The Herald, the Scotsman and the Record confirm what has been suspected for some time.
Tommy Sheridan will be represented by Donald Findlay QC.
Gail will be represented by Paul McBride QC (described by the Record as a "former linesman", although fairer to say bloody good defence counsel).
Other reports come from the Telegraph and the Times (both describing Tomster as a socialist "firebrand" (TM) ); the FT; the Sun; the Guardian; the Indy; the Mail; and the IHT.
Best incidental comment comes from the Times
"While in the Big Brother house he befriended Verne Troyer, the Hollywood actor who suffers from dwarfism, and Coolio, the US rapper known for his sexist lyrics. Mr Sheridan later said that he hoped to keep in touch with “his men”. "
STV has video coverage of the press conference and for a limited time the Tomster's appearance yesterday on STV's laughably inept magazine show (starts about 1 minute 45 seconds - in still it's not Alan Titchmarsh so be thankful for small mercies). Tommy described himself as a "trainee lawyer" which somewhat overstates his position.
The saga continues and we'll be there every step of the way.
To the astonishment of literally one member of the general populace television celebrity and law student Tommy Sheridan confirmed via his lawyer Aamer Anwar (carefully speaking on behalf of his client today) that the preliminary diet in the perjury case of the millennium will be held in February. I hope the Tomster's not double-booked with representing his client in that employment tribunal about the cannabis and the stag party.
Will the Orange man represent the orange man?
Will we hear exactly how he and Gail explain that torrid night of scrabble?
Will Coolio appear as a character witness?
And will this mean that the Tomster misses his Summer exams too?
Anyhoo - let battle commence.
ETA link corrected with thanks to![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
nmg . I'm guessing my regular reader is not a Heartbeat fan...
ETA the person who appears surprised is, lest one be astonished, Jim Monaghan - past star of this LJ
During his final days Tommy demonstrated a facility with a baseball bat, and offered a touching commentary on the quality of Obama's inauguration speech. Sadly his "best bits" in the Big brother interview did not include being in lycra and then electrocuted, but we can't have everything.
He frankly admitted that he'd done it for the money, because law degrees are not cheap (although the failure to appreciate that attending the house may have scuppered his legal career through non-attendance at the compulsory examinations in his degree last week and this is not impressive - but, hey, perhaps he'll need the money for something else come March).
Having exited the house Tommy pre-emptively outed Coolio, praised the former boyband singer's beautiful eyes, and offered a degree of praise to a little man with a lot of courage (make up your own jokes at the back).
His life can return to normal - as he prepares to study the law of contract, and gets ready to put together his special circumstances forms.
"Reason for absence from examination diet:
Self-promotion on television, while being electrocuted while dressed in lycra, dressed as a pepper pot when ice skating, hitting baseballs, lounging around in an open dressing gown proving hairiness, and generally losing three degrees of orangeness from basic coloration."
PS - one commenter e-mailed me to enquire if Tommy's hairiness in the house satisfactorily dealt with one potential aspect of any perjury case. The matter is sub judice, although I should note that Tommy did not give any evidence directly as to his hairiness when in court. Such evidence as there was came from his spouse and did not contradict any evidence given within the case. hence, my impression televisual evidence of hairiness will be neutral in any future action.
ETA - He apparently realises he has missed them, according to the Daily record at any rate he exchanged views about it with Terry Christian
"Day fourteen in the Big Brother House. Tommy and Terry are in the bedroom discussing the Strathclyde University law school examination diet..."
Roll on March...
( Tommy Sheridan co-leader of Scotland's sixth political party - right )
And if you're wondering about context try here.
As my regular reader knows Tommy Sheridan is currently in the Celebrity Big Brother house. He is also a law student. The examination diet is next week. Tommy is unlikely to be available for the examinations. Now ordinarily a failure to take an examination has adverse consequences - unless you have special circumstances (dead granny, bubonic plague, chickenpox or the like). For entry to the professional qualification - the Diploma in Legal Practice - only first attempts (in the first diet or where justifiable special circumstances mean the exam is sat at another time) count. Failure in one exam (or failure to attend) will scupper your professional chances.
Tommy wants to be a lawyer, but rather than sit his exams he's decided to go on Big Brother. So how should this be dealt with?
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
livetletlive86 has a suggestion"-have him sit his exams in the diary room, with the members of staff involved invigilating by diary room cam. ...
- inform him on live television, and over the BB house loudspeaker, that he has missed his exams and consequently has failed his degree.
- ask him each exam question (problem, discursive or otherwise) over the BB house loudspeaker and have him shout out the answers."
So which option do you prefer?
Poll #1327975 Tommy Sheridan's law exams
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 17
So what should be done about Tommy Sheridan's law exams?
have him sit his exams in the diary room, with the members of staff involved invigilating by diary room cam.
1 (5.9%)
inform him on live television, and over the BB house loudspeaker, that he has missed his exams and consequently has failed his degree. 8 (47.1%)
ask him each exam question (problem, discursive or otherwise) over the BB house loudspeaker and have him shout out the answers. 8 (47.1%)
Would appearance on Big Brother for purposes of self-promotion be special circumstances sufficient to justify non-attendance comparable with having a dead granny or illness?
If it is treated as special circumstances and you were another student on the programme would you feel aggrieved?
Faithful reader, I have tried but episodes of Celebrity Big Brother have served as chewing gum for the eyes.
L'horreur. L'horreur.
Nothing has happened.
Well, that's not strictly true. There's been talking, discussion, laughter, politeness, sleeping, banter, attempts to discuss disability, and the televisual rehabilitation of Terry Christian. Even Coolio seemed upset when he appeared to have upset someone else. To be frank only the incident about Princess Fiona from Shrek sparked my interest for long enough to drag me away from red button coverage of the BDO darts - and thus far, the games there (Wagner - Anderson apart) have been rubbish.
People have been nice to each other. And Tommy - aside from an ill tuned singing of that sectarian song that isn't the hokey cokey (no, I didn't think so, either) or one from the Donald Findlay songbook - a model of teetotal probity. In fact the only damage he's done himself is football related. After proclaiming himself a Celtic fan on his first evening, and then claiming that the Fields of Athenry is a Rangers song he may merely have served to alienate a chunk of his potential supporters from fans of either mob. Anyway on Athenry-gate (as no doubt some newspaper somewhere will be terming it) there is a jolly post from the ever entertaining Mr Eugenides.
Dear reader I was ready to give up. Even my devotion to bringing you occasional shafts of light in the murky world of Sheridan was nearly over. I had almost resorted to telling you that the mum of one of my son's friends at school looks a bit like Gail, down to the big Court of Session victory sunglasses, and then they broadcast the show this evening.
And suddenly you saw what went on in the mind of Tommy Sheridan.
Two things highlighted matters. First the contestants had to choose publicly between three possible evictees - Ulrika, some boy band bloke Ben, and Page 3 girl Lucy. Now, the decision can be based on personality - but the look of horror crossing Tommy's face was revelatory. Politically he could only save one. Lucy is a Page 3 girl - and saving her wouldn't look good, given the case that dare not speak its name. And Ulrika is Ulrika - famous for a controversial love life. Now saving her might look like he felt something. So obviously the only person he could save politically was Ben. Which he did, and which he proudly proclaimed - his voice decibels higher than anyone else.
BUt the most peculiar thing was the dancing incident with Michelle (who used to be in a band). During a "party" Tommy was dancing with Michelle, but was deeply uncomfortable. Agitated about what would be made of it "out there". Now, you, and I dear reader know that there's only one reason for his concern. Coming soon to a High Court near me is a court case focusing on his personal behaviour and whether he lied in court. His personal behaviour lies at its heart. How the tabloids deal with his personal behaviour forming a further crucial element. Tommy cavorting with someone half his age would not look good in this context. It impacts on the image. Now you know that. I know that. Tommy knows that. But - Terry apart - no-one in Big Brother knows who he is, and for legal reasons they can't say anything about the upcoming case or the previous case that spawned the current charges - and no doubt Sheridan has been advised not to say anything about it either. Hence, his obsessiveness about the topic (and his obsessiveness is justifiable when one sees how the tabloids reacted to an innocuous comment about sharing a bathroom at the end of last week).
So, Tommy is stuck in a bind. Stressed, concerned about the impact of anything he does or says in the house, the pressure increases. And when we look back at his behaviour and interviews when he alleged the great conspiracy at the hands of the CIA/MI5/SSP/White Fish Authority et al we saw how he acted under the most extreme pressure.
The most perceptive comment of the evening though came from Ulrika. She noted that by entering the house he had given up any pretence of being a serious politician, because this was showbiz. And that's right .
So, whither or wither Tommy? And whither or wither his vanity project, Solidartomsc?
But with one career ruled out, Tommy's hopes of a legal career may have taken a battering through his entry to Big Brother. You see, it's exam time. Is appearing on television show for self-promotion purposes justifiable special circumstances for missing an examination? And if not, then entry to the Diploma in Legal Practice (based on first attempts in compulsory subjects) is scuppered.
Pity him for he knows not what he does.
ETA originally attempted to post at 10.45 last night but unable to do so when my connection to LJ went down.
And lo did the tabloids spend money employing those to scrutinise every minute of broadcast coverage. And they saw Tommy speaking to the woman who was married to the bloke that was the brother of the girl that was famous for something or other. And they noted that Tommy was discussing the large hot-tub and noting that the bathroom was cramped. And they listened to his words as Tommy spake unto the woman employing his socialist principles to confirm that the hot water should be shared by all
""That's a great reason for everyone to bath together."
spake the convenor - and his words were celebrated, although the sister of the more famous brothers did not understand him.
Using your skill and judgment please mark a cross on the image below the cut to identify where you think [expression deleted for legal reasons] is.
Nae prizes.
And Davina looked upon his filmed insert, and saw that it was not good. For in the midst of the images of the blessed Tommy declaiming to his people, and the shouting, and the tearing up of warrants, and the clenching and raising of his fist Davina's legal advisers realised that various aspects may not be fit for broadcast for legal reasons (but lo, the advisers did remember that they must not talk about that other case that will begin in the next few months because there might be prejudicial publicity one way or the other), and thus the Tomster was feted with a great honour. For Davina read out some legal information about the status of the appeal in his defamation action with the News of the World. And so Tommy of Sheridan is the only Big Brother contestant in the year of our lord 2008 to have Davina talk through his introduction.
And when the Tomster stepped down from his packhorse to enter the desert for the next 4 weeks he was disturbed. For the crowds they did boo. And they did hiss. And so did some at home watching on their telly. And lo, did those at home wonder either: who on earth is this man and how is he a celebrity (as is a great tradition at this time of year); or why on earth has he done this, does he not remember they made George Galloway dress up in lycra and mime the calling of a dog that would not return to its owner and surely the sole purpose of this show is to makest the Tomster look like a fool.
But the booing of the Tomster was particularly sad, for it elicited the sympathy of Frith of Heat, who pronounced unto the baying mob and their big mouths scarce one hour on , that he felt sorry for him for no-one knows who he is, but he is a politician - and that is bad. And the mob booed again. And hissed. And brandished cards marked "LOSER".
And when the Tomster entered the house he was with his people, and called them together. And he spake unto the sister of the brothers that are more famous; and the Sugababe; and the small but perfectly proportioned man made in Mike Myers' image and he said
"Hullo. I am Tommy"
And they looked at each other and didst wonder who this great orator was.
And Tommy looked on the small but perfectly proportioned man made in the image of Mike Myers and didst think - you too have been stitched up by a video which was no doubt faked by intelligence services, and you too have had your scandals. Son, I understand.
And the Tomster greeted each new worshipper at his house in a manner befitting the alpha male. He spake unto the model voted most popular by the one handed readers of the Star and said,
"Hullo, I'm Tommy."
And he spake unto the man that was once most fanciable male as voted by the readers of Smash Hits - when edited by Saint Kate of Thornton, and he said,
"Hullo, I'm Tommy."
And he resisted the temptation of champagne that was thrust in this presence by the agents of satan. For he knew this was televised, and he is famously tee-total, and this forms a pivotal elements of the defamation case that he won (which for legal reasons Davina must note is currently subject to appeal).
And the Tomster lorded over the house - and spake unto the lady of scouse who has endured illnesses and the girl that married that bloke that was the brother of that girl that used to be famous for doing something - and he said,
"Hullo, I'm Tommy."
And as the Tomster was settling in a gangster came from paradise, and the Tomster knew his place. For this was the alpha male and the Tomster genuflected in his general direction.
And then Terry of Christian and Ulrika ka ka ka came in and as the evening wore on the Tomster did speak unto all.
He spoke to Terry of Christian about Manchester United and his shared celtic roots, and confirmed that he was a Celtic man. BUt verily was he confused about how often Manchester United has won the title in recent years, prompting Terry of Christian to look upon him with disdain.
And later did Tommy of Sheridan speak unto the small but perfectly proportioned one and say unto him that he was not meaning to be patronising when offering assistance - and Ulrika ka ka ka did agree for she had once had a bad back and thought she could do things by herself and did resent the assistance she was given by others.
And Tommy did nod.
And the viewers did visit the land of that place.
PS live-blogging cancelled due to family illness. The above should give you the gist. More soon.
Accordingly, when you see the picture below the cut
( Warning - exposure to this image may put you off whatever it is you're doing at the time )</div></div>
in your f-list you will know it's a Tommy update
"STEAMY Roman romps are planned by scheming Celebrity Big Brother chiefs. They’ve installed a giant bath to tempt housemates into naughty action under the suds. Five people can fit into the tub in the luxurious Roman-style bathroom in the sexed-up house"
No comment required I think.
And do you want to join in the game to wonder how much is the Tomster worth?
The Telegraph reports
"Reports suggest the celebrities receive fees vary considerably according to their on-screen 'value'. Ben Adams, formerly of the boy band A1, will reportedly earn only £20,000 for his appearance on the programme while another contestant, topless model Lucy Pinder, is thought to be earning £150,000.Verne Troyer, who appeared in the Austin Powers films, will receive £136,000 and the soul singer La Toya Jackson will get £100,000, according to the Daily Mail which said Miss Jonsson would receive £175,000 for her presence."
I hope the Tomster's not been reading these pay reports today or he may revive the old slogan, "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." And are the Tomster's abilities such that he will get pay parity with the boy band bloke, the topless model, the comedy midget, the singer with famous relatives, or the weather girl and former captain on Shooting Stars?
Having avoided the most recent series of Big Brother I am afraid that I will have to begin watching again. Yes, the Tomster is - according to today's News of the Screws - scheduled to appear in the Celebrity show beginning in January.
I hope that producers are familiar with contempt of court and the risks of prejudicial pre-trial publicity.
Apparently, he will share the house with Coolio and Terry Christian and Mini Me from the Austin Powers films. Now, if they get Gary Coleman too I might even go down to London for it ;-)
Given that criminal proceedings are due to begin in the near future I have avoided posting anything about the Sheridan case. Before I go into temporary hibernation (only two days to go probably) I thought I should share with you the entry on Katrine Trolle in wikipedia.
Long-suffering readers will recall that Trolle claimed during the defamation action to have had a sexual relationship with Sheridan.
Well, wikipedia notes,
"[Sheridan] claimed that their relationship was purely political. Mobile phone records showed that he made her a large number of telephone calls, he has claimed that this was to discuss Denmark's minimum wage policy. Since the trial it has been pointed out that Denmark does not have a minimum wage (see List of minimum wages by country)."
So, a poll to carefully analyse public attitudes to Danish minimum wage policy
Poll #1282780 The Denmark minimum wage poll
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 8
How often do you discuss Denmark's minimum wage policy over the phone?
More than once a night 1 (12.5%)
Once a night 0 (0.0%)
At least once a week 1 (12.5%)
At least once a month 0 (0.0%)
I have never discussed Denmark's minimum wage policy 2 (25.0%)
It's so long since I discussed Denmark's minimum wage policy I can't remember when it was 4 (50.0%)
How often do you discuss Denmark's minimum wage policy through a computer interface?
MOre than once a night 0 (0.0%)
Once a night 1 (12.5%)
At least once a week 1 (12.5%)
At least once a month 0 (0.0%)
I have never discussed Denmark's minimum wage policy 2 (25.0%)
It's so long since I discussed Denmark's minimum wage policy I can't remember when it was 4 (50.0%)
How often do you discuss Denmark's minimum wage policy in person?
More than once a night 0 (0.0%)
Once a night 1 (12.5%)
At least once a week 0 (0.0%)
At least once a month 1 (12.5%)
I have never discussed Denmark's minimum wage policy 2 (25.0%)
It's so long since I discussed Denmark's minimum wage policy I can't remember when it was 4 (50.0%)
Do you ever contemplate Denmark's minimum wage policy when alone?
Yes - regularly 2 (25.0%)
Yes - occasionally 2 (25.0%)
No 3 (37.5%)
That's a stupid question - Why do you think I have the glasses? 1 (12.5%)
Do you ever contemplate Denmark's minimum wage policy when in groups of 3 or more people?
Yes - I am a member of a club that encourages such discussions 0 (0.0%)
Yes, after a friendly game of scrabble 2 (25.0%)
Yes, but only where everyone is keen to give a view on the Danish minimum wage policy 3 (37.5%)
No - I prefer to discuss Denmark's minimum wage policy with only one fellow discussee. 3 (37.5%)
So, how would you deal with the minimum wage in Denmark?
Tommy Sheridan is to begin a law degree at the University of Strathclyde in the autumn, it has been reported. It is reported that he will begin the two year accelerated LLB degree - and take advantage of a law school that hosts leading Scottish academic experts on defamation (professors Kenneth Norrie and John Blackie) as well as some excellent teaching resources, not least the webcasts used in various classes.
I have avoided posting anything on the Sheridan saga, pending the forthcoming court hearing. However, one piece of news reported today is particularly noteworthy.
As one who feels that a perjury trial should proceed (and that an investigation was inevitable - both for reasons expressed back in my archive) I was uncomfortable with the arrest of Gail Sheridan in relation to her miniature bottles. That this did not lead to a prosecution but instead to her being suspended from work - seemed to ill-serve the investigation. Well, today it is reported that Gail is to get back to work and has been cleared by an internal BA enquiry in relation to all allegations of theft in relation to the bottles.
Now this unnecessary distraction is over we await the perjury trial.
The Herald reported this morning that in the latest instalment of the Sheridans (an every day story of socialist folk) it appears from sources inside the Crown Office that the charges in the petition against Gail Sheridan do not include theft charges over the 150 miniature bottles found in her collection.
Further details of the charges made in the petition will no doubt be revealed during the week.
Remember Live 8? (you know the richest stars in pop getting together, and ignoring their litigation about hats and other delights in order to make poverty history?)
Remember the Diana memorial concert? (you know the untimely death of Ricky Gervais, as excrutiating as the Partridge interview with the impressionist on the Radio 4 Knowing me, Knowing you with the sotto voce, "Do your Frank Spencer")?
Remember the high voltage Al Gore inspired concerts which actively encouraged us to switch off by being rubbish and finding - mysteriously - further work for TV's Fearne Cotton?
Yes, occasionally, the multifarious strands of the world of pop come together to support a cause dear to its collective poptastic heart. The press today has reported news of the latest venture: Tommy Aid.
While the Daily Record suggests this is a mere myspace phenomenon
"TOMMY Sheridan has won backing from top pop stars as he prepares to face perjury charges next week. The former MSP's supporters have set up a "Defend Tommy Sheridan" page on social networking internet site MySpace. And a host of stars have registered as "friends" in a gesture of support. They include Beautiful South singer Paul Heaton, Edwyn Collins, Justin Currie and The View, Glasvegas and Asian Dub Foundation. Former Orange Juice frontman Collins has left a message on the site saying: "Total solidarity brother. Love Edwyn." Comic Frankie Boyle, poet Benjamin Zephaniah, record boss Alan McGee and Respect MP George Galloway are also among 167 friends. Jim Monaghan, spokesman for Sheridan's Solidarity party, highlighted the webpage writing in Scottish Left Review this week. He told the Record the stars had backed Sheridan personally and added: "We have been getting a lot of support. People can see that the Sheridans have been singled out here. This is politically motivated and not in the public interest.""
[Incidentally Mr MOnaghan [aka rinty] has also been active elsewhere promoting the Sheridan cause and exhibiting an exasperated tone in replies to the persistent questioning of jimtrot here while suggesting that the news of the appearance of Tommy on petition next week, which incidentally indicates the Crown are of the view that there is sufficient evidence to proceed against Tommy and Gail and that it is in the public interest to do so, implies that there will be no formal action against the other 5 that have been charged. He may have inside knowledge on this - but as I mentioned in a reply to Mick Hall the other day there are feasible explanations for the prosecution doing this or as Mr Monaghan suggests it may mean nothing is happening in relation to the other 5.]
The Scotsman suggests that things will progress a step further
"Leaders of the campaign are organising a concert and CD in support of Mr Sheridan and his wife Gail"
as well as planning a protest outside the sheriff court (which I may make my way through sunny Edinburgh to have a quick look at ;-) My loyal reader should realise that I'll wear dark glasses and a disguise while walking with a pronounced limp in order to protect my identity).
PS The Scotsman list of Sheridan supporters differs slightly from that in The Record indicating, perhaps, the different class of clientele reached by each publication - "[Edwyn] Collins is joined on the list by Justin Currie, of Del Amitri, Paul Heaton, of the Beautiful South and the Housemartins, and the bands Camera Obscura, Glasvegas and the View. Writers John Aberdein [of course, Aberdein was on hand throughout the court case assisting Sheridan following the dismissal of his legal team], Martin McCardie and Irvine Welsh have also put their names to the campaign, as have poet Benjamin Zephaniah, comedians Frankie Boyle and Stu Who, actors Davie MacKay and Peter Mullan and trade unionists and members of the public." Mullan's involvement coincides with his wonderful performance in ITV1's The Fixer, where he plays a mysterious employee of the state who maintains a crack team to deal with miscreants.
A very quick update.
Things are starting to move. Tommy and Gail will appear in Edinburgh sheriff court on petition next week.
Looks like my camera picked the wrong week to pack up, never mind - v-blogging to begin in the near future...
PS I guess this is a different Tommy Sheridan
"Let me tell you something a sales call with Tommy Sheridan on St. Patricks day in Philadelphia is a recipe for a good time. ...
"Then went to Tommy Sheridan's office around 10:30. I know the reason he wanted to meet me on St. Paddys day at 10:30 was so I had an excuse to take him to lunch. So we met quickly, set up a bunch of stuff for fall deliveries and then went to lunch. Long story short is lunch ended at about 5:30 PM. Luckily I had stopped drinking at around 2 so I was OK to drive home. Tommy takes the train in to work and I am not sure how he made it."
[nah, can't be our Tommy]
" He is a fun guy."
[then again...]
"A source close to the Sheridans [ surely not someone who has written for the Record in the past?] said last night: "Gail has a very strong defence. She has collected miniatures of alcohol for some time and has well over 150. They are kept in a glass display case in her house, so she's not exactly trying to hide them. Friends and relatives buy miniatures when they fly and they bring the bottles back to pass on to Gail as presents. Some of these people are very respectable indeed and they have signed letters which she will present at the hearing.""
One unanswered query from this is were the police looking for miniatures when they went into the property? I have to confess that this aspect of the Sheridan case has made me very uncomfortable. I trust there is an explanation from the authorities in due course as to why the miniatures were or are important.
Hugh Kerr, former Labour MEP, and the man now in charge of Sheridan's PR campaign (whatever happened to Jim Monaghan?) was on Newsnight Scotland last night, after his brief appearance on STV on Friday evening. Kerr has been putting in freedom of information requests to Lothian and Borders police in order to obtain information on the cost of the investigation.
It was he who discovered that more than £1 million and 40,000 hours of police time have been spent on the investigation (claimed to be have been "revealed by the Herald yesterday" in today's Herald article - althogh my regular reader willl recall the figures from Friday evening when they appeared on STV). Today, the Herald publishes statistics Kerr has obtained indicating that, "During the weekend when 12 officers were engaged on interviewing the Solidarity politician and former MSP in Edinburgh and nine more were searching his Glasgow home, it was disclosed that 303 offences were being reported to the force."
Kerr's argument is that the investigation is unprecedented in Scots law - following a civil case - has been a huge waste of police time and is indicative of a vendetta run by the police, the legal establishment and the News of the World against Tommy Sheridan and his family. The argument is familiar, and has received some support from Ian Hamilton QC, Alan Cochrane from the Daily Telegraph, and Iain MacWhirter in the Guardian.
Kerr has some reasonable points. It is unprecedented - in Scotland. However, perjury investigations following civil cases ended in the conviction of Lord Archer and Jonathan Aitken. Again both followed libel cases. However, unlike this case the criminal investigations and actions followed investigations by the newspapers which led to Court of Appeal decisions overturning the original jury decisions. In this case, the investigation was initiated before the appeal to the Inner House. This is due to the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Ordinarily it is difficult to determine if perjury has taken place - because as defined in Scots criminal law "Perjury is committed by wilfully giving false evidence on oath or affirmation in any judicial proceeding", and is a common law offence (potentially punishable by life imprisonment). The definition is from Sheriff Gordon's book on criminal law and further examination of his textbook indicates that perjury may be difficult to establish. in establishing perjury it is necessary to show that a party "wilfully" gave false evidence, and to this extent if a statement is equivocal it cannot be perjury, because two meanings are possible. Further, where parties express opinions this is not perjury; and where a statement is unimportant or trivial - with no bearing on the result of a case, this is not perjury. Omissions in evidence also do not generally constitute perjury.
Already we see that the hurdles for perjury are such that it can be difficult to establish in most cases. This is because in most cases there are shades of grey. People give evidence. They recollect some things that others forget, and so on. They may omit to provide all relevant evidence. Two contrary views can come from two generally honest witnesses - whose own experiences and perspectives influence what they recall. Further statements may be coloured, but open to more than one meaning. And often the evidence will not be material to the outcome of the case.
Hence, typically, perjury will not arise in civil matters. In the investigation resulting from the defamation action things were different.
The crux of the matter was the executive committee meeting of the SSP (the minute of this has now been removed from their website). This meeting was called specifically to consider the newspaper allegations. 11 recalled Tommy admitting to the stories. 4 did not.
As this was the one item on the agenda for that meeting it seems clear that both sets of witnesses are not telling the truth in that case, and this is not down to shades of grey. Here there is a black and white issue: did he admit it or didn't he? Accordingly, some people falsely gave evidence. There were no equivocal statements. People did not recall matters to the best of their knowledge (and it is notable that one witness who couched his evidence in such terms having not been an attendee at the meeting, but did attend a subsequent meeting, has not been charged in connection with the case).
Lord Turnbull referred the matter to the Crown Office, because - unusually - here is a clear instance that someone has given unequivocal false evidence: either (a) to support the allegations of the newspaper which could destroy a political career; or (b) to assist in the obtaining of money by deception. In either case the false evidence is material - being directly relevant to the issue in the case (was Tommy an adulterer? and did he attend the relevant clubs?). It is immediately apparent that - unlike the normal case - all of the requirements for perjury are in place.
The nature of the evidence then renders this case unusual - and the fact that the police had 15 witnesses to investigate in this respect - where they know that either a block of 4, or a block of 11 were lying - necessarily involves the incurring of costs. Now, I do not know how the police carried out the case - but there are explicable reasons for the police investigation taking a protracted period of time, many man hours, and running up costs. Having been invited to investigate by the trial judge prior to any appeal the police know that they have to consider the 15 witnesses So if we assume the police began looking at only the 15 witnesses who had given diametrically opposed evidence. When this initial investigation into what happened at the meeting is complete the police then have to follow up other lines of enquiry. Either the 4 were telling the truth, or the 11 were telling the truth. If the four were believed this had implications for the News of the World witnesses - each would have to be investigated. Did they attend the clubs? Did they see what they claimed to see? If the 11 were believed this had implications for Tommy and his witnesses: were they where they claimed to be on the relevant nights? Did the claimed phone calls take place?
In either case an original police investigation on the meeting potentially leads to investigation of many others (and if it did not it could be viewed as a political vendetta against one or other socialist movement - to avoid this allegation the police had to investigate further).
Further the enquiryis also likely to have involved subornation or attempted subornation of perjury (where parties are induced to give perjured evidence). Newspapers reported various stories about alleged witness tampering. These complaints have to be invesigated - and that widens the enquiry, again, beyond the parties that originally gave evidence.
Now, I don't know how the figures relate to the issues that inevitably arise from pursuing the investigation even to a basic level - but it seems that Mr Kerr and the other supporters of the Sheridan seven are using smoke and mirrors here. And some journalists and lawyers who should know better ought to think through the consequences of Lord Turnbull's initial action in reporting the matter to the Crown Office and the inevitable complexities thereby created (with at least 15 potential suspects to begin with) and consequential impact on the time and costs of investigation.
Those supporting the Sheridan Seven are attempting to have any prosecution stalled as not being in the public interest. I think that unlikely. I do not know what evidence the police has. I do not know if the allegations against Sheridan are true. I know he denies matters. I must assume that the police believe they have gathered evidence sufficient to warrant charges.
There are no reasons for a Scot to be ashamed of this enquiry (excepting the miniatures - possibly - but then we don't know how many there were).
Let the matter go to trial. Let a jury decide.
FOllowing the arrest of his fragrant wife Gail for perjury (in relation to a defamation case he initiated) and theft (involving an undisclosed number of miniature bottles) Tommy Sheridan had started to see some in the media come over to his side about the nature of the lengthy investigation into perjury which followed the defamation case. However, just as things seemed to be getting better for the hirsute Tomster calamity: the police leaked a story that tracing had indicated his mobile was used in the vicinity of Cupids nightclub in Manchester - when the Tomster claimed in the case he was elsewhere. How can the Tomster get out of this one? Will the media offer further support?
NOW READ ON...
Well, Gorgeous George Galloway has ridden in from the sunset guns blazing in support of the Govan bigfoot. George, writing in the Daily record (hat tip to my anonymous commenter who notified me of the story) has written a Galloway special - brimming over with rhetorical flourishes.
Under the headline, "I WOULD DEFEND TOMMY EVEN IF I THOUGHT HE WAS GUILTY" which doesn't bode well aside from the disclaimer "WHICH I DON'T" George compares the police's actions to an anti-terrorist operation. He notes her suspension for the alleged theft of BA miniatures is a stain on the company (note that big Rab commented that he has been advised by a friend who works as an air hostess that "it is an absolute no-no to take ANYTHING from work, however small, and it is widely accepted that it is a sackable offence to do so. " although compare with the thread on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network).
Galloway then exceeds himself. He notes that,
"The Procurator Fiscal would be well advised to ponder his chances of finding a jury willing to send the fragrant Mrs Sheridan to prison leaving her little girl an orphan."
which is a little overstated. As far as I am aware the execution of Mr or Mrs Sheridan will not be an option for the court in either perjury or theft - but as a legislator who regularly attends Parliament George perhaps knows something I don't. The child won't be an orphan. At worst she'll be left to be brought up by her grandfather... Oh, sorry, scrub that. That might not happen either. Anyway - the respective seriousness of the various charges and the conduct will be something taken into account at sentencing (if the relevant parties are found guilty on these charges they all deny).
Additionally, he used the "F" word. Gail is fragrant. George, George, George. We who blog occasionally (and very erratically) on the topic use the word for its allusion to the spouse of one individual with sandy hair on his blemish-free back - and in the hope it might get a cheap laugh. To use the "F" word in your article carries unfortunate Lord Pooterish connotations.
Anyhow George then goes on to push matters that one extra step too far.
"And if he tries and fails he will be open to the charge that this whole thing is a repugnant witch-hunt, Scotland's own Dreyfus Affair."
To compare this to the Dreyfus case? Anti-semitism? Procedural corruption? George, j'accuse you of gross hyperbole. Wait and see.
Then
"Tommy Sheridan is a friend of mine and I would defend him even if I thought he was guilty, which I don't. Because, greater love hath no man... a friend in need... and all that. "
Yes, greater love hath no man than this that he would lay down his friends and his family for his political career (if one view of the case is eventually upheld).
So, while the Georgian cavalry rode in - did our white-hatted hero appear in the newspapers at all?
Well, yes. All Media Scotland reports that the Tomster threatened a Sun journalist door-stepping him. The report of the threats against the Sun journalist, Nick Sharpe, are reported in all their glory.
"In a news story on Saturday, Sharpe reported: “Raging Tommy Sheridan threatened to ‘knock my f****** head off’ as I tried to quiz him about his wife’s theft rap. [Sheridan] grabbed me by one arm and a lapel and slung me off the 3ft high doorstep of his home in Cardonald, Glasgow, before huckling me down the garden path. Snarling Tommy - who has featured in celebrity boxing bouts - even offered me a square go if I stepped back on the premises. With his arms braced in front of him, he yelled: ‘On you come, ON YOU COME!’ As I pleaded with him to calm down, I told him: ‘That’s not a very nice way to talk to the Press, Tommy.' I said I simply wanted to discuss his wife’s job with British Airways. But he told me just as simply to ‘f*** off'.”"
And with that Tommy wins friends up and down the country.
Anyway, for those of you that doubt the Tomster's handiness with his fists witness his charity boxing contest on youtube (with the second and third rounds following).
So, threatening a Sun Journalist and having your case compared to both Jeffrey Archer and Dreyfus in the one article. What can happen next? Stay tuned and remember that enquiries continue, and all charges are denied.
Edited for clarification 8.16 pm re: Rab's comments. See Comments
THE STORY SO FAR...
blah blah defamation blah blah four legs good six legs better blah blah hairy blah blah fragrant blah blah Gail blah blah concrete in Clyde blah blah win blah blah appeal blah blah investigation blah blah wipe out blah blah radio blah blah king of the swingers blah blah arrest blah blah perjury blah blah CSI: Miami blah blah search house blah blah other arrests blah blah free the Sheridan Seven blah blah miniature bottles blah blah suspension
Leading up to last night's stunning cliffhanger
Gail has been charged with theft. But the Sheridans went on the offensive. They have complained about heavy-handed police tactics. They have complained that a vendetta is being conducted against them. And people are coming out in sympathy. Is the tide turning in favour of our favourite socialist family? Dear reader, how will the police react?
NOW READ ON...
Well, somehow today's Sunday Mail has received a leak from a police source, revealing a rather interesting piece of information. Let's not spoil the surprise and hand over to Steve Smith who has this exclusive
"DETECTIVES claim they have traced Tommy Sheridan's mobile phone to a swingers' club that he denies visiting. They have used "cell site analysis" to plot the phone to the vicinity of Cupids sex club at the time he was allegedly there, a source said yesterday. The police source added: "The police strongly believe they have enough evidence to prove his phone was traced to a location in Manchester at the time in question." Former SSP leader Sheridan, 43, his wife Gail, 44, and her dad are among seven people who have been charged with perjury over his defamation win against the News of the World in August 2006. Sheridan has always denied he took part in an orgy at the sex club in Manchester. But the police source said: "It's fair to say the mobile is expected to play a part in the case." Cell site analysis allows investigators to establish which phone mast a mobile has locked on to. The phone can be pinpointed to within a radius of a few metres. "
What on earth can this mean? After all there were phone records at the original defamation case, detailing the times of various calls from the interested parties. But, to have traced where the call came from?
Mmm. So, how does the Tomster answer that one? Back to Mr Smith at the Sunday Mail
"Solidarity leader Sheridan, who represented himself during his fight at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, declined to comment on the claims."
Funny that.
Oh, but what's this? He, sorry a source close to the family, has some other statement to make,
"A friend of Sheridan said: "It's all part of the witch-hunt. Police are desperate to discredit Tommy at every turn.""
What can this mean?
For those supporting the Tomster, they'd better hope he has a good explanation for this - if true.
IN the meantime, Tommy - and the other members of the Sheridan Seven - deny everything.
And, as is traditional, let me report that enquiries continue.
The story so far in summary (for more see here or for real enthusiasts see here which takes you back through the past year and a half): Tommy Sheridan blah blah sunbed blah blah scrabble blah blah club in Manchester blah blah hotel in Glasgow blah blah sacks lawyers blah blah fish supper blah blah is she not fragrant? blah blah bottom of Clyde blah blah block of concrete blah blah wins famous victory blah blah Gretna beating Real Madrid blah blah Lord Turnbull blah blah investigation launched blah blah splitters blah blah Popular front for the liberation of blah blah Solidartomsc blah blah wiped out blah blah fringe blah blah radio blah blah allegations about blah blah The Sweeney blah blah I'm the king of the Swingers blah blah arrest charged with perjury blah blah vendetta (1) blah blah his lawyer charged with contempt of court blah blah search of house blah blah what did they find? blah blah more arrests blah blah ex Selkirk shop steward blah blah
All of which led up to last night's stunning cliffhanger.
The fragrant Gail - she of the Jackie O sunglasses - suspended from her work as an air hostess over an alleged incident with some tiny bottles. And only days after being arrested. And her a 44 year old mother of one (an odd way to describe your wife, Tommy, but never mind. I'll bear it in mind if ever asked to describe Mrs LandG to anyone). So what can possibly happen next dear reader?
NOW READ ON...
