Go back
Scottish Socialist Perverts?

Scottish Socialist Perverts?

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Varg
Because the justice system is [b]soooo infallible.[/b]
Again.
What's so wrong with screwing and using drugs?
At least he's not supporting the bombing and burning of civilians...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by shavixmir
Again.
What's so wrong with screwing and using drugs?
At least he's not supporting the bombing and burning of civilians...
much of what you say makes very good sense ...

but i wonder at the picture i see in your avatar ... what is it?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by flexmore
much of what you say makes very good sense ...

but i wonder at the picture i see in your avatar ... what is it?
That's me having a bad hair day.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
Tommy Sheridan is an absolute disgrace.

He has lied to the Scottish Socialist Party and lied to his family.

He has asked the SSP to lie on his behalf, which we refused to do.


I don't care what he does in his private life, but to try and claim it is all a political plot to get him just so he can try and save his reputaion is outrageous.

It is a ...[text shortened]... cally it has come down to one person's ego being bigger than their politics.

A real shame.
This must be a 'field day' since I find myself in agreement with you on this issue. Not only that but I am glad to find that SSP does not back this uncouth ruffian since his presence the Scottish Assembly cannot be good for Scotland or the UK.
My bet is that he will lose the appeal, since the evidence against him appears overwhelming.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Philodor
This must be a 'field day' since I find myself in agreement with you on this issue. Not only that but I am glad to find that SSP does not back this uncouth ruffian since his presence the Scottish Assembly cannot be good for Scotland or the UK.
My bet is that he will lose the appeal, since the evidence against him appears overwhelming.
I really couldn't care less about the dispute between Sheridan and the NotW over their petty allegations. Like I said, I don't care about his private life.

What disgusts me is that a man I was once proud to stand alongside is willing to force his former sexual partners to appear in the witness box so he can accuse them of being liars. He is willing to force senior members of the party to come to court so he can call them liars and accuse them of fabricating minutes in some vast conspiracy to 'get Tommy'.

All to save his reputation. Sickening.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
I really couldn't care less about the dispute between Sheridan and the NotW over their petty allegations. Like I said, I don't care about his private life.

What disgusts me is that a man I was once proud to stand alongside is willing to force his former sexual partners to appear in the witness box so he can accuse them of being liars. He is willing to for ...[text shortened]... ng minutes in some vast conspiracy to 'get Tommy'.

All to save his reputation. Sickening.
Agreed.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by shavixmir
Again.
What's so wrong with screwing and using drugs?
At least he's not supporting the bombing and burning of civilians...
If he'd just taken that position, that would have been fine.

But he admitted to the party executive the allegations were true, but said he wanted to deny it and sue, and he wanted the rest of the party to lie with/for him.

Either that, or if you believe Sheridan, he admitted nothing and most of the executive are lying (for no apparent reason), as are the other people he's admitted it as well as the other women who say they've had affairs (again, for no reason).

Strangely, that seems to be what the jury believed.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
Astonishingly, it seems he has won his defamation case.

No idea what happens now!
English defamation law is a travesty; it's the only place in the world where the defendant has the burden of proving his statements were true rather than the burden being on plaintiff to prove they're false. The country needs a course in "free speech".

Vote Up
Vote Down

there are differences in scots law to english law, no.1, we scots have a separate legal system

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by chris stephens
there are differences in scots law to english law, no.1, we scots have a separate legal system
I knew that! I just like bashing the English!

BTW, why did a supposedly radical worker's party have some kind of a special meeting regarding whether their leader (or one of their leaders) was cheating on his wife anyway? The whole thing seems petty bourgeoisie to me.

Vote Up
Vote Down

the problem with your premise is that the jury, believed the witnesses who said tommy sheridan did not say that the allegations are true, and that no such statements were made at the executive meeting.

what is clear is that some people committed perjury, so this story is going to run and run.

what is also clear is that come october, you will have a ringside seat at a political party tearing itself to shreds, and i predict there will be a breakaway.


i also predict galloway will put up candidates in the scottish elections next year, probaly on the list.

at least the jags are one up mike!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
If he'd just taken that position, that would have been fine.

But he admitted to the party executive the allegations were true, but said he wanted to deny it and sue, and he wanted the rest of the party to lie with/for him.

Either that, or if you believe Sheridan, he admitted nothing and most of the executive are lying (for no apparent reason), as are t ...[text shortened]... ve had affairs (again, for no reason).

Strangely, that seems to be what the jury believed.
I didn't follow the case at all.
But I, per definition, don't believe anything the News of the World writes.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by shavixmir
I didn't follow the case at all.
But I, per definition, don't believe anything the News of the World writes.
Cynic.

Vote Up
Vote Down

absolutely, form my point of view, it seemed a very conservative viewpoint to take on an issue like this.

basically in 1999, tommy sheridan was the only SSP MSP elected, but given his populartity, he was able to get another 5 elected in 2003. (MSP'S are elected by 73 first past the post constituencies, and 56 list members elected under P.R.using the d'hondt system by 8 regions - all ssp members are elected on the list - and you need to poll at least 5% in a region to qualify for election).

a number of the current msp's are very passionate on feminist issues, which rightly or wrongly has been described as the reason for the fall out with sheridan.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by chris stephens
absolutely, form my point of view, it seemed a very conservative viewpoint to take on an issue like this.

basically in 1999, tommy sheridan was the only SSP MSP elected, but given his populartity, he was able to get another 5 elected in 2003. (MSP'S are elected by 73 first past the post constituencies, and 56 list members elected under P.R.using th ...[text shortened]... es, which rightly or wrongly has been described as the reason for the fall out with sheridan.
I can't handle feminists.
Ever since I went to Marxism in 1997 (or 96, me forgets) and I had to listen to them bitching about "Men behaving badly", they've pissed me off.