SSPMajority

Alistair Bonnington, Herald

"Why there can be no perjury investigation" - Alistair Bonnington

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/67337.html

Letter published in the Herald today by Norma Anderson

Sir
The ordinary members of the SSP, together with the media, have been gagged, over the past few weeks whilst the Tommy Sheridan versus the News Of The World action has been taking place. With Tommy's historic victory, however, the gloves have been taken off and everybody now seems to have an opinion on the outcome of the defamation trial.

Not least amongst these are the members of a minority platform within the SSP calling themselves the 'United Left' - an oxymoron if ever there was one! As the media are reporting, there is an undoubted split within the ranks of the SSP - brought about, in my opinion, by members of the 'United Left'.

On two separate occasions the National Council of the party have passed resolutions calling for the party to support Tommy in his fight against the News of the World. The executive, or some of them anyway, chose to ignore these calls but continued to call themselves a democratic bottom-up party. Somebody should be buying them dictionaries for Christmas!

As far as I am concerned, the final straw came when they released a statement following Tommy's victory. They said they condemned "the actions of those who fail to uphold the truth about our party, our merits, our democratic decisions and the actions of our elected office bearers."

Yet this is exactly what they have been guilty of themselves!

Those of us who oppose the 'United Left' do not do so to defend Tommy Sheridan per se - (although that is undoubtedly a side effect of our opposition) - we do so because our party has been taken over by a bunch of egotistical, self-serving individuals who believe that their way is the only way - and who are prepared to sacrifice anybody in their pursuit of power.

And don't read into that their treatment of Tommy Sheridan. Just look at the way they have treated Rosemary Byrne MSP who has been shunned by her female parliamentary colleagues ever since entering parliament just because she held a different point of view!

I write this letter both in sadness and in anger. I feel, however, that throughout all the recent reports on events concerning the Scottish Socialist Party the only voices which have not been heard are those of the rank and file member - and it is time this balance was redressed.

Yours faithfully
Norma Anderson

A Win for Machismo

A Win for Machismo

Julie Bindel, Tuesday August 8, 2006 The Guardian.

Tommy Sheridan may have emerged victorious from his libel case but all the women involved came off badly. From the gushing attention focused on his wife Gail's wardrobe, to the vitriol aimed at the women who offered evidence against him, this trial did nothing to advance feminism, says Julie Bindel

'Whatever their views of Tommy Sheridan," says Catriona Grant, former Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) activist and witness in the Tommy Sheridan libel trial, "folk need to realise that this case was a fight between men and women. This was not about class, but gender."

In many ways, the Sheridan case is one that has divided men and women, at least in the SSP. Sheridan, who won a libel case against the News of the World (NoTW) on Friday following accusations of group sex, extra-marital affairs and kinky swinging, has recently fallen out with a number of women. All but two witnesses on his side were men. The majority of those testifying against him, however, were women.

Sheridan's image is undisputedly that of a "proper man". Although a tee-total non-smoker, this has been read by some as him wanting to "be in control". Sheridan is an apparently devoted husband of glamorous Gail and doting father of a two-year-old daughter, but admits he was a "male whore" while single. In many ways he typifies men of the hard-left - charismatic, street-fighting and fearless.

According to Sheridan and his supporters, women in the party were the cause of his problems. Those accused of being the main culprits are Carolyn Leckie, Rosie Kane and Francis Curran, the three members of Scottish parliament who gave evidence against him in court, referred to as "witches" and "scabs" by Sheridan.

Before the NoTW stories came to light, and while Sheridan was still party convenor, there had been discussion in the SSP about having a joint male-female leadership. Sheridan claimed in court that the motivation of female party members giving evidence against him was in order to oust him as party leader so that one of the women could take over.

When the row about the NoTW claims broke, Sheridan sent party members and the press an open letter, accusing a "cabal of comrades" of being out to get him, and claiming that the SSP was being transformed from "a class-based party to a gender-obsessed one".

Some women were as loyal to Sheridan during the trial as others were critical. Wife Gail, described in various newspapers as "fragrant" like Mary Archer, was the perfect antidote to his female critics. Details of her appearance were documented in the Scottish press, with one newspaper running a sizable feature on her daily wardrobe. She was referred to as "Gail Force" and described as "Tommy's rock".

"She makes Tammy Wynette look disloyal," said one journalist while listening to Gail's evidence. Always well-turned out, Gail made sure we knew that she hunted down bargains from high-street discount stores, not Prada or Gucci. Her sunglasses were cheap buys from a trip to the Middle East, and were worn not to appear mysterious, she said, but to "hide the tears" brought about by seeing "my man suffer".

Sheridan's mother is surely the dream of any boy in trouble. Although hearing lurid stories of your son's sex life can't have been easy, Alice Sheridan's loyalty appears to know no bounds. A deeply religious woman, she sat in court every day, listening to smut, while shaking her head in disgust, or holding her hands out in prayer.

Alice, like the other female family members involved in the case, saved her vitriol for the women. During the trial, Alice told me that "it's those women that have stabbed my Tommy in the back". Gail told Sheridan during her evidence: "The women are all out to get you." Sheridan's sister told me it was obvious that her brother had not had affairs with the women giving evidence because "Tommy would not lie down with dogs like them."

During her evidence, Gail came across as a loving but nagging wife - just the type that would not let her man get away with anything. One spectator said after the trial that every male juror with a strong wife who keeps him in check sympathised with Sheridan.

Her Madonna-like image sharply contrasted with the "whores" on the other side. Katrine Trolle, loudly referred to by a Sheridan supporter in court as a "trollop", was described as a "flame-haired Dane" and a "permissive Scandinavian" in some newspapers.

Accusations of gold-digging were rife. Sheridan accused the women giving evidence against him as either being paid by the NoTW, or as simply being "out to get Tommy Sheridan" if they were involved in the SSP.

Fiona McGuire, who sold her story to the NoTW, claiming to have had a four-year affair with Sheridan, was accused in court of being a "fantasist", a "gold digger", "promiscuous" and "mentally ill". It was revealed in court that McGuire had slept with between 200 and 300 men and worked as a prostitute. The relevance of this detail was questioned by the NoTW lawyers. McGuire's ex-husband sold his story to a Sunday tabloid claiming that McGuire told him she had leukaemia and tricked him into marrying her. "Fiona is a money-grabbing fantasist," he told the paper.

Since the trial, Gail has spoken plenty of harsh words against the women who refused to support her husband, describing them as "despicable". She said at the weekend that Anvar Khan, the NoTW sex columnist who broke the story about Sheridan, was "on the dark side" and "scary-looking."

Although disproving the allegations put forward by the NoTW and individual witnesses of Sheridan's swinging and infidelity were crucial to his defence, a number of Sheridan's opponents have argued that representing himself was "an abuse of power" over those women. "What type of socialist puts a woman in a witness box, cross examines her about intimate details of her sex life, then calls her a liar in public?" asks Curran.

There have long been accusations from women in hard-left parties about sexism from male comrades. Writer Bea Campbell says that although feminists have tried to sensitise men in leftist parties for 30 years, many still behave in a "typical macho way".

Leckie agrees. "We women are handy ornaments, or surplus to requirements for some socialist men," she claims. "For years, socialist feminists have been trying to eradicate this sexist, brutish behaviour, and we thought we had seen the last of it. Exposing the macho behaviour of some men in the party is us saying, 'Enough is enough.'"

The battle between Sheridan's opponents and supporters has been a bloody one. There have been claims that some of the men in the party and their affiliates verbally abused the women who refused to back Sheridan. At an emergency national council meeting in May, a number of male members of the Socialist Workers Party heckled the women who spoke against him. "They were shouting, 'You cunt' and 'Shut up, you bitch,'" says Grant. "It was really scary."

The Sheridan affair has certainly taken its toll on those compelled to give evidence against the man who led the party into parliament, and who has been such an iconic figure of the Scottish left. "We were all on the 'Tommy Sheridan drop a dress size' diet," says Kane. "The impact on us has been horrendous."

Kane is consoled that at least the Sheridan affair has rooted out the strong, determined women in the SSP. "It has galvanised our feminism. We have looked into the jaws of the beast and survived," she says. What the women in the party will do in the light of Sheridan winning remains to be seen, but a number, including Catriona Grant, have already resigned.

There is an irony about this case that has not escaped the feminists involved. The women giving evidence in court to support the NoTW case were portrayed as those the paper is usually out to get - feminists, hookers, gold-diggers, witches and man-haters. On Sheridan's side was his martyred mother and his near-perfect wife. As one lawyer commented after the case about Gail: "She dressed well and spoke eloquently and passionately for her husband and this may have swayed the jury rather than the detail of the evidence." Whether or not this is the case, the Tommy Sheridan affair cannot be described as one that has advanced the cause of women in any way.

Sheridan's verdict shows who are the real hypocrites

Sheridan’s verdict shows who are the real hypocrites.

Ian Bell, The Herald, Saturday August 5, 2006

When the fight against the poll tax was at its height, some of us recognised a light in the west. The name was Sheridan. While the rest of we poinded protesters went through the legal motions, Tommy went to jail. Whilst we spoke or wrote of solidarity in the face of iniquity, Tommy took to the barricades. Actually, literally.

The old lefties called it showboating. They said that this was a mere “publicity-seeking” pup. They questioned his Militant Tendency credentials, his unfeasible tan and his endless soundbites.

One tip: never invite a tired old leftie to your court-enforced warrant wale. Second tip: never doubt that Sheridan means what he says.

Today, Tommy wins. Every action for defamation is, by definition, a matter of opinion. So here’s one: the News of the Loose Screws made a serious tactical error when it engaged a very expensive lawyer to employ the word “hypocrisy” in its campaign against Tommy Sheridan. Yesterday, the tabloid paid a high price for its addiction to sensation.

If your own lawyers needed the work we could, after all, write of substance habits, family affairs and sexual preferences. But why bother?

Private life should remain private.

Didn’t the News of the Jock make front-page news from Tommy’s campaigns for free school meals and an equitable local tax? It didn’t? An oversight, clearly.

If memory serves, I was the only representative of the filthy capitalist press to hang around the dingy Glasgow City Halls when the “Scottish Socialist Alliance” went through its difficult birth back in the nineties.

Ron Brown, formerly of Leith and the Labour Party, brought his dog, others brought the usual rubbish. I thought, and wrote, that it could never work. Tommy pulled it all together. The result was the Scottish Socialist Party.

When Scotland’s Parliament was reconvened, Tommy pulled proceedings together once again.

You can smirk at a clenched fist, or you can believe in the iconic moment: the point was that Sheridan believed, just as he believes in justice for Palestine, or in the elimination of Trident. This is not a “consensus politician”, or one who thinks he is being employed by his people to “build bridges”.

Tommy is at war on behalf of his electorate.

That notion is easy to mock. The News of the World believed it could conjure a simple contradiction: teetotal, uxorious socialist in public; love-rat, drug-user and prostitute-abuser in private. Let’s sell some papers!

The hearing reminded me of nothing so much as a sweaty fortnight once spent in Washington while Republicans moved heaven and earth to impeach Bill Clinton. I didn’t care much for the Prez, or for his notion of truth, but I knew one thing: no law had been broken.

Tommy Sheridan won yesterday, but Tommy was not on trial, in point of fact. Even if the jury had found against him, no actual crime was imputed.

We need to think about that. The News of the World printed its “allegations” as though the very appearance of a politician’s name in its pages was equivalent to an offence in law. A serious question: how dare it?

Even the alleged, disproven, fantasised actions of Mr Sheridan were entirely lawful. To put it another way: who cares?

Tommy and his wife and their families cared, and quite right, too. Their names are good, and should remain that way.

But where do we stand as a country if a newspaper’s headlines can lead to such a confrontation? Integrity? Hypocrisy? How dare the News of the World even use the words. Do socialists really still cause the Murdoch paper such unease?

In case you were wondering, I hold reservations where Tommy and his now-destroyed party are concerned. The fissiparous nature of the SSP was evident, at least to me, from the start: such is life on the left.

But I do know the man himself, slightly but well. I hold him to be honest, and a jury agrees. We can argue over political matters another time.

I never once saw Tommy touch alcohol. I never once saw him act towards a member of the opposite sex in an inappropriate manner.

The serious point, perhaps, is this: agree with him or not, doubt his intentions or not, subscribe to his view of the world or otherwise: Sheridan has faced personal destruction while attempting to serve his country.

So how many sackings at the News of the World (Scottish branch office) is he now entitled to expect, or demand?