very bizarreEpykat wrote:His BROTHER IN LAW??????
Tommy Sheridan
I'm glad now because everything I knew since 2004 is now in the public domain and I can speak completely freely without fear of my former SSP comrades saying this or that - cos everything has now been revealed, thank god.
What a bunch of losers - and I don't mean the average SSP member but the people involved in all this. You should see all the internal documents, platforms, open letters etc being flung about behind the scenes - completely detached from reality.
I'm glad to have been out of it long enough to view the current shenanigans for what they are.
What a bunch of losers - and I don't mean the average SSP member but the people involved in all this. You should see all the internal documents, platforms, open letters etc being flung about behind the scenes - completely detached from reality.
I'm glad to have been out of it long enough to view the current shenanigans for what they are.
Tommy was doing it with his journo mistress when his brother-in-law and someone else came in. Journo mistress got peeved and wasn't into the whole voyeur thing so put her clothes back on - the three that were left all got it on with each other - Tommy, girl and brother-in-law.Porty wrote:I have not beeb following this lately. What's the scoop?Epykat wrote:His BROTHER IN LAW??????
It's a real shame for people like you who believed in what the SSP stood/stands for to be let down by all this.Dadaist wrote:I'm glad now because everything I knew since 2004 is now in the public domain and I can speak completely freely without fear of my former SSP comrades saying this or that - cos everything has now been revealed, thank god.
What a bunch of losers - and I don't mean the average SSP member but the people involved in all this. You should see all the internal documents, platforms, open letters etc being flung about behind the scenes - completely detached from reality.
I'm glad to have been out of it long enough to view the current shenanigans for what they are.
Such tacky and tawdry goings-on too.
Although he has participated in hot 3-way action, I'm not sure if he is actively bisexual - that is, it may be that the only interaction between the male participants was "after you - no, after you - oh, you're too kind - ah, excuse me but that's actually my foot" etc etcPorty wrote:Was he supposed to be attending Parly at the time? He's some man shafting his brother-in-law and the rest of the country all at the same time.
Also, to be fair it sounds like most of these events were at night. Furthermore, it sounds like he doesn't even shut up with the politics even when, um, on the job - leaving several convinced socialist prostitutes round the country.
Way to go Tommy.
Can we sure about anything when it comes to Tommy?Dadaist wrote:Although he has participated in hot 3-way action, I'm not sure if he is actively bisexual - .Porty wrote:Was he supposed to be attending Parly at the time? He's some man shafting his brother-in-law and the rest of the country all at the same time.
I think you can be sure he's some flavour of socialist. Apart from that - no!!
If he wins he'll have been "vindicated" and if he loses he will probably still maintain his line.
What a bunch of liars. All that'll happen is a bunch of barristers will get fat fees. I wonder which paper Tommy is talking to in order to tell his side of the story and claw back some dosh!
If he wins he'll have been "vindicated" and if he loses he will probably still maintain his line.
What a bunch of liars. All that'll happen is a bunch of barristers will get fat fees. I wonder which paper Tommy is talking to in order to tell his side of the story and claw back some dosh!
Fundamentally interesting.Porty wrote:I know he was once leader of the SSP but I can't think of any grounds for certainty that he is Socialist. Can you?Dadaist wrote:I think you can be sure he's some flavour of socialist. Apart from that - no!!
He says he is a Marxist, but as a proven liar then you could argue that anything he says is a lie.
So - I assume - you're saying that it's not good enough to espouse socialism and to argue for it - there must be a more concrete measure. That's quite stringent, but fair enough.
On balance of probabilities, whilst we don't know the motivation (he could be an undercover agent for MI5, or be doing it to get famous or get girls (or boys, or both)) I would say that were he not a socialist, it would have been exceptionally difficult to maintain motivation and consistency thus far in thought and action.
Yes - you're right - very difficult to have absolute grounds for certainty over something like that - and more difficult once your credibility has been destroyed.
Maybe I'm naive (ok - I know I am naive 
) but I can't believe that people could totally make up these things, off the top of their heads, total fabrication, completely untrue. There must be a grain of truth somewhere. So........I fink he dun it . And if he didn't he should just laugh, along with the rest of us 
) but I can't believe that people could totally make up these things, off the top of their heads, total fabrication, completely untrue. There must be a grain of truth somewhere. So........I fink he dun it . And if he didn't he should just laugh, along with the rest of us Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!
I think Tommy is well-equiped to maintain consistency in the face of anything that is thrown at him regardless of the evidence against any position he is adopting.. Its one of his qualities. I feel you are better placed than I to guage how he measures up to Socialist principles and behavior.Dadaist wrote: On balance of probabilities, whilst we don't know the motivation (he could be an undercover agent for MI5, or be doing it to get famous or get girls (or boys, or both)) I would say that were he not a socialist, it would have been exceptionally difficult to maintain motivation and consistency thus far in thought and action.
The cynic in me wonders if its all just a vehicle to further fame or infamy. He spotted a niche.
I genuinely cannot understand why he is pursiung this matter?
His party has turned its back on him, what's left?
What's next? A westminster campaign, or a new party? Scargill did that. Look also at what Galloway or Canavan did.
He could also end up bouncing back as the new SSP leader if they get really wiped out at the polls - Colin Fox only got in by a whisker and he's the leader!
Although it looks unlikely at the moment - also don't discount an eventual return to a future Labour Party that's gone back to the left. It's where his roots are.
Having watched him since the Poll Tax days I really don't think the core of his beliefs are a front, or a sham. I think he is of the hard left - I think it's much more likely than a more complicated view that this was his route to fame.
I think you'd get that answer from his political enemies too - however much they hate him and/or his beliefs.
He could also end up bouncing back as the new SSP leader if they get really wiped out at the polls - Colin Fox only got in by a whisker and he's the leader!
Although it looks unlikely at the moment - also don't discount an eventual return to a future Labour Party that's gone back to the left. It's where his roots are.
Having watched him since the Poll Tax days I really don't think the core of his beliefs are a front, or a sham. I think he is of the hard left - I think it's much more likely than a more complicated view that this was his route to fame.
I think you'd get that answer from his political enemies too - however much they hate him and/or his beliefs.
I believe you are correct. Its a bit like Hitler no-one could doubt his beliefs, enemy or friend. Its a bit like a lot of people.Dadaist wrote:Having watched him since the Poll Tax days I really don't think the core of his beliefs are a front, or a sham. I think he is of the hard left - I think it's much more likely than a more complicated view that this was his route to fame.
I think you'd get that answer from his political enemies too - however much they hate him and/or his beliefs.
From someone in the SSP who has been attending the case :
[quote]Tommy Sheridan versus News International - the first five days
I have attended on all of the first 5 days of Tommy’s defamation case, although I missed most of Thursday due to my daughter’s graduation. I am providing this summary, and any subsequent updates I can manage, for signatories of the SSP Members Open Letter, as mediated by Anne Macleod. I have been requested to do so by several signatories. It is intended to counteract mainstream media bias and selectivity, and it is not aimed at distribution or publication beyond these signatories, and certainly not intended in any way to influence the outcome of the jury of 12’s deliberations. Where views are expressed they are strictly my own, as formed during experience of the case.
The case is being held in Court 6 of the Court of Session in the Lawnmarket in Edinburgh, in a very small courtroom holding only 18 members of the public. Court 6 is the only one with high-tech equipment that allows instantly-visible stenography and also the electronic display of documents and videos. Thus far the family and supporters of Tommy have occupied the majority of these 18 seats, with a few going to inveterate court addicts and several to SSP members aligned elsewhere. Anyone wishing to attend should arrive before 9am in the morning and by 1.20 pm in the afternoon - even then there is no guarantee. There are mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks, at around 11.30 and 3, but very few seats change hands once a session has started.
During the first 5 days there have been only 7 witnesses, all called by the defenders of the action, News International. 4 of the witnesses have been paid workers for the News of the World, the Scottish news editor, Douglas Wight, where ‘news’ is used in a wholly new way, 2 stringers, Alan Caldwell and Ken Adams, and a relationships adviser, Anvar Khan, who is very touchy if you call her a ‘sex columnist’. The evidence of these 4 can be described in various ways. Inventive. Uncorroborated. Colourful. Laughable. We, Joe and Jo Public, were warned on the very first day by Lord Caldwell, the presiding judge, for laughing at it. We would be ejected from the court for intimidating witnesses, he said. On the second day, he warned us again. Only this time, it was the jury who started the laughing. Yesterday, as Anvar Khan’s credibility collapsed, it was the judge who was cracking jokes. I wonder if we might stop there, said Tommy’s QC at 4.15, it’s been a hot day. Yes, it is hotting up, said Lord Caldwell, shall we continue, for another ten minutes say?
The 2 stringers fed the News of the World with uncorroborated hearsay, in one case from an anonymous source. This is what has been appearing luridly in the daily press and media bulletins as though it is ‘fact’. Do not be dismayed, comrades. I have no doubt the jury knows a farrago of shite when it sees and hears it. It is unfortunate but predictable that the demolition of the credibility of these total non-witnesses by Tommy’s QC, Richard Keen and by his number two Mr Henderson, has hardly appeared in the media. After all, much of the prurient but more legally-timid Scottish media is very glad to up their sales on the back of the News of the Screws, whose Scottish news editor, Douglas Wight, has blatantly admitted in court that he tells lies to his clients to extract ‘stories’. He also , of course, pays them, with £20K being seen as a ‘low’ payout.
The other 3 witnesses, unfortunately, have been prominent members of the SSP. Whatever ‘defiance strategy’ may have been erected two months ago for the temporary non-release of dubious SSP ‘documents’ to the bourgeois courts, this seems now to have collapsed like a wet sand-dune. Alleged private conversations with and about Tommy Sheridan have been retailed to the courts, sometimes with a brief show of resistance, as in the case of Alan McCombes; sometimes with a histrionic catch in the voice as though to say, ‘This is all so sad, but I have to say it’; as in the case of Allison Kane; and sometimes showing astonishing evidence of probable prior collusion with the News of the World’s legal team, as was the case yesterday with Keith Baldassara.
All 3 of these comrades may confidently be expected to appear shortly either in very long beards or with lipstick skewed -Â
[quote]Tommy Sheridan versus News International - the first five days
I have attended on all of the first 5 days of Tommy’s defamation case, although I missed most of Thursday due to my daughter’s graduation. I am providing this summary, and any subsequent updates I can manage, for signatories of the SSP Members Open Letter, as mediated by Anne Macleod. I have been requested to do so by several signatories. It is intended to counteract mainstream media bias and selectivity, and it is not aimed at distribution or publication beyond these signatories, and certainly not intended in any way to influence the outcome of the jury of 12’s deliberations. Where views are expressed they are strictly my own, as formed during experience of the case.
The case is being held in Court 6 of the Court of Session in the Lawnmarket in Edinburgh, in a very small courtroom holding only 18 members of the public. Court 6 is the only one with high-tech equipment that allows instantly-visible stenography and also the electronic display of documents and videos. Thus far the family and supporters of Tommy have occupied the majority of these 18 seats, with a few going to inveterate court addicts and several to SSP members aligned elsewhere. Anyone wishing to attend should arrive before 9am in the morning and by 1.20 pm in the afternoon - even then there is no guarantee. There are mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks, at around 11.30 and 3, but very few seats change hands once a session has started.
During the first 5 days there have been only 7 witnesses, all called by the defenders of the action, News International. 4 of the witnesses have been paid workers for the News of the World, the Scottish news editor, Douglas Wight, where ‘news’ is used in a wholly new way, 2 stringers, Alan Caldwell and Ken Adams, and a relationships adviser, Anvar Khan, who is very touchy if you call her a ‘sex columnist’. The evidence of these 4 can be described in various ways. Inventive. Uncorroborated. Colourful. Laughable. We, Joe and Jo Public, were warned on the very first day by Lord Caldwell, the presiding judge, for laughing at it. We would be ejected from the court for intimidating witnesses, he said. On the second day, he warned us again. Only this time, it was the jury who started the laughing. Yesterday, as Anvar Khan’s credibility collapsed, it was the judge who was cracking jokes. I wonder if we might stop there, said Tommy’s QC at 4.15, it’s been a hot day. Yes, it is hotting up, said Lord Caldwell, shall we continue, for another ten minutes say?
The 2 stringers fed the News of the World with uncorroborated hearsay, in one case from an anonymous source. This is what has been appearing luridly in the daily press and media bulletins as though it is ‘fact’. Do not be dismayed, comrades. I have no doubt the jury knows a farrago of shite when it sees and hears it. It is unfortunate but predictable that the demolition of the credibility of these total non-witnesses by Tommy’s QC, Richard Keen and by his number two Mr Henderson, has hardly appeared in the media. After all, much of the prurient but more legally-timid Scottish media is very glad to up their sales on the back of the News of the Screws, whose Scottish news editor, Douglas Wight, has blatantly admitted in court that he tells lies to his clients to extract ‘stories’. He also , of course, pays them, with £20K being seen as a ‘low’ payout.
The other 3 witnesses, unfortunately, have been prominent members of the SSP. Whatever ‘defiance strategy’ may have been erected two months ago for the temporary non-release of dubious SSP ‘documents’ to the bourgeois courts, this seems now to have collapsed like a wet sand-dune. Alleged private conversations with and about Tommy Sheridan have been retailed to the courts, sometimes with a brief show of resistance, as in the case of Alan McCombes; sometimes with a histrionic catch in the voice as though to say, ‘This is all so sad, but I have to say it’; as in the case of Allison Kane; and sometimes showing astonishing evidence of probable prior collusion with the News of the World’s legal team, as was the case yesterday with Keith Baldassara.
All 3 of these comrades may confidently be expected to appear shortly either in very long beards or with lipstick skewed -Â
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Fascinating! So what we want to know Dada, exclusively for Portobello Gossip and Tittle Tattle Online, is how much do you personally know about these alleged events? Can you confirm or deny that any of these sordid menages á trois/quatre/cinq/whatever took place? Did you have any personal involvement? Do you have photographs?
Epykat - I seem to recall that you know more about this sort of thing than you are letting on. Are you willing to spill the beans or are you holding out for £20 k?
I'm not getting into a bidding war but there could be a drink in it for both of you. Think about it.
Epykat - I seem to recall that you know more about this sort of thing than you are letting on. Are you willing to spill the beans or are you holding out for £20 k?
I'm not getting into a bidding war but there could be a drink in it for both of you. Think about it.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact: