====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On 1/19/2011 10:04 PM, Ben Ben wrote: > The eventual successful prosection of Sheridan didn't seem to draw > comment on this list; in the light of the complicated and protracted > - and deeply inglorious - history outlined by the WSWS in this > article, I'd be interested to hear comrades on this. Perhaps not much was written about the recent trial, but I did write quite a bit about this case at the time of the libel trial that Sheridan won, and for a couple of years afterward. If you Google Bustelo and Sheridan on the list archive, you will find the posts. I'll just mention a couple: This is the first article I wrote about the case: [Marxism] Tommy Sheridan and his critics [was: New Scottish Socialist Formation] <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2006w35/msg00251.htm>. (God! How I wish Louis would get with the program and allow the rest of us to post HTML instead of text-only, even if he continues to insist on using emacs or whatever). There were several others in the same vein including on the famous tape of Sheridan supposedly admitting lying: [Marxism] Murdoch's 'web of deceit' (Was: 'Sheridan's ...) <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2006w40/msg00134.htm>. My conclusion after spending countless hours examining every scrap of information I could find about the case, and satisfying myself that I understood pretty well most of what seemed to have happened, and how and why the differing versions arose, is that Sheridan was right and the anti-Sheridan wing of the SSP leadership wrong. I thought then that the anti-Sheridanites in the SSP had put themselves in an extremely difficult position, having drafted minutes claiming Sheridan confessed to the truthfulness of the News of the World accounts about him, and having several members of the leadership testify to that effect in court. Only to have the sources and writers of those Murdoch press smears admit under oath that these were largely fabricated. Which makes it difficult to accept accounts that Sheridan confessed to doing things that even those who accused him ADMITTED --once they were put under oath-- were fabrications. Sure, Sheridan was promiscuous in the 1990's and had visited a sex club in 2001 or 2002. But the depiction of him as a hard-drinking, cocaine-sniffing, debauched, panty-wearing, bottom-spanking sado-masochistic pervert who engaged in four-in-a-bed romps and tried to shag women comrades in the hallway while a branch meeting was going on inside was false. What the News of the World sources and authors testified to at the original trial as being true was ONLY that Sheridan had visited a sex club and had had a discrete affair. Which MIGHT have made a good story if the target were some fire-and-brimstone puritan preacher, but hardly news when the subject is a socialist leader. And even THAT was suspect. Murdoch's minions were forced to admit they had no paper trail, no corroborating evidence, no supporting witnesses, no specific dates, and no effort at all by the Murdoch papers to corroborate anything they printed. Apart from the bare fact that there had been some sort of intimate encounter, or a visit to a sex club, all the salacious, scandalous details were fabricated, the Murdochites admitted under oath. And, oh yeah, there were tens of thousands of pounds paid to the sources of these stories, perhaps more. The difficulty for the anti-Sheridan faction is that it does seem unlikely that Sheridan would have confessed to accusations that --when put under oath-- even those who made them originally freely admitted were false. But that is what they testified to. I've not followed the current trial in any detail, but as best as I can tell what's involved is Rupert Murdoch's government claiming that because Sheridan is not a virgin, his claim that the Murdoch press lied when they portrayed him as a demented pervert was perjury. I don't believe there's any point to doing a detailed analysis of the testimony or evidence in this trial. In the original and already uneven match of Sheridan versus Murdoch, Sheridan won. Murdoch appealed, only to have his government, that he bought and paid for, spare him the expense. Now that Murdoch has had four or five years of his cops, prosecutors and judges piling on against Sheridan with millions --perhaps tens of millions of pounds-- expended in the effort, he could only get a MAJORITY guilty verdict against Tommy. Not even unanimous. That's how much the case stunk. As for the SSP leaders who collaborated with the prosecution and put out a statement hailing Sheridan's conviction, I have no idea whether they're really paid agents of the British state or just offer their services freely. What I do *feel* is that they're gusano scum, who disgrace the socialist movement, the workers movement, and the struggle against English domination of Scotland with their mere presence. Joaquin ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
