Not till January (hence my Happy Christmas comment).
Fingers crossed he gets a jail sentence.
Author
gari189
JTT - I'm sure you don't live in Scotand so I suspect you've only posted … JTT - I'm sure you don't live in Scotand so I suspect you've only posted this because he is/was a Labour SMP. I'm sure if he had been a conservative party member it would have been a "Scottish justice is a mockery" thread.Not bothered about him being guilty either way but I'd hate to see Misc become anymore of a platform for rightwing politics than it already is......why not give us a story about corrupt Tory politicians for a bit of balance
Sorry Gari, you couldn't be further from the truth. He (regardless of what party he is from) pocketed £200,000 by lying. That's wrong. He should have been respectable enough to put his hand up and admit he messed up.
Crook.
Author
Are you on this planet Plum? This has nothing to do with anything you have just puked out.
This guy lied. He sued for defamation. What do you think he was after? A chocolate bar and a smile?. He has now been found guilty of perjury. Done.
Crook.
JUST WAIT FOR THE RESULTS OF THE APPEAL AND I HOPE YOU EAT YOUR WORDS IN THE MEANTIME JUST GO OUT AND BUY THE DIRTY SUN AND THE MUCKRAKING NEWS OF THE WORLD ONE THING YOU WONT READ IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THIS EMPIRE COST THE RATEPAYERS. ONLY 30P THE SUN IN SCOTLAND 45P IN ENGLAND
Is the NoTW being printed this sunday? Might buy one if it is, just as a gesture of gratitude toward Murdoch, who I hate, for taking out Sheridan, who I hate some 20 times more. (edited)
Not till January (hence my Happy Christmas comment).Fingers crossed he … Not till January (hence my Happy Christmas comment).Fingers crossed he gets a jail sentence.
its a certainty he will get a jail sentence,and it will be years and not months-it was the high court he lied in-he will probably get about a year on each count so 6 years total.
Im no lover of sheridan,or his wife-cant stand them actually,but I must admit that Im slightly concerned that in actual fact he has been convicted on no real evidence-surely this has wider implications for our justice system? About 20 friends testified that he wasnt in that club,and about 20 ex friends testified that he told them he was. So is that PROOF? a grainy video on a mobile phone of him supposedly confessing to a friend,but you couldnt make out whether it was him or not. News of the world havent a single piece of photographic evidence he was there-its all hearsay-arent the jury meant to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt?
As I said,love him or hate him personally,but seriously there wasnt one SHRED of proof he was guilty,and I thought that was the legal requirement.
JTT - I'm sure you don't live in Scotand so I suspect you've only posted this because he is/was a Labour SMP. I'm sure if he had been a conservative party member it would have been a "Scottish justice is a mockery" thread.
Not bothered about him being guilty either way but I'd hate to see Misc become anymore of a platform for rightwing politics than it already is......why not give us a story about corrupt Tory politicians for a bit of balance
Author
^^^^^ Pretty overwhelming actually Barky if you read the transcripts.
And if I was innocent after being found guilty, I'd probably spend my time on the steps of the court telling everyone I was innocent other than:
"For three years my wife and I have faced charges of perjury. Today, I was convicted and Gail was acquitted of any crime.
"I have fought the power of News International all my political life, and I make no apologies for taking on the might of Rupert Murdoch.
"Several million pounds of public money was spent investigating me and my wife.
"Is it not time that similar resources were devoted to investigating the activities of the News of the World."
To me, that just sounds like he's **** off at them finding out. (edited)
What about Andy Coulson? do you honestly believe he didn't know about the phone tapping done by his journalists when he was editor at the News of the World?
BTW I'm not defending Sheridan - I just think there are crooks in all the political parties..... (edited)
Author
gari189
What about Andy Coulson? do you honestly believe he didn't know about … What about Andy Coulson? do you honestly believe he didn't know about the phone tapping done by his journalists when he was editor at the News of the World?
Of course he knew. He should hold his hands up and admit it, and Cameron should have taken better action over the whole thing.
This isn't about party politics Gari. It's being thankful we have a system that gets it right sometimes!
JonnyTwoToes
^^^^^ Pretty overwhelming actually Barky if you read the transcripts.And … ^^^^^ Pretty overwhelming actually Barky if you read the transcripts.And if I was innocent after being found guilty, I'd probably spend my time on the steps of the court telling everyone I was innocent other than:"For three years my wife and I have faced charges of perjury. Today, I was convicted and Gail was acquitted of any crime."I have fought the power of News International all my political life, and I make no apologies for taking on the might of Rupert Murdoch."Several million pounds of public money was spent investigating me and my wife."Is it not time that similar resources were devoted to investigating the activities of the News of the World."To me, that just sounds like he's **** off at them finding out.
Sorry JTT,I cant agree it was "overwhelming"-lets leave aside for a moment that its tommy sheridan ok-should a man lose his liberty on ANECDOTAL evidence? cos thats all there is-one bunch of people say he was there,another bunch say he wasnt-its really that simple-I dont know why you can call that overwhelming. Im trying to make a wider point-its not about sheridan at all-I have watched the review of evidence every day and its all been he said,she said,they said blah blah and I find it very worrying that a jury can believe thats enough-thats all. Mrs barkys mother knows the sheridans very well,and I can state with absolute certainty that he is a nasty,conniving man,who has an extremely high opinion of himself and generally is not a nice person at all but this isnt about HIM,its about our justice system and I dont agree he was PROVED guilty.He was a famous person,had been in celebrity big brother,was in a sex club and not one person pulled out a mobile phone and took a picture? On either occasion he was there? you think thats likely in this day and age?
gari189
JTT - I'm sure you don't live in Scotand so I suspect you've only posted … JTT - I'm sure you don't live in Scotand so I suspect you've only posted this because he is/was a Labour SMP. I'm sure if he had been a conservative party member it would have been a "Scottish justice is a mockery" thread.Not bothered about him being guilty either way but I'd hate to see Misc become anymore of a platform for rightwing politics than it already is......why not give us a story about corrupt Tory politicians for a bit of balance
gari-sheridan was never a labour msp btw-he was a scottish socialist msp,and later formed the solidarity movement,I do agree with your argument btw,but he wasnt labour.
Ha! Have u seen the dude with the bit of cardboard with "Liar" right behind Tommy's back on the BBC clip?! All that support and they dont notice that! Feel truly sorry for the wee girl though. Imagine having your image of your father destroyed like that just before christmas... Gulp...
Author
Having one or two people suggest you may have been at the club is anecdotal. Having eleven is a different matter.
My grief isn't with him going to the club, to each their own. It's about lying to save face and pocketing £200,000 in the process.
It may not have been cut and dry Barky, but the evidence is there. If he wasn't there, I'm positive his alibi would have stood up to the scrutiny.
(edited)
Author
barky
gari-sheridan was never a labour msp btw-he was a scottish socialist … gari-sheridan was never a labour msp btw-he was a scottish socialist msp,and later formed the solidarity movement,I do agree with your argument btw,but he wasnt labour.
Come on Barky, a crook is a crook is a crook! To defend one and attack another just because they belong to different politcal parties is neanderthal. And I'm pretty modern.
JonnyTwoToes
Come on Barky, a crook is a crook is a crook!To defend one and attack … Come on Barky, a crook is a crook is a crook!To defend one and attack another just because they belong to different politcal parties is neanderthal. And I'm pretty modern.
who am I defending Johnny?? I have clearly stated TWICE that my point isnt about tommy sheridan,its about my concern for the burden of proof that seems to be required in court. I couldnt care less about sheridan personally and Im NOT defending him.
Author
barky
who am I defending Johnny?? I have clearly stated TWICE that my point … who am I defending Johnny?? I have clearly stated TWICE that my point isnt about tommy sheridan,its about my concern for the burden of proof that seems to be required in court. I couldnt care less about sheridan personally and Im NOT defending him.
Sorry Barky, I didn't make my point clear. Gari is suggesting I wouldn't have the same opinion of a Tory MP to which I am saying why would I defend one and attack the other? A crook is a crook is a crook (as I said). I bolded your text to respond - the bit where you agreed with Gari's theory.
(edited)
I can remember him leading the anti-poll tax fight in Glasgow many years ago - he stood up against the powers that be then. He stood up for people that were having their possessions repossessed by a system that did not care.
He certainly once was a man of principle but to take on the might of Murdoch and his millions was too much, especially if the allegations were true. (edited)
Author
AberdeenDad
I can remember him leading the anti-poll tax fight in Glasgow many years … I can remember him leading the anti-poll tax fight in Glasgow many years ago - he stood up against the powers that be then. He stood up for people that were having their possessions repossessed by a system that did not care. He certainly once was a man of principle but to take on the might of Murdoch and his millions was too much, especially if the allegations were true.
I actually thought the poll tax was a good idea - just poorly executed.
£4.5m of tax payers money for legal costs. Total disgrace this farce went ahead.
So what's the beef JTT? Being a Labour MP or shagging loose Glasgow tarts?
Author
guv
So what's the beef JTT? Being a Labour MP or shagging loose Glasgow tarts?
Read the thread Guv, you'll get the gist.
Even if any part of the hysteria about Sheridan is true, I know off the top of my head three lies that have really done some damage politics and to everyone in this country and beyond.
Tony Blair lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction
Bankers lying to each other about toxic mortgages
Nick Clegg lying about never raising university fees.
The hypocrisy of the News Paper owners that hounded Sheridan, scared to deal with the real issues he was raising and resorting to their usual dirty tricks while Murdoch and his like are doing worse behind closed doors while preaching to the rest of us.
JTT, it is below you to jump on this pathetic bandwagon.
Author
Plum
Even if any part of the hysteria about Sheridan is true, I know off the … Even if any part of the hysteria about Sheridan is true, I know off the top of my head three lies that have really done some damage politics and to everyone in this country and beyond. Tony Blair lying about Weapons of Mass DestructionBankers lying to each other about toxic mortgagesNick Clegg lying about never raising university fees.The hypocrisy of the News Paper owners that hounded Sheridan, scared to deal with the real issues he was raising and resorting to their usual dirty tricks while Murdoch and his like are doing worse behind closed doors while preaching to the rest of us.JTT, it is below you to jump on this pathetic bandwagon.
Hold on Plum. I agree with all of your three points (Blair, Bankers, Clegg); why am I jumping on a bandwagon to suggest a fourth? This guy 'stole' £200,000 by lying. It seems I am the only one able to separate this from party politics.
(edited)
JonnyTwoToes
Hold on Plum. I agree with all of your three points (Blaire, Bankers, … Hold on Plum. I agree with all of your three points (Blaire, Bankers, Clegg); why am I jumping on a bandwagon to suggest a fourth? This guy 'stole' £200,000 by lying. It seems I am the only one able to separate this from party politics.
Tommy Sheridan did not set out to steal £200 000. He was attacked for his politics by an organisation that has built itself up based on lies, half truths and total fabrications. The amount of times these organisations have been forced to retract stories or apologise are countless, while to sell more papers they repeat the practice the next day. Are we to accept these people suddenly as the Guardians of Truth! Please.
To be honest the contempt to which I hold the Murdoch news empire and it's complete lack of integrity means that I was glad when he won regardless of the truth of his personal sex life which is nobodies bussiness but his own. I further believe it was actually irrelevant compared to the reasons the Newspaper had taken up the story.
You don't believe in Socialism, but you should at least understand that our democracy should not be manipulated by Rich media moguls. If Sheridan is to be defeated it should be on the basis of his policies and beliefs.
I could understand the attack if Sheridan went around preaching "Christian Values" and monogamy etc and had built his career on it, but he plainly has not. Instead he has stood for defending workers against attacks on their working and living conditions and that is how he should be judge whether you like his ideas or not.
This is just gutter journalism.
JonnyTwoToes
Read the thread Guv, you'll get the gist.
I just read the Plum report instead..... you bully JTT... you should be ashamed of yourself..... PS.... why do you never answer straight forward questions?
Author
guv
I just read the Plum report instead..... you bully JTT... you should be … I just read the Plum report instead..... you bully JTT... you should be ashamed of yourself..... PS.... why do you never answer straight forward questions?
Depends what you mean by straight forward.
Far too smug.
Author
DLM
Far too smug.
Plum? Guv?
JonnyTwoToes
Plum? Guv?
Tommy and the swingers
JonnyTwoToes
Are you on this planet Plum?This has nothing to do with anything you have … Are you on this planet Plum?This has nothing to do with anything you have just puked out.This guy lied. He sued for defamation. What do you think he was after? A chocolate bar and a smile?. He has now been found guilty of perjury. Done.Crook.
If you are talking about making money out of lies then if Tommy Sheridan and Rubpert Murdochs Pants were on fire then
Tommy Sheridans would be a cheap advent candle. [img]freefoto.com/ima…jpg?&k=Advent+Candle[/img]
While
Rupert Murdochs would be a similar temp to the surface of the Sun (that's the real one not his rag).
[image missing]
Author
You don't have to compare everything in order to make one less of an issue that the other Plum.
Again, I agree with you. Murdoch is a pain in the ****. Fox is a joke.
But that's got nothing to do with this thread.
Sheridan = Crook . <------ that's a full stop.
AberdeenDad
I can remember him leading the anti-poll tax fight in Glasgow many years … I can remember him leading the anti-poll tax fight in Glasgow many years ago - he stood up against the powers that be then. He stood up for people that were having their possessions repossessed by a system that did not care. He certainly once was a man of principle but to take on the might of Murdoch and his millions was too much, especially if the allegations were true.
i agree with you and the might of the murdoch empire it was obivious that he was not going to win his case also would like to see those who people who gave evidence at the first case that sheriden won brought to trial as they gave different statements at this trial if that is not perjury what is. but of course money talks? also does one not think we the public have heard the last of this.you bet we have not .it wont matter what happens to sheriden because with him being a fighter he wont go down without a fight i.e. appeal appeal a certainty. one thing i ask myself why was he allowed out on bail? although being convicted of a serious crime warrants the accused being held in custody for sentence. so will just have to wait and see what the murdoch empire splashes over their tabliods tomorrow THE SUN 30P NEWS OF THE WORLD £1 THERE WONT BE MANY SALES IN SCOTLAND DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THE MURDOCH EMPIRE REDUCES HIS PAPERS THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND WONT BUY THEM UNLESS HE PUTS MORE NAKED GIRLS ON THE PAGES BUT AS I SAID MONEY TALKS AND WE THE RATEPAYERS HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL.
barky
,its about my concern for the burden of proof that seems to be required … ,its about my concern for the burden of proof that seems to be required in court.
Thing about court cases is that they last for days or weeks or months and the press reports are likely only to capture a small portion of the facts/arguments that are presented. I guess we have to rely on the jury however it was a majority verdict but I don't know how big the majority was......maybe your doubts were shared by some of the jury. (edited)
The guy is a clown. Power went straight to his head. As guilty as a puppy next to a pile of poo
Share with Messenger
57 Comments
sorted byFingers crossed he gets a jail sentence.
Sorry Gari, you couldn't be further from the truth. He (regardless of what party he is from) pocketed £200,000 by lying. That's wrong.
He should have been respectable enough to put his hand up and admit he messed up.
Crook.
This has nothing to do with anything you have just puked out.
This guy lied. He sued for defamation. What do you think he was after? A chocolate bar and a smile?. He has now been found guilty of perjury. Done.
Crook.
(edited)
its a certainty he will get a jail sentence,and it will be years and not months-it was the high court he lied in-he will probably get about a year on each count so 6 years total.
Im no lover of sheridan,or his wife-cant stand them actually,but I must admit that Im slightly concerned that in actual fact he has been convicted on no real evidence-surely this has wider implications for our justice system? About 20 friends testified that he wasnt in that club,and about 20 ex friends testified that he told them he was. So is that PROOF? a grainy video on a mobile phone of him supposedly confessing to a friend,but you couldnt make out whether it was him or not. News of the world havent a single piece of photographic evidence he was there-its all hearsay-arent the jury meant to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt?
As I said,love him or hate him personally,but seriously there wasnt one SHRED of proof he was guilty,and I thought that was the legal requirement.
Not bothered about him being guilty either way but I'd hate to see Misc become anymore of a platform for rightwing politics than it already is......why not give us a story about corrupt Tory politicians for a bit of balance
And if I was innocent after being found guilty, I'd probably spend my time on the steps of the court telling everyone I was innocent other than:
"For three years my wife and I have faced charges of perjury. Today, I was convicted and Gail was acquitted of any crime.
"I have fought the power of News International all my political life, and I make no apologies for taking on the might of Rupert Murdoch.
"Several million pounds of public money was spent investigating me and my wife.
"Is it not time that similar resources were devoted to investigating the activities of the News of the World."
To me, that just sounds like he's **** off at them finding out.
(edited)
BTW I'm not defending Sheridan - I just think there are crooks in all the political parties.....
(edited)
Of course he knew. He should hold his hands up and admit it, and Cameron should have taken better action over the whole thing.
This isn't about party politics Gari. It's being thankful we have a system that gets it right sometimes!
Sorry JTT,I cant agree it was "overwhelming"-lets leave aside for a moment that its tommy sheridan ok-should a man lose his liberty on ANECDOTAL evidence? cos thats all there is-one bunch of people say he was there,another bunch say he wasnt-its really that simple-I dont know why you can call that overwhelming. Im trying to make a wider point-its not about sheridan at all-I have watched the review of evidence every day and its all been he said,she said,they said blah blah and I find it very worrying that a jury can believe thats enough-thats all. Mrs barkys mother knows the sheridans very well,and I can state with absolute certainty that he is a nasty,conniving man,who has an extremely high opinion of himself and generally is not a nice person at all but this isnt about HIM,its about our justice system and I dont agree he was PROVED guilty.He was a famous person,had been in celebrity big brother,was in a sex club and not one person pulled out a mobile phone and took a picture? On either occasion he was there? you think thats likely in this day and age?
gari-sheridan was never a labour msp btw-he was a scottish socialist msp,and later formed the solidarity movement,I do agree with your argument btw,but he wasnt labour.
Having eleven is a different matter.
My grief isn't with him going to the club, to each their own. It's about lying to save face and pocketing £200,000 in the process.
It may not have been cut and dry Barky, but the evidence is there. If he wasn't there, I'm positive his alibi would have stood up to the scrutiny.
(edited)
Come on Barky, a crook is a crook is a crook!
To defend one and attack another just because they belong to different politcal parties is neanderthal. And I'm pretty modern.
who am I defending Johnny?? I have clearly stated TWICE that my point isnt about tommy sheridan,its about my concern for the burden of proof that seems to be required in court. I couldnt care less about sheridan personally and Im NOT defending him.
Sorry Barky, I didn't make my point clear. Gari is suggesting I wouldn't have the same opinion of a Tory MP to which I am saying why would I defend one and attack the other?
A crook is a crook is a crook (as I said).
I bolded your text to respond - the bit where you agreed with Gari's theory.
(edited)
He certainly once was a man of principle but to take on the might of Murdoch and his millions was too much, especially if the allegations were true.
(edited)
I actually thought the poll tax was a good idea - just poorly executed.
Read the thread Guv, you'll get the gist.
Tony Blair lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction
Bankers lying to each other about toxic mortgages
Nick Clegg lying about never raising university fees.
The hypocrisy of the News Paper owners that hounded Sheridan, scared to deal with the real issues he was raising and resorting to their usual dirty tricks while Murdoch and his like are doing worse behind closed doors while preaching to the rest of us.
JTT, it is below you to jump on this pathetic bandwagon.
Hold on Plum. I agree with all of your three points (Blair, Bankers, Clegg); why am I jumping on a bandwagon to suggest a fourth?
This guy 'stole' £200,000 by lying. It seems I am the only one able to separate this from party politics.
(edited)
Tommy Sheridan did not set out to steal £200 000. He was attacked for his politics by an organisation that has built itself up based on lies, half truths and total fabrications. The amount of times these organisations have been forced to retract stories or apologise are countless, while to sell more papers they repeat the practice the next day. Are we to accept these people suddenly as the Guardians of Truth! Please.
To be honest the contempt to which I hold the Murdoch news empire and it's complete lack of integrity means that I was glad when he won regardless of the truth of his personal sex life which is nobodies bussiness but his own. I further believe it was actually irrelevant compared to the reasons the Newspaper had taken up the story.
You don't believe in Socialism, but you should at least understand that our democracy should not be manipulated by Rich media moguls. If Sheridan is to be defeated it should be on the basis of his policies and beliefs.
I could understand the attack if Sheridan went around preaching "Christian Values" and monogamy etc and had built his career on it, but he plainly has not. Instead he has stood for defending workers against attacks on their working and living conditions and that is how he should be judge whether you like his ideas or not.
This is just gutter journalism.
I just read the Plum report instead..... you bully JTT... you should be ashamed of yourself..... PS.... why do you never answer straight forward questions?
Depends what you mean by straight forward.
Plum? Guv?
Tommy and the swingers
If you are talking about making money out of lies then if Tommy Sheridan and Rubpert Murdochs Pants were on fire then
Tommy Sheridans would be a cheap advent candle. [img]freefoto.com/ima…jpg?&k=Advent+Candle[/img]
While
Rupert Murdochs would be a similar temp to the surface of the Sun (that's the real one not his rag).
[image missing]
Again, I agree with you. Murdoch is a pain in the ****. Fox is a joke.
But that's got nothing to do with this thread.
Sheridan = Crook . <------ that's a full stop.
Thing about court cases is that they last for days or weeks or months and the press reports are likely only to capture a small portion of the facts/arguments that are presented. I guess we have to rely on the jury however it was a majority verdict but I don't know how big the majority was......maybe your doubts were shared by some of the jury.
(edited)