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.

UPDATE

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
  • John Spencer-Davis

    Re: Marx

    I studied Politics at Liverpool in the 1980’s, and Marx and subsequent Marxist writers (e.g. Engels, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lukacs, Althusser, Marcuse, Bernstein, Luxemburg and others) were very much on the curriculum, but in Politics, not Economics (this was when Patrick Minford was in charge and unemployed people were voluntarily choosing to be unemployed).

    Incidentally, it was the most boring subject I ever chose in my life. If you want a cure for insomnia pick up a tome by Lukacs or Althusser.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • Suhayl Saadi

    When cases with political dimensions, cases which have been brought using lots of public money, etc., suddenly and unexpectedly get dropped, or thrown out by a judge – one thinks of the Moazzam Begg case, for example; what might have been revelaed in his public trial? – I agree with Roderick Russell that one would be well advised to think of the spooks.

    Were the spooks involved in some manner with the Murdoch press to bring down the Scottish Socialist party and permanently to discredit its charismatic leader? Did they not want that to come out? Was there a deal struck? After the organised child abuse and its concealment that appears to have involved the pillars of the establishment, including, it has been alleged, some members of the judiciary, and after the Lockerbie miscarriage of justice, it is natural that one’s index of suspicion remains high.

    I agree that the jury should have been allowed to decide on whether or not perjury had been committed – if only to demonstrate that there had been a fiar trial (I am aware that juries can be misled and manipulated, but they are better than no-juries). Could they not be trusted to decide? If the evidence was that flimsy, they might have tossed out the case in half a day, for instance.

  • technicolour

    I don’t know enough about this case, though am learning, but from Vronsky’s link:

    “As this blog has consistently pointed out, against considerable misinformation encouraged by the ex MSP and his sympathisers, Tommy Sheridan was not convicted on the evidence of Mr Coulson. The Crown did not rely on his testimony. Indeed, they disowned it. Coulson was a defence witness, with no knowledge of the key allegations made in the indictment against Mr Sheridan.

    Go back to the charge sheet. Even if Coulson lied about his knowledge of phone hacking, how is this relevant to an indictment, alleging that you had attended a Mancunian knocking shop for a companionable evening, had a string of affairs, told your former party comrades about doing so, and lied under oath, in court, in dishonest pursuit of a significant sum of money, about your sojourning, your womenising and your confessions?”

  • technicolour

    Still, never mind that, the press & established interests were obviously out to bring Sheridan down.

  • Mary

    The more Dreoilin (and now Technicolour has joined in) tries to denigrate me and destroy my credibility here, the more she reveals of her unpleasant nature for all to see.

  • Dreoilin

    Mary

    There’s no point in referring to my “unpleasant nature” unless you can refute my points. But you can’t, can you?

    Either find an argument that refutes the points I’ve made, or shut up.

  • Dreoilin

    AND Technicolour’s point on the previous thread.

    Whining about people’s “unpleasant nature” is no argument. You are incapable of debate, without resorting to “dry up Dreoilin” or “ooh, she has such an unpleasant nature!”.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Mr Scorgie

    “Perhaps Lord Burn is a paedophile and the security services know about it, or even helped him in his vile indulgences. If so they have control of him as they seem to have control of so many other “VIPs””
    ______________________

    Maybe, Doug, but most people would probably go for the saner explanation offered in Vronsky’s link as reproduced in part by Technicolour.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    “The more Dreoilin (and now Technicolour has joined in) tries to denigrate me and destroy my credibility here,..”
    _________________

    What credibility?

    You musn’t believe everything RoS and other poltroons write.

  • Republicofscotland

    What credibility?

    You musn’t believe everything RoS and other poltroons write.”
    ______________________________

    My oh my HABBintaclue and and his side kick Drooling must have found a thesaurus both have described other posters as craven using different words.

    Now the Chuckle brothers have moved on to the word credibility,something they neither posses may I suggest your next homework word, “Apocryphal”

    As this word sums up not only your comments but both of you as a whole.

  • Clark

    Dreoilin,6:40 pm

    “Before the best people left and the place changed so drastically. Mostly it bores me stiff now”

    Dreoilin, it is sad what has happened to the comments section of this blog, but there are still plenty of good people here. It’s particularly good to see Suhayl commenting again.

    I think the main change is that there’s much more animosity, personal bickering and insults, and much less good-natured humour and friendly chat. I think we all need to try harder; try to be more friendly no matter what people’s political positions are, and when we criticise, to do so politely with respect and compassion.

  • Republicofscotland

    “A porridge of words. You’re not worth replying to, RoS.”
    ______________________

    Now now now Drooling,don’t take the huff,just as I was beginning to like you.

    Incidently Drooling why did you change your profile picture,I thought it was rather fetching.

  • Dreoilin

    Sorry, Clark, that happens to me a lot. I write a comment and then find that someone else has just nipped in before me. (I don’t pre-write comments for copy and pasting.)

    “Dreoilin, it is sad what has happened to the comments section of this blog, but there are still plenty of good people here. It’s particularly good to see Suhayl commenting again.”

    I couldn’t agree more. But there are others who haven’t come back, or who have come back but comment very rarely.

    “I think the main change is that there’s much more animosity, personal bickering and insults, and much less good-natured humour and friendly chat.”

    Yes, and what you said in another comment on another thread. People taking “sides” and sticking to them religiously, as if it’s a matter of honour to agree with your own “side”. I tried to remain independent as best I could but I couldn’t always walk a middle path. And if I agreed with someone who had been labelled a “troll” I was lambasted and/or ridiculed for it. I resented that.

    “I think we all need to try harder; try to be more friendly no matter what people’s political positions are, and when we criticise, to do so politely with respect and compassion.”

    I agreed with you before on that, but it will only work if everyone is ‘trying harder’ at the same time. There would need to be some consensus about it. If someone is trying to be polite, and someone else insults them or goes into point-scoring mode, then the natural instinct is to respond in kind.

  • Republicofscotland

    Wonderful heartfelt comment,Drooling,it would almost bring a tear to a glass eye.

    Pity many of your own comments have stoked the animosity on this blog to begin with.

    Lead by example dear chap,and just maybe others will follow

  • Clark

    Dreoilin, yes, human instincts can create problems. That’s why Jesus (whoever the stories may be based upon) taught that it’s best to turn the other cheek. I refuse to call myself a Christian because the word Christ means something supernatural. There are others here who do, but they don’t follow that teaching.

  • Clark

    Dreoilin, goodnight.

    Republicofscotland, you could help out by calling Dreoilin by her chosen username. People have bad days, you know? We can all do our bit to help them get through them.

  • John Goss

    At about 8 pm I left an on-topic comment in response to Patrick Haseldine’s on-topic comment before cycling to my pub-quiz (which believe me is all entertainment). I come back after midnight to find that apart from Doug Scorgie (8.35) and Technicolour (10.41) nobody has considered the topic even though it is less than 100 comments long.

    I am guilty from time to time of diversion, as we all are with our personal campaigns, but I would very rarely do that on the first page without being able to tie it in to the blogpost.

    The English and Scottish judiciaries, and probably a lot more, are crap. There is so much bitching nobody can see this.

  • Vronsky

    @Suhayl

    I think it highly probable that spooks were involved in getting the tale of Sheridan’s leisure pursuits to the NotW – if not, then they were negligent.

    I’m less sure that they had anything to do with the disappearing of Coulson’s perjury charge – that seems to be accurate interpretation of the law, although it’s obviously true that if Coulson had been found guilty then Sheridan’s conviction would have to have been quashed, with all that that would entail.

    I’m afraid there is scant sympathy for Sheridan in Scotland and that indifference may be what draws an end to the matter. He is perceived as author of his own misfortune and as having done deep damage to the nascent Scottish left.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    I am guilty from time to time of diversion, as we all are with our personal campaigns, but I would very rarely do that on the first page without being able to tie it in to the blogpost. (JG)

    Good working principle, and one I’ll aim for. It would make a good rule if we had rules.

  • Mary

    I object strongly to the slanderous content of Dreoilin’s comment at 7.36pm last night. I have only just noticed it.

    The accusation she makes about me is totally untrue. Can it please be removed?

  • Abe Rene

    A BBC report last night seemed to suggest that the prosecutors should have done a better job.

  • Dykeward

    Oh dear, what with this example and the council tax issue, it seems that Scotland is not quite so bonnie as painted Craig.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.