In These New Times

A new paradigm for a post-imperial world

Defend Sheridan, defend truth against power!

Posted by seumasach on December 23, 2010

Cailean Bochanan

23rd December, 2010

The jury at the Tommy Sheridan case has duly delivered the expected verdict of guilty. Expected, that is to say, by those with some insight into British justice system and British society as a whole. However, this isn’t just another miscarriage of justice, as it clearly is on the basis of the case as reported through James Doleman’s blog, it is a show trial through which the British oligarchy has shown its power to put down whoever they wish regardless of the evidence or the facts of the case. In that sense its consequences are of the gravest possible nature for all of us who wish to free this country from the all enveloping tentacles of the financier/war interest.

It is strange to have to write an article on the basis of information provided by a blog: don’t we have a press, TV, media? Well, we may as well not, going by the coverage of this trial. It consisted of little more of soundbites, which certain witnesses seemed to be offering up in an obviously choreographed manner; there was no in depth coverage. The media offered impressions, mood music, suggestive little titbits, the kind of fare appropriate to a post-modern, dumbed-down, justice brought to your living room sort of show trial. Nothing to strain the critical faculties overmuch and certainly nothing to inform.

Still, the trial by media format seemed to have gone wrong,  the impressionism seemed to be going in  favour of Sheridan. This could only be explained by a continual series of reverses which was plaguing what was, on the evidence available to me, one of the most disastrous prosecution cases ever  launched.

The centrality of a dodgy looking bit of video with a voiceover destroyed any notion that the prosecution was coming with something new to the trial. If this is the best the intelligence services of the realm, now farmed out to News International apparently,  can muster then Sheridan is innocent of visiting a swingers club: in fact, he so innocent that he wouldn’t even know what a swingers club is. The rest of the trial was a disgraceful farrago of contradiction, lie and insinuation, an unstoppable fast-forward to fiasco. Against my better instincts, I even began to think Sheridan might win.

But it was too bad to be true. The trial raised a puzzling question which may in the end have clinched it in the jury room: why would so many people come forward to destroy themselves in the witness box? In other words, for Sheridan to be innocent there had to be, as he claimed, a conspiracy, but one which goes beyond even what he can imagine. For Sheridan to be innocent, this society has to be, not the cosy little island of democracy as we like to believe, not the fairy tale, but a benighted place controlled by dark hidden forces. The jury and most of the public prefer that not to be the reality and so can now sigh a collective sigh of relief safe in the knowledge that it is the evil one who has gone down. For me the evil is still very much at large and suddenly looms ever larger. Only truth can destroy it.

5 Responses to “Defend Sheridan, defend truth against power!”

  1. Martin said

    A clearer example of the true nature of the british state you will not find. A place where true justice is not welcome.

  2. Alasdair said

    This is a joke, right?
    First, Frank Doleman is an SWP full timer and his blog is utterly biased.
    Second, Tommy Sheridan is a serial abuser of women.

    Whoever wrote this article is a moron.

  3. inthesenewtimes said

    As far as I am aware no one has claimed that Doleman’s blog is innacurate: that is all that concerns me here.

  4. orderorder said

    As a regular visitor to the court for most of the trial I can say that the bias of the blog does not lie in its inaccuracy, rather in omissions (this is particularly true of the earlier stages of the trial and the crown case, where much was condensed or omitted.)

    Furthermore it is ridiculous to say that a miscarriage of justice has occurred on the basis of a blog for two reasons: 1. reading a blog, whilst informative gives you only a fragment of the feel of the whole proceedings. much of the evidence i heard in court which came across as ludicrous and fantastical, once written down and published, clearly was more convincing for readers; likewise, evidence that came across in court as telling, was often rubbished by readers of the blog. I guess anyone who has had a text/email flamewar will recognise this phenomenon. 2. Don’t assume that because something is a blog that it is free from any ideological slant or informed by any bias – commentors were thrilled at the Grisham-like reporting of events, seemingly an alternative to the stuff the mainstream media reported: but actually, it has its own biases, and the mainstream court reporters often, for the purposes of space and clarity, have to identify what they feel are the most telling points.

    For what its worth, my opinion of what i saw was that this was as much an open and shut case as you’ll see – the defence obfuscated and attempted to fisk every aspect of the crown’s case with patently weak alibis and irrelevant conspiracy theories.

  5. inthesenewtimes said

    Feel free to use this space to elaborate on the ommissions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: