Writings, photos, politics and rants... *Original content - may not be reproduced without my consent.*

Thursday, 13 January 2011

The comment Doleman didn't want you to see...

James Doleman's blog covered the Tommy Sheridan trial. I suggested James was being less than honest by not letting people know about his allegiances and that some of the reports were skewed. I took the example of one of the posts, written by someone called "Whatsy." They refused to print my requested reply (requested by Whatsy - see comments on THIS POST )

This isn't the first post I have had blocked - though the others had no reason given on the blog as to why. Others have also complained of this.

Read my post and judge for yourself if it is McCarthyite (which is what it has been accused of being - even though one of the authors, "Whatsy" asked me to send any differences etc.) I stand by every word - and if Doleman wants to sue... go for it.

Before I published this here, James had published on his site this post (which has now disappeared)

Blogger Sheridan Trial said...

Hello Plot tracer, if you edit out the McCarthyite references about the writers of this blog the made up stuff about "personal meetings" (I'm not sure what other sort of meetings there are, impersonal ones?) the allegations of deliberate inaccuracy, about a trial you never attended, and the references to a political plot to pervert the course of justice I would be happy to print your comment.

Of course that would only leave the word "the" but them's the breaks.

all the best


January 13, 2011 7:25 PM

I replied to this that I would post on a separate blog and if he would let people know this, I would be obliged.


My "unapproved" post:


Although I think what was done here was a really good service, I think people should really be aware of the position the writers took before the trial in order to read it through a clearer lense.

James, I know, is a pro-Tommy (and posts as such on other lefty sites) ex-SWP member who has had personal meetings with Tommy and Gail. This HAS meant emphasis has been effected and there have been ommissions and re-edits.

Whatsy, I do not know your view before or during the trial - though people have indicated that it was not the same as James'.

Regarding the McFarlane entry (and I speak of THIS ONE of the two) - the order of the questioning is very different from the BBC one. As is the emphasis. This may be "poetic license" - but actually it changes the emphasis of what actually happened on the day.

Andrew McFarlane Examination

BBC report:
He told the prosecutor that a former friend of his and Mr Sheridan's, Gary Clark, was part of a "conspiracy" to make false allegations about a visit to a sex club in Manchester.
No mention in your blog.

BBC Report:

Mr Prentice put it to him: "There would be no reason for anyone in the SSP to put you down, would there?"
Mr McFarlane replied: "No."
He then asked: "You have nothing to hide or be worried about. There is no obvious reason why the News of the World would go after you?"
Mr McFarlane agreed.

Your Version:

Mr Prentice then asked the witness that, as he was not political, there could be “no reason for the SSP having a go at you?”, and that there could be “no reason for the News of the World going after you?”, with the witness replying “No” to both.
Different emphasis and misses out distinct questions and answers. One was a no the other a yes but not according to youn as you have both as no.

The blog version then states this happened below before the above exchange while the BBC have it after the exchange.

Mr Prentice then asked the witness whether Anvar Khan, Katrinne Trolle and Gary Clark were all lying in their accounts of visiting Cupid's sex club with the witness and Mr Sheridan. Mr McFarlane replied “Yes, that's what I'm saying.”

BBC has after the exchange:

Mr Prentice then asked the witness whether Anvar Khan, Katrinne Trolle and Gary Clark were all lying in their accounts of visiting Cupid's sex club with the witness and Mr Sheridan. Mr McFarlane replied “Yes, that's what I'm saying.” Mr Prentice then asked: "Is Gary Clark part of some conspiracy?"
Mr McFarlane answered: "Yes. I can't explain why."

Pedantic? I don't think so, as I have been reading this blog through the lense of the knowledge of the leanings of it's creator - many posts had a slight bias - but I fear that people reading this without knowing the SWP and it's part in the Sheridan fiasco may think this is a fair and balanced report.

Again - I congratulate you on this site - it was informative - but people need to read it through the lense of the knowledge of who the writers are/ their political allegiances and their relationship with the accused.

You asked, Whatsy - so I replied. If you decide not to publish this reply, then take off my original posts as they will make no sense.
these posts are exchanges before the previous post was submitted. They were still there 14th Jan 2011.

Anonymous Plot Tracer said...

Nothing of the cross examinations of the Brother in Law's cross examination? Oh yes... you didnt cover it. Don't you think the Orwell prize should go to Sheridan as the posts you are submitting are mostly his cross examinations?

Blogger Sheridan Trial said...

"Nothing of the cross examinations of the Brother in Law's cross examination?"

Sorry you lost me there anon, could you clarify?

All the best


January 12, 2011 4:19 PM

Anonymous Plot Tracer said...

I meant, of course, the bias you showed in reporting the bro in Law. A fuller account here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12008516

January 12, 2011 5:39 PM

Blogger James Doleman said...

Hello Plot Tracer, so now you have went from "we did not report it" to, "your report it biased"

Funnily enough I did not write that report (as you can see from the name on the bottom) I'm sure Whatsy can deal with any question of bias.

All the best


January 12, 2011 5:43 PM

Blogger Whatsy said...

@Plot Tracer
I'm always keen for feedback on my work. Could you let me know where you have spotted bias in the reporting of AMcF please?

Here are the links, in case you were unable to find them:

Evidence In Chief

Cross Examination

January 12, 2011 5:54 PM

Any comments that are not mine are the responsibility of the poster. All comments pertaining about the above post and content will be published.