Sheridans to face perjury trial

[DexterTCN]

I ignored it because it was shit. That's not an edit. ' gangster or up to your neck in it?'....ooh that's good...firstly...everyone he represents is up to their neck in it, brainiac...he's a fucking Queen's Counsel and works in the High Court so if he has your case you are up to your fucking neck in it before he got involved.

So forgive me for not pointing out your first idiotic statement and wasting my time with it......it certainly wasn't a reasonable clarification. 'this swimming pool attendant is regularly seen at the swimming pool where he works!'...just doesn't work, see?

Secondly....'gangster'....ooh care to clarify that with some reasonable proof? What about the Kris Donald case or Luke Mitchell or Peter Tobin...his most recent headline grabbing cases? Gangsters, were they? Were they fuck. Racist murderers, rapist serial murderer and teenage killer! Gangsters? I think not.

There's absolutely no common frequency of gangsters in his cases. One in the last 12 years maybe?

So maybe you should edit your own posts and that won't put me in the position of having to justify ignoring nonsense statements and then having to ask for some reasonable clarification.

In fact you immediately defended yourself by talking about a protestant mate...so don't give me your shite... you knew exactly what I was talking about.

Back on topic now?

 

[Fedayn]

I ignored it because it was shit. That's not an edit. ' gangster or up to your neck in it?'....ooh that's good...firstly...everyone he represents is up to their neck in it, brainiac...he's a fucking Queen's Counsel and works in the High Court so if he has your case you are up to your fucking neck in it before he got involved.

So forgive me for not pointing out your first idiotic statement and wasting my time with it......it certainly wasn't a reasonable clarification. 'this swimming pool attendant is regularly seen at the swimming pool where he works!'...just doesn't work, see?

Secondly....'gangster'....ooh care to clarify that with some reasonable proof? What about the Kris Donald case or Luke Mitchell or Peter Tobin...his most recent headline grabbing cases? Gangsters, were they? Were they fuck. Racist murderers, rapist serial murderer and teenage killer! Gangsters? I think not.

There's absolutely no common frequency of gangsters in his cases. One in the last 12 years maybe?

So maybe you should edit your own posts and that won't put me in the position of having to justify ignoring nonsense statements and then having to ask for some reasonable clarification.

In fact you immediately defended yourself by talking about a protestant mate...so don't give me your shite... you knew exactly what I was talking about.

Back on topic now?

Those you referred to, Mitchell, Baldy et al, all up to their necks in it. When did I say they were gangsters?

Yeah I knew exactly what you were talking about, you made tha allegation pretty clear. In blacjk and white.... read it....

Fed...gotta say you're coming across as a bit of a bigot (unless you can clarify that). Comments like that can pretty much only be taken one way. Findlay takes the highest profile cases, end of.

Not too difficult to see what you're alleging, I didn't need to know what you were 'talking about' you spelled it out plain and simple.

 

[weltweit]

From the BBC article linked from the OP it seems in the trial there were contradictory testimonies about the same events which means it is pretty certain someone was perjuring themselves. So if not Tommy & wife then who?

 

[Fedayn]

From the BBC article linked from the OP it seems in the trial there were contradictory testimonies about the same events which means it is pretty certain someone was perjuring themselves. So if not Tommy & wife then who?

Have a look and then decide.

 

[DexterTCN]

From the BBC article linked from the OP it seems in the trial there were contradictory testimonies about the same events which means it is pretty certain someone was perjuring themselves. So if not Tommy & wife then who?

Isn't there contradictory evidence in every trial?

 

[danny la rouge]

Isn't there contradictory evidence in every trial?

If someone brings a defamation suit and presents false evidence in order to win it, then they are customarily charged.

Jeffrey Archer, for example, faked diary entries when he sued the Daily Star for libel. He was charged with perjury for fabricating an alibi as part of his action against the Star.

This is not the same as saying "not guilty" in court when accused of something, because the person bringing the libel action (in England) or defamation action (in Scotland) is doing the accusing in court, and bringing the civil case.

Archer was found guilty. We wait to see whether Tommy is or not.

 

[Fedayn]

Isn't there contradictory evidence in every trial?

Yes and no, some 'contradictory' evidence maybe a mistake ie not a deliberate lie. Witness identification may well be genuine error. That someone claims they were hundreds of miles away is a might different. If someone says you said A but you deny it utterly than that too is contradictory. If it is done in a damages trial also has an 'effect'.
The difference here is that the judge was moved to remark at the end of the trial that, and I don't quote him, there were statements so at odds with each other that there maybe an issue of perjury. A complaint regarding the allegation/inference/possibility of perjury was then made by former MSP Broan Montheith.
The investigation into the perjury alloegation encompasses all those in the trial. Whilst it is true thjat from an early stage the PF/plod may have a suspicion who the perjurer(s) are they have to investigate all those who made the statements.

 

[rioted]

 

[DexterTCN]

...A complaint regarding the allegation/inference/possibility of perjury was then made by former MSP Broan Montheith....

The Tory who stabbed the leader of the Tories in the back and is being sounded out by UKIP as a possible candidate?

What wonderful characters you stand by. Didn't realise you were a right wing Tory supporter

 

[Kaye]

I was expecting an informative thread!

 

[DexterTCN]

I was expecting an informative thread!

It's difficult to have one, to be honest. There's a lot of animosity and undeclared interests. Many previous threads rapidly take the same shape and texture.

I like Sheridan for his political actions, I don't give a fuck if he as in a swingers club or not, I'd rather see the Murdoch Empire lose every court case. I see it as a battle against Scottish socialism and Murdoch against regional media.

I like to call my point of view the big picture.

 

[sevenstars]

the bigger picture

mmm, the bigger picture...

Well you sleep with journalists employed by a multinational corporation, take them to swingers clubs, then try to extort money out of said corporation when it exposes this sort of carry on as typical politicians hypocrisy.

You aren't on trial or anything, its your decision to take them to court. Your image and ego are far too important to say 'no comment' or 'its no-one elses business' never mind 'ok I was stupid but there are more important issues in the world. Oh no..

So you blackmail people you have grown up with to collude with you, the people who have put you on the platforms where you made your name, who you have already admitted the truth too. You sell your story to another corporation and slander these people as 'scabs', the worst insult possible for lifelong activists.

You find new supporters though from people who see some factional advantage from your residual popularity, acknowledging they have no base of support on their own. Eventually most people get fed up with you selling yourself as a C list celebrity. You get to the end of the road, where you are represented by a notorious low life bigot of a lawyer, as anyone from Scotland would tell you.

Yes, the bigger picture. Time to move on, it'll all be over soon.

 

[Fedayn]

What wonderful characters you stand by. Didn't realise you were a right wing Tory supporter

Where did I say I stood beside him or supported him you smearing fuck? Point it out to me. I simply gave you a factual picture of what happened. By the way, Sheridan publically welcomed the police investigation into the perjury allegations.

 

[DexterTCN]

Where did I say I stood beside him or supported him you smearing fuck? Point it out to me. (snip)

Smearing fuck?

In a case about supposed lies and backstabbing, I point out that the accuser is a lying backstabber sacked from his party, who was against the Scots Parliament and that makes me a smearing fuck?

Seems like fair comment to me.

Next time you should point it out yourself, then. Instead of just casually dropping his name (and expecting to get away with it?)

You brought him up without any caveats. I pointed out some home truths about him.

 

[Fedayn]

Smearing fuck?

In a case about supposed lies and backstabbing, I point out that the accuser is a lying backstabber sacked from his party, who was against the Scots Parliament and that makes me a smearing fuck?

Seems like fair comment to me.

Next time you should point it out yourself, then. Instead of just casually dropping his name (and expecting to get away with it?)

You brought him up without any caveats. I pointed out some home truths about him.

Yeah Monteith is a horrible right-wing cunt, am I supposed to disagree?!

No, your smear, as well you know you tosser, is this bit "What wonderful characters you stand by. Didn't realise you were a right wing Tory supporter"

Where did I stand by him in any way? Care to point it out Mr Smear?

 

[danny la rouge]

The Tory who stabbed the leader of the Tories in the back and is being sounded out by UKIP as a possible candidate?

What wonderful characters you stand by. Didn't realise you were a right wing Tory supporter

You really are a despicable, twisting nutjob, aren't you? Anyone with any reading comprehension skills can see exactly what was said.

But then, that's par for the course, I suppose, for someone without the intellectual or moral capacity to see the rights and wrongs of this case.

Stand by the Big Leader as he clutches at straws to salve his ego, no matter who or what he damages on the way down, eh? And get as many knives in as many comrades backs as you can.

 

[Streathamite]

As much as I loathe Findlays unionist reacftionary politics I do admire his commitment to the law and the right of everyone to a good defence. A contradictory character or perhaps an intelligent bigot?

someone who - for all that his politics are loathesome - should be respected for his respect for the better principles of The Law, and his advocacy skills?

 

[Fedayn]

someone who - for all that his politics are loathesome - should be respected for his respect for the better principles of The Law, and his advocacy skills?

AI reckon that's a better way to put it yes.

 

[DexterTCN]

Yeah Monteith is a horrible right-wing cunt, am I supposed to disagree?!

No, your smear, as well you know you tosser, is this bit "What wonderful characters you stand by. Didn't realise you were a right wing Tory supporter"

Where did I stand by him in any way? Care to point it out Mr Smear?

It's quite simple...you brought him up.

Knowing his character and backstabbing, in a thread about the character and backstabbing of politicians, you chose to make no comment about him even though you brought him up.

So you are a hypocrite or you didn't know.

Either way it's fair comment by me.

You also edited my post by taking out the smiley which obviously shows I wasn't calling you a right wing tory. So I'm leaning towards hypocrite.

Then again, I'm a

despicable, twisting nutjob,

without the intellectual or moral capacity to see the rights and wrongs of this case

according to your compadre there. for pointing out the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Fedayn]

It's quite simple...you brought him up.

Knowing his character and backstabbing, in a thread about the character and backstabbing of politicians, you chose to make no comment about him even though you brought him up.

So you are a hypocrite or you didn't know.

Either way it's fair comment by me.

You wouldn't know the meaning of fair comment you dribbling twat. I pointed out a fact, ie Monteith, making a complaint in response to a question asked why there was an investigation. I would have thought anyone with a modicum of intelligence, clearly not you, would have worked out that given my politics i've no sympathy for Monteith. I was merely referring to what he had done. But oh now, that's enough for you to make the smear....

I take it I have to point out my own personal opinion of everyone I mention in my posts from now on?

 

[DexterTCN]

(snip) I take it I have to point out my own personal opinion of everyone I mention in my posts from now on?

Only if it's directly relevant to the shit you are throwing at others. Or people might think you're at it.

 

[Fedayn]

Only if it's directly relevant to the shit you are throwing at others. Or people might think you're at it.

At what exactly dribblyboy? In your rather bizarre world pointing out somehting that actually happened = standing by those whose action(s) are referred to or pointed out.

What shit thrown at others exactly?

 

[rioted]

Only if it's directly relevant to the shit you are throwing at others. Or people might think you're at it.

Nice smokescreen.

 

[DexterTCN]

At what exactly dribblyboy? In your rather bizarre world pointing out somehting that actually happened = standing by those whose action(s) are referred to or pointed out.

What shit thrown at others exactly?

My online name is DexterTCN/Dex/dex

As I've pointed out, perfectly legibly in a reasoned structure, you brought up a party betraying backstabbing politician (Monteith) in a thread about (allegedly) the same (Sheridan). And you forgot to mention it.

That makes it fair comment.

 

[danny la rouge]

Only if it's directly relevant to the shit you are throwing at others.

Kettles and pots, eh?

 

[Fedayn]

My online name is DexterTCN/Dex/dex

As I've pointed out, perfectly legibly in a reasoned structure, you brought up a party betraying backstabbing politician (Monteith) in a thread about (allegedly) the same (Sheridan). And you forgot to mention it.

That makes it fair comment.

Your name is smearing cunt.

You can say all you like about Monteith, he's a Tory reactionary cunt, we agree. That however is not the issue here as you well know. Your smear, as you also well know, was the attempt to make out I supported his politics and his actions. Said smear was based on nothing more than me pointing out what Monteith did in relation to this case. Which as everyone, ie in Dex's idiot world, knows means I support him and his actions....

 

[DexterTCN]

I thought the issue here was lying, backstabbing politicians and their morals and actions, specifically in relation to the Sheridan case?

Look...if you don't want people discussed....maybe you shouldn't mention them.

Don't blame me, like I keep saying, you brought him up. Once you bring him up I'll make any point I want. And I haven't smeared anyone.

 

[Fedayn]

And I haven't smeared anyone.

What wonderful characters you stand by. Didn't realise you were a right wing Tory supporter

You can remember what you post can't you?

 

[danny la rouge]

you brought him up [...] I haven't smeared anyone.

Fed mentioned him in a point of fact. You attempted to say that Fed therefore supported him. By that logic you support Mussolini, because you mentioned him in a post once. You see the ludicrousness of that?

Grow up and learn to use your critical faculties.

 

[where to]

Dexter, you're not fooling anyone here. you're just making yourself look daft with these bizarre & illogical arguments. seriously, give it up eh.