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.


  1. You seem to have deleted my comment, I'd post it on my blog as "the comment that tracer didn't want you to see" but then again who would care?

    BTW I also note you have left off your first comment where you claim there was never a report on Andrew McFarlane's cross examination. I wonder why.



  2. I see you are deleting all of my replies


  3. Impartial observer13 January 2011 at 13:08

    Yep, it was obviously skewed by the author's political leanings/allegiances, etc. but it remains, nevertheless, an excellent piece of reporting; far superior to the reporting of the mainstream media (which is, by its very nature, skewed as well).

    I find it a little offensive that you feel the need to post your comments in an effort to inform readers and commentators of something that is so very obvious. Most of us impartial observers are intelligent enough to bear that in mind when we're reading anything whatsoever.

    Which leaves me wondering about your own motives...

    (For the record, I do not know the blogger, any witnesses, parties, supporters, etc. I'm simply an average, interested, intelligent, (if a little insulted), member of the public.)

  4. As you can see I placed all of the posts from your site I wrote... before you made the comments (before you said a post wasnt there - check the times.) Unlike you, I publish all here.

  5. (it just might take me a while to do so - I dont man my computer 24 hours...)

  6. You didn't publish the one where you claim there was "Nothing of the cross examinations of the Brother in Law's cross examination" did you. IO also, luckily enough, still have a copy of your tweet yesterday where you admitted "Hands up - a couple of the things I have been fed have been untrue"

    I note you have not told anyone who was feeding you untruths or why someone would do that.

    I've done my best to write as balanced an account of the trial that I can. Of course I have my own view and I will be publishing that after the case has concluded. I am not some Olympian god and of course there is always the danger than my own view creeps into my reporting, Indeed you yourself have suggested changes to posts, changes I happily made. However happily your only evidence of bias so far has been a post that I did not even write. I would suggest here in public, as I have in a private message to you, that you consider who is feeding you false information rather than waste your time looking for some non-existent plot.

  7. I've published everything I wrote. So I don't know what you mean. If you have a message puporting to be me - please, by all means - post here. Oh - and bang goes your privsate tweet that people would look unfavourably on anyone publishing private conversations, eh? lol! Hypocrit!

  8. And you have not addressed any of the "lost comment" - nor have you answered any of the questions I put to you about your allegiances/ political and personal. You have never addressed any of those on your site. Preferring the pretence that your political allegiance was no more than a time in the SSP in the early 2000's.

    Comment all you like here, James. I wont be saying anything else-until after sentencing.

  9. You wrote and I quoted above " "Nothing of the cross examinations of the Brother in Law's cross examination"

    Was that someone else using your name?

    " I wont be saying anything else-until after sentencing."

    That is a good idea, you seem to be putting your party interest before the truth. You were happy to place my daily reports on your twitter newspaper every day, now suddenly I am a biased and twisted SWP member. You also appear to be running away from the question of who was "feeding" you false information. When you answer that question I may consider answering your point about what party I was a member of 11 years ago.

    all the best


  10. Just to clarifyr - the twitter daily newspapers are auto generated when SSP was mentioned or other "buzz" words (comrade, cuts, amongst others...). I tried to teach you about hash tags and how to make them useful - but you didn't want to know.

    Now. Go to bed.

  11. Last one. As I said... check the times the stuff was posted. the comment "Nothing of the cross examinations of the Brother in Law's cross examination" IS there and has been sionce 12.06 according to the post date. Which is after you asked where it was TWICE.

  12. My reply to you is there, your original comment is not.

    On your daily, any blog post that mentioned the SSP went in? I recall the EDL making a number of posts about the SSP in the period concerned, did any of them make your blog?

    You probably would be best leaving this, your opening sentence "James Doleman's blog covered the Tommy Sheridan blog." sums up the slapdash nature of this post. If I ever published anything that silly I would have given up and stayed at home.

  13. LOL! Look - best go try making a twitter paper yourself so you can satisfy yourself I have no control of the content - http://paper.li/tag/2011

    (the link will bring you to one in which there was no-one using 2011 in my twitter friends as a hash tag today... at least no-one who had a link in the tweet - oh go try it. you'll soon understand.)

    Happy tweeting - and learning! Now - I'm watching #BBCQT at the mo

  14. Hello everyone.

    As the writer/transcriber of the Andy McFarlane post Plot Tracer is so agitated about, I have some comments:

    a) I didn't get the Gary Clark/Conspiracy bit. Not in my notes. Can't do shorthand. Sorry. Some things slip through the cracks. My bad. The order of stuff is as my notes suggest.
    b) Did get MUCH more detail than the feted BBC report. I leave it to the reader to decide which is more revealing about the witness, but I'd draw your attention to AMcF's comments about going to the baby scan family meeting - totally unreported by the BBC. This became relevant when Tommy's sister stated AMcF was not at the baby scan event. Gasps from the public gallery. Panicky look from witness to TS. Not reported by the BBC.
    c) You think the BBC report is 100% accurate (the bits they actually report, anyway)? Yeah right. It's just a guy writing it down hurriedly, same as James & I. Without all getting together at the end to agree what was actually said (some of the press guys did that), there will always be small differences. I'm very confident about the overall accuracy of what I wrote. If you want to get hung up about the smallest of details, I won't stop you.
    d) Before you accuse the report/me of bias, I'd hope you'd at least look at the whole article and score it plus and minus, rather than selectively look for points that back up your "bias" preconception. Seems only fair, doesn't it?
    e) Considering you were actively looking for bias - was that all you could find?

    Posts are here:

    Evidence In Chief

    Cross Examination

    BBC Report:

  15. Whatsy - read the post. As a post it did what you asked. You wanted to know where I thought there had been errors - I told you that. The biggest errors - and everyone makes mistakes - are, I think pointed out because they actually are important. I took one post and used it as an example - comparing it with another random, but generally reliable source.

    The lead in to the post here was because James would not post the comment. This has happened too often - not just with me - but with others who were present in the court and some who have an interest in the case. .

    As I said - I think the blog as a whole was a good idea - but I feel the bias/political allegiances etc of the author(s) needs to be shared. And James has more than indicated on other left sites and in private messages to me his allegiances, but is loathe to admit on his site that he started writing with a view and allegiance he continued with throughout the case.

  16. I really do not know how often I have to say that I had an opinion but tried to keep it out of my work. May I turn that around for once?

    If I cannot be trusted because of my political views can you? You are clearly and obviously partisan why should anyone listen to you?
    We we all know what your side is and how little regard you seem to have for the truth of what happened in court. Every charge you have raised against us has been refuted, but keep trying always a good motivation for us to stay honest.

    all the best


  17. Of course I am partisan - I decided truth was what mattered and stayed with the SSP.

    I didn't blog about the trial with the pretence of being neutral to the point of thinking "this will stand a chance in the Orwell Prize (if you had have written a blog from a political point of view on the trial you may well have stood a chance to win a competition for political writing).

    Your pretence that this is a court report and is in no way biased (your Guardian article in no way mentions your political allegiances /connections with the accused) should be admitted or - when in private you indicated you would not do this - challenged.

    You had the chance to publish this post on your site without a preamble etc - but decided not to do that (see your own comment at the top of this page that you deleted from your own site).

    I have put questions to you in private - many you have answered - and many answers have been satisfactory - but important ones are still to be answered.

    Are you going to admit BEFORE the sentencing - that you were a member of the SWP (for a much longer time that you were in the SSP - and continued as a member of that platform within the SSP until you left the country) - and still have contact with that GROUP? Will you admit publicly your connections/sympathies with the Sheridan campaign?

  18. PT
    Hmmm, a little unfair of you, considering it was you that started the "biased reporting" accusation. No doubt you could find socialist bias in a Glenn Beck rant if you tried hard enough.

    So, you're not prepared to give a fair assessment of the general bias of the post. Shame. Maybe you're unable to. Especially when you don't know what bias I may or may not have in order for you to look through that particular "lense" in your never-ending hunt for bias.

    Maybe it was naive of me to think I could report neutrally on events in court, but I still think I did a job that compares favourably with pretty much every mainstream media report I read. I'd be genuinely interested in a fair analysis of how my and media reports differ, but I've not seen one yet and haven't got round to doing it myself.

  19. Anon - I have taken your post off as it offers no proof for your allegation.

    I am quite happy to post any material relating to this post/ comments above.


Let me know what you think. Be kind!