Sheridan Witch Hunt?

[Architect]

Is the establishment out to get Tommy the Tan? Are the Police their stool pigeons? Is it right to spend £1m of the taxpayers money?

Or, as many of us suspect, did he actually lie his teeth out in court and is getting his just desserts?

(Which would be a shame, because he provided a bit of colour in the Parly prior to the new administration taking up the task)

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2069352.0.1m_and_40_000_police_hours_s pent_on_Sheridan_inquiry.php

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1411859.0.police_investigate_bribery_a llegation_in_sheridan_case.php

http://www.solidarityscotland.org/content/view/379/2/

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/02/16/seven-to-face-charges-over-tommy-sheridan-defamation-case-86908-20320760/


Meanwhile, just how many minatures did Gail swipe in order tog et arrested? I hope no-one knows about the 6 paperclips I pinched from work......

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/02/23/gail-sheridan-s-fury-after-ba-suspend-her-over-booze-probe-86908-20328403/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7260259.stm

[Alan G]

His ludicrous conspiracy theory falls apart when you look at the evidence. He claims that he was featured in the NotW because he is a socialist. Yet every week there are different smut stories about labour, tory, lib dem, bnp members as well as footballers, other sports stars and musicians.

He was featured on the front pages because he was well known and it would sell extra papers. No one remembers the people smeared the week before and after him, he made sure everyone remembers the details of the story about him.

[Architect]

It seems ironic that, in suing the papers in the first place, he's simply made a rod for himself.

If he'd have put up his hands and said "Fair cop, ah'll nae dae it again, ah'm married now" or whatever we'd have all forgotten about it. But instead he's getting the jail, I should imagine....

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A bit like a certain other politician, who won his libel case but at the cost of having to repay the damages + interest and spend some time enjoying prison food. Maybe Archer could give him some tips?

[Rolfe]

Oh, silly me, I thought it was the other JA you were talking about. Mr. Sword-of-truth himself, Jonathan Aitken. Well, it's not a case lacking in precedents.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

My initial thoughts on this were pretty much the same as Architect's.

During the case it was obvious that one set of witnesses was lying. This was far more than simple poor recollection, or different versions of the same events. The judge obviously thought so too, as he explicitly warned witnesses at the time of the consequences of perjury.

I've been following the Herald comments sections (most of the stories on the actual subject don't allow comments and the one that did was deleted, but people have brought it up on other pages). Several people have suggested that the prosecution was unfair, because perjury goes on in every court in the land on every day of the year. Probably true. However, seldom as blatant as this. And when the perjury is being committed in order to win a lucrative action for libel, it's especially pernicious, as Messrs. Archer and Aitken discovered. And when it is a member of the legislature who is apparently perjuring himself, then it is particularly heinous. Again, q.v. (As both sides in the original case contained serving MSPs, this applies no matter which set of liars you choose to believe.)

So no, I don't think these charges are persecution. I think that after what happened, letting it rest would have been a signal to everyone that the libel courts are a soft touch for anyone who fancies a few hundred thousand quid. Also that our lawmakers in Scotland are corrupt and are so with impunity (oops, we know that already, or if we didn't the Wendy and Charlie affair has sure proved it).

Yes, the Wendy and Charlie thing was a whitewash of Dulux proportions, but for goodness sake, that really doesn't mean that Tommy should be allowed to get off as well! Save your indignation for where it belongs (http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2068658.0.making_crimes_vanish.php). (This whole page is very interesting in this context, as the comments deal as much with l'affaire Tommy as with Wendygate.)

However, whisky miniatures? I hope they don't come calling here and realise that the box of A4 paper I'm using in my printer is suspiciously identical to the squillions of boxes we get through every week at work....

Nevertheless, what to do under the circumstances? The police are searching the Sheridan home. They find a number of whisky miniatures, obviously airline issue. And they know that the missus is an air hostess.

Do they ignore it? I don't know. I'm not a cop. Ignoring something like that may well be against their code of conduct or something. If they had ignored it, then someone had leaked that they'd ignored it, they could have been in big trouble for favouritism.

So, possibly they thought it was little more than going home with a half-used biro in your jacket pocket, but still once they'd discovered it, they had to report it. And then it depends on what BA's policy is. Remember, this is the outfit who suspended a woman at the check-in desk because she was wearing a tiny silver cross. If they have a no-tolerance policy towards pilfering, and they are shown clear evidence of pilfering, then it's likely they'll have to take action.

And so the snowball rolls down the hill.

Tommy is squealing "witch hunt". Wendy is squealing "orchestrated, politically-motivated campaign being pursued by the SNP, degrading Scottish politics (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2069326.0.Campaign_to_smear_Alexander_ degrading_politics.php)". Which is a bit rich since the stories are known to be being driven by a Labour mole, and the SNP have been quite astonishingly reticent about it all.

However, the difference is that what Wendy did is covered by the remit of the Electoral Commission, a body set up to provide a buffer between politicians and the justice system. It is stuffed with Labour party placemen. Realistically, it was never going to let the procurator fiscal get near her.

What Tommy appears to have done is entirely outwith the remit of bodies set up to protect politicians from the consequences faced by ordinary folk who transgress the law. And it is a crime with startlingly clear parallels in the two JA affairs. After having thought about it for quite some time, I still agree with Architect.

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

My initial thoughts on this were pretty much the same as Architect's.

During the case it was obvious that AT LEAST one set of witnesses was lying.

Fixed.

What Tommy did sounds like far more fun as well.

[Architect]

The presumption that they were all telling porkies is not necessarily a bad one, methinks.

It seems ironic that the far left always seem to disintegrate whenever they get their act together. Doubtless the CT forum would start accusations about moles and the like, but I really can't believe that TPTB were ever worried enough by Tommy & Co. to take much action.

As for the press......it's just whatever sells regardless of political colour.