View Full Version : Tommy (Sheridan) the Stage Show
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17513692%26method=full%26siteid=66633% 26headline=tommy%2dthe%2dstage%2dshow-name_page.html
Tommy Sheridans court case might become a stage show....whatever next?
The Mahogany MSP is bonkers but highly entertaining so maybe its not such a bad idea??
tillygirl
04-Aug-06, 14:10
Nothing would surprise me! Or maybe the book...
quite frankly... who cares how funky his private life is, eh?
quite frankly... who cares how funky his private life is, eh?
See! We agree on lots of things now!:lol:
See! We agree on lots of things now!:lol:
Hey folks isn't this great!!!! Please keep it up! Who knows where it may lead ! ;)
Just heard that Tommy Sheridan won his case....I am stunned I thought he was going to go down in flames. Will make the musical/stage show more interesting I guess??
Well... Tommy has won his defamation case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5246378.stm) against the News of the World.
It was close though. According to the BBC, "Mr Sheridan won his case on a majority verdict of seven to four." I didn't know such a close verdict was acceptable. Do we have any legal eagles who might explain the rules?
I'm intrigued by Tommy. And the outcome was clearly going to have a significant effect on the SSP, so I've been following the media coverage of the case quite closely - sad eh? But I had absolutely no idea which way the verdict was going to go. Having not been present in the courtroom and watched the witnesses, I really didn't know whom to believe, and I'm glad I didn't have to make a final judgement.
So... Tommy emerges victorious and vindicated. What effect will this have on the future of the SSP and, in particular, on his SSP MSP colleagues? Will Tommy attempt a hero's return to the party leadership? I'm sure I don't know...
orkneylass
04-Aug-06, 18:00
surely a 7-4 verdict turns out more like that poisoned chalice "not proven" - ie not enough evidence to convict but..... so is he vindicated???? I guess he is as genuine as his suntan.....
The BBC have a brief account of the rules for civil cases here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5246716.stm).
I honestly don't know which way I would have swung if I'd been on the jury and heard all the evidence first hand. Maybe I should have gone along one day and tried to get into the public galleries.
According to Tommy Sheridan on emerging from Court it was a "victory for the working class" - so that's all right then. His private life may be a bit "modern" but at least we know his politics are in the last century.
Actually I'm glad it's over (at least I hope it is). I usually like watching Newsnight Scotland but the thought of yet another episode of TS was getting too much - soooo boring.
See yuu badger, ye dinnae appreciate working-class Weegie heroes, hen.
('scuse my dialect - I learned it fae a wee book called Learn Yersel Weeg, and I only read the first two chapters.)
I must admit that, apart from hearing some of the vague allegations I haven't heard any of the details so I cannot comment on the rights or wrongs of the verdict.
I did, however, note with interest the comment from the Scottish Editor of the News of the World.
In one simple explanation he solved the whole of the back log of cases both civil and criminal.
Henceforth we can abandoned the necessity for trials either criminal or civil.
He was of the opinion that, because his side had the greater number of witnesses he could not see how the verdict was arrives at.
So now you know. All that needs to happen is for the judge to ask the prosecution and the defence how many witnesses they can produce and whichever can produce the most gets the verdict.
You could line them all up in rows. The Judge asks for the numbers, the numbers are given the verdict is announced, the people in that case exit stage left and the next row steps forward.
Five minutes a case, twelve cases an hour, an eight hour day, 20 minutes overtime, 100 cases a day per judge.
Production line justice and all as a result of a suggestion by the NoW.
I'm inclined to believe Tommy Sheridan, if only for the fact that none of those extra curricular bedmates seemed to have noticed and commented on his pelt.I certainly would have, particularly if I'd been ice-cubing it!
But regardless of the rights and wrongs of it........it is glorious to see the NoW getting beat.........filthy rag!
Countryman
05-Aug-06, 08:34
So TS victor, what is going to happen to the £200,000 plus the fees from the Daily Record over £100,000 giving it to the poor. Since when has this poor working class man with a salary plus expenses £100,000 a year been woring class.
Like so many left wing radical politicans they seen to live the good life, remember Hatten of militant what ever happened to him after he hit the big time.
What next for TS.
So TS victor, what is going to happen to the £200,000 plus the fees from the Daily Record over £100,000 giving it to the poor. Since when has this poor working class man with a salary plus expenses £100,000 a year been woring[sic] class.
Like so many left wing radical politicans they seen to live the good life, remember Hatten of militant what ever happened to him after he hit the big time.
What next for TS.
Tommy Sheridan has always given half his salary as an MP to the SSP; has done since the day he invented the Party.
Something that has been 'forgotten', as pointed out by Ian Bell in today's Herald-
"The News of the World printer its ' allegations' as though the very appearance of a politician's name in its pages was equivilant to an offence in Law.
Even the alleged, disproven, fantasised actions of Mr. Sheridan were entirely lawful."
As stated by Paul McBride, on of Scotland's top QCs, when talking about the possible appeal against the verdict
"You can have eight witnesses saying someone did something and one saying he didn't. All the jury have to do is believe the one witness and they are fully entitled to disbelieve the eight if they think it is appropriate. That is their job".
surely a 7-4 verdict turns out more like that poisoned chalice "not proven" - ie not enough evidence to convict but..... so is he vindicated????
And how anyone can equate a 7 - 4 majority verdict with a 'not proven' verdict, defies understanding!
And how anyone can equate a 7 - 4 majority verdict with a 'not proven' verdict, defies understanding!From the BBC link I posted above:
In Scotland, like England, a civil jury is composed of 12 people and a majority of seven is sufficient for a verdict in favour of either party.
It would have taken only one of the seven to have come down on the other side for the verdict to have been 'hung', 'undecided', or whatever the legal term may be. I don't know what would have happened then.
Perhaps they should give one of these high profile court cases to the members of caithness.org to debate. We could give it a go for a few days, then send in the results.
Hats off to Tommy, whilst I may not agree with his politics I have nothing but admiration for the way he took on the might of the News International media empire and won. It should be borne in mind that it was Tommy Sheridan that took the case to court, it was the NOTW that were in the dock and not him – he risked everything, his wife/marriage, bankruptcy, his political career and integrity, he would have been finished if he had lost……and he was willing to risk all that. For me that says something. I watched an interview with the wife of former Liberal Democrat leadership contender Mark Oaten the other week, and how his reaction when confronted with the rent boy allegations that were going to be printed, it was “I’m finished”, he had given up because he knew they were true – how could someone have the balls to stand up to allegations if they did not know that they were false (?) I ask that as a general question and not a statement. For me either way, he has won a remarkable victory.
Sjwahwah, asks who cares how funky his private life is – well I am sure his wife and daughter do, and unfortunately they were exposed to the bile that poses for journalism in the UK.
From the BBC link I posted above:
In Scotland, like England, a civil jury is composed of 12 people and a majority of seven is sufficient for a verdict in favour of either party.
It would have taken only one of the seven to have come down on the other side for the verdict to have been 'hung', 'undecided', or whatever the legal term may be. I don't know what would have happened then.
Hi Doc, this is from this link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5238222.stm
Sheridan, 42, who is representing himself after sacking his lawyers earlier in the proceedings, made a passionate speech to the jury of six men and five women in Edinburgh.
You might also want to check this rather than the BBC (EBC!)
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/courtusers/jurors/index.asp?crt=all&val=generalinfo
scotsboy... repeatedly I've been asked if I thought "he done it"... I could careless if he did... I don't think his daughter nor his wife need a jury to tell them what he's been up too. He knew he could prove them wrong this time and went for it no lawyers or not..
Do you think it should have been top of the Scottish News for 2 weeks? I don't... there's far more newsworthy items they should be focussed on.
Let's face it... the media for the most part are liars and biased and mass manipulaters.. in this case they got a mere slap on the wrist.. what's £200 big ones to them? The paper should be given a publishing suspension and all involved should be sacked...
I wonder what else happened in Scotland this week?
Yes, I know the jury consisted of only 11 in this case, but the second BBC article I quoted says:
In Scotland, like England, a civil jury is composed of 12 people and a majority of seven is sufficient for a verdict in favour of either party.
In this particular case, one of the 12 jurors was excused because of a holiday commitment but that did not alter the need for at least seven jurors to be in favour of a verdict.
The Scotsman says much the same thing (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1134592006):
A civil jury usually numbers 12, but one woman had been discharged to go on holiday. The legal formality requires a "Yes" or "No" answer to "the issue" - whether Mr Sheridan had been defamed by false statements in the newspaper articles.
The foreman of the jury said the answer was "Yes" by a majority of seven to four. And the amount of damages to be awarded to Mr Sheridan was £200,000 - exactly what he had set as a possible upper limit in his claim.
It appears that a decision is reached when at least 7 of the original 12 jurors come down on one side. I still don't know what happens when the "score" is 6-5 (or 6-6). Maybe it goes to penalties. :cool:
j4bberw0ck
05-Aug-06, 23:20
I think the most interesting thing is that of the SSP MP's (4), 3 testified against the Mahogany Monstrosity. The SSP as a party is screwed, and no mistake.
Thank heavens for that, at least.
I think the most interesting thing is that of the SSP MP's (4), 3 testified against the Mahogany Monstrosity. The SSP as a party is screwed, and no mistake.
Thank heavens for that, at least.
I reckon that you are correct; but I don't think for a minute that Tommy is screwed.
He will rise again........................
With Tommy being not guilty, what happens to those who must have perjured themselves in court? Will they be arrested and suitable sentences meted out for lying under oath?
You are right SJwahwah, nothing he was even accused of doing was illegal. It did deserve to be in the news simply because it was the Media who were in the dock, and I love to see them take a battering……..unfortunately it was the medias obsession with sex and scandal that captivated the news. If he had taken them to court on some other more mundane matter it would have hardly got a mention.
The point I was trying to make re his wife/daughter was more to do with the NOTW intrusion into their lives, and not what he may or may not have been up to.
You are right SJwahwah, nothing he was even accused of doing was illegal. It did deserve to be in the news simply because it was the Media who were in the dock, and I love to see them take a battering……..unfortunately it was the medias obsession with sex and scandal that captivated the news. If he had taken them to court on some other more mundane matter it would have hardly got a mention.
The point I was trying to make re his wife/daughter was more to do with the NOTW intrusion into their lives, and not what he may or may not have been up to.
Tommy was never accused of anything , he was not on trial. He took the News of the World to court for slandering him, and Won!!!
Aha, that'll teach me to pay more attention! Thanks Golach.
He was in the NOTW Golach;)
He was in the NOTW Golach;)
I know he was, but a Scottish jury believed him, not the gutter press
.......I honestly don't know which way I would have swung.....
Didn't know you were a swinger Doc :eek:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.