Coulson Lying is OK by Judge – to Maintain Sheridan Conviction 115

Andy Coulson lied under oath, repeatedly, in the Tommy Sheridan trail. He has not been acquitted of lying. He has been acquitted of perjury, by the judge, Lord Burn who ruled that whether he told the truth or not would not have affected the outcome of the Tommy Sheridan trial. It is very important to note it was Lord Burn who took that decision – he dismissed the jury who were given no chance to have their say. So Coulson is protected from a stretch in Saughton pokey, and more to the establishment’s purpose, the conviction of Tommy Sheridan stands.

Coulson lied about phone hacking in the Sheridan trial. Coulson has form. “Lord” David Burn also has form. He was part of the Megrahi “defence” team of advocates who failed to ask a score of glaringly obvious questions about the holes in the prosecution case and payment of witnesses in the fit-up of the century. The Scottish legal establishment is a sewer.


Here is a step by step guide to how the scam was pulled by the excellent Gordon Dangerfield:

115 thoughts on “Coulson Lying is OK by Judge – to Maintain Sheridan Conviction

1 2 3 4
  • Juteman

    So Coulson phones up Cameron and threatens to spill secrets if found guilty?
    We need to rid ourselves of Lords in positions of power.

  • Mary

    And the moon is made of cheese.

    Andy Coulson cleared of perjury as trial collapses
    30 minutes ago

    So he and Brooks walk away. What a rotten system. There is no justice.

    ‘Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.’
    John Locke 1689


  • craig Post author


    Highly likely. The Murdoch allegations were being made by people involved in criminal activity, which they denied with lies under oath. Their criminal activity certainly goes to the credibility of what they publish. The Procurator took that view too.

  • Anon1

    “Better move back down to Kent then.”

    No, Kent’s been done. Full of unintelligent racist little Englanders.

    I would suggest Cornwall. A ready-made independence movement one can attach oneself to with ease (with a dose of Cornish ancestry that shouldn’t be hard to find), and a whole new vehicle for one’s anti-British resentment. And only half a million people to fall out with!

    Kernow bys Vyken! Don’t forget your parachute.

  • Craig Macfarlane

    A full public inquiry should be called over this debacle…but will it be? I doubt it very much. They are rotten to the core.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Explaining his ruling, Lord Burns told the jury that perjury was the giving of false evidence under oath which is relevant to the issues in that trial. (BBC link, above)

    It could be that a situation of this sort had occurred:

    Last year Barry Bonds, a famous baseball player, was tried for perjury in California in connection with allegedly perjured evidence given to a Grand Jury about steroid and other drug use. Because many of the questions asked to him were rhetorical, and multi-claused, by the end of the case many of the allegations had disappeared from the indictment against him. Put simply, if he was not asked a straight question, it was difficult to prosecute him for giving a false answer, especially where the answers in turn were inspecific and woolly. In a different way Mr Coulson might be the beneficiary of Mr Sheridan’s lack of legal expertise, notwithstanding his undoubted oratorical talents.

    He said the Crown needed to prove that Mr Coulson’s allegedly false evidence in the 2010 Sheridan case was relevant to the issues in that trial, and that was for him as a judge to decide rather than the jury. (BBC link)

    Q. Is it? Is the jury really not allowed to decide on a matter of this sort? I would have thought that the issue would have been explained to them, and then it was up to them.

    M’learned friends? Who must have made a packet from this case, btw.

  • Old Etonian

    [mods-cm-org – Old Etonian seems to be the same commenter as Conga Eel on the Charlie Kennedy thread, and seems to be the same commenter who posts under frequently changing usernames]

    Juteman “So Coulson phones up Cameron and threatens to spill secrets if found guilty?”

    Coulson had hacked the inboxes of GB downwards, and helped Cameron to the earlier election win – the devils are now making fun of us. Worse is yet to come, they have to start an Iran war before the Kenyan puppet leaves office.

  • eddie-g

    Wow. A Scottish legal fiasco orchestrated by someone with Lockerbie connections. What a coincidence.

    (When I feel the need for a dose of unfiltered outrage, I visit Robert Black’s blog – . Had the privilege of attending Dr. Black’s lectures at Edinburgh law school, and anyone wanting to understand the scale of the injustices around Lockerbie could do no worse than retrace Dr. Black’s fall-out with the Scottish Legal establishment over the case.)

  • Googler

    British courts are so barbaric, as are the bastards that administer them, as to make the so called rogue states justice systems look tame.

  • Mary

    Old Etonian A war on Iran for Israel. Please God. NO.

    I agree. They laugh in our faces.

    btw take no notice of the comment following yours.

  • Republicofscotland

    I’m afraid you’re spot on when it comes to the Scottish legal establishment Craig.

    The handling of the Lockerbie bombers incarceration,and his appeal were to say the least a bit of a cover up.

    Frank Mulholland the Lord Advocate,refuses point blank to,open an investigation into it.

    Don’t even get me started on Elish Angiolini,and her involvement the Hollie Greig affair and the Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane shooting) affair.

    Re Coulson he has form he was convicted down south of conspiracy to hack phones.

  • Republicofscotland

    Perjury in Scots law is not lying under oath. Or not only lying under oath. I suspect many folk will be goggling at the news that Andy Coulson has been acquitted of giving perjured evidence in the case of Her Majesty’s Advocate v Sheridan. The judge upheld a “no case to answer” submission by the defence on Monday.

    The news has been embargoed to allow the Crown to appeal against this decision. They declined to do so. Some supporters of Mr Sheridan took the opportunity to get their retaliation in first, under the veil of the Contempt of Court Act. Today, the jury was sent home without giving a verdict. Coulson is free.

    Lord Burns:

    “After two days of legal submissions last week and having considered the matter, I decided that the crown had not led sufficient evidence to satisfy me that the allegedly false evidence was relevant to proof of the charge in Mr Sheridan’s trial or to Mr Coulson’s credibility at that trial.”

    A good article on the trial.

  • YouKnowMyName

    [mods-cm-org: went to Spam at 12:36]

    English legal establishment? , well I suppose it’s at least half-good that this terrorism case just collapsed

    a person accused of terrorism for fighting against Assad at the same time as UK was covertly supporting the IS/ISIL/whatever they were called also against Assad, lots of allegedly’s, – read more here

    and Russia is pushing it too

  • Mary

    When I said Coulson and Brooks walked away, I had forgotten he spent some time in prison. Wonderful isn’t it that a convicted criminal had been previously in the employ of the spiv who became the British Prime Minister. How low can we go?

    ‘Coulson became the Conservative Party’s director of communications on 9 July 2007. Various media stories estimated his salary at between £275,000[25] and £475,000; the party indicated the latter figure was “inaccurate” and that his salary was “substantially less” but refused to provide an exact figure.[26] In July 2011 the Mail on Sunday alleged that Cameron had been about to appoint the BBC’s Guto Harri, but was persuaded by Rebekah Wade to appoint Coulson. The paper quoted “an individual intimately involved in Mr Coulson’s recruitment” as saying “Rebekah indicated the job should go to Andy. Cameron was told it should be someone acceptable to News International. The company was also desperate to find something for Andy after he took the rap when the phone hacking first became an issue. The approach was along the lines of, ‘If you find something for Andy we will return the favour’.

    What Rebekah said he should do, he did.


    Coulson has a company called Elbrus Communications Ltd.

  • Old Etonian

    A Very Prescient Raby

    Fareweel to a’ our Scottish fame,
    Fareweel our ancient glory;
    Fareweel ev’n to the Scottish name,
    Sae fam’d in martial story.
    Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
    An’ Tweed rins to the ocean,
    To mark where England’s province stands-
    Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

    What force or guile could not subdue,
    Thro’ many warlike ages,
    Is wrought now by a coward few,
    For hireling traitor’s wages.
    The English steel we could disdain,
    Secure in valour’s station;
    But English gold has been our bane –
    Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

    O would, ere I had seen the day
    That Treason thus could sell us,
    My auld grey head had lien in clay,
    Wi’ Bruce and loyal Wallace!
    But pith and power, till my last hour,
    I’ll mak this declaration;
    We’re bought and sold for English gold
    Such a parcel of rogues in a nation![2]

  • Clydebuilt

    Earlier on today the BBC Scotland were saying the reason Coulson hadn’t been found guilty of Perjury was because his evidence was found by the judge to be Not Relevant. …… End off, that’s how they sold it. Fact that it didn’t make a bit of sense didn’t bother the reporter.

    Craig thanks for the link to Tommy’s Lawyer.

  • John Goss

    I am so pleased you have taken this up Craig. The British Legal System is corrupt right up to the top of its wig. Julian Assange should never have had to have sought refuge in the Ecuador Embassy. The Scottish legal-system too and as you emphasise with Lord Burns being part of the al Megrahi legal defence team which could not get an innocent man off the hook he leaves a lot to be desired.

    David Spencer Burns was nominated by Alex Salmond (first minister) to be Senator of the Court of Justice. Some people know more about the Lockerbie bombing than they are revealing publicly and al Megrahi was an unwitting stool pigeon for the actual perpetrators of this crime in which Bernt Carllson and hundreds more died. I cannot understand why Alex Salmond has not stood up for an independent investigation into Lockerbie.

    I can understand why David Cameron would not want one due to the loss of nuclear missiles which would be sure to crop up. Also because he is another British toady to the Evil Empire across the Atlantic. The establishment gets its way again – but justice has not been seen to be done.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.