It's not so much this trial as the last.
First of all, a best man, at least, shouldn't sell out your mate down the the river to his worst enemy, Rupert Murdoch, knowing what an effect that would have. There hadn't even been a falling out for him to do that. Just pound signs.
For the SSP - know your enemy. Murdoch always has, and always will, be a bigger enemy to socialists than whether Sheridan has had 3-in-a-bed sessions. They don't need to lie, but when the NotW's solicitors come calling, as the Yanks say, take the Fifth (or as Manuel would say 'I know nothing'), i.e. no comment. Just as David Cameron or Murdoch would do with Andy Coulson.
Apart from that, I pretty much agree with DoofersDad. All Tommy had to do was say:
"3-in-a-bed sex sessions? Is this the best the NotW can come up with? Your mind may be in the gutter, Mr Murdoch, but mine's with the Scottish people's drive to get rid of this gutter press"
(cheers all round - all hail Tommy for sticking it to Rupert - the SSP continues to gain seats)
For the record, I'm sad that the SSP has taken a dive. Although my own views aren't that extreme, I do approve of a small band of these working in parliament, almost as a pressure group, fighting for the poorest in society. It's be a disaster to have them as the government but a timely reminder to have them as a voice.
I also find this whole trial a bit ridiculous. Sheridan and the NotW presented their evidence at the libel case. The jury believed Sheridan. Surely, that means the NotW and the people that spoke AGAINST Sheridan should be on trial for perjury (or not as it should be case closed)? As far as the court should be concerned, Sheridan was jury-proven to be truthful. By my reckoning, he should then be exempt from being examined again on that basis. How can one jury be considered more important than the other? It's double jeapordy under another name.
Excellent post!
Totally agree with the highlighted paragraph.
Legal beagles across the length and breadth of the nation will be arguing about the legal course of events surrounding TS for years to come. I agree that those who spoke against Sheridan in the first trial could be charged with perjury, but then that could mean perjury trials could follow any case where a jury has indicated which version of events they prefer.
Also came across this gem in the Herald....
A READER had a hint of Tommy Sheridan?s guilty verdict when he met a member of his then-dismissed defence team at the Celtic Aberdeen game when Celtic won 9-0. When our reader asked how Tommy?s case was going, the lawyer told him: ?Aberdeen have a better defence than Tommy.?