-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
The Tommy Sheridan Trial
- Thread starter Architect
- Start date
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
And I would still like to kick that piece of trash in the nuts. How can anyone end up being lower than the News of the World?
I wonder how much public money all this just put in the pockets of various lawyers.
I'm neither a fan of Mr. Sheridan nor of the News of the World.
But I'm beginning to feel the Scottish legal system may be lower than both of them.
I'm neither a fan of Mr. Sheridan nor of the News of the World.
But I'm beginning to feel the Scottish legal system may be lower than both of them.
Last edited:
Blogiston
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 70
Blogiston
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 70
On reflection, I now feel sorry for him and his family...poor wee daughter of his. Despite the consequences, he should have thought of, it was all sometime ago the crime tool place, and it was only lying about a scumbag newspaper anyway...it wasn't like lying about something which harmed anyone. He may be a bit of a misogynistic ass-hole but his wife and daughter will be distraught at the prospect of him being in prison - especially if it is the Bar-L.
Well, at least he will be able to finish his law degree now
in peace....well, in between being requested to attend the shower block, that is, for a three-some, or more.
Well, at least he will be able to finish his law degree now
in peace....well, in between being requested to attend the shower block, that is, for a three-some, or more.funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
On reflection, I now feel sorry for him and his family...poor wee daughter of his. Despite the consequences, he should have thought of, it was all sometime ago the crime tool place, and it was only lying about a scumbag newspaper anyway...it wasn't like lying about something which harmed anyone. He may be a bit of a misogynistic ass-hole but his wife and daughter will be distraught at the prospect of him being in prison - especially if it is the Bar-L.
Well, at least he will be able to finish his law degree now
If you take £200,000 from scumbags by saying they are liars then you should be pretty sure they cannot prove you are a liar too. The only person to blame for Tommy's family going through the wringer is Tommy.
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
Surely after the original defamation case, the police were duty bound to investigate as it was obvious one of the parties involved had to have been telling untruths.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, yes and no. There are some very interesting and debatable points in connection with this case. Some prominent people whom I normally respect have made points which, while I do not believe they succeed so far as arguing that Tommy's charge and conviction shouldn't have happened, do provide food for thought.
Face it, perjury happens all the time. And very few people are prosecuted for it. In particular, the point has been made that it's very rare for someone to be done for perjury in a civil action. Is there one law for celebrities such as Tommy, and another law for the ordinary Joe, who's more likely to get away with it?
I think the answer is probably yes. Much of the comparing has involved English cases, which is of course an entirely separate jurisdiction, but I believe the comparisons are still relevant. Who else can we think of who met the same fate? Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken of course, both prominent politicians. Does the system hold people in public life to a higher standard than the ordinary Joe? Maybe it does. It this right? I don't know, but I could make a case for it.
What has been said about the Sheridan affair is of course rather different. Somebody was obviously lying in the original civil case. The police chose to spend a great deal of time and money investigating Tommy, the person who had actually been believed by that jury. Was this proportionate? Or were they in fact acting as the tools of big business, i.e. News International?
In my opinion the Scottish criminal justice system is corrupt, and a disgrace. I wouldn't in any way discount the possibility that something like that could have happened. But just because the system has shown clear evidence of corruption in other cases doesn't mean it always gets it wrong.
If the police inquiries had suggested that Tommy was being truthful and the News International witnesses had been lying, well, big deal. They lost anyway. It wouldn't have been in the public interest to pursue that. Most cases of perjury are probably not worth pursuing for similar reasons. The case went against the perjurer anyway. Or a criminal was lying to try to save his skin. Sometimes the system has to suck it up.
This one was different though. I think its being a civil case made it more serious, actually. The News of the World published salacious detail about Tommy's lurid sex life, which appears to have been true. Tommy didn't need to do anything at all about that. A dignified silence, and it would have blown over in a few weeks. He chose to mount a civil action for defamation, not just to "clear his name", but to extract an enormous sum of money in damages from the newspaper.
I think that's quite appalling. And I think it was fairly obvious even from the beginning that this is what he was doing, despite the original verdict. To allow someone who was an elected representative, someone whose trustworthiness should be all-important, to get up on his hind legs and lie with impunity to a court, in order to gain £200,000, is unconscionable.
In a way I agree with both sides here. What Tommy did was beyond the pale and I totally think he should have been brought to book for it. Maybe more people should be prosecuted for perjury, given the comparisons that were being made (the policemen who lied in court to frame the Birmingham Six were mentioned), but that doesn't detract from the fact that Tommy asked for it, and got what was coming to him.
On the other hand, is it possible the prosecution was politically motivated, to destroy Tommy Sheridan as a political force?
Frankly, yes, that too. The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.
Rolfe.
Face it, perjury happens all the time. And very few people are prosecuted for it. In particular, the point has been made that it's very rare for someone to be done for perjury in a civil action. Is there one law for celebrities such as Tommy, and another law for the ordinary Joe, who's more likely to get away with it?
I think the answer is probably yes. Much of the comparing has involved English cases, which is of course an entirely separate jurisdiction, but I believe the comparisons are still relevant. Who else can we think of who met the same fate? Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken of course, both prominent politicians. Does the system hold people in public life to a higher standard than the ordinary Joe? Maybe it does. It this right? I don't know, but I could make a case for it.
What has been said about the Sheridan affair is of course rather different. Somebody was obviously lying in the original civil case. The police chose to spend a great deal of time and money investigating Tommy, the person who had actually been believed by that jury. Was this proportionate? Or were they in fact acting as the tools of big business, i.e. News International?
In my opinion the Scottish criminal justice system is corrupt, and a disgrace. I wouldn't in any way discount the possibility that something like that could have happened. But just because the system has shown clear evidence of corruption in other cases doesn't mean it always gets it wrong.
If the police inquiries had suggested that Tommy was being truthful and the News International witnesses had been lying, well, big deal. They lost anyway. It wouldn't have been in the public interest to pursue that. Most cases of perjury are probably not worth pursuing for similar reasons. The case went against the perjurer anyway. Or a criminal was lying to try to save his skin. Sometimes the system has to suck it up.
This one was different though. I think its being a civil case made it more serious, actually. The News of the World published salacious detail about Tommy's lurid sex life, which appears to have been true. Tommy didn't need to do anything at all about that. A dignified silence, and it would have blown over in a few weeks. He chose to mount a civil action for defamation, not just to "clear his name", but to extract an enormous sum of money in damages from the newspaper.
I think that's quite appalling. And I think it was fairly obvious even from the beginning that this is what he was doing, despite the original verdict. To allow someone who was an elected representative, someone whose trustworthiness should be all-important, to get up on his hind legs and lie with impunity to a court, in order to gain £200,000, is unconscionable.
In a way I agree with both sides here. What Tommy did was beyond the pale and I totally think he should have been brought to book for it. Maybe more people should be prosecuted for perjury, given the comparisons that were being made (the policemen who lied in court to frame the Birmingham Six were mentioned), but that doesn't detract from the fact that Tommy asked for it, and got what was coming to him.
On the other hand, is it possible the prosecution was politically motivated, to destroy Tommy Sheridan as a political force?
Frankly, yes, that too. The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.
Rolfe.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
I tend to feel that us little people do not sue for defamation therefore do not get in the same pickle Tommy did. The fact that the defamation usually involves someone famous, tends to push the authorities to look at it closer after the fact. Once that tape was known, the police had to look at it.
He is a lying scumbag who thought he was better than everyone. His whole defence was like a 911 truther made it up for him. Most notably he did not call his footballer mate a liar in court when he admitted it, but every other person was. Faked VCR tapes and all.
Now I see Billy Davies has been dragged into also!!
He is a lying scumbag who thought he was better than everyone. His whole defence was like a 911 truther made it up for him. Most notably he did not call his footballer mate a liar in court when he admitted it, but every other person was. Faked VCR tapes and all.
Now I see Billy Davies has been dragged into also!!
Rolfe
Adult human female
Good point.
I don't buy this stuff about how ridiculous it was to go after him for perjury in a civil case. Perjury in criminal cases is no doubt serious, but we all know that criminals regularly lie to the court in an attempt to get off. Sometimes it's seen through and they're convicted anyway, so why bother. Other times they get away with it. So what are you going to do? Re-open the case and invoke double jeopardy or what? I can see why they let it go.
The more serious situation is perjury by the prosecution in criminal cases. I think the policemen who lied in court to get the Birmingham Six convicted should have been charged. But the fact that they weren't isn't any good reason why Tommy should have been allowed to get away with it.
The idea that a celebrity should be allowed to go after any media organisation which prints a true story about him, and obtain large damages by lying about it, is ridiculous. Saying, oh it should have been allowed to pass because the other side was Big Media Business is preposterous. People who should know better are saying that though.
I note Tommy wasn't denying it in his statements yesterday. Just, oh the courts were supporting Big Business, how evil!
It's perfectly possible, indeed probable, it suited several people to take Tommy down like this. It's perfectly possible, indeed probable, that this was the motivation for going after him.
That doesn't mean he's innocent. He's about as innocent as Fred West. He handed them the opportunity to take him down, on a plate. It's a bit late to whine about it now.
Rolfe.
I don't buy this stuff about how ridiculous it was to go after him for perjury in a civil case. Perjury in criminal cases is no doubt serious, but we all know that criminals regularly lie to the court in an attempt to get off. Sometimes it's seen through and they're convicted anyway, so why bother. Other times they get away with it. So what are you going to do? Re-open the case and invoke double jeopardy or what? I can see why they let it go.
The more serious situation is perjury by the prosecution in criminal cases. I think the policemen who lied in court to get the Birmingham Six convicted should have been charged. But the fact that they weren't isn't any good reason why Tommy should have been allowed to get away with it.
The idea that a celebrity should be allowed to go after any media organisation which prints a true story about him, and obtain large damages by lying about it, is ridiculous. Saying, oh it should have been allowed to pass because the other side was Big Media Business is preposterous. People who should know better are saying that though.
I note Tommy wasn't denying it in his statements yesterday. Just, oh the courts were supporting Big Business, how evil!
It's perfectly possible, indeed probable, it suited several people to take Tommy down like this. It's perfectly possible, indeed probable, that this was the motivation for going after him.
That doesn't mean he's innocent. He's about as innocent as Fred West. He handed them the opportunity to take him down, on a plate. It's a bit late to whine about it now.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh yeah. I was just trying to think of some one whose guilt wasn't in any serious doubt.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I think the point is that in a criminal case people who get convicted most often will have lied to get off. It's probably considered quite normal so I don't think people like that will usually get taken to court for perjury. In fact, even if they get off from lying they probably won't.
It is probably different in cases where a witness has lied to a court in order to convict or acquit a defendant.
In this case however, Sheridan lied to sue a newspaper (I suppose I don't need to say "allegedly" here, do I?) and won damages from them. When they knew he was lying it wasn't surprising that they took him to court for perjury.
If it is the case that perjury is rarely prosecuted then it is probably equally true that libel is rarely prosecuted as well. So, I think it balances out in this case.
Anyway, I don't actually know much about this case but from this thread it sounds highly amusing.
Do I take it Sheridan was representing himself? I think that whenever that happens you just know the person representing themselves is an egotistical nutbar!
People who live in glass houses need to know when to stop digging...
Whether the prosecution was politically motivated- and the fact they have dropped the case against several witnesses in the original case seems to suggest the powers that be have got their man and are happy to let the small fry go - the fact is TS only had to do two things to win everyone's respect;-
Keep his dick in his pants, and his mouth shut.
He failed on both counts.
Anyway , I don't doubt the book offers should pay his bills.
Whether the prosecution was politically motivated- and the fact they have dropped the case against several witnesses in the original case seems to suggest the powers that be have got their man and are happy to let the small fry go - the fact is TS only had to do two things to win everyone's respect;-
Keep his dick in his pants, and his mouth shut.
He failed on both counts.
Anyway , I don't doubt the book offers should pay his bills.
angrysoba
Philosophile
He could call the book, "If I Lied, Here's What I Lied About" and get O.J Simpson to pen a foreword.