Tommy Sheridan Convicted December 23, 2010
Posted by Garibaldy in British Politics, Scotland.trackback
I see from the BBC that Tommy Sheridan has been convicted of perjury in relation to his successful action against the News of the World for libel. I hadn’t been following the trial very closely, but last week came across the Sheridan Trial blog, which provides extensive accounts of the case from people present in the court. I haven’t made it much more than halfway through, but the material is fascinating as well as legnthy. I’ve read all the prosecution case, and a bit of the defence case. Whether you think Sheridan was guilty or innocent, or whether you agree with him or not, it’s a depressing read, revealing a great deal of in-fighting, dishonesty and dishonourable behaviour among people who in many cases had spent their lives working for progressive politics. The accusations of corruption, opportunism, factionalism etc are of course also familiar to leftists across the world. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, the whole Sheridan affair (if that’s not the wrong choice of words) has undoubtedly done serious damage to left politics in Scotland.
The Scottish Socialist Party is of the opinion that
By his actions over six years, Tommy Sheridan has disgraced himself and negated his political contribution to the socialist cause over 25 years. History will now record that he did more harm to the socialist cause in Scotland than any good he ever did it.
while his former colleague in the Scottish parliament, Carolyne Leckie, stated that
If Tommy had taken our advice six years ago, he wouldn’t be facing a jail sentence and people would have forgotten about it. I think the socialist movement in Scotland has been very seriously damaged and Tommy is the one who’s culpable for doing that. That’s his biggest crime.
I think there’s probably enough blame to go around to land on more than one person’s head, especially in a case where it transpires that people on the left have on several occasions gone running to the press, including the Murdoch press, whether for money or other reasons.
Judging by the transcripts on the trial blog, and by the events of the trial, Sheridan put up a strong defence. 18 allegations of perjury were dropped to six, and Gail Sheridan was acquitted altogether; Sheridan in his closing said that the Crown witnesses were neither credible nor reliable, and that was certainly proven to be so in many cases. What was interesting to see was how in the case of the Scottish editor of the News of the World and one of the paper’s journalists, there had been in the previous trial mistakes made in their testimony (as well as an admission that adding quotes from unnamed sources was standard industry practice), and there were other witnesses who Sheridan was able to show were saying different things to what they had previously, or to discredit. The balance of probabilities was against Sheridan, but in the material I read there seemed to be good grounds for reasonable doubt – as was reflected in the dropping of two-thirds of the charges. I’m not at all surprised that the verdicts were majority decisions and not unanimous. We’ll see if there will be an appeal. One other very unedifying aspect of the trial was that when it came to discussions of sentencing, the prosecutor saw fit to outline Sheridan’s political record, as well as convictions. Hard to see the relevance of his political record to sentencing for a perjury conviction I think.
I haven’t here gone into the rights and wrongs of all this, but there is one thing I think we can agree on. When Andy Coulson, the ex-editor of the News of the World at the time of the phone hacking scandal, is now a senior adviser to David Cameron and where Murdoch can flex his muscles to an unprecedented extent, Tommy Sheridan was certainly speaking the truth when, commenting on the millions of pounds spent on the case, he asked
Is it not time that similar resources were devoted to investigating the activities of the News of the World.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland said: Cedar Lounge Rev: Tommy Sheridan Convicted: I see from the BBC that Tommy Sheridan has been convicted of perjury… http://bit.ly/eaRqgv [...]
Anyone that tries to present the humilation of this charalatan and the damage his lies have done to socialism in not only Scotland but across Britain and beyond is fooling themselves.
I hope ever young socialist getting a book on Che for Christmas reflects on the fact this is the sort of weak character, with position that gets a deserved bullet in the head in a real revolution.
Utter wanker, shame on anyone defending him, shame on parties allow more cash driven hedonists like him to rise to the top.
“Utter wanker”? Wasn’t it a bit more than that, that he was accused of.
<sorry>
this is the sort of weak character, with position that gets a deserved bullet in the head in a real revolution.
Christ.
“with position that gets a deserved bullet in the head in a real revolution.”
Charming…
Do you always take sides with the old Bill and the Dirty Digger?
In a way, and again not in any sense assuming guilt or innocence either way, it seems to me that this points to a serious need for those leftists who take public positions to be very very careful so that not just the reality, but the perception, is entirely above board. In a society where we have a hugely aggressive media (though one as you note above that is directed in very clear ways most of the time) that ferrets out information, etc… well, the dangers are self-evident.
Although one might counter argue that in the Facebook era where a night out is plastered up on the internet there are structural changes taking place in how people act – though that can be on much more trivial levels.
Statement from Socialist Party Scotland (CWI)
“Of the 42 prosecution witnesses, 24 were members of the SSP, including 16 of the original Executive Committee who gave evidence against him in the 2006 defamation action. Without the SSP there was little possibility of a prosecution being achieved. Their central role in this vendetta against Tommy Sheridan, alongside that of the police and the legal establishment, will condemn them forever in the eyes of genuine socialists and class-conscious workers.”
http://socialistpartyscotland.org.uk/news-a-analysis/scottish-politics/274-vendetta-against-tommy-sheridan-results-in-qguiltyq-verdict
One other very unedifying aspect of the trial was that when it came to discussions of sentencing, the prosecutor saw fit to outline Sheridan’s political record, as well as convictions. Hard to see the relevance of his political record to sentencing for a perjury conviction I think.
Another unedifying aspect was the way in which he police videos of the questioning of the Sheridans found themselves in the hands of the BBC. That’s not good.
Is there an SSP and an SPS?
Yes, two different groups. The former is the original platform party which Sheridan was an MSP for, the SPS is the CWI affiliate in Scotland which was a platform within the SSP up to I think 2006 when it left with Sheridan to join Solidarity.
nuff said.
The two most disturbing things about Sheridan’s trial were a) the vast police resources deployed to investigate and gather evidence of perjury, and b) the reminder of just how integrated the police are with News International.
While the Dirty Digger, his minions and the Scottish police and legal establishment no doubt take immense satisfaction in nailing Sheridan there is arguably a cataclysmic scandal brewing in the UK regarding the hacking of the personal information of high-profile individuals: as was touched on in Sheridan’s trial.
It’s clear that UK police authorities, the CPS and supportive politicians will do everything in their power to avoid investigating News International’s extenstive illegal activity. And that stands in marked contrast with their determined pursuit of Sheridan.
David Osler has a fair analysis (to my mind) of ‘The Fall of Tommy Sheridan’ http://www.davidosler.com/2010/12/the-fall-of-tommy-sheridan/#more-2992
THAT Tommy Sheridan was the most charismatic and gifted revolutionary socialist politician of recent decades is beyond serious dispute, and I always used to admire him for that. I still do, I suppose.
In a period where the left failed to find a widespread hearing, he alone proved capable of building a substantial electoral base for basic class struggle ideas. Without him, the Scottish Socialist Party would not have achieved the measure of success it did achieve, and the credit for this can never be taken away from him.
That he used the fame that inevitably ensued to his personal sexual advantage is not an issue that should be of pressing concern to anyone other than himself and those with whom he slept. No one should cast judgement on the consensual relationships or others, be they gay, straight, marital, adulterous, based on auto-erotic asphyxiation, administered by hookers dressed up in Luftwaffe uniforms, or participated in by however many can squeeze into a bed in a cheap hotel room.
At the time the News of the World published details of his visits to a swingers’ club in Manchester, Sheridan had sufficient popularity North of the Border to take exactly that stance. A dignified ‘no comment’ or a rigid ‘none of your business’ line, and he would have rode out the publicity, in much the same way as any other married politician caught playing away by the red tops.
There are enough broadminded adults out there to ensure that nookie with someone other than the missus is not the automatic end of a political career, as figures from Shagger Norris to Paddy Pantsdown can testify. Millions of us could not cast the first stone.
I cannot imagine what drove Sheridan to sue for libel instead. In a country where religious feelings are more widespread than in England, perhaps he felt that the revelations were electorally damaging. Perhaps he saw a one-off opportunity to make some serious cash. One day his memoirs will presumably tell us.
But what was inadmissible right from the start was his expectation that his comrades were somehow duty bound to stand up in the dock and commit the criminal offence of perjury in his support.
Sheridan’s supporters have argued all along that it is the elementary responsibility of socialists to defend other socialists against the Murdoch press, at all times and in all circumstances, and at any degree of jeopardy. The reality is that everything depends on the political issues at stake. Where there is sufficient cause for such a risk, then the correct course would naturally be to take it.
But unlike, say, John Maclean or the leadership of the Communist Party of Great Britain before the general strike, Sheridan was not before the court on charges of sedition. Unlike Jock Haston, Roy Tearse, Heaton Lee and Ann Keen, he did not stand in front of a jury for his support for unofficial industrial action. Unlike Ricky Tomlinson, Des Warren, the Pentonville Five or hundreds of miners in 1984 and 1985, the issue at hand was not his conduct on the picket line.
Sheridan’s conviction today flows entirely from his insane determination to lie about his inability to keep it in his trousers. As a result, he has destroyed everything he spent the first half of his life building up, just at a time when a party premised on militant opposition to coalition austerity could truly have hit the big time. However sorry one has to feel for the family, the biggest tragedy about what has happened is the setback this represents for the far left as a whole.
Here’s my blog on this vendetta against Scotland’s leading socialist: http://riversstream.blogspot.com/2010/12/solidarity-with-sheridans.html
An SSP member sold film, allegedly of Sheridan confessing, to the News of the World for a vast sum. And is still an SSP member. SSP leaders went to the cops with various documents and demanded a perjury investigation into Sheridan. Now the SSP are crowing about being vindicated.
There is nothing else to say about the SSP.
Whatever else about the SSP as a whole, or the wisdom of taking a libel case in the first place, the fact that film was sold to the NOTW is near unbelievable.
I think David Osler has a point about the issue of potential perjury for other leftists, that’s one issue, but to assist the Murdoch press, indeed it would be the same had it been sold to a more left inclined media outlet. That’s simply wrong.
Don’t disagree there, WBS.
And if that’s true what Mark P says about the mercenary, cash-driven Murdoch mole still being allowed in the SSP (however much they feel they’re right), that’s not good at all. Solidarity, comrade?
I think it’s all a very sad story provoked by Sheridan’s ill-judgment or hubris, fuelled by the SSP in-fighting and lapped up by Murdoch’s News of the World and the Tory Right.
It has done damage to socialism in Scotland.
I think Osler’s overall analysis is fairly good. This is a terrible pity, dismal for Sheridan himself, for the SSP as was and a victory for the right.
Yes, I think Osler gets it about right too. (Comments box full of loudmouths and rhetoricians as per usual, but he’s better than his audience.)
Well, that’s two of Murdoch’s political opponents broken in a week. Cable gets set up and Sheridan gets sent down.
No Gods, no masters, when will we learn this simple lesson. The fact Tommy Sheridan decided to defend himself in court shows just how divorced from the reality of life he has become.
There is a lesson for the left here, for a large, long established party, a charismatic figure can be a blessing and pay dividends electorally. But for a small party it can prove disastrous, as we have seen with this kerfuffle, for when the great leaders star dims or burns out, the party goes down with him. (they are almost always a him)
Very true Mick re depending upon one or perhaps two charismatic figures. I saw a similar dynamic with de Rossa in DL and the WP before the split.
Well Madam Miaow put it pretty well on David Osler’s site, quoting Osler she writes:
“But what was inadmissible right from the start was his expectation that his comrades were somehow duty bound to stand up in the dock and commit the criminal offence of perjury in his support.”
Yup, that just about sums it up for me. He should never have bought into the reactionary values and morality of the press in the first place.
I’m not at all sure what she meant by that, though I can see very well what Osler meant in the passage she quotes.
I’m presuming that she means he shouldnt have been overly concerned and certainly not to the point of libel of a press which in certain instances feeds on prurience etc at least outwardly…
Maybe. It’s partly that “bought into” that’s making things unclear. Perhaps the rhetoric serves to obscure the observation.
That’s a fair point and on rereading it I think as you say it does make the interpretation a bit different to what I originally thought.
Still, I like my interpretation!
will there be any comment form ireland’s socialist party?
Why would there be?
Scottish Review: Why the Sheridan case may return to haunt Scottish justice
http://www.scottishreview.net/index.shtml
“The News of the World has at last won its vendetta against a left wing politician. It has done so with the connivance of the Lord Advocate. If at first you don’t succeed keep trying. Scottish justice has notched up another political miscarriage of justice alongside that of Al Megrahi and Muir of Huntershill.”
http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/blog/
One of m’learned friends comments on the case. This article might be more knowledgeable about the legal aspects of the case than the article by Osler above.
Dave Osler has certainly got it right – if Sheridan had not taken the libel case – the same fatal mistake Oscar Wilde made when he sued the Marquis of Queensbury although the brilliant playwright knew truth was not on his side – the tabloid story would have died. Perhaps Gail and Tommy would have split up – perhaps not. No big deal. One, two, three in the bed – people should not care a toss about the behaviour of consenting adults in private.. But – do not insist and demand of comrades and friends to lie for you when playing away from home.
Very very sad.
I think it far more likely that if Sheridan hadn’t sued that the NotW would have continued to drip-feed more stories about Sheridan’s private life. Remember Bob Bird admitted during the trial the the NotW would often (i.e. common practice) ‘embellish’ a story with made up anonymous quotes. Do you seriously think that if the NotW got away with the ‘exposé’ they carried out that they would not have gone back to the well again and again to milk it for all its worth? In the process the SSP would have been tainted by association. By letting Sheridan take the case they could have delcared that it was his business and avoided all the following consequences.
Would the SSP have been damaged anyway? of course it was going to do some damage – the objective should have been to minimise the damage – their strategy had the exact opposite effect.
It was inevitable that Sheridan was going to sue – anyone who knew him would have known that (or at least should have known it) and should have acted accordingly. In other words the SSP leadership should have avoided discussing the issue at the Executive like the plague so that they wouldn’t be drawn into any court case. Instead they did the exact bloody opposite and ended up lining up with the NotW and the state in two court cases.
Hi Dave – Your post on Tommy Sheridan is spot on : http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/tommy-sheridan-convicted/#comment-87337
There is one additional point – the evidence suggests News of the World phone-hacking may have played a role in this case – in other words the Murdoch Organisation gained information about the private life of Tommy Sheridan and other public figures illegally. In true tabloid fashion, it then decorated the prosaic truth with fairy tale lies.
Nick Davies of the Guardian is running a campaign against the power of the right-wing tabloids and their use of unethical private life data – more power to him.
Millions of people buy into tabloid fairy-tales – but can be repelled by its lies about real flesh-and-blood likeable people – the category “escapism” does not start to explain this fantasy-land.
“I think it far more likely that if Sheridan hadn’t sued that the NotW would have continued to drip-feed more stories about Sheridan’s private life. Remember Bob Bird admitted during the trial the the NotW would often (i.e. common practice) ‘embellish’ a story with made up anonymous quotes. Do you seriously think that if the NotW got away with the ‘exposé’ they carried out that they would not have gone back to the well again and again to milk it for all its worth? In the process the SSP would have been tainted by association. By letting Sheridan take the case they could have delcared that it was his business and avoided all the following consequences.”
Doesn’t this just dance around the obvious issue – is it a good idea to bring a libel action when much of what has been written is actually true? Sheridan had been having affairs and he had been visiting sex clubs. So wasn’t it very unwise to take a libel action claiming that he hadn’t been doing anything of the sort?
He could have turned around and said “my private life is none of the NOTW’s business, I don’t preach family values like the hypocrite Tories so it’s nobody’s business what I do in my personal life, I’m not going to dignify these stories with a response, everyone knows the Murdoch press are sleazy creeps”. If he’d done that, surely, the NOTW could have drip-fed as many allegations as it had liked, the story just wouldn’t have had legs. Sex scandals with politicians only work if the politicians act embarassed when their private lives are brought into public view.
“Would the SSP have been damaged anyway? of course it was going to do some damage – the objective should have been to minimise the damage – their strategy had the exact opposite effect.
It was inevitable that Sheridan was going to sue – anyone who knew him would have known that (or at least should have known it) and should have acted accordingly. In other words the SSP leadership should have avoided discussing the issue at the Executive like the plague so that they wouldn’t be drawn into any court case. Instead they did the exact bloody opposite and ended up lining up with the NotW and the state in two court cases.”
Again, this just seems like dancing around the issue. If the best-known leader of the SSP was taking a libel case against a Murdoch paper, everyone would have been asking the SSP if they were behind Sheridan. It wouldn’t have been convincing for them to say “that’s Tommy’s business, it’s a private matter”.
Presumably he would have been going around saying the same things he has been saying the last few years, that all the stuff in the NOTW was made up by a right-wing newspaper to smear a socialist leader. People would have been asking the SSP “is this true? if it’s true, why are ye just saying this is Tommy’s business and not the SSP’s concern? why aren’t you throwing your weight behind him trying to clear his name?” The other SSP leaders would constantly have been asked if they believed Sheridan’s version of events, every time they appeared in the media, you can be sure of it.
It just doesn’t convince to say “Sheridan was always going to bring this libel case, it was inevitable, so the SSP should just have accepted that and gone along with it.” It makes just as much sense to say “the SSP leadership were always going to oppose Sheridan taking his case, that was inevitable, so Sheridna should just have accepted that and gone along with it.”
I have no followed every nuance of the trial.
But I feel if the SP and SWP had been forces for restraint on Sheridan he might have been convinced not to go for broke.
Whatever people think far left politics in Scotland has blown it for another generation. Lessons for the ULA. Cannot see any of its leaders doing anything silly, I hope.
“But I feel if the SP and SWP had been forces for restraint on Sheridan he might have been convinced not to go for broke.”
Cobblers.
Well, not necessarily cobblers. But certainly I’d agree with you that the constraints either formation could impose were utterly limited.
A useful overview which complements the analysis of David Osler is here : http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/12/tommy-sheridan-tragedy-and-farce.html
If by useful you mean “sly apologia for the rump SSP”.
Well, not exactly, he’s pretty clear in saying:
“Unfortunately, Barbara Scott, Alan McCombes, George McNeilage and others were subsequently so consumed with rage and hate that they were prepared to cross the line. It is understandable why they did what they did, but inexcusable for all that. As long as they play any kind of front line role in the SSP their actions will cast a shadow the organisation cannot shake off.”
A curious apologia which suggests that the SSP is cast in shadow and which can only be removed by the departure of high profile members.
That’s his concession to “even-handedness”.
Hmmm… seems pretty even handed to me.
Sheridan made a enormous error of judgement in taking a case. The SSP members mentioned made equally huge errors of judgement… McNeilage’s arguably even greater.
But to be honest as a fairly neutral observer none of them comes out of this with any credit at all from start to finish.
An independent, informative view of of the whole affair can be gained from the link below.
http://www.gerryhassan.com/?p=1461#more-1461
Prior to the swingers’ club controversy, Sheridan, far more than Taffe, represented a profound break with the passive politics of the old Militant as represented by Grant and Woods. Hassen’s article does not deal with this.It is key for those who want to understand the origins of the Walkerite Socialist Party in Ireland.
Ath blian faoi mhaise daoibh.
That article is straightforwardly anti-socialist drivel, so I suppose it is at least in keeping with the quality of your own comment, Nollaig0.
NollaigO is a socialist of long standing. Really, is it absolutely impossible to shift away from these personalised comments?
Yes, I know he’s a socialist of long standing.
Which doesn’t change the fact that (a) his post was drivel and (b) the article he linked to was both anti-socialist and drivel.
There’s nothing at all “personalised” in pointing that out. I have no interest in Nollaig0, and am commenting only on the inaccuracy of the opinions he expressed above and the cretinous article he linked to.
Mark P, unfortunately you can’t even be bothered to provide a rationale as to why something might be incorrect or inaccurate. Instead in your first comment you offer an off the cuff ex cathedra comment ‘drivel’ as if that alone is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of your viewpoint and all others must recognise it as such.
And that’s before we get to the tone which doesn’t even attempt to conceal utter disdain for any viewpoints expressed by those who come from tangents other than your own (or those you align with).
And that is personalised, not least in how you state the article ‘is in keeping with the quality of your own comment’. You can’t be bothered to engage with the substance, what you’re doing is simply dismissing in the most derisory terms possible. What’s possibly most concerning is that you don’t even appear aware of what you’re doing and how you’re doing it.
At the very least if you thought a comrade had an erroneous viewpoint you might take the time and make the effort to explain why in a way that wouldn’t cause affront but might actually change their perception for the better (as you see it). Unless changing perceptions isn’t what this is about and it’s simply an exercise in swatting away others for the sake of it. I certainly can’t be bothered to go into the motivations of people who use the internet, but I do have a specific concern for the tenor of discussion on this site.
I and others have worked long and hard to generate a space here for leftists and left Republicans of all stripes from the centre left out to discuss issues amongst themselves without their views being dismissed out of hand but instead being worked through in a courteous manner albeit with a genuine critique.
The point NollaigO is certainly open for critique, the source of the piece he links to equally if not more so, but there’s ways and means that are more effective and less effective.
First day of the New Year (as if that should make a difference) and already we see some of the bad habits of last year and the year before manifesting themselves.
Great to see commenting in the new year starting off on a high note.
A cynic writes: wouldn’t something like this have happened in the end anyway? Less dramatically, for sure, but wouldn’t the various competing factions within the SSP have fallen out irrevocably over some point of principle and hence rendered the party into splinters?
Another cynic (or sceptic) tends to agree.
It’s a real pity because the platform idea of a broad party encompassing such factions is hugely attractive to me at least.
But if the SSP had split over ‘principles’ (real or contrived) it would have been better than Scotland’s foremost campaigning socialist figure being publicly humiliated and brought down by Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World rag in the eyes of the Scottish public as an adulterous liar.
Absolutely, and I still think that the first mistkae was to take the case.
The hope in formations such as the ULA, SSP and similar fronts in Portugal is that the sum of the parts (sects whatever) will be bigger, and that only idiots would walk away..
there is a real bitter article on the Scottish Socialist Youth site. No winners here in this sordid case only the NoTW, Murdoch machine and other dregs.
Yes, I saw that piece. Thing is, it’s the sort of piece that you’d stop reading after a few paragraphs anyway because it just goes onandonandonandonandon.
Saw it too. Must confess I didn’t get to the end either.
Sheridan has just been given to 3 years in jail.