shuggy's blog
Happily it's in such a small font that I can't read it.
Oh, really, Shuggy. This case was intiated when an elected MSP started a court action which had nothing to do with defending the working man and everything to do with defending his own reputation. If, as even you appear to concede, he and a clutch of others lied through their teeth, it's pretty warped to argue that they should be let off because others do. How many cases have involved elected politicians being granted £200,000 by the legal system based on lies?
How many people were involved with giving evidence for Archer and Aitken? In a case when half a dozen people may have perjured themselves, you're likely to get more charges than one where only two or three did.
I see the lay-about Will is posturing again. Has he got a job? You need one of those to be ripped-off by employers.
So you reckon this justifies the polis spending a million quid of taxpayers money on the case then Alec?
Much do you think they spent investigating the actual criminal law breaking admitted by team Alexander?? What? Nothing? Thur no interested? Funny that.
Spot on Shuggy.
When did my surnamerous namesake get bound to this axle of fire? Blog articles let us pursue on line of thought whilst not necessarily opposing others. Shall we discuss Alex Fish-heid and Aberdeen golf courses?
Of late, has there been any other perjury investigation alleging en masse efforts to deceive? One gaggle of witnesses was lying egregiously. This is bigger than most perjury cases.
What was being discussed was polis time (= taxpayers cash) & what they chose to spend it on, Like
Sum My car smashed by Neds Glasgow Southside Saturday.(criminal) 10 min mins max return phonecall = £5
Sum Sheridan (civil case) 40,000 hours = £1000,000 so far & counting.
Sum Alexander (criminal case) 0 hours = £fec all.
Any clearer?
I can't stand golf, but if you've really got evidence that Eck was involved in criminality like Alexander, then send it to the polis.
But that's just you smearing further than your arse will extend, right?
Yeah, right. You want me to research your filibustering? Dream on.
It should be patently clear I cited Fish-heid only to show it was as relevant to Wicked Wendy as she is to TS, i.e. naff all. You introduced extraneous information: the responsibility is now on you to demonstrate why it negates charge of an concerted plan to launch a spurious legal claim and defraud a company, and is not a blatent distraction.
You're making precisely the same excuses that various Tories did for Archer and Aitken.
If, as even you appear to concede, he and a clutch of others lied through their teeth, it's pretty warped to argue that they should be let off because others do.
I don't see that it's particularly 'warped' but I don't recall arguing this anyway. I was suggesting that when you consider the protracted and expensive nature of the prosecution, the manner in which it has been conducted, and the treatment of Gail Sheridan - it's difficult to avoid the impression that this particular inquiry is not so much in the public's interest, as you insist, but in the interests of News International. I certainly don't understand how anyone could argue that the pursuit of Gail Sheridan is in the public interest. It was 'the public', remember, who sat on the jury. I don't think they were so naive that they believed every word Sheridan said but you have to take account of the fact that they were confronted with evidence that the News of the Screws didn't exactly have their story straight either. So they opted to find for Sheridan. I don't know if I would have agreed with them necessarily but I don't think this was, given the circumstances of the case, an entirely unreasonable thing to do. Whether the nature, manner, scope and ferocity of this prosecution is entirely reasonable is much more debatable.
Filibuster? Nah - it's a dead simple question Alec. Do you think a million quid should be allocated to investigating this politican's alleged lawbreaking and not a penny to investigate team Alexander's ADMITTED lawbreaking?
Yes? No?
What about half a million on each investigation? -I'll go for that -two for the price of one.
On law breaking and police investigations, Eck is of course the extraneous matter - Unless you have something to tell us?
Shuggy, based on what I've seen, I *do* have doubts about how BA was informed of the miniatures. However, to argue that investigation of Gail Sheridan or the others is uncalled for, you should explain why you do not think an allegation to conspire to commit perjury en masse is not serious. This was not a desperate attempt to avoid gaol from a bunch of twats who'd got involved in a fracas, say, in a pub car-park. It was part and parcel with a case initiated by the (alleged) ring-leader.
And one who was an elected politician. Have there been similar cases recently in Scotland? Serious question. Equally, do you have evidence that there has been a significant increase in crime in my well-set city during this?
That is why you need.
In the UK recently, I can think of only Archer and Aitken. Would you have defended them on account of it only been a couple of rags they were up against?
KEN WALDRON ==> Do you think a million quid should be allocated to investigating this politican's alleged lawbreaking and not a penny to investigate team Alexander's ADMITTED lawbreaking?
Congratulations on the most pointless question since it was asked if cleaning one's teeth with steel-wool and urine were less than efficacious dental care. If I answered that in the affirmative it would going to garner you absolutely no brownie points.
But, okay, let's throw you a bone. Although potentially a criminal offence, she was investigate first by the Electoral Commission: thus more than a few pennies of public monies were spent. Although Strathclyde Police also looked into the case, but declined to investigate further, pennies were spent. As I've said elsewhere, dislike as I do perjury, I really cannae thole abuse of the English/Inglis language. "Not a penny spent" does not mean "lots of penny spent".
Furthermore, by *admitting* to receiving money from Paul Green, she removes one significant drain on investigations' expenditures. Should they sit around eating doughnuts to accrue a certain fee before an investigation can be deemed worthwhile?
And lastly, although she has admitted receiving monies from a non-residentr, the charge has been that she knowingly received or did not make significant checks to ensure so. Admittedly this discussion is about our thoughts on the existence of wrongdoing, and not slavish following of previous court judgements, but at least I am being consistent in acknowledging the police's (and/or Electoral Commission) decision to pass certain cases to the Procurator Fiscal.
You, however, are picking and choosing. You're clearly gunning for her, and choose to disregard even allegations of a concerted plot to bring false prosecution and defraud a company of £200,000 as subservient to *your* vendetta.
I particularly liked Fish-heid's claim it was the "equivalent of not proven". You mean, the case may have been factually true but she was acquitted of any culpability whatsoever? You know, as if by a jury which holds more people than an English jury so proportions should be changed?
I knew he was an opportunistic spiv who'd gladly write to the Burmese Generals, whilst they were smashing in the skulls of monks on telly, in order to get his Calvinist Republic a observer seat on the UN (why, of course it deserves it) or swither every which way to avoid stating the June 2007 attack at Glasgow Airport was carried out by dirty foreigners, but he could at least pretend to have basic respect for Scots law before his own self-promotion.
==> Eck is of course the extraneous matter
As was Wicked Wendy. Seriously, what would you have said if... when... Boris Johnston offered this bullshittery obfuscation on Jonathan Aitken?
==> Unless you have something to tell us?
Skinflint, Shuggy, with your 3,000 character limits.
==> Unless you have something to tell us?
Haha, no amount of juju magic is going to get me to concede anything to you on this attempt at whataboutery. Dream ever on!
Would you have defended them on account of it only been a couple of rags they were up against?
For what it's worth, while I despise Jeffrey Archer, I don't recall feeling a huge amount of sympathy for the Daily Star. Sheridan's case in similar in that this was, in the final analysis, a rag publishing stories about the sex-lives of politicians. My memory of it was that, in any event, Archer's deception was altogether rather more elaborate. Aitken's was a little different. It was, if you recall, prompted by his involvement in arms-deals and nothing to do with his private life. Also, where they are both different from the Sheridan case is that in this one the rag in question was also found wanting in court. I suppose if Sheridan ends up getting jailed for this, he really has only himself to blame but like Ken, I seriously doubt whether it's worth the effort and expense. Bear in mind that the Procurator Fiscal has an obligation to consider this when pursuing a case. Also bear in mind that Sheridan never actually received the 200k and if, as the News of the Screws claimed, there was fresh evidence to be considered, there's a fair chance that he would have lost it on appeal anyway. But myself, along with a number of others who aren't particularly sympathetic to Sheridan, are concerned - I should stress - with the conduct of this case, over and above questions over whether it should be happening or not. Something like eighteen months on-going investigations, heavy-handed raids on radio stations as well as Sheridan's house. And this nonsense about minatures? I can only repeat: it does seem rather difficult to believe that all this effort would have been gone to were it not for the fact that he's up against News International. I say this as someone who never bought all the conspiracy shite coming out of the Sheridan camp at the beginning.
Alec:
"You, however, are picking and choosing. You're clearly gunning for her, and choose to disregard even allegations of a concerted plot to bring false prosecution and defraud a company of £200,000 as subservient to *your* vendetta."
Na Alec. Picking and choosing is your game.
If Tommy and co should face the full force of the law, then Wendy and co should likewise. Got that? I want consistancy. You want the exception.
And don't give me that Electoral commision pish - since when were they the law?
"Although Strathclyde Police also looked into the case, but declined to investigate further"
And yer proof? When someone reports a crime to the polis, firsty, a crime reference number is allocated: even if no further action is taken. I got one at the weekend. the Tommy & co case will have one. So what's Wendy & co's? No crime reference no. = no investigation.
You keep blubbering on about to Aitken & Archer, but its YOU who is making the exception and their excuses - time for your steelwool and pish mouthwash.
O yea, and:
" knew he was an opportunistic spiv who'd gladly write to the Burmese Generals, whilst they were smashing in the skulls of monks on telly, in order to get his Calvinist Republic a observer seat on the UN (why, of course it deserves it)"
Talk about introducing 'extraneous information'... would that be the same letter that was sent to ALL 189 countries who signed the Non Proliferation Treaty, to ask for support for Scotland to gain observer status?
That would be the same Burma whom our Prime Minister rings his hands about and does nothing?
The same Burma in which, as Pilger points out: 'British companies such as tour firms – like Orient Express and Asean Explorer – are able to make a handsome profit on the suffering of the Burmese people. Aquatic – a sort of mini Halliburton – has its snout in the same trough, together with Rolls Royce and all those posh companies that make a nice earner from Burmese teak.'
The same Burma in which our American allies make wads of cash: 'American company, Chevron, on whose board of directors she (Condoleezza Rice ) sat, is part of a consortium with the junta and the French company, Total, that operates in Burma's offshore oil fields. The gas from these fields is exported through a pipeline that was built with forced labor and whose construction involved Halliburton, of which Vice President Cheney was Chief Executive.'
Even the same Burma whom another of your favoroute states (Israel)has a special relationship, and apparently arms and trains those soldiers who smash the heads of those self same monks?
What a rank hypocrite you are Alec.
"Also bear in mind that Sheridan never actually received the 200k"
What came between him and his 200K Shuggy?
Commenting by HaloScan
