• 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

angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...


No no, you're missing the point. Sheridan won his libel case, and the stories produced in court were so divergent that the judge said it was highly likely someone was lying.

The police (not the newspaper) then proceeded to spend a very large sum of public money investigating the person whom the jury had decided was telling the truth. This is what is being questioned.

angrysoba said:
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!
Click to expand...


He sacked his advocate in the middle of the trial. He did the same thing in the libel case and won, and it seems to have gone to his head. This time, his strategy was all about "you're lying because you've got a grudge against me, aren't you?" to the witnesses, and "please don't find me guilty because I've got a wife and five-year-old daughter" to the jury. Not great tactics.

Rolfe.
 
I was speaking to a friend who's a recently retired solicitor. He said that Gail's lawyer was very good and was striving to prove that Gail didn't know that the allegations were true, hence there was no perjury. Apparently this wasn't good enough for Tommy, who wanted to show he was all lilly white.
 
Soapy Sam said:
TS only had to do two things to win everyone's respect;-
Keep his dick in his pants, and his mouth shut.
Click to expand...


It was even easier than that. All he had to do was to keep his mouth shut.

Almost nobody cared who he was playing around with. The News of the World didn't even name him in the original stories. If and when his name was linked to the story, all he had to do was say it was all rubbish, and no, he wouldn't dignify the allegations by taking any action.

Anybody with any political nous at all would have known that was the way to handle it, but not oor Tommy.

Rolfe.
 
Architect said:
I was speaking to a friend who's a recently retired solicitor. He said that Gail's lawyer was very good and was striving to prove that Gail didn't know that the allegations were true, hence there was no perjury. Apparently this wasn't good enough for Tommy, who wanted to show he was all lilly white.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, didn't Gail thoughtfully provide him with an alibi, saying he was at home on the occasion he was at the swingers' club?

I'd say she was lucky. "Not in the public interest." Guilty as hell, but if they got her husband it wasn't in anybody's interest to lock up the mother of a five-year-old child.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
No no, you're missing the point. Sheridan won his libel case, and the stories produced in court were so divergent that the judge said it was highly likely someone was lying.

The police (not the newspaper) then proceeded to spend a very large sum of public money investigating the person whom the jury had decided was telling the truth. This is what is being questioned.




He sacked his advocate in the middle of the trial. He did the same thing in the libel case and won, and it seems to have gone to his head. This time, his strategy was all about "you're lying because you've got a grudge against me, aren't you?" to the witnesses, and "please don't find me guilty because I've got a wife and five-year-old daughter" to the jury. Not great tactics.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

Well, I think someone has to write the book on the case. It's such a farcical story. It would make sense also for Tommy Sheridan to collaborate on the story to rake in the royalties. I doubt there's much dignity left to salvage but he may as well try to benefit somehow.
 
The series of articles in today's Sunday Herald (linked above) cover the ramifications pretty well. It's all very well talking about huge sums of public money, and was it in the public interest to pursue someone for perjury in a civil action. Someone was lying and even the most cursory investigation (which the police could do far more effectively than a newspaper) was going to turn up evidence suggesting that someone was Tommy.

He deliberately chose to confront the News of the World, attempting to win a large sum from them in damages, by lying in court. How could it not be in the public interest to pursue the case?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
The series of articles in today's Sunday Herald (linked above) cover the ramifications pretty well. It's all very well talking about huge sums of public money, and was it in the public interest to pursue someone for perjury in a civil action. Someone was lying and even the most cursory investigation (which the police could do far more effectively than a newspaper) was going to turn up evidence suggesting that someone was Tommy.

He deliberately chose to confront the News of the World, attempting to win a large sum from them in damages, by lying in court. How could it not be in the public interest to pursue the case?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Ermmm...I don't know.

So, are you agreeing with me that it would be a good story to write a book about?
 
There are plenty books get published which are of little interest outside Scotland. I wouldn't be that surprised if more than one appears, coming from different agendas.

Paul Hutcheon has already had his Christmas ruined over this, he might as well turn it to some advantage.

Rolfe.
 
Soapy Sam said:
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.
Click to expand...

Architect said:
Just a moment, you've only just worked this out???
Click to expand...

The first Scottish trial I ever read an account of was that of James Stewart of Acharn.
This may have set my baseline assumptions rather low to begin with.
Great to see our long legal tradition of fitting people up and prosecuting the wrong man is alive and well.
(Mr. Murdoch, assuredly never lied in his life.)

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, Mr. Martin McGuinness feels "let down" by the local water suppliers. At least British politics is in safe hands.

I think I need a drink.
 
Last edited:
Another twist to the tale:

Gail Sheridan will be standing for the Scottish Parliament. According to the media, she was thought to be a No. 2 behind George Galloway, but will now be a candidate on her own (well with the backing of the Solidarity Party set up by Tommy after the SSP went nuclear). George is flying under the Respect party banner.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...gail-bid-to-join-forces-in-election-1.1080053

If, this, as some people suspect causes further division between the non-Labour left-wing parties are we likely to see their complete demise?
 
Rolfe said:
The police (not the newspaper) then proceeded to spend a very large sum of public money investigating the person whom the jury had decided was telling the truth. This is what is being questioned.
Click to expand...

Did they just decide to do this or did they receive evidence that a crime had been committed (Sheridan on videotape admitting having committed perjury) and then launch an investigation?

If the latter, which I believe is the case, what should the police have done when presented with evidence that a crime had been committed?

As for perjury in criminal cases, those who are found guilty after trial get a harsher sentence than those who plead guilty. You could look on that additional element as being a punishment for the perjury involved in denying their guilt.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12280552

A thought: Put the case that he had admitted publicly to the original allegation of visiting a swinger's club (whether innocent or not). Would we have seen anything like the events of the last 7 years, including the virtual annihilation of non-Labour left-wing parties?

ETA: Colette Douglas-Home, writing in The Herald, on why prison is not appropriate.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comme...-is-the-last-place-to-send-sheridan-1.1081645

(If the full page loads, but is then hidden, try refreshing and hitting the stop button on your browser after 2-3 seconds.)
 
Last edited:
I'm waiting for the announcement of a Ben Elton musical, trouble is that have to tone it down a bit to make it at all believable!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom