How, exactly, does Coulson’s detention help Sheridan?

June 1, 2012 at 12:21 am (Champagne Charlie, crime, law, scotland, Sheridan, strange situations)

Let’s get the preliminaries out of the way:

1/ People are innocent until proven guilty, and that applies to Andy Coulson as much as to anyone else.

2/ I believe Tommy Sheridan perjured himself in court in December 2010; in my opinion anyone who doubts that must be blinded by irrational loyalty to Sheridan and/or willful disregard of the evidence.

Having said all that, it’s good to see Cameron’s former director of communications being held to account for (allegedly) lying on oath about his knowledge of phone hacking at the News of the World while he was the editor.

What I fail to understand, and I invite readers with a more sophisticated grasp of the law (specifically Scottish law) than mine to explain, is how these allegations against Coulson, even if proven, show that Sheridan’s conviction is unsafe (something that his supporters  and Tom Watson MP are claiming).

Above: Tommy Sheridan supporters celebrate at Govan Police Station where Coulson is being held for questioning

The allegation against Coulson is that when he was called as a defence witness, by Sheridan, to give evidence at the 2010 trial, he lied about his knowledge of the hacking operation carried out against Sheridan by Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator hired by the News of the World.

Sheridan was convicted by a majority verdict at the High Court over his evidence, in which he’d denied lying to former comrades in the Scottish Socialist Party about his private life when he sued the News of the World in 2006 for libel.

Even if charges are brought against Coulson (they haven’t been yet) and a court finds him guilty, how does that call into question, in any way, the perjury conviction against Sheridan?  How would it be relevant to the specific grounds on which Sheridan was found to be guilty? This has yet to be explained. Or rather, the only explanation so far offered by Sheridan supporters, simply doesn’t make sense: they say that a conviction for perjury requires not only someone to have lied on oath but for the lie to have materially affected the outcome of the trial. If that is so (and at least some people with knowledge of Scottish law disgaree), then it seems highly unlikely that Coulson will be convicted.

The other fairly obvious point that Sheridan’s supporters seem to have ignored is this: is it not possible that Sheridan and Coulson both committed perjury?

14 Comments

  1. Monsuer Jelly est Formidable said,

    christalmighty. What fuckking drivel. So the Tory vermin are on the ropes and all you can think of is posting this tripe? youse are like HP SAuCer CunTS.

    BTW – you seem very confused:

    “they say that a conviction for perjury requires not only someone to have lied on oath but for the lie to have materially affected the outcome of the trial. If that is so (and at least some people with knowledge of Scottish law disgaree), then it seems highly unlikely that Coulson will be convicted.”

    we are talking about two seperate trials here 1) Sheridan’s initial trial which he won and then lost on appeal and 2) the trial where Sheridan was up in front of the owld beak for perjury in his first trial. Now, regarding the second trial, coulson has obviously been caught out red fuckking handed lieing his tory scumbag gob off, and that has without any shadow of a doubt meant the outcome of the second trial has been materially affected because Sheridan was found fuckking guilty of perjury! – because the tory cunt had been lieing throughout the appeal and the second trial!#$!!!! BTW, If he (coulson) had told the truth then the testimony he gave would have seen him chuckked in the fuckking slammer and Sheridan would have had the first trial won and nEws Inter-shite-national-Rupert-Vision-Cunts would have had no fuckking chance of any appeal of the intial court case!

    Death to Coalition ConDEm CunernTs

    • bler4eg omceonmretatry said,

      CooD KnoT agre wiv this moar! knoW wonda the comnts boxxxs r full ov semi-fash veRmin like flashcock and GleSgaR giveRN the sub-saucererer drriveL chuRNNED oot buy the fu,kwits tjhat rurn this uttA joeK of a blrergggG!

  2. lost said,

    whilst im not a lawyer and im not in any way blindly loyal to tommy sheridan it seems to me that whikst tommy may not be entirely vindicated by others probable perjury,the wrongful illegal actions of others,particularly if there is collusion would have the effect of undermining the safety of the conviction.if coulson lied and sheridan lied and the police colluded with the former,then it gets simply logically mind boggling.

    i think secondly,we are all human beings with foibles and faults.in the scale of things it seems from my porr recollection that sheridan hurt those closest to him and may not have done the reputation of”his party”much good-but then the public need to accept human foibles.i admit to ambivalence about a preferred attitude to the borugeois/capitalist state in such circumstances.whilst we ought to be loyal and truthful to our comrades and class,this is difficult given the traditional straight jacketed attitudes to sex and sexuality and related issues. loyalty to our class enemies and institutins is a different matter.i would be nore concerned about the blatant collusion between police-press-politicians in this case and the murdoch gangsterism and even more about the death in police care of 1400 people in 30 years-with no officers charged or disciplined,let alone convictions,120 allegations of racism in “the met”,falling rape convictions,falling reputation of police in protecting women etc.

  3. billy bango said,

    he was a notorious shagger, he even banged Peter Taaffe in some bogs after a Mili rally back in the day

  4. charliethechulo said,

    Monsuer Jelly: I think you’re the one who’s confused. Sheridan pursued the 2006 court case against the wishes of his SSP comrades, and then forced them to give evidence. The issue is not bourgeois legality (ie re perjury), but Sheridan’s betrayal of his comrades.

    The fact that Coulson’s (alleged) perjury has nothing whatsoever to do with Sheridan’s guilt or innocence stands.

    You need to sort yourself out, M, Jelly.

    • Monsuer Jelly est Formidable said,

      you thick fuckking retarded dipshit.

      alarN TomArSe was nearly as fuckking stupid as you are. Nearly.

      • Tigger said,

        Oh dear
        Getting a bit excited again but then the Sheridan supporters are inclined to shout rather a lot at their former comrades who they dropped in the doo doo.
        Excellent review of Galls book in the WW a couple of weeks back

        http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004849

      • bler4eg omceonmretatry said,

        eye agre. TomARsE wood b prooud. wHERE is the cfhROmme DOOM currTN btw?

  5. Johnny Was said,

    What this really means is: some bankrupt people are hoping against hope that this does not lead to Sheridan’s conviction being undermined.

    There is a pretty good chance it will, however. If Coulson told the truth, that phone hacking, bribery of the police, and other criminal activity were rampant at the News of the Screws, and that he was involved in it, it would have been such a hoot.

    Since many of the prosecution witnesses either worked for the Screws or had been paid by them, that would have been tantamount to admitting that the prosecution was in part at least driven by something akin to the mafia.

    That would have boggled the mind of the jury. Would anyone have liked to guess as to the jury’s verdict if that had happened?

  6. Jimmy said,

    Shagger was found guilty by a jury after considering the evidence.
    Phone hacking is a seperate subject.

    • Johnny Was said,

      So if Sheridan’s phone was hacked, and that was used to concoct the fake video that was central to the case that put him away, that is a ‘seperate subject’, eh?

      Very droll.

  7. Faster Pussycat Miaow! Miaow! Miaow! said,

    Counterposing ‘bourgeois’ law to … what? is the worst kind of silliness. There are no ‘proletarian’ courts and to talk as if there are is delusional.

    Sheridan is UNIMPORTANT. The whole business is a SIDESHOW, a SPECTACLE. The greatest revolutionary upsurge in living memory is hapening in your backyard and you shower are going about Tommy fucking Sheridan? AGAIN?

    The Sheridan ‘Affair’ isn’t going to smash the edifice of British capitalism. If you want proletarian courts, join your Greek and Arab comrades in insurrection.

  8. Faster Pussycat Miaow! Miaow! Miaow! said,

    PS, speaking of things ‘bourgeois’, a Scottish comrade said on this very site in 2007 (my emphasis)…

    Sheridan is also a sexist populist with a big ego. Nobody really cares about the Murdoch press but if you think it’s “ok” to cross examine former sex partners on the witness stand and accusing them of lying in order to protect your bourgeois family man image, then you should reexamine your politics mate.

  9. crust said,

    So the law is right and its ours to discuss.Why are there prisons,why argue about the sentence,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 483 other followers

%d bloggers like this: