sonofoi Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Tomorrow. Corrupt. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnie x Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Wikileaks tomorrow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrystarfish Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 TPP full reveal? Nothing to do with UK if so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofoi Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 Neither of the above. Theres likely to be a press conference tomorrow when news breaks & embargo off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrystarfish Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Neither of the above. Theres likely to be a press conference tomorrow when news breaks & embargo off. FIFA-related? Fallout 4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofoi Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Heres part one. Part 2 on Wednesday Charges against News of the World chiefs dropped http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32983941 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnie x Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 TPP full reveal? Nothing to do with UK if so. I got the impression they were trailing something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Fallout 4? I AM SO EXCITED!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrystarfish Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Heres part one. Part 2 on Wednesday Charges against News of the World chiefs dropped http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32983941 Part 2 here? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32962263 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofoi Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Part 2 here? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32962263 Thats it! Absolute shocker! Press conference by Tommy later today calling for public inquiry and retrial. Gist is Crown did not introduce pertinent evidence as it would assist Tommys appeal case. Wonder why he wasnt called as a witness? Main prosecution witness one would have thought?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofoi Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 And the truth doesnt matter http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32931204 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofoi Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Tommy press conference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Disappointed that he was acquitted. On the plus side, convicted Perjurer Sheridan is raging and that's always Pleasing/entertaining/Welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 It's also made me seething as well. In fact i might have to break out the thesaurus to accurately describe how raging i am. Ok i'm fecking splenetic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 So it's not that he lied, he did. It's the relevance of the lie to the case. So you can lie under oath provided you can get a judge to rule it is irrelevant, didn't know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brant grebner Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 "Do you swear to give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" "Nah" "Fair enough" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_B81 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The whole lot of them lied in that Sheridan trial! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 But weird (or perhaps not) that a lot of the MSM - BBC, ch4 etc are reporting, explicitly in their headlines that "Coulson cleared of lying" No he feckin wasnt! He was cleared of perjury, as the judges ruled his lies weren't relevant to Tommys case. But he still lied Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) And when Coulson went to court - he promised to tell the whole truth - whether or not what he was asked was relevant to Sheridans conviction Pictures of him outside court, smugly claiming it's been proven he's not a liar ? Edit: just seen Brants post above. Aye Edited June 3, 2015 by Maq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The whole lot of them lied in that Sheridan trial! You'll need to clarify that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_B81 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 You'll need to clarify that one... A split of SSP members telling two different stories from the same meeting. McNeilage's "framing" of Sheridan even though he's not seen in the footage. Sheridan's versions of events. Anvar Khan's evidence, Bob Bird etc etc The whole trial from start to finish was a waste of public money. Should've put them all on Jeremy Kyle for a lie detector test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Q Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 So it's not that he lied, he did. It's the relevance of the lie to the case. So you can lie under oath provided you can get a judge to rule it is irrelevant, didn't know that. Nor did I. Extraordinary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnie x Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I somehow doubt any of us would get away with it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartandon Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 So it's not that he lied, he did. It's the relevance of the lie to the case. So you can lie under oath provided you can get a judge to rule it is irrelevant, didn't know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Been looking into it, as far back as 2012 people(who seemed informed and fairly neutral) were saying it wouldn't be perjury , or would be hard to prove. So it seems the surprise i feel has came about from my ignorance of Scottish law. http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/coulson-crossing-rubicon.html https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/andy-coulsons-evidence-at-the-sheridan-trial-the-legal-definition-of-perjury-in-scotland/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.