 |
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.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jimtrot
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
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.
_________________
Not Brit - 'S Albannach a tha mise.
The cause of Labour is the cause of Scotland and the cause of Scotland is the cause of Labour - apologies to James Connolly |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimtrot
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Not Brit - 'S Albannach a tha mise.
The cause of Labour is the cause of Scotland and the cause of Scotland is the cause of Labour - apologies to James Connolly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimtrot
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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?
_________________
Not Brit - 'S Albannach a tha mise.
The cause of Labour is the cause of Scotland and the cause of Scotland is the cause of Labour - apologies to James Connolly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amber
Nationalist
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimtrot
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | | 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. |
I couldn't let this post go without further responding to it, Rinty. Where is you're evidence for the statement re. plenty of people in the SSP attributing the remark to Sheridan. Is this just another product of your fevered imagination? Admittedly some of us did make the jokes you mentioned but what did you expect after TS's crazy and abusive rantings?
| Quote: | | 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. |
Of course there wasn't, ffs. The purpose of an investigation is to uncover evidence for a case. It was clear from the court case that someone was lying and the investigation provided the evidence for the PF to decide who should be charged. You seem to have a strange perception as to the sequence that events should follow, Rinty.
Dear me, Rinty, such a sequence of non sequeters and irrelevancies. It's no wonder Hugh (Juan) Kerr is bald
_________________
Not Brit - 'S Albannach a tha mise.
The cause of Labour is the cause of Scotland and the cause of Scotland is the cause of Labour - apologies to James Connolly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "It was clear from the court case that someone was lying and the investigation provided the evidence for the PF to decide who should be charged. You seem to have a strange perception as to the sequence that events should follow, Rinty. " |
Yes but that is clear from most if not every court case Jim, which takes us back to where we started - why this one?
| Quote: | | "I couldn't let this post go without further responding to it, Rinty. Where is you're evidence for the statement re. plenty of people in the SSP attributing the remark to Sheridan. Is this just another product of your fevered imagination? Admittedly some of us did make the jokes you mentioned but what did you expect after TS's crazy and abusive rantings?" |
Well Rosie Kane said “"In the initial stages of this Tommy said a few things that he has since apologised for, about me, Carolyn and Frances being like witches, but I am sure there will be no continuation of that attitude, " in an article where she claimed that Tommy had apologised for calling her a “witch”.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20050206/ai_n9501127
There is this in red pepper who attribues the quotes to a 'source close' to Tommy and then adds barbara Scott's name to the list of those persecuted by him. It was written by Roz Patterson, an SSP member.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article12.html
Andy McPake attributes the witches quote to “those around Sheridan"
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6569
Frances Curran “We were called untalented, slappers, harridans and witches.”
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/...-life-in-the-ssp-after-the-split/
Then there is Julie Bindells remarks in the guardian when interviewing Catriona Grant “Those accused of being the main culprits are Carolyn Leckie, Rosie Kane and Francis Curran, the three members of Scottish parliament who gave evidence against him in court, referred to as "witches" and "scabs" by Sheridan.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/08/gender.otherparties
Pete Burton: “Sheridan way way back referred to the female MSPS
as " witches "
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6806
From the weekly worker, Leckie repeating the (by now old) joke at the SSP conference in 2006. “Carolyn Leckie, MSP for Central Scotland, opened by observing that she had nowhere to park her broomstick - a reference to Tommy Sheridan’s attack on the “witches” in the party in the weeks after his resignation in 2004.”
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/639/ssp.htm
And you, Jim trot, on this very forum
“Remember the "Witches coven" statement? Reprehensible.”
Now, I could find more if I wanted but what would be the point? I just find it quite unbelievable that you didnt ever hear people from the SSP saying this and yet you managed to somehow imagine Tommy using the same words. And when I say "unbelievable" I mean it literally - I dont believe you.
It is obvious that you swallowed that part of the chinese whispers about Tommy. Yet you now seem incapable, through either hatred of Sheridan or political sectarianism, to apply this to other aspects of the stories that you have been told. They fed you the "witches" line, you fell for it hook line and sinker.
I will ignore all the personal abuse and strange attempts to bring Hugh Kerr into the debate (Hugh isnt bald BTW). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amber
Nationalist
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fascinating that only Tommy and Gail are appearing in court next week. It suggests a number of different petitions and separate cases.
Will the other five stick by their stories? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, each person is charged wih perjury based on different evidence. It doesnt follow that they would all be charged together.
I am surprised that they are asking Gail to plead at the same time as Tommy, but I think that is more to do with the Crown Office taking control back from the Police's disastrous performace re media coverage. When next Thursday comes, the case will thenbe sub judice and the press will be heavily restricted in reporting it. I think that's why Gail is being asked to plead next week.
I dont see the link between this news and your suggestion that others would change their story after 4 years.
I dont think that you can assume anything about the other people charged from this turn of events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amber
Nationalist
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But the others have only told this version of events since july 2006, not for four years.
I think there's a good chance some or all will tell the truth now in the hope that they'll stay out of prison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, since November 2004.
You (so you claim) were not part of the SSP and wouldnt know but the reverse of what you say is true.
It is the other side who claim that he admited that came out at a later date. Up until just before the court case the official party line was that Tommy stepped down to take on the court case, the details of the meeting were confidential.
Apart from whispers and people breaking the party decision for confidentiality, the story of Tommy admitting to events is the one that emerged in 2006. I thought you said that you followed the original story?
In fact in May 2006 the SSP secretary issued a statement that the minutes DIDNT contain any details of Tommy's private life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think there's a good chance some or all will tell the truth now in the hope that they'll stay out of prison. |
You are in a minority of one in that respect. The legal opinion that I have come across was that this would mean the others will not be charged now, the press who contacted me yesterday had drawn the same conclusion.
Unlike you, I have been able to at least have some idea of what the evidence is against the others and I would reckon that the majority view, that the charges will go nowhere, is probably right.
But, as I said, we cant read too much into yesterdays news in relation to the other charges and it would be wrong to make assumptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
youatethebabyjesus
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i read this with interest, what is clear to me is that one of the two camps told bare faced lies in court. one of those 2 camps should face perjury charges and if convicted, jail time at her majesty's pleasure.
more imporatntly it is the final nail in the coffin for scottish socialism, they were neve taken very seriously anyway but they are now dead in the water after this fiasco. no bad thing in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Red Justice
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 433
Location: Dun Deagh
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| youatethebabyjesus wrote: | i read this with interest, what is clear to me is that one of the two camps told bare faced lies in court. one of those 2 camps should face perjury charges and if convicted, jail time at her majesty's pleasure.
more imporatntly it is the final nail in the coffin for scottish socialism, they were neve taken very seriously anyway but they are now dead in the water after this fiasco. no bad thing in my opinion. |
Rubbish! It sickens me that lackeys of the state which all people are who take pleasure in courts and jail. No socialist should be persecuted over a Murdoch vendetta. Heather Mills was less than exact with truth in court but is not under any police investigation. This is state and police hypocracy because Tommy is a fighter for the poor and working class and the state and their agents or lesser muck do not like it.
Even more rubbish to claim Scottish socialism is dead far from it. From what I can see electoral politics for socialists has taken a blow but we are alive and well and very much on the streets.
_________________
"We need independence but we also need socialism"
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amber
Nationalist
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | | Quote: | | I think there's a good chance some or all will tell the truth now in the hope that they'll stay out of prison. |
You are in a minority of one in that respect. The legal opinion that I have come across was that this would mean the others will not be charged now, the press who contacted me yesterday had drawn the same conclusion.
Unlike you, I have been able to at least have some idea of what the evidence is against the others and I would reckon that the majority view, that the charges will go nowhere, is probably right.
But, as I said, we cant read too much into yesterdays news in relation to the other charges and it would be wrong to make assumptions. |
You are wrong to say I am in a minority of one.
A number of journalists and lawyers I have spoken to believe the crown is simply dividing up the petitions because of the diversity of acts of perjury.
And a number also believe that the Crown has had indications from some of those charged that they would be willing to plead guilty and then give evidence in return for suspended sentences or comunity service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4413
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Red Justice wrote: | This is state and police hypocracy because Tommy is a fighter for the poor and working class and the state and their agents or lesser muck do not like it.
Even more rubbish to claim Scottish socialism is dead far from it. From what I can see electoral politics for socialists has taken a blow but we are alive and well and very much on the streets. |
This assumes that anyone actually cares about what Tommy Sheridan has to say. I miss him as a novelty, but I doubt anyone in their right mind sees him as any sort of threat. Even if someone was that thick, it wouldn't take even half a brain cell to realise that putting Sheridan in the public eye would immediately be used as a platform for him and his, er, 'brothers and sisters'.
Scottish socialism is not only dead, it's been cold in the ground for decades.
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Red Justice
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 433
Location: Dun Deagh
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aventinian Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom said:
Scottish socialism is not only dead, it's been cold in the ground for decades.
I don't agree until the Murdoch fiasco the Scottish Socialist Party was the most successful in history. The break and Tommy forming Solidarity leaves two camps however many socialists as a whole exist in Scotland.
_________________
"We need independence but we also need socialism"
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"You are wrong to say I am in a minority of one.
A number of journalists and lawyers I have spoken to believe the crown is simply dividing up the petitions because of the diversity of acts of perjury."
I cant think of one Scottish newspaper (I spoke to all of them in the last two days) who share your view. As for lawyers, I have spoken to the lawyers involved and those are the ones who have knowledge of it, so I would reackon that their opinions are probably better placed to judge than some random lawyer.
Can I ask why someone with no involvement with the case, who claims to not be from the SSP, would be calling layers and journalists for opinions on a news story?
I have an excuse, it is my job, who are you and what are you doing?
What does you lawyer friends think about the theft charge re Gail Sheridan?
"And a number also believe that the Crown has had indications from some of those charged that they would be willing to plead guilty and then give evidence in return for suspended sentences or comunity service."
I have to inform you here that I will now have to identify you and refer your comments to our legal teams. This sort of comment is subjudice and you have also accused people of a crime, namely perjury.
You should now identify yourself and make your allegations of a crime clear.
This forum does not tolerate anonymous posters accusing people of crimes without evidence.
I am gald you were specific about it being the Crown Ffice who are making those claims, it flies in the face of thei attempts to shut down the leaks from the police to press and to control this and they will be very interested that people from their office are giving out false information.
This is absolute rubbish and if the Crown Office are pinning their hopes on this thety are more desperate than I thought.
But it only fair that you now clarify your claims as you have made a serious allegation and now need to back it up. Of course I will beasking the other moderators to deal with this and also asking them for all idebntification for you that they can give me as this will now be evidence in any future case if and when a court case goes ahead.
It was pretty obvious the SSP would panic and one of my comrades did predict an appearance on blogs and forums with unsubtantiated acusations of crimes would be one tactic.
I belive they are also now spinning stotries to their few sympathetic journalist that they have left about splits in Solidarity to change the press agenda.
I expect stories this sunday from the usual suspects this weekend to assist the SSP in blurring the story.
I expect you to now identify yourself and tell us exactly who are accusing and what your evidence is.
The Crown Office will also be given this information Amber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amber
Nationalist
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | "You are wrong to say I am in a minority of one.
A number of journalists and lawyers I have spoken to believe the crown is simply dividing up the petitions because of the diversity of acts of perjury."
I cant think of one Scottish newspaper (I spoke to all of them in the last two days) who share your view. As for lawyers, I have spoken to the lawyers involved and those are the ones who have knowledge of it, so I would reackon that their opinions are probably better placed to judge than some random lawyer.
Can I ask why someone with no involvement with the case, who claims to not be from the SSP, would be calling layers and journalists for opinions on a news story?
I have an excuse, it is my job, who are you and what are you doing?
What does you lawyer friends think about the theft charge re Gail Sheridan?
"And a number also believe that the Crown has had indications from some of those charged that they would be willing to plead guilty and then give evidence in return for suspended sentences or comunity service."
I have to inform you here that I will now have to identify you and refer your comments to our legal teams. This sort of comment is subjudice and you have also accused people of a crime, namely perjury.
You should now identify yourself and make your allegations of a crime clear.
This forum does not tolerate anonymous posters accusing people of crimes without evidence.
I am gald you were specific about it being the Crown Ffice who are making those claims, it flies in the face of thei attempts to shut down the leaks from the police to press and to control this and they will be very interested that people from their office are giving out false information.
This is absolute rubbish and if the Crown Office are pinning their hopes on this thety are more desperate than I thought.
But it only fair that you now clarify your claims as you have made a serious allegation and now need to back it up. Of course I will beasking the other moderators to deal with this and also asking them for all idebntification for you that they can give me as this will now be evidence in any future case if and when a court case goes ahead.
It was pretty obvious the SSP would panic and one of my comrades did predict an appearance on blogs and forums with unsubtantiated acusations of crimes would be one tactic.
I belive they are also now spinning stotries to their few sympathetic journalist that they have left about splits in Solidarity to change the press agenda.
I expect stories this sunday from the usual suspects this weekend to assist the SSP in blurring the story.
I expect you to now identify yourself and tell us exactly who are accusing and what your evidence is.
The Crown Office will also be given this information Amber. |
Och, calm down you silly man.
Just to clarify, Rinty, it's not the Crown Office making the claims. It's members of Solidarity.
Do you really think everyonme who's a paid up member is a true believer?
Do you really believe the SSP hasn't planted people at every level?
Solidarity members have suggested that some of those charged are ready to change their stories.
As for your threats and hysteria, well you commit subjudice every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
