• May 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Sep    
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 285 other followers

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Reviewers’ Comments

    "Great read every day. Makes me smile as Rab muses about music and his irreverent views on the EU. Tune in, you won't be disappointed."

    "Excellent 'Blog' which can be controversial at times, while maintaining it's humour. Keep it up Big Rab!"

    "Updated every day with doses of good humour, political satire, a running commentary on the progress of author's home football team and his life."

    "Pure brilliant, so it is - I never miss it, though God knows, I've tried."

    "An inspiration to start my own blog"

    "For dipping into it's better than pakora sauce"

    "Anyone who doesn't like the EU and has a soft spot for Albion Rovers can't be all bad"

    "Facile and False"

    "Populist,puerile and prosaic"

    "Utter pish! Keep it up, I love it!"

    "People may also find the Ben Lomond Free Press blog illuminating, interesting and/or amusing. It’s not mentalist as such but familiar themes emerge. I particularly like accounts of encounters with strange elementals (of course! ELEmentals!) from elfin safety. And the fact that the blog is run by someone who plays in a blues band called Harmonica Lewinsky."

  • Hit Me!

    • 1,321,690 hits since January 2008
  • Top Rated

  • Advertisements

‘Tam Tam thy’ll get thy faring, In Hell they’ll roast ye Like a Herring’

My legal eagle friends think that the three year sentence handed down to Tommy Sheridan was an impossible one to appeal against.

One friend put it thus:

‘There would be a definite risk of it being increased, perhaps substantially, in the appeal court. It does not have the appearance of being vindictive, and yet it properly punishes a serious crime. It is, therefore, about right.’

The BBC has published Sheridan’s speech of mitigation which perhaps highlights and articulates the personal tragedy of the case better than anything else.

On reading through the document though, I was struck by the following sentence (sic) at the bottom of page 20


Unfortunately there is no explanation which piece.














One can only wonder, marvel indeed at the continued Wynettesque support provided to Tommy by his wife Gail who contended after the sentencing that the reason that Tommy had ended up in his current predicament because he ‘opposed inequality with every beat of his heart.’

And so this extraordinary circus reaches its finale.

Now for the phone hacking trial(s)


The Trials of Tommy

On the day Tommy Sheridan is due to be sentenced having been found guilty of perjury, BBC Scotland are broadcasting a half hour drama about the case at 3:30 this afternoon:

Another Bore of the Year Contender

Reviewing the evidence and questioning at the ongoing perjury trial at Glasgow High Court, the words of an occasional correspondent here came back to mind.

“You just know, that if Sheridan or people like him got power, and created a workers paradise, Tommy would have his dacha in Arran or wherever, and his big motor wheeling him off to his various liaisons there, while the rest of us pressed our noses against the windows of the beriozka shops.”

Every caricature of the (extreme) left seems to be surfacing with each passing day.

Backstabbing, infighting, jealousy, plotting, personality cults, duplicity etc.

Playground style insults fly back and forth. Infantile gestures and events are revealed.

These people will never properly organise to fight the (worst excesses of) capitalism. They’re too busy fighting amongst themselves.

Even if they did assume power it’s a near certainty we’d end up with something infinitely worse.

Tommy’s Brief?

The Legal department here at the BLFP tell me that in their considered opinion the Sheridan trial may not last as long as everyone previously thought. This is down to a principle of prosecution known as a ‘sufficiency of evidence’. In other words if half a dozen or so witnesses basically corroborate each others’ version of events with no major discrepancies, the prosecution may not wish to risk calling many more witnesses. The more witnesses, the more opportunity for a smart defence counsel to gradually pick holes and inconsistencies in the various different accounts of the same events, thus establishing doubt in the minds of jurors.

Even if the prosecution offer no more evidence or call any more witnesses, the defence are quite at liberty to do so, but this in itself can be a risky strategy particularly as it throws the initiative to an already weakened animal.

The smart money is on the prosecution calling Katrina Trolle and Anvar Khan and then reaching a sufficiency of evidence for the case.