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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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
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
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
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