Originally posted by no1marauderThe meeting was to decide how to deal with the press allegations, not to pass ssome kind of moral judgement on what he was doing.
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.
He admitted the allegations were true, but insisted that he was going to deny them and sue. He insisted the party should back him and lie for him.
The executive asked that, if he was going to pursue the legal route, he should step down as convenor, and Tommy agreed to do this.
Originally posted by chris stephensSheridan may well be one of Galloway's candidates, depending on what happens at the Glasgow selection meeting and the October conference.
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 hav ...[text shortened]... in the scottish elections next year, probaly on the list.
at least the jags are one up mike!
But the SWP are already calling for expulsions, I hear.
Originally posted by VargWhat's wrong with cocaine use, using prostitutes, swingers parties, sex clubs, etc.?
This is an interesting (and humorous) case.
We all enjoy seeing politicians' murky past catching up with them, don't we?
Yet, despite the News of the World's claims that it "does not tell lies", we can hardly trust the words of a seedy tabloid rag.
Anyway, there are some interesting allegations, including cocaine use, using prostitutes, swingers parties, sex ...[text shortened]... t/5243878.stm
Perhaps an esteemed member of the forum has some inside information on this?
Originally posted by RedmikeThat's nonsense. The proper way for a workers party to deal with allegations about the personal lives of their leadership is to ignore them. Just calling a meeting regarding such a ridiculous, trivial matter shows how screwed up the priorities of the party leadership were.
The meeting was to decide how to deal with the press allegations, not to pass ssome kind of moral judgement on what he was doing.
He admitted the allegations were true, but insisted that he was going to deny them and sue. He insisted the party should back him and lie for him.
The executive asked that, if he was going to pursue the legal route, he should step down as convenor, and Tommy agreed to do this.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, we wanted to ignore them, but Sheridan insisted we denied them, sue the newspaper and lie if necessary.
That's nonsense. The proper way for a workers party to deal with allegations about the personal lives of their leadership is to ignore them. Just calling a meeting regarding such a ridiculous, trivial matter shows how screwed up the priorities of the party leadership were.
But we needed to have a meeting to agree how to proceed, to reach a democratic decision.
If we hadn't discussed the alegations and how to deal with them, Sheridan would have sued anyway. Then we would have been in an even worse position - the party in a crisis and the leadership seen to not discuss it.
The minutes of the meeting will be public within days, though Sheridan disputes these too.
Originally posted by RedmikeI'm sorry but is it your claim that Sheridan admitted the allegations at the meeting and then asked the participants at the meeting to lie about his admission? Why would he admit them in the first place? I can see why the jury didn't believe the testimony of the other party members; it seems that someone who is going to sue a newspaper for defamation isn't going to admit the allegations are true to a bunch of people at a meeting.
Yes, we wanted to ignore them, but Sheridan insisted we denied them, sue the newspaper and lie if necessary.
But we needed to have a meeting to agree how to proceed, to reach a democratic decision.
If we hadn't discussed the alegations and how to deal with them, Sheridan would have sued anyway. Then we would have been in an even worse position - the pa ...[text shortened]... .
The minutes of the meeting will be public within days, though Sheridan disputes these too.
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is my claim, and the claim of the majority of the people at the meeting.
I'm sorry but is it your claim that Sheridan admitted the allegations at the meeting and then asked the participants at the meeting to lie about his admission? Why would he admit them in the first place? I can see why the jury didn't believe the testimony of the other party members; it seems that someone who is going to sue a newspaper for defamation isn't going to admit the allegations are true to a bunch of people at a meeting.
He had already admitted attending the club (with a tabloid journalist, of all people) to a couple of senior people in the party in previous years, but had agreed that it was politically reckless and said he would stop. So, when the allegations surfaced in the press, it was clear to these people who the 'unnamed politician' was likely to be.
So, at the meeting in November 2004, when asked, he confirmed he was the person, but said he was going to deny it and sue. He said he expected the party to support him in this, including lying for him.
The party executive said they couldn't do this, and said that if he wanted to sue, he had to do so as an individual, so resign as convenor. Critically, Sheridan agreed with this and resigned (though he spun the press a story about more time with his family).
The alternative version of events is that he denied everything at the meeting, but voluntarilly resigned anyway. He (and everyone else) then signed for a copy of the minutes, which he later claimed to have never seen. The real reasons for his resignation were common knowledge throughout the party, but he claims he never heard any of this, until he was horrified to find he was the victim of some kind of stitchup. Doesn't stack up. And why would people want to stitchup the greatest electoral asset the party had?
As well as the 11 people who testified about his admission at the EC, there are dozens of people not at this meeting to whom he has also admitted the allegations. Even the 4 people who supported him did so on the basis that it is ok to lie in court if we get one over on the Murdoch press (though of course they can't say so now).
The bottom line is that he couldn't really deny it to the party - some people already knew what he was doing, before the press got it.
Originally posted by Redmikenope too long, i wont read it.
This is my claim, and the claim of the majority of the people at the meeting.
He had already admitted attending the club (with a tabloid journalist, of all people) to a couple of senior people in the party in previous years, but had agreed that it was politically reckless and said he would stop. So, when the allegations surfaced in the press, it was clear t ...[text shortened]... eny it to the party - some people already knew what he was doing, before the press got it.
Originally posted by RedmikeIf what you say is true, then he really had some balls going to court, with the testimonial evidence squarely stacked against him. Imagine the ignomy of losing.
This is my claim, and the claim of the majority of the people at the meeting.
He had already admitted attending the club (with a tabloid journalist, of all people) to a couple of senior people in the party in previous years, but had agreed that it was politically reckless and said he would stop. So, when the allegations surfaced in the press, it was clear t ...[text shortened]... eny it to the party - some people already knew what he was doing, before the press got it.
I mean, what if someone had taken a snap of him at these parties, conclusively proving he was there? What an audacious risk for him to take!
And his wife too would surely have had to have been fully complicit in the deception. Or could she be a victim of extreme self-deception???
2 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThis is one aspect I couldn't really understand, but I think it is the celebrity cloak of invincibility which these guys often think they own. Edit - Archer, Aitken etc
If what you say is true, then he really had some balls going to court, with the testimonial evidence squarely stacked against him. Imagine the ignomy of losing.
I mean, what if someone had taken a snap of him at these parties, conclusively proving he was there? What an audacious risk for him to take!
And his wife too would surely have had to have been fully complicit in the deception. Or could she be a victim of extreme self-deception???
I also understand that he never expected it to get to court. The tabloids will often settle out of court, and I think he underestimated the strength of their case (though so did the jury...).
Because he has constructed this notion of a vast conspiracy, it didn't matter if he won or lost - he just falls back on the great big stitchup.
In terms of his wife, I don't really know her too well, but she really is taking the Tammy Wynette thin a bit far. Lets she is she stands by him after the appeal. The newspaper are really gunning for him now - they're producing all sorts of new stuff.