Monday, 20 December 2010

Another 6 charges dropped...

The farce continues. The Crown prosecution service has taken to court umpteen charges against Tommy & Gayle Sheridan, dropping them willy nilly as they've been refuted or the witnesses discredited. Appraently the crown are allowed to continue dropping bits of the charges here there and everywhere as Tommy Sheridan has expended his efforts defending himself against them, but still the reamaing few are there for the jury to 'sharpen their focus'... I wonder what teh prosecution line will be?

"Come oan, there's nae smoke withoot fire. Look at aw thay charges we've dropped - he must surely have done something wrang"

I hope the jury see through it, stick with the verdict of the original trial and send a clear message to News international and the Crown Prosecution service.


  1. Jim,

    In his summing up Mr Prentice pointed to a whole lot more than there being "no smoke without fire". He went through substantial amounts of evidence.

    Also, there is no "original trial". This is the first trial.

  2. Of course he did... we've seen lots of evidence... subsequently trashed... keep slinging mud though and some of it is bound to stick.

    The other trial I refer to is of course the defamation case brought by Tommy Sheridan in which a jury decided they preferred Tommy's version to that of News International. I've no doubt that jury understood exactly what they were doing...

    That's the 'original trial' which is the subject of this trial.

    Of course, you didn't need me to point that out did you.

  3. It wasn't a "trial".

    Bet you 50 quid your man's going down. He's no socialist.

  4. Ah - I see! the defamation case wasn't a trial... it was a 'court action' I suppose.

    Glad to have a pedant on board - they always help you focus on the guts of the matter I find...

    I don't really care if Tommy Sheridan's a socialist or not. He was the one man with the cahones to get up front in the fight against Poll Tax warrant sales and getting people organised against those abominable practices, that the rest of our so called political leaders stood idly by and tutted at.

    News International slung too much mud about the place in trying to peddle their tittle tattle and got their come uppance in court.

    The Prosecutors have fallen into the same trap - as well as failing to consider that the original jury (from the court action - not a trial!) might just have understood what was going on. For that, I hope that this Jury are minded to find in Tommy's favour - so long as he promises not to let his mum sing again!

  5. Perhaps if Shareabang hadn't felt like dunking fat donuts behind his wife's back then he wouldn't be in the mess he is in. If he'd simply ignored the story, it would have been forgotten by now. However, his ego couldn't resist it and he may well pay the ultimate price for his perjury. Hell mind him (and this isn't a Sharebang v Rupert Murdoch story, it's Shareabang v the integrity of the legal system).

  6. Interesting point anonymous... apart from the fact that he presented his point of view before a jury of his peers who found in his favour...

    Now the 'integrity of the legal system' has cost us millions of pounds in effort and untold cost in lost police hours, just to satisfy the Murdoch empire, and we're no better off than we were before...

  7. If Shareabang has lied in court - and I happen to think he has - then I think that is far important than scoring points against Rupert Murdoch.

    Unfortunately, I'm not convinced a Glasgow jury can be trusted to deliver an honest verdict against Shareabang. Too many will think like yourself - 'aye, well, I don't like Murdoch' - and disregard the actual evidence (his taped confession, the numerous testimonies from friends and colleagues, the evidence from his sexual partners). So I won't be surprised to see him walk. Shareabang and Megrahi both out - Scottish justice, eh?

  8. Funny that you should think it appropriate to use such a moniker for Tommy Sheridan then accuse a Glasgow jury of inbuilt bias.

    Do your own pejudices prevent you from considering the ease with which such a tape could be concocted and the evidence from his other friends and colleagues?

    Not sure what your point is about Megrahi - are you complaining about the trumped up conviction, based on contrived American evidence, or the entirely reasonable process which saw a terminally ill, foreign National sent home to die?