subject:

Rinty · Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject:

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 · Nationalist Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 168

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 · Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject:

rosalittlehooses · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 16 May 2007 Posts: 11

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 · No Longer a Wean Joined: 16 May 2007 Posts: 62

jimtrot · No Longer a Wean Joined: 16 May 2007 Posts: 62

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1101

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 · Nationalist Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 168

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.