And, defending himself again yesterday against perjury charges, I thought he'd persuade the jury again with his five-hour tour de force :
"I've never been accused of a crime of dishonesty in my life."The News of the World, the Murdoch press and the Sun have tried to destroy me and my marriage. But you know what - I'm not frightened of them. I've fought them all my life and I will continue to fight them.
"I'm not frightened of Lothian and Borders Police.
"I'm not frightened of saying they should be ashamed of themselves for the way they've treated my family."
Sheridan then bowed his head, paused, and looked up at the jury.
He went on: "I'm frightened of you. I'm frightened of you because you can do something that the News of the World will never be able to do.
"You could separate me from my wife, you could make me break my promise to my daughter that I'd spend Christmas with her.
"Given what you've heard - and never mind the emotion, because you're not here to judge emotion - I ask you to believe you've heard more than enough reasonable doubt to convince you that I'm innocent of the charges that remain."
At this point, about 100 supporters packed into the public gallery applauded.
Impressive. But a guilty verdict nonetheless.
One thing I can't understand. Other than the alleged tape of Sheridan discussing the libel trial, made by a (presumably) former friend, the evidence against him seemed to be pretty much a rerun of the evidence first time round. Now that evidence seemed compelling, yet the jury dismissed it and found that he'd been libelled. I would have thought that a prosecution for perjury was almost an attempt to reverse a jury's decision, perverse though that decision may have been. Indeed, the BBC report explicitly states that the second jury ruled on matters of fact - and these were matters which had already been presented to the first jury. Isn't there an element of double jeopardy here ?
Any lawyers out there ? Does this mean that anyone exonerated by a jury despite what looks like strong evidence against them is liable to be done for perjury - on that same evidence ?
UPDATE - Martin Kelly puts it well :
"it is a public tragedy that Sheridan has managed to get himself into this position at a time when the people he has claimed to speak for and represent need a tribune of his political gifts more than they have ever done before...
I hope he takes the chance to use his considerable talent and intelligence to help those who come into contact with him. There may be any number of rudderless young men who could benefit from having a mentor like Tommy Sheridan."
23 comments:
The whole point about the first trial was that SHERIDAN sued the NotW knowing that they had printed the truth, but confident that he could persuade the Jury of a lie - the whole trial was an attempt by Sheridan to defraud the Murdoch press. That's what separates it from run of the mill perjury cases.
I think one of the main reasons for the perjury trial was the tape recording that surfaced after he won his libel case. His former friend and best man was appalled when Tommy called all his former comrades scabs and decided to sell the tape to the NOTW. The tape was a recording of Tommy explaining about his trips to Cupids etc and wasn't available at the original trial.
His missus is a bit of alright. I wouldnt mind bringing charges against her ;-)
IANAL, but as libel is a civil matter I don't think double jeopardy is an issue. In any case, the double jeopardy principle in this country was weakened in the fall out of the Lawrence death.
"the double jeopardy principle in this country ...": irrelevant - the Sheridan trials have been in Scotland.
Martin Kelly "puts it well", does he, Laban? Why is it a "tragedy" that some authoritarian, hypocritical, sexually incontinent Trotskyite has self-destructed? In what way would such a man, particularly a Trotskyite, make a worthy "mentor" for "rudderless" young men? MK is writing sentimental garbage.
@ Anon - 6.01pm
In what way would such a man, particularly a Trotskyite, make a worthy "mentor" for "rudderless" young men? MK is writing sentimental garbage.
I'm not overly fond of socialists, but Martin Kelly has a point. The perjured Jonathan Aitken helped his fellow prisoners to write letters - many were barely literate. Aitken was much humbled by his stretch in the slammer, and while gaol did nothing for Jeffrey Archer, one hopes it will have an edifying effect on Tommy Sheridan.
After his five hour marathan closing speech, I have a grudging admiration for Sheridan, trot or not.
Laban,
There's no double jeopardy here. The first case was civil the second criminal. The two actions had separate standards of proof. In the civil case, brought at Sheridans own instance, he claimed he had been defamed by NOTW. In the criminal case, the allegation brought by the Crown was that he perjured himself during the course of the civil action. The perjury case arose from his actions as ittness in his defamation case, not from that case's grounds. That may perhaps be a lawyerly distinction, but it's an important one nonetheless.
Anon, 6: 01,
God, you're a hard 'un to please. I'd merely bring it to your attention that in order for this verdict to have been brought about, a slew of perverts and Trotskyists went into the witness box and presumably told the truth.
Dearieme, we have double jeoprady in Scotland as well, you know.
FB:
1. What's so special about a five-hour speech of self-justification? Do you have admiration for other despotic socialist windbags from Cuba or North Korea who rant at their audiences? Sheridan is clearly a bore who likes the sound of his voice.
2. Aitken and Archer were not political fanatics like Sheridan, who is cocooned in his savage, hate-filled, reality-denying ideology. He'd have to change a lot more than Aitken and Archer before he would be a worthy mentor of rudderless young men.
MK:
"in order for this verdict to have been brought about, a slew of perverts and Trotskyists went into the witness box and presumably told the truth."
And the point you are trying make with this non sequitur is what exactly?
@Martin: yup, but it was the "this country" I objected to. Though of course if he was writing from Scoland, then I apologise to him.
@dearieme
I'd forgotten about Scotland's weird legal setup when I wrote that, but it turns out I wasn't so wrong at that.
Anon 10:51,
My dad wears glasses, but it's cold tonight and I'm on holiday until Wednesday.
Now, these are genuine non sequiturs. I could continue for hours in this vein, as I derive a certain childish joy from it. However, I will resist that temptation, for all our sakes, and would instead respectfully suggest that my earlier remark about perverts and Trotskyists telling the truth was not a non sequitur, on the basis that you seem to have a severe case of Trotskyistism, and might need a gentle reminder that while adhering to Trostkysim does leave one open to the risk of falling into a multitude of sins, perjuring yourself in what you might believe to be its pursuit has thus far been a vice unique to Tommy Sheridan; or merely another one of many, if you wish to nit-pick.
You give every indication of being a particularly shrill ideologue of the UK's feral and vociferous right, and the grossly unattractive combination of your aggression and lack of comprehension means that engaging with you further is an insult not only to your intelligence, but also, far more grievously, to mine. Laban, thanks for the link, and I hope you had a very pleasant and peaceful Christmas.
Now that evidence seemed compelling, yet the jury dismissed it and found that he'd been libelled.
I'm not sure if this would apply to libel trials, but juries are normally pressed to reach a verdict "beyond doubt", so if only one item of evidence can cast that doubt then the rest of it can be dismissed and a "not guilty" returned, if the same item is later found to be perjurious then the rest of the evidence can swing against.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" applies to criminal law. In civil law the verdict can be decided by majority decisions.
Martin
A non sequitur can be any irrelevancy. And I'd submit your comment was irrelevant.
You seem to be very thin-skinned for a blogger: someone who immediately sees any challenge as aggression, and who then responds aggressively and very pompously.
Your clam that Sheridan would make a worthy mentor for rudderless young men is quite extraordinarily silly. Trotskyites like him have done everything they could to undermine our moral and educational framework, and this evil work has undoubtedly resulted in an increase in the rudderless young men you mention. Personally, I think the prison chaplain would be better placed to guide them.
Anon 12:50,
"A non sequitur can be any irrelevancy. "
I wear size six shoes, and I'm taller than my wife. I suppose that some non sequiturs are more likely to be genuine non sequiturs than others.
"You seem to be very thin-skinned for a blogger: someone who immediately sees any challenge as aggression, and who then responds aggressively and very pompously."
Cue the late Frankie Howerd - Oooh! OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!
To be accused of being pompous is such an exchange is a badge of merit in my book, if only because it makes me think I got under your skin. You are unable to communicate with me in the same terms that I have communicated with you, so you so resent and despise the person who has addressed you in this way that the only retort that you can think of is to label them as pompous. Dude, my sister can do better than that - she calls me laborious and overbearing.
And besides, having been active in Internet journalism since 7th September 2002, I have wasted far too much precious time both reading and countering the frothing, almost carpet-chewing, rants of anonymous blog comment posters. In 1964, Philip Larkin commented to John Betjeman, in the context of his work as a university librarian, that minutes of meetings have their limitations as an art form. If that is the case, then how much more limited as an art form is what can appear anonymously in a blog post's comment box?
How, having toyed with you for a while, like a good mouser with its freshest kill, let's get to the nuts and bolts of what you actually said, such as it was -
"Your clam that Sheridan would make a worthy mentor for rudderless young men is quite extraordinarily silly. Trotskyites like him have done everything they could to undermine our moral and educational framework, and this evil work has undoubtedly resulted in an increase in the rudderless young men you mention. Personally, I think the prison chaplain would be better placed to guide them."
Clearly, you believe that because he was once a Trotskyite, and indeed may still be a Trotskyite, he will forever be incapable of being anything but a Trotskyite. This make me think that your knowledge of Christianity is so alarmingly defective that you mention of the prison chaplain is just absurd.
Next!
Martin - Why don't you put aside your pontifications, evasions, preening self-importance, non sequiturs and ad hominem assertions and just answer my points?
To recap...
You refer in your post to Sheridan's "considerable talent and intelligence". You imply that he has moral qualities that would fit him to be a mentor to the young. And you say that he "was in the business of speaking truth to power, and of working for right over might".
For my part, I see little evidence that Sheridan is intelligent. He is an intellectual prisoner of an odious ideology that has been shown - at great cost in human suffering - simply not to work. You actually have to be pretty thick to be so impervious to this evidence.
As for his moral qualities, he is a revolutionary socialist, and as such is not fitted to be the mentor of "rudderless" young people because he would doubtless use the opportunity to indoctrinate them. Of course, inside, he might abandon his ideology and redeem himself; but unless he does - and I suggest it is unlikely - he should not be encouraged to do any mentoring.
As for "speaking truth to power" etc, Sheridan's revolutionary socialist ideology means that he will leap on any bandwagon if it has revolutionary potential (cf the Leninist's "useful idiots", the Trotskyite's "transitional demands"). To revolutionary socialists, all morality is irrelevant bourgeois posturing: all that matters is that the proletariat wins - by any available means, however bloody - the class war. So, to Sheridan, truth is instrumental and relative: what is true is what furthers the revolution (which is the key to why he perjured himself, I suspect.) If ever in power, Sheridan would not let anyone speak truth to his power or right to his might. Like his SWP allies in Solidarity, he would not hesitate to execute counter-revolutionaries in a revolutionary situation.
So why do you praise this ghastly creature in such sentimental terms? Arthur Scargill, Gerry Healey, Tommy Sheridan...There's a pattern here...can't you see it?
Anonymouse,
"For my part, I see little evidence that Sheridan is intelligent."
OK. He got himself elected to the Scottish Parliament twice, increasing his party's representation sixfold from one election to the next. In his first year in Holyrood, he reformed Scotland's barbaric laws on the collection of debt. He conducted his own pursuit of a jury trial for defamation in the Court of Session, and won, albeit with perjured evidence. He then conducted his own defence in the High Court in Scotland's longet ever perjury trial, albeit unsuccessfully. Now, those may be the actions of a narcissist, adulterer, swinger, Trotskyite and liar, but objectively they also seem the actions of a pretty smart man to me.
"He is an intellectual prisoner of an odious ideology that has been shown - at great cost in human suffering - simply not to work. You actually have to be pretty thick to be so impervious to this evidence."
Unless I'm greatly mistaken, Laban's original post was not concerned with either the merits or demerits of Trotskyism. You are the one who has been howling about Trotskyism like a rabid animal, nobody else. My mistake has perhaps been to treat your rantings with a greater degree of attention, if not consideration, than they deserve.
I am sure that at some point you will suggest that the Trots who gave evidence against Sheridan did so only for ideological reasons. If you were to do so, it would be typically unreasonable of you, as you will be instructed later.
"As for his moral qualities, he is a revolutionary socialist, and as such is not fitted to be the mentor of "rudderless" young people"
On whose say so? Yours?
"because he would doubtless use the opportunity to indoctrinate them"
Who is the real totalitarian, you or him?
"Of course, inside, he might abandon his ideology and redeem himself; but unless he does - and I suggest it is unlikely - he should not be encouraged to do any mentoring."
Ah yes, until he has been sufficiently re-educated that his mind has been cleansed of the ideological filth in which it was accustomed to wallow.
"As for "speaking truth to power" etc, Sheridan's revolutionary socialist ideology means that he will leap on any bandwagon if it has revolutionary potential (cf the Leninist's "useful idiots", the Trotskyite's "transitional demands"). To revolutionary socialists, all morality is irrelevant bourgeois posturing: all that matters is that the proletariat wins - by any available means, however bloody - the class war. "
Say what you like about Eric Hobsbawm, but one of his most perceptive opinions is that class war is always waged with greater violence from above than from below. I think we're seeing some evidence of that now.
"So, to Sheridan, truth is instrumental and relative: what is true is what furthers the revolution (which is the key to why he perjured himself, I suspect.)"
Again no, for, like Archer, and like Aitken, he did it in order to save face and make money, which is why perjury during libel and defamation actions is taken so seriously. In this case, politics had nothing to do with the crime and everything to do with the politician. Shridan's perjury is an offence against the administration of justice committed in the hope of making a substantial financial gain. Now, if you were not so filled with blind hatred of not merely Trostskyism but also Trotskyists, you would know that was why his former colleagues refused to support him.
"If ever in power, Sheridan would not let anyone speak truth to his power or right to his might. Like his SWP allies in Solidarity, he would not hesitate to execute counter-revolutionaries in a revolutionary situation."
Och, away and watch that Michael McIntyre video your civil partner bought you for Christmas, and calm down. This is a textbook example of one of the Internet's worst bloody hazards. Instead of enabling people to expand their minds and engage with those who hold beliefs different to their own, some people do nothing with it but read information from the same sources to such an extent that they become part of very small, closed communities. The horrible example of teenage cluster suicides is one example of this phenomenon, the British libertarian blogosphere is another. There seem to be some libertarians who cannot sneeze without wondering what a blog with more traffic than theirs seems to think about it. That's yet another reason why the libertarians are so big on the Internet, and so puny in the actual political process. They spend so much time talking to themselves, and thinking that what they have to say to each other is important, they they forget to talk to anyone else.
In your case, you seem to think that we live in Russia at the height of the Civil War, and not in the United Kingdom nearly a century later. If you seriously think that anyone like Tommy Sheridan would ever get within a sniff of mounting a revolution here, you really do not know much British history.
Seen 'Upstairs, Downstairs', or 'Downton Abbey?', by any chance?
"So why do you praise this ghastly creature in such sentimental terms? Arthur Scargill, Gerry Healey, Tommy Sheridan...There's a pattern here...can't you see it?"
Ah, I see, I am a fellow traveller of the Trotskyites. I shall therefore lie down and wait for my bullet along with every other victim of totalitarians who has died because some wee bastard didn't like either being disagreed with or laughed at.
Martin, your foam-flecked posts are hilariously ludicrous!
Do go on...
Ah, Anonymouse, I see I have you whupped. Down boy! Good dog!
You are man, I am master, and don't you ever forget it.
Happy New Year.
I'm with the first anonymous on this one.
While T.S. has read a book or two and can be described as intelligent. I don't think he has the mores, temperament or humanity to be anything other than a nefarious influence on anyone's life.
p.s.
"Och, away and watch that Michael McIntyre video your civil partner bought you for Christmas, and calm down."
Is the best insult ever.
And a Happy New Year to you, Martin.
Re-reading our exchanges, your other contributions to Laban's estimable blog and after reading your own blog, I would make these observations:
1. You write very well, even beautifully; and I must say that I find much of what you write is wise and good. You are at your best when elaborating a penetrating insight discursively. Analytically and logically, you are rather weak, I fear.
2. When insecure in your opinion, your response is usually risible. You tend to rant - or deviate from the point under discussion, or flannel, or have recourse to some quite clever abuse (cf anon @ 4.41)!
3. You come over as defensive and rather brittle -- someone who finds any criticism hard to take. To you, a retort -- almost any retort, however irrelevant or tangential -- seems preferable to acknowledging that you just might be wrong.
4. Perhaps you are recovering from mental illness, perhaps you have some other chronic illness; but that is how you come over to me. If so, forgive me for even apparently handling you roughly.
I will pray for you.
Ralph
Post a Comment