david mcgee Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Poor Tommy is getting the treatment from the Polis. Are they picking on Orange people? Are the gayest police force in the UK jealous of his " alleged" threesome. Email George Foulkes he will put in a good word for you Tommy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Are the gayest police force in the UK jealous of his " alleged" threesome. Ahemm. I thought the threesome may have involved mixed sexes, allegedly of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Got to laugh that the "alleged" incident took place in the hotel very near my flat, always call it the Sheriden S*** Shack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1874M Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I think Sheridan cocked up in his little press gathering last night.. His words... "These people are being vicitimised purely because they are my friends" Ye your friends that stood up for you when you were guilty... Like some of the things Tommy stands for but he shoots himself in the foot by being such a *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunk-Section G Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 They are hardly abusing Sheridan. He and a number of others have now actually been charged with perjury - lying in court. There has been an ongoing investigation since he won his case as obviously there was something there. He can talk of a capitalist vendetta led by Murdoch, but he is a ruined man if it turns out he was fibbing in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBones Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 The police know he's guilty as sin and he (and his mates) lied in court. There is hard evidence against him. It was shocking that he won the case in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 who to believe, tommy and his few cronies or the whole of the SSP and other random members of the public who say they saw him, for once I'm gonna have to side with the SSP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 The police know he's guilty as sin and he (and his mates) lied in court. There is hard evidence against him. It was shocking that he won the case in the first place If the evidence is/was that hard, why wasn't it produced in court originally? Surely this would have proven him guilty in the first instance? If TS is guilty it is of perjury. Remember the original case was about him sueing the papers - TS was not in the dock over anything! Is he guilty? I don't know. I hope not, but if he is then he is finished. Doesn't mean that his politics are wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 If the evidence is/was that hard, why wasn't it produced in court originally? Surely this would have proven him guilty in the first instance? If TS is guilty it is of perjury. Remember the original case was about him sueing the papers - TS was not in the dock over anything! Is he guilty? I don't know. I hope not, but if he is then he is finished. Doesn't mean that his politics are wrong though. TS the Derek Hatton of Glasgow. He will go the same way too but in the end Tommy wont care as he WILL BE WELL OFF. His politics will definitely come second then. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Lets not forget if the evidence was so compelling against him and he is indeed "bang to rites", how come a jury found in his favour? Im not arguing in his favour and im not saying juries are perfect but they did find in his favour and quite convincingly. All those people against around 6 people but they found in favour of the minority view? But then again if I was on the jury I would find in his favour to GIRFU News International! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Lets not forget if the evidence was so compelling against him and he is indeed "bang to rites", how come a jury found in his favour? Im not arguing in his favour and im not saying juries are perfect but they did find in his favour and quite convincingly. All those people against around 6 people but they found in favour of the minority view? But then again if I was on the jury I would find in his favour to GIRFU News International! Exactly. I thyink that's the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBones Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 The police have evidence he lied. It was nothing to do with the police the case HE brought against NOTW. Now the cops do have hard evidence he lied in court, hence the charges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 One of my mates was on the Sheridan v NotW jury. He's a kiddy on socialist so Sheridan already had one vote in the bag before the case commenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 One of my mates was on the Sheridan v NotW jury. He's a kiddy on socialist so Sheridan already had one vote in the bag before the case commenced. So you are accusing your mate of being biased on jury service unlike yourself who would NEVER allow his politics to affect his judgement. With mates like you who needs enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Lets not forget if the evidence was so compelling against him and he is indeed "bang to rites", how come a jury found in his favour? Im not arguing in his favour and im not saying juries are perfect but they did find in his favour and quite convincingly. All those people against around 6 people but they found in favour of the minority view? But then again if I was on the jury I would find in his favour to GIRFU News International! to me it was sheridens closing speech that sold the jury, he used passion and his skill of talking to persuade the jury I am sure of that. I remember watching all the updates on the case with my dad and both of us were amazed he got away with it, in my mind so many people would not of lied against him (more would of lied for the defence then for Tommy if tommys case is true.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 to me it was sheridens closing speech that sold the jury, he used passion and his skill of talking to persuade the jury I am sure of that. I remember watching all the updates on the case with my dad and both of us were amazed he got away with it, in my mind so many people would not of lied against him (more would of lied for the defence then for Tommy if tommys case is true.) Maybe. But if he is so guilty as people seem to think, it wouldnt really have made a difference. Ive seen enough lawyers in court give final speeches that were amazing yet their client didnt win. I dont think this is much different IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Maybe. But if he is so guilty as people seem to think, it wouldnt really have made a difference. Ive seen enough lawyers in court give final speeches that were amazing yet their client didnt win. I dont think this is much different IMO. Sheridan is a left wing big mouth. A dangerous tsser Do i like him NO FTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geddy Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Never mind all that! Does anyone know if he has allegiances with either of the bigot brothers in the west? If so...GO ON L&B give him hell! Then it would be a case of 1 down 99,999 of the bar-stewards to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 He was blaming it on the Murdock media trying to discredit the socialist movement. I honestly don't think the socialist movement in this country will be worrying Murdock too much. Saying that, I wouldn't put making up complete lies past the NotW for political gain - I just don't think they would go after Tommy. I'm unsure on Sheridan, he is a great public speaker though and one of only 3 men currently in UK politics who can command a soapbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarhead Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Never mind all that!Does anyone know if he has allegiances with either of the bigot brothers in the west? If so...GO ON L&B give him hell! Then it would be a case of 1 down 99,999 of the bar-stewards to go! IIRC he supports Motherwell. I've always felt that given half a chance most of us would stick the boot into Murdoch and the NOTW. A Scottish jury were given that chance and enough of them took it. The thing is that this has always left me with a nagging doubt over how honest Sheridan was being in court. When you have a case like this, it is not a case of some witnesses being fuzzy about the facts. There were two sides with strongly opposed views on what happened. When this happens then one side is full of liers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david mcgee Posted February 20, 2008 Author Share Posted February 20, 2008 Court cases arent usually my bag, but the Sheridan case was quality. If they have to go through it all again i say bring it on. It beats reality tv any day of the week. He is similar to George Galloway and displays the best and worst of the Scottish race, but Galloways performance in America was the best piece of television ever, the yanks were keekin it. I think it was the "come and have a go if you think your hard enough bit" that did it. Anyway Sheridan could tell the biggest pile of p@sh ever and still pass a lie detector. Even the woman in the middle of the sandwich was starting to have her doubts whether it happened or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Lets not forget if the evidence was so compelling against him and he is indeed "bang to rites", how come a jury found in his favour? Im not arguing in his favour and im not saying juries are perfect but they did find in his favour and quite convincingly. All those people against around 6 people but they found in favour of the minority view? But then again if I was on the jury I would find in his favour to GIRFU News International! In civil cases the jury need only find on the balance of probabilities, not on hard evidence. That is what occurred when TS sued the NOTW. The forthcoming trial will be based on hard evidence. I dont think the police are allowed to charge anybody without sufficient evidence so it should be a more than interesting trial. At lot better than the civil case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 In civil cases the jury need only find on the balance of probabilities, not on hard evidence. That is what occurred when TS sued the NOTW. The forthcoming trial will be based on hard evidence. I dont think the police are allowed to charge anybody without sufficient evidence so it should be a more than interesting trial. At lot better than the civil case. But another coup for Tommy if they get off. I assume the definition of sufficient evidence is that they will win.....on the balance of probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Factor Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 One of my mates was on the Sheridan v NotW jury. He's a kiddy on socialist so Sheridan already had one vote in the bag before the case commenced. You have more than ONE mate????? :nooo::p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 But another coup for Tommy if they get off. I assume the definition of sufficient evidence is that they will win.....on the balance of probability. The Judge will not allow then to convict on the balance of probability. Also the police charge, but it will be the crown office who ultimately decide if the accused are to face trial. But if he is found not guilty he will probably jump off the Castle Walls with his Superman Cape on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 The Judge will not allow then to convict on the balance of probability. Also the police charge, but it will be the crown office who ultimately decide if the accused are to face trial. But if he is found not guilty he will probably jump off the Castle Walls with his Superman Cape on. I was talking about the fiscal deciding if there was sufficient evidence to prosecute being driven by the balance of probability of getting a conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I was talking about the fiscal deciding if there was sufficient evidence to prosecute being driven by the balance of probability of getting a conviction. Yes for Fiscal service service, read Crown Office. For High Court Trials anyway. Where I suspect this will end up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Yes for Fiscal service service, read Crown Office. For High Court Trials anyway. Where I suspect this will end up. Sounds serious if it's the High court. What sort of sentence can you get for perjury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Sounds serious if it's the High court. What sort of sentence can you get for perjury? Look at Jeffrey Archer etc and his sentence. They always say what is the similarity between oral sex and perjury? One slip of the tongue and you are in the *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 He was blaming it on the Murdock media trying to discredit the socialist movement. I honestly don't think the socialist movement in this country will be worrying Murdock too much. Saying that, I wouldn't put making up complete lies past the NotW for political gain - I just don't think they would go after Tommy. I'm unsure on Sheridan, he is a great public speaker though and one of only 3 men currently in UK politics who can command a soapbox. Go on then: my guess is Sheridan, Galloway (if he's still in UK politics) and Hague. Who were your other 2? I remember thinking about the Sheridan/NotW case that it was one where I hoped that both sides would lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I think the evidence that he was lying was found after the original case. I voted for SSP when they first came on the scene so I feel really let down by his actions. He reminds me of Derek Hatton in Liverpool - trying to use charisma and passion to steer opinion away from facts. I hope he gets a real lesson this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 In civil cases the jury need only find on the balance of probabilities, not on hard evidence. That is what occurred when TS sued the NOTW. The forthcoming trial will be based on hard evidence. I dont think the police are allowed to charge anybody without sufficient evidence so it should be a more than interesting trial. At lot better than the civil case. Again maybe so. But if the evidence was so convincing surely the probability that the NoTW' evidence was better surely should have swung in their favour. Remember they were vastly in the majority. And do you really think all cases come to court with sufficient evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Again maybe so. But if the evidence was so convincing surely the probability that the NoTW' evidence was better surely should have swung in their favour. Remember they were vastly in the majority. That is for the Jury to decide, "just because you have 5 witnesses to my 2 doesent mean your side of things is correct." If you see what I mean. And do you really think all cases come to court with sufficient evidence? With regard to criminal cases, yes. I think the Procurator Fiscal will have guidelines on this. It still does not garuantee a conviction though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meadows Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 One of my mates was on the Sheridan v NotW jury. He's a kiddy on socialist so Sheridan already had one vote in the bag before the case commenced. My mates daughter was also on the jury, she had made up her mind prior to sitting that she was 'voting' for Tommy. Thats2 out of 12 in the bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.