mj.scuba Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I'm no fan of Sheridan's politics but I do sympathise with the man. Yes he purjured himself, but what is all this about? One man's sex life. And the fact he didn't want his sex life splashed about in public. To be honest I don't think most would have battered an eye lid knowing he was a swinger, but he obviosly felt embarrased enough to lie on oath, but should newspapers be doing illicit and seedy undercover stings to get the lowdown on the sexual habits of celebs and politicians? Is it really in the public interest? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Funnily enough not everyone is as obsessed with spreading a political message as you and a couple of others on here. I hope it doesn't hurt your feelings to know that I don't follow your every word. I prefer to get my information from reliable sources. I know that Sheridan is guity of a crime and is in jail. I know that in this country we have trials after people have been charged with a crime, and no matter how much you might suspect something it doesn't alter the fact that someone is innocent until proven guity. Indeed in the case of the murdered landscape architect Joanna Yeates much of the media thought that her landlord was guilty of the crime. Now he has been released, another man arrested and charged, it appears that the first suspect was a totally innocent man. Innocent, unlike Sheridan who is serving time. 4 people in prison for illegal practices at the News of the World, including bribing the police, whilst Coulson was boss. Witnesses have told the New York Times that Coulson knew full well what was going on, he was encouraging it. Yet the Police dropped the investigation... mmm I wonder why that was Perhaps because they were also involved? after all they were receiving money from the News of the World for this info... Perhaps he left because of what he thought Ian Edmondson was about to say? http://yfrog.com/f/h3b23raj/ Some background: http://www.septicisle.info/index.php?q=/2010/12/coulson-in-knowing-nothing-shocker.html http://www.septicisle.info/labels/dark%20arts.html It stretches credulity to the limit to think Coulson did not lie in the Sheridan trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 I'm no fan of Sheridan's politics but I do sympathise with the man. Yes he purjured himself, but what is all this about? One man's sex life. And the fact he didn't want his sex life splashed about in public. To be honest I don't think most would have battered an eye lid knowing he was a swinger, but he obviosly felt embarrased enough to lie on oath, but should newspapers be doing illicit and seedy undercover stings to get the lowdown on the sexual habits of celebs and politicians? Is it really in the public interest? I think not. I'm with you up to a point, but Sheridan perjured himself in order to obtain £200,000 damages from the newspapers. All of a sudden this is a bit more than intrusion into someone's private life. It was a newspaper reporting about his sexual antics, him lying about them in court in order to obtain £200K, and subsequently being sent to Klink for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I'm no fan of Sheridan's politics but I do sympathise with the man. Yes he purjured himself, but what is all this about? One man's sex life. And the fact he didn't want his sex life splashed about in public. To be honest I don't think most would have battered an eye lid knowing he was a swinger, but he obviosly felt embarrased enough to lie on oath, but should newspapers be doing illicit and seedy undercover stings to get the lowdown on the sexual habits of celebs and politicians? Is it really in the public interest? I think not. Regardless of whether the NoW should have better things to be doing than hanging round swingers clubs in case they spot someone famous Sheridans current situation is of his own making. If he felt the need to save his blushes he could have issued a denial and left it at that. It was his decision to take NoW to court and then lie on oath that landed him in jail, not the NoW exposing his sexual interests in the first place. Bear in mind that had he got away with it he'd have been sitting on a tax free lump sum that it would take someone on the minimum wage 20 years to earn, all based on lying through his teeth. So no, I don't feel sorry for the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 4 people in prison for illegal practices at the News of the World, including bribing the police, whilst Coulson was boss. Witnesses have told the New York Times that Coulson knew full well what was going on, he was encouraging it. Yet the Police dropped the investigation... mmm I wonder why that was Perhaps because they were also involved? after all they were receiving money from the News of the World for this info... Perhaps he left because of what he thought Ian Edmondson was about to say? http://yfrog.com/f/h3b23raj/ Some background: http://www.septicisle.info/index.php?q=/2010/12/coulson-in-knowing-nothing-shocker.html http://www.septicisle.info/labels/dark%20arts.html It stretches credulity to the limit to think Coulson did not lie in the Sheridan trial. In that case you have to think that Gordon Brown knew a bit more about Damian McBride and his smear campaigns than he let on. Didn't McBride work in Brown's office after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I'm no fan of Sheridan's politics but I do sympathise with the man. Yes he purjured himself, but what is all this about? One man's sex life. And the fact he didn't want his sex life splashed about in public. To be honest I don't think most would have battered an eye lid knowing he was a swinger, but he obviosly felt embarrased enough to lie on oath, but should newspapers be doing illicit and seedy undercover stings to get the lowdown on the sexual habits of celebs and politicians? Is it really in the public interest? I think not. I also couldn't care less about who politicians have sex with and don't think newspapers should concern themselves with such things. unless of course the politicians in question makes a big deal of being a 'family values' 'traditional morality' type in which case they make themselves fair game. However none of that excuses perjury, Sheridan didn't have to go to court and lie he chose to do that. If he'd taken an honest approach to the papers undue muckraking and said something along the lines of "I'm a swinger so what? It's nobodies business but those I swing with" I'd have respected the man and he'd most likely still be in parliament, he certainly wouldn't be in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I'm with you up to a point, but Sheridan perjured himself in order to obtain £200,000 damages from the newspapers. All of a sudden this is a bit more than intrusion into someone's private life. It was a newspaper reporting about his sexual antics, him lying about them in court in order to obtain £200K, and subsequently being sent to Klink for that. I agree, in hindsight he might have took a better course of action, fessing up to being a swinger, but then also taking them to task via the courts over privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I agree, in hindsight he might have took a better course of action, fessing up to being a swinger, but then also taking them to task via the courts over privacy. The parallels with the Jeffrey Archer case are quite striking really. Politician sues newspaper for reporting on his extra martital sexual relationships and goes to jail for perjury. I'm not seeing those who love to condemn Archer coming along and doing the same here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 In that case you have to think that Gordon Brown knew a bit more about Damian McBride and his smear campaigns than he let on. Didn't McBride work in Brown's office after all? McBride sent a few inappropriate emails, and never set up the blog being discussed. There is no reason to think Gordon Brown would be involved. The huge payments to Glenn Macguire to get information personally authorised by Coulson as Editor... and he claims he didn't know what he was signing for. If anyone believed the version of events he told the courts he would be unemployable as an incompetent. But they don't and no one does believe him. Edit: The plot thickens: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12294854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinner Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Sheridan has been rightfully imprisoned because he chose to lie in court, that's nobodies fault but his own. Yup. A convicted perjurer. Serves him right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.