tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5187043.post2898536807944972737..comments2024-03-29T09:13:55.008+00:00Comments on UK Commentators: On Sheridan and ScabsLabanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12031578024191117985noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5187043.post-88403033159353829762010-12-29T22:45:28.883+00:002010-12-29T22:45:28.883+00:00Laban,
You wrote,
"Yes, but did they HAVE ...Laban, <br /><br />You wrote,<br /><br />"Yes, but did they HAVE to testify? Or could they have stayed schtum?"<br /><br />My apologies if my previous comment wasn't absolutely clear. If they had been cited to testify, they would have had to appear to testify, on pain of being arrested and brought to court in handcuffs to testify. That's the 'compellability' I mentioned earlier. <br /><br />The procedural history of 'Sheridan - v - News Of The World' contains an interesting example of the lengths to which some witnesses are prepared to go in order to avoid having to give testimony. Prior to the hearing of the case, Alan McCombe, one of Sheridan's former SSP associates, was imprisoned for contempt of court for failing to hand over SSP documents when requested to do so. When he gave his evidence, he indicated that Sheridan had fessed up to the whole group sex thang at the exec meeting of November 2004. If McComber perjured himself in so doing, it might be the first time a witness had perjured himself after previously being imprisoned for trying to frustrate the interests of those in whose favour he had committed perjury. <br /><br />Which makes me think he didn't perjure himself at all.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11219870920638914624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5187043.post-55851466573828044902010-12-29T19:50:01.219+00:002010-12-29T19:50:01.219+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06358349301959327747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5187043.post-68222842516863750902010-12-29T19:17:23.092+00:002010-12-29T19:17:23.092+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06358349301959327747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5187043.post-17947205214236244872010-12-29T06:04:17.953+00:002010-12-29T06:04:17.953+00:00"Yes, but did they HAVE to testify? Or could ...<i>"Yes, but did they HAVE to testify? Or could they have stayed schtum?"</i><br /><br />It's only in the US that you can 'plead the Fifth', and then only to avoid incriminating yourself, not others.<br /><br />If they'd refused, would they have been in contempt of court?JuliaMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5187043.post-60658046004113752652010-12-29T00:26:11.470+00:002010-12-29T00:26:11.470+00:00" Tommy Sheridan visits clubs and fesses up t..." Tommy Sheridan visits clubs and fesses up to the SSP when the press find out"<br /><br />To be fair he won the first court case and this sequence of events was found to be lies by a jury. Assuming we agree that once a man is found not guilty and wins a defamation case that should be the end of it then he is right to feel agrieved at the betrayal and call them scabs.<br />In a normal world the SSP members who said he had admitted to going to the Cupids club would be done for perjury since they must have lied according to the first jury.<br />In our world we spend millions going after the innocent party because he's a thorn in the side of the establishment. money is no object to bring him down.<br />Personally I think he did go to Cupids and did become just another champagne socialist. Perma tanned and feted by all the usual wankers in the left wing media. The attempt to make his wife a terrorist was beyond the pale though and brought shame on Scotland. As if we needed any help in that department with regards justice.mad jock mcmadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5187043.post-52791285928912246872010-12-28T22:16:20.157+00:002010-12-28T22:16:20.157+00:00Yes, but did they HAVE to testify? Or could they h...Yes, but did they HAVE to testify? Or could they have stayed schtum?Labanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12031578024191117985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5187043.post-11475782634202666282010-12-28T21:44:36.909+00:002010-12-28T21:44:36.909+00:00Laban,
Those members of the exec who were present...Laban,<br /><br />Those members of the exec who were present at the meeting of November 2004 would all have been pefectly competent and compellable witnesses to his behaviour at it.<br /><br />Rosie Kane had a two page spread in last weekend's 'Sunday Mail' about it all. She really doesn't like him at all.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11219870920638914624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5187043.post-10499915019409284822010-12-28T20:56:30.986+00:002010-12-28T20:56:30.986+00:00"Not for socialism, not for a principle, but ..."Not for socialism, not for a principle, but to perpetuate a false image of a Great Leader?"<br /><br />I suspect that in Sheridan's ideologically warped view perpetuating a false image of the great leader was part of achieving socialism (whatever that may be!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com