If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

- George Washington

Friday, 24 December 2010

Sheridan - The Daily Mash nails it

Sheridan facing three-in-a-bed sex sessions whether he likes it or not

TOMMY Sheridan was last night facing the prospect of endless three-in-a-bed sex sessions with a variety of eager new friends.


Bill McKay, chief bitch on the perjurers' wing, said: "I don't want to disappoint him so I shall be practising like mad over the next few weeks.

"I imagine this is how an amateur golfer must feel when they're offered the chance to play 18 holes with Ian Woosnam."
Priceless. Read it.


  1. And a happy Xmas was had by all, and hopefully you too Richard

  2. Thank you Nomine, and the same to you.

  3. Ha ha good one. I'm glad he got Christmas with his family. To be honest I wish he'd been cleared. Good ulogy to Tommy here..


    Merry Christmas Richard and all your fellow bloggers.

  4. Merry Christmas to you too. Are you serious about wishing him cleared? I'm no fan of the NOTW, but perjury for financial gain hardly sits well with socialist principles, never mind normal human decency. I hope he is sent down for a long time.

    The vid was a bit special, though - well done that man.

  5. " Are you serious about wishing him cleared?"

    Yes Richard because every court case involves perjury. Tommy won his original case. One persons word against anothers. How often do the police follow up after court cases and sort out who was telling the truth ? In millions of cases only once or twice. And always where the state wants revenge. The state in Scotland has spent £3m chasing after Tommy because they don't like him. That's 6 times the amount that BAA spent on runway equipment.
    Think about any case you have ever heard of. In every case some witness had to be telling lies. But once the case is finished no one gives a monkeys. Unless the freed defendant isn't liked by the state.
    And for the NOTW to be demanding justice takes satire to a new level.
    Scottish Justice is sadly totally corrupt and it's no better in England. Not a whimper about Kelly's 70 year autopsy ban. Nothing.

  6. I've got no time for Sheridan - he's an unprincipled, egomaniacal demagogue who shows his contempt for those he claims to champion in his (previously) unshakeable belief that he can con them every time.


    'every court case involves perjury'.

    is a good point. Except that it's not 'perjury' when the lawyers lie and at least one side is always, at the very least, distorting the facts.

  7. Don - I understand that a bit of truth-bending will occur in every court case, and that it is generally regarded as par for the course. But there is, to me, a big difference between lying to save your own skin, which is what defendants are more-or-less expected to do, and instigating a damages case against another on the basis of a falsehood. Sheridan seems to have believed that the NOTW had no evidence against him, and the first jury agreed with him. Sadly for him, the film and tape evidence that has emerged convinced a second jury that he was lying. Whether you agree with his politics or not, and whether you like the NOTW or not, that is criminal behaviour and ought to be punished.

    I'd agree with Jim - he is an egomaniac and I am not sorry that he has had his comeuppance.

  8. I'd also add that the NOTW being a lying rag doesn't make Sheridan's actions right, and nor does the ban on the Kelly autopsy, which is, as far as I can see, entirely unrelated.

  9. Richard.
    There's a good article here that you might find interesting...


    I must admit I don't understand why he took on the NOTW in the first place. He could have just brushed off the accusations and said he couldn't afford to fight them. At the end of the day most folk know that the NOTW are just trying to sell papers and will move on to the next story if left alone.

  10. Oh and another thing. Why wasn't the tape independently verified ? And why did the Crown Prosecution use witnesses, who , according to the first trial jury, were liars ?

    Good points here...


  11. and here..


  12. Interesting article in the Review, although I think describing Sheridan as a 'butterfly' is stretching it a bit. I agree with you, though - the sensible option (and the one which the acutely political Sheridan should have thought of first) was to deny it and claim 'poverty'. That would have got a lot of sympathy for his cause, and he wouldn't have needed to defend anything.

    I thought the tape had been verified - at least, an interview I saw on C4 suggested that 'experts' in the UK and US had examined it and said it was genuine.

    I guess the CPS used the same witnesses as in the first trial because they were the only witnesses. Even if the first jury found them to be 'liars' (moot point), surely the job of the prosecution the second time is to probe them further, get the truth, and convince the jury of his guilt - which, apparently, they did? If a court couldn't hear the same witnesses again, there could never be a second trial for anything.

    My understanding (which may be limited, I'll admit) is that the first trial was mainly one person's version of events against a lot of others', and it went to the one who put up the most convincing version. Sheridan is very charismatic, after all. The emergence of the tapes later on was a significant development, and changed the balance of probabilities in the minds of the second jury.

    Thing is, if Sheridan had said, from the outset, "yeah I did that, so what?", the general response would have been 'meh' and the case would have been forgotten about within a week.


Comment is free, according to C P Scott, so go for it. Word verification is turned off for the time being. Play nicely.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...