www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18262740
So in a court of law, you have Andy Coulson v Tommy Sheridan, a newspaper editor vs a politician.
Who would you believe?? Its a difficult one!!
|
>> Who would you believe?? Its a difficult one!!
Neither, in this case. It's an easy one.
|
|
Surely nothing of note would be said and it wouldn't be reported right?
|
Coulson living a high, rubbing shoulders with "the great and the good", job @ No 10- the high life to doing 2 or 3 years porridge will be a shock to the system, if he is to be found guilty.
Certainly the change for Tommy Sheridan must be huge - he made the TV & papers in Scotland every day, well most weeks. Since his time in prison we have heard little or nothing - a glimpse of him last night as he was asked about Coulson.
This may make a few more people think before they embark on such a path.
|
I don't think this helps Sheridan in any practical sense.
The allegation against Coulson is that he told the perjury trial porkies about his knowledge of phone hacking.
That does go to Coulson's credibility, but the perjury trial - from my brief reading of it - didn't turn on whether Coulson knew about hacking or not, it turned on Sheridan's claims he was not an adulterer or a visitor to a sex club.
Put another way, a second perjurer doesn't make the first one innocent.
|
I remember Coulson's statement from that trial and thought it was an accident waiting to happen -- a real hostage to fortune..
Why anyone trusts anyone who works in politics to tell the truth is beyond me.
If politicians told the truth, there would be a mass panic.
|
>>Put another way, a second perjurer doesn't make the first one innocent.
My point was not whether T Sheridan was innocent / guilty on the basis of Coulson's testimony.
My point was that the imprisonment of Sheridan has had an effect - his wings have been clipped and he is no longer the public figure he once was. I have no particular like for Sheridan but back in the past he lead a protest on University Fees ...........I agreed with him on the NO FEES Issue.
I paid no fees and got a full grant nearly 50 years ago and I benefitted from the education for my life - being a 40% tax payer for most of my life the taxpayer has been well rewarded for their investment of £3,000/£4,000 in the mid 60's in my and my wife's education. I paybasic tax now but the tax paid by my 3 x sons, whose education I paid for (No Student loans/overdrafts) more than makes up for it!
|
My spin on England's University "fees". The "fees" in England are not really fees and Universities will therefore be free in England from 2012. The "fees" cost will be paid for by some of those who graduate - they will be charged a tax in certain circumstances, a "tax" of 9% will be paid by graduates on their earnings over £21,000 in the 30 years following graduation.
With all credit to Martin Lewis, here are a few salient facts:
1. Some students can get a full or partial bursary, eg. from the National Scholarship Programme, NHS scheme, armed forces, etc.
2. It isn't a case of 'pay up or you can't go'.
3. If you never (never=30 years) earn over £21,000 then you don't have to repay the loan.
4. If you earn over £21.000, you pay 9% "tax" on the portion of earnings above £21,000.
5. Those earning over £41,000 will have to pay extra tax.
5. Repayments will be £540 a year lower than paid by the 2011 or earlier graduate intake.
Full details
www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes
Last edited by: John H on Thu 31 May 12 at 12:14
|
>> My spin on England's University "fees". The "fees" in England are not really fees and
>> Universities will therefore be free in England from 2012.
That's pretty much my take too John.
The debt is certainly big on graduation but to a large extent it's notional. Unlike a mortgage there are few if any circumstances under which the whole sum can fall payable 'forthwith'. The repayments are a grauduate tax in all but name.
As a parent the impact has been a need to top up the maintenance loan. Daughter's just about covered her (basic catering included) hall fees but it won't even cover the rent in some places.
Mrs B and I are both employed, albeit precariously, on reasonble salaries. We can afford to give her top ups now and then and to put books, computers, printer ink etc through my Amazon Prime account & deliver to her next day.
PLenty are less fortunate.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 31 May 12 at 12:39
|
|
How come a bloke int he dock who says "Not Guilty" and denies all wrong doing, can be found guilty, but then is not charged with perjury for denying he did it?
|
>> How come a bloke int he dock who says "Not Guilty" and denies all wrong
>> doing, can be found guilty, but then is not charged with perjury for denying he
>> did it?
He's told it from his perspective.
Even if blatant porkies were told there's no public interest in pursuing him given he's probably gone down anyway. The sentencing judge is also likley to add some comments about defendants credibility and may reflect that in his sentence either directly or as a consequence of 'dragging it out' and forcing witnesses to testify.
Different if there's evidence of a conspiracy to mislead or pervert the course of justice.
A policy that prosecuted convicted defendants, even limitred to the egregious extreme, might inhibit those who lack confidence in court.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 31 May 12 at 14:28
|
>> How come a bloke int he dock who says "Not Guilty" and denies all wrong
>> doing, can be found guilty, but then is not charged with perjury for denying he
>> did it?
>>
We have done all this before.
A plea of "Not Guilty" is saying "let the evidence be heard".
|
|
but he's lying, in court.
|
>> but he's lying, in court.
>>
IIRC, it would only be perjury if he said something to the effect "I was not at 14 Acacia Avenue on the night of the 27th inst" when it fact he was.
Simply pleading Not Guilty is not in itself an act of perjury.
|
|
Plenty have claimed they weren't.
|
...but he's lying, in court...
Rightly or wrongly, the fact that many defendants tell lies in court in a bid to get off is largely ignored.
What sometimes is not ignored is when a defendant calls witnesses who plainly lie on his behalf - supporting a bogus alibi, for example.
Even then perjury/pervert the course charges are rare, although I have seen judges brand such witnesses as liars at the conclusion of the case.
For most of us, being branded by a judge publicly as a liar would be a source of shame.
But I suspect those who do it are not bothered.
|
>> but he's lying, in court.
>>
Yep.
And the magistrate (or judge) will point out in his summing-up that the guy is a wrong-'un, and throw the 'leniency' book away, because he is a liar, and has thus wasted the court's time.
In the Coulson case, the bloke has allegedly covered his own buttocks, at the expense of some other chap. Doesn't matter what the other chap had done, the fact is that Coulson allegedly lied, under oath.
Now, as a JohnnyForeigner, I can't comment too much on the Scottish legal system, but in most other places where the law is respected, this is a bit of a no-no.
Remember Lord Archole of Lies, the famous plagiarist and Tory? The evidence he had prepared, but eventually DIDN'T have to lead was considered in his perjury case, and he got 4 years.
Likewise, that well-known Christian gentleman Aitken, who was such a (I can't think of a word strong enough which will evade the mods - let us try scumbag) that he was prepared to let his teenage daughter perjure herself? Fortunately, the damning evidence against him was produced before his briefs had put the daughter into the witness box.
Personally, I was looking forward to Archer's 'Prison Diaries Part 4', where he was sodomised in the showers, but it was never released. And that conniving git is still feted around the world. He was here recently, promoting his new book. Fortunately I wasn't invited. I may have caused a scene...
Last edited by: Ian (Cape Town) on Thu 31 May 12 at 16:12
|
Lady Archer
Lady Archer’s really quite attractive but her husband is a jerk;
He is bumptious and coarsely retroactive, so the marriage was never going to
work.
He, red-blooded; she, a shrinking violet,
Soon her nuptial duties was manoevring to shirk:
Curses, tantrums, vapours in the boudoir,
Like a ghastly movie made by Douglas Sirk.
How his Lordship saved the situation would have made you gasp and stretch
your eyes:
Waterloo station, criminal conversation, a bit of rumpy-pumpy and a lot of
porky pies.
Smothered in vainglory, played the hardnosed Tory,
Tried to be the Mayor among a lot of other tries;
Ought to have stuck to his goldmine as the author
Of texts that no one sane would want to plagiarise.
In his present lowly station Lady Archer’s husband’s still a jerk,
Getting by on masturbation, fairly wholesome food and ill-paid manual work;
Barking orders,
Bribing warders,
Paying through the nose for every snout-baron’s perk;
While poor Lady Archer finds scant consolation
In the feverish attentions of a lust-crazed Turk.
This mean-spirited, envious, fanciful and libellous piece was written when the poor fellow was in jail for, er, perjury I think. ‘Criminal conversation’ by the way is a genteel Victorian legal expression for illicit sex. Sorry if you know that already.
|
|
Surprise surprise he got arrested.>;)
|
‘Criminal conversation’ by the way is a genteel Victorian
>> legal expression for illicit sex. Sorry if you know that already.
>>
I love those expressions - like 'ugandan affairs' and 'pancreatic problems', Armel!
But Lady Archole - wasn't she fragrant - was heavily implicated in some Anglia TV shares issue a while back, IIRC?
maybe she got fragrant investigator?
And the apple doesn't fall far from the tree - the son was kicked by the SFA after some dodgy share dealings.
|
>> 'pancreatic problems'
I haven't seen that one and can't decipher it... I believe in real life problems with the pancreas can be extremely painful (and in some cases lethal).
Criminal conversation is a curious expression though as even in the nineteenth century sex, even when frowned on, was not actually illegal between consenting adults (unless they were both men of course). It was probably widely used in the courts, but I came across it in the records of the Foundling Hospital, which looked after and found homes for the children of poor women, housemaids and the like, who had got pregnant by accident, had been deserted by the geezer and had no family members willing to care for the new arrival. 'CC took place on a number of occasions', etc. It wasn't satirical like Ugandan Affairs, but managed to be disapproving and evasive in the same breath.
The Foundling Hospital saved many lives, but took great care not to be exploited by prostitutes or promiscuous women. Candidates were investigated to make sure they weren't the wrong sort of person.
|
>> >> 'pancreatic problems'
>>
>> I haven't seen that one and can't decipher it... I believe in real life problems
>> with the pancreas can be extremely painful (and in some cases lethal).
Soap actress Gillian Taylforth:
"Knights and Taylforth have an extensive tabloid media history. In January 1994 Taylforth was involved in a high-profile court case when she sued The Sun newspaper for libel after they ran a story claiming she and Knights had performed sexual acts on a slip road on the A1 in their Range Rover. Taylforth claimed that her partner had suffered an acute attack of pancreatitis and she was merely massaging his stomach to soothe his abdominal pain; however, a police officer claimed that she was performing fellatio instead."
The phrase entered the lexicon, and is still used, occasionally, in the Private Eye.
|
>> I believe in real life problems
>> with the pancreas can be extremely painful (and in some cases lethal).
>>
I can vouch for that, I came close to the 20% that don't survive, saved with some re-plumbing by a skilled surgeon.
|
>> >> I believe in real life problems
>> >> with the pancreas can be extremely painful (and in some cases lethal).
>> I can vouch for that, I came close to the 20% that don't survive, saved
>> with some re-plumbing by a skilled surgeon.
>>
I also am a member of that club... except I was told that 1 in 4 survived when as ill as I...
My family had been told I had no more than 24 hours left.
James Beck was one of the losers.
|
Andy Coulson arrested for perjury - Armel Coussine
