It's in the public interest to prosecute a lying politician no matter what the cost...
There simply aren't enough courts in the land to prosecute them all and, even if there were, the taxpayer couldn't afford the cost. Best just to stick to the politicians that nobody in power really likes:p
There simply aren't enough courts in the land to prosecute them all and, even if there were, the taxpayer couldn't afford the cost. Best just to stick to the politicians that nobody in power really likes:p
There's telling lies, then there's telling lies under oath in court! Lord Archer will tell us that. And he was Thatcher's darling!
Could have told you he was guilty even before the trial. The man's a scumbag. I've no idea what he was playing at by pleading not guilty in the first place.
Could have told you he was guilty even before the trial. The man's a scumbag. I've no idea what he was playing at by pleading not guilty in the first place.
And some people say there's no prejustice towards him, eh? I wonder how many of the jurors thought that way?
And some people say there's no prejustice towards him, eh? I wonder how many of the jurors thought that way?
There was overwhelming proof that he had lied, and repeatedly. He was caught utterly red-handed, and his defence was absurd. He has no one to blame but himself. As the trial unfolded and the evidence came out, it beggared belief that he maintained his plea, especially given that they'd already had one trial, so Sheridan knew exactly what the evidence would be for the retrial. The man's an arrogant idiot.
I think Sheridan has been stitched up by his ex-comrades and that gutter trash rag the News of the World, preferred reading for subhuman morons. Sorry, they get someone to read it to them, since they lack that basic skill themselves.
The jurors heard the evidence and saw him acting as his own defence from the dock after he sacked his barrister.
And came to the conclusion that he was guilty.
Given that I was formerly in 'the trade', I can tell you that it never looks good when you sack your Barrister mid-trial. In 90% of cases, it happens after the Barrister has rendered some advice to the client with which he's not very happy............
Ridiculous waste of public money prosecuting this. How much did this all cost so Murdoch could get a stiffy?
Why shouldn't he have been prosecuted, given that he'd lied repeatedly to falsely secure a payout from News International? They were right to go after him, just as they were right to go after Jeffrey Archer a few years back.
Given that I was formerly in 'the trade', I can tell you that it never looks good when you sack your Barrister mid-trial. In 90% of cases, it happens after the Barrister has rendered some advice to the client with which he's not very happy............
Is it correct to say perjury is considered a crime against the crown? If so I can imagine Mr Sheridan not being too bothered about having that on his record.
Why shouldn't he have been prosecuted, given that he'd lied repeatedly to falsely secure a payout from News International? They were right to go after him, just as they were right to go after Jeffrey Archer a few years back.
Civil cases both, public money exposed one liar to appease another.
Civil cases both, public money exposed one liar to appease another.
Waste of money.
Sorry, don't see that it makes any difference. When people commit perjury and obtain civil remedies through fraud, it undermines the trust and confidence in the legal process. Anybody who commits such a fraud deserves to be treated very harshly indeed, as a matter of public policy.
He got big headed and thought he could do what he damn well please (just like most politicians).
Which, funnily enough, is precisely what Jonathan Aitken says led to his imprisonment for perjury: he was arrogant and thought that he was untouchable. He's a much humbler, nicer man these days.
Which, funnily enough, is precisely what Jonathan Aitken says led to his imprisonment for perjury: he was arrogant and thought that he was untouchable. He's a much humbler, nicer man these days.
I suspect however that Tommy will come out of prison still arrogantly defiant.
He's lucky that he's been bailed to return after Christmas and New Year, he could easily have been remanded until his sentencing at the end of January.
Comments
There simply aren't enough courts in the land to prosecute them all and, even if there were, the taxpayer couldn't afford the cost. Best just to stick to the politicians that nobody in power really likes:p
There's telling lies, then there's telling lies under oath in court! Lord Archer will tell us that. And he was Thatcher's darling!
There's telling lies, then there's telling lies to parliament that take us to war. Tony Blair could tell us about that (but of course he won't).
Just wait until the appeal that the NOTW has against paying him £200 000.:D:D:D
Could have told you he was guilty even before the trial. The man's a scumbag. I've no idea what he was playing at by pleading not guilty in the first place.
And some people say there's no prejustice towards him, eh? I wonder how many of the jurors thought that way?
The jurors heard the evidence and saw him acting as his own defence from the dock after he sacked his barrister.
And came to the conclusion that he was guilty.
There was overwhelming proof that he had lied, and repeatedly. He was caught utterly red-handed, and his defence was absurd. He has no one to blame but himself. As the trial unfolded and the evidence came out, it beggared belief that he maintained his plea, especially given that they'd already had one trial, so Sheridan knew exactly what the evidence would be for the retrial. The man's an arrogant idiot.
Given that I was formerly in 'the trade', I can tell you that it never looks good when you sack your Barrister mid-trial. In 90% of cases, it happens after the Barrister has rendered some advice to the client with which he's not very happy............
BBC Scotland have decided not to name him. The fact they the term 'personality' is being used has me wondering if it might be one of their pundits.
None of their pundits have a personality.
Why shouldn't he have been prosecuted, given that he'd lied repeatedly to falsely secure a payout from News International? They were right to go after him, just as they were right to go after Jeffrey Archer a few years back.
Is it correct to say perjury is considered a crime against the crown? If so I can imagine Mr Sheridan not being too bothered about having that on his record.
Civil cases both, public money exposed one liar to appease another.
Waste of money.
Sorry, don't see that it makes any difference. When people commit perjury and obtain civil remedies through fraud, it undermines the trust and confidence in the legal process. Anybody who commits such a fraud deserves to be treated very harshly indeed, as a matter of public policy.
If it was you or me who had lied in court, we would get a right good kicking (jail time wise).
He's no better or different from anyone else. He got big headed and thought he could do what he damn well please (just like most politicians).
He'll learn the error of that opinion very soon.
Which, funnily enough, is precisely what Jonathan Aitken says led to his imprisonment for perjury: he was arrogant and thought that he was untouchable. He's a much humbler, nicer man these days.
Using the cost of the trial as an excuse :rolleyes:
I hope he faces hell in jail. The left wing extremist and racist.
I suspect however that Tommy will come out of prison still arrogantly defiant.
He's lucky that he's been bailed to return after Christmas and New Year, he could easily have been remanded until his sentencing at the end of January.