RE: [Marxism] Newman responds to Bustelo re Sheridan

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I will confess that I had to force myself to read Andy Newman's response to
me, having largely exhausted my interest in this case. 

That because, with SSP members now presenting themselves openly as paid
collaborators of the Murdoch media machine's campaign against the most
prominent socialist in Scotland, to the glee of the SSP leadership, there
really isn't that much more to say. 

You're either for that sort of thing or against it.

SSP convenor Colin Fox has issued denials that the SSP had been involved in
any way with the tape of Tommy Sheridan supposely confessing all. The
denials don't count for much, frankly, when a chorus of SSP leaders and
members have been shouting from the rooftops that the tape is undoubtedly
genuine and vindicates their siding with Murdoch against their party comrade
in court. I don't for a minute doubt that at least some of them were
consulted, but even if they succeed in maintaining plausible deniability, it
doesn't matter. By their reaction to the publication, embracing it,
validating it, and using it as a factional club against Sheridan and his
friends, they have assumed political responsibility for it.

Even a call by a prominent SSP'er --in an interview with the Murdoch rag
News of the World-- for Tommy Sheridan to be put in prison has not evoked a
rebuke from the party. Instead, its leaders are demanding that Sheridan
resign the parliamentary seat he was elected to.

*  *  *

Basically, Andy Newman accuses me of having an overall view of this case as
one involving a political attack by the Murdoch empire against a socialist
leader, which I cheerfully plead guilty to.

Frankly, the position of the anti-Sheridanites that the NotW articles
weren't a political attack because, after all, the Murdoch gutter rags would
do as much to a Bishop or Tory minister strikes me as beyond goofy. 

Frankly, I think it is irresponsible.

Newman's opinion that if viewed as a political case, then Sheridan's tactics
were all wrong are his opinions, which he is certainly entitled to. I don't
have any opinion on how Sheridan should have handled it, I'll just note that
Sheridan does not lack in political experience and his track record suggests
that he is a rather sharp tactician; and that despite the aid of his party
comrades to his opponents in court, he won the case. 

So the wrong-headedness of his plan of action is much less clear to me than
it appears to be to Newman.

*  *  *

As for the rest of it, it revolves around the idea that since Sheridan
confessed he had been to this swinger's club in 2002, therefore he was
guilty as charged by NotW in its articles. 

I consider that position not just mistaken, but untennable, given how things
worked out.

That because the sources, writers and editors of NotW got up in open court
under oath and solemnly swore that they made all kinds of stuff up;
confessed to having made zero effort at corroborating the stories they
printed; brought no corroborating evidence and little in the way of
witnesses into court; and confessed (in one case) to receiving 20,000 pounds
for the story (more than a year's wages for an average worker in Scotland)
and in another case that stuff was made up as a "puff" to sell a book.

So even though the jury heard no fewer than 11 of Sheridan's supposed
comrades testifying to his alleged confession, the jury majority
nevertheless insisted on awarding Sheridan the largest libel award ever in
the history of Scotland. 

Not to put too fine a point on it, I think they found it hard to believe
that Sheridan confessed to the things the News of the World now admitted it
had invented. And if they believed, as I suspect many people do, that Tommy
Sheridan did visit the Cupid's swingers club in 2002 and/or have an
extramarital affair, the verdict simply means that they differentiated
between those things and the portrait of drunken debauchery, cocaine use,
S&M, fetishism, four-in-a-bed romps and all the rest that was presented in
the Murdoch gutter rag.

And that differentiation, is, in essence, the case that Tommy Sheridan
presented in the tape surreptitiously made by George McNeilage who played on
his friendship with Sheridan to sandbag him, even if the details of what
indiscretions Sheridan owned up to in that conversation have been altered,
distorted or fabricated by editing the audio.

Sheridan's critics insist on dismissing all the actual concrete testimony
and evidence about specific events and conduct alleged by NotW as trivial.
Newman continues in this vein.

After referring to my reiteration of some of the more damaging admissions by
witnesses for NotW, Newman says, "This seems to assume that Scottish libel
law is the same as in America. Whereas in Scotland the defence of
substantial truth can be used, which in fact is closer to the political
reality. Politically it doesn't matter if that or that detail is incorrect,
if the overall thrust of the allegations is founded."

Newman is misinformed about libel law in the U.S.; reporters are free to get
all sorts of details wrong here in the U.S. as well. But NotW admitted to
much more than mistaken petty or secondary details: they admitted that much
of the accounts of debauchery were INVENTED, specifically, the drunkenness,
drug use, spankings and so on.

For the anti-Sheridan wing of the SSP and its supporters, everything hinges
around whether or not Sheridan went to an adult club in Manchester in 2002.

One could easily believe BOTH that Sheridan DID attend Cupid's Club in 2002
AND that nevertheless, the outlandish accounts published by NotW libeled him
because the NotW itself admits they invented the things that supposedly
Sheridan did at the club and were published in their pages.

I believe that is why it only took the jury 2-1/2 hours to return its
verdict and record-setting award. The case against NotW was a slam dunk,
given their witnesses' admissions. 

*  *  *

An intersting side of this is that what the NotW originally presented as
being the transcript of the tape it recently bought isn't really "the"
transcript. As Andy Newman explains, the following week NotW made public
further bits of the tape that aren't in the "transcript." Where they
supposedly occur in the conversation is unclear. No expanded or corrected
transript was offered, as far as I could find. 

These new excepts refer to Katrine Trolle. Unlike other women said to have
been involved with Sheridan by NotW, she wasn't a source for their stories
originally, but did testify at the trial, and is cooperating with NotW now.

Newman says, "When he wrote his article Bustelo would have been unaware that
the second instalment of the tape would include support of Trolle's
testimony, but he should have been aware that Trolle's account given in
Court was supported by evidence from her flat mates and her phone records.
Her evidence is simply inconvenient and so it is ignored."

Actually I did not take up Trolle in the post Newman comments on because
there was no reference to her on the tape (as it was made public the first
week) nor in related articles in NotW.

However, in my original post on the Sheridan case (which I refer to in the
recent post, and followed up that second post with one giving the link to my
first post, so Newman certainly should have been aware of it), I did take it
up at length. The section on Trolle's testimony is more than 900 words, and
they along with the rest of the analysis can be found here: 

<http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2006w35/msg00251.htm>

It would have been nice if, before impugning my integrity, Andy Newman had
actually double-checked that he had read what I had written, thus sparing
himself from making statements like "Her evidence is simply inconvenient and
so it is ignored" by me, something that is demonstrably false.

*  *  *

A lot of my argument about the Sheridan affair focuses on this curious fact.
The stance of the anti-Sheridan group in the SSP leadership is that Sheridan
admitted that the initial NotW account was essentially true before a
National Executive Committee meeting, and said his plan was to sue the
Murdoch rag for libel nevertheless, perjuring himself and asking friends and
comrades to perjure themselves to make the charge stick.

The tape recently released, however, and which was said to have been made
shortly after that meeting, with Sheridan explaining what happened at it,
does not jibe with this version. It shows Sheridan admitting to sexual
indiscretions (what's on the tape about just when and where I am suspicious
of -- and his most detailed discussion are about his affair with Khan a
decade or more before), but nevertheless insisting that the NotW article was
a pack of lies. He goes through a half dozen points to show that the
incidents have been fabricated.

In other words, the anti-Sheridan group mashed together two different
things: Sheridan's confession of having led a sexually indiscrete lifestyle
in the 1990's including an affair with NotW sex columnist Khan, and
(supposedly) having visited the Cupid's "swingers" club in 2002, on the one
side; and on the other that the NotW printed the truth when it portrayed him
as a cocaine- and champagne-besotted sex fiend constantly hopping into bed
with as many people as could be found and indulging everything from clothing
fetishes to s&m.

Newman argues that the one mashing two different things together is me: 

"Bustelo (with no obvious context) introduces an account of how Anver Khan
admits exaggerating her story, and also includes lengthy insert from another
supporter of Sheridan describing the Fiona McGuire testimony, that are not
directly relevant to the issue under discussion. Suddenly introducing a lot
of detail gives an impression of rigour, but he does not incorporate the
evidence to support his argument. Supporters of the SSP have never defended
nor stood by the NOTW story. Yet Bustelo bases a lot of his argument on the
idea that the inaccuracies in the NOTW article somehow wrong foot Sheridan's
opponents - this reveals his failure to distinguish between the two
dynamics: Sheridan v NOTW, and Sheridan v the SSP."

Look against at the key sentence:

"Supporters of the SSP have never defended nor stood by the NOTW story."

Would that it were true. This is a statement by one of the anti-Sheridan SSP
leaders who testified at the trial, made the day after the verdict.

"I stand today accused as a traitor and a liar. I was dragged into court by
this man and NotW, two monsters I now despise, So I was dragged to court by
this man and he's called me a liar. I have to to say anybody who is
listening, who is watching, who wants to know what is happening in Scotland,
I did not lie in court. Tommy Sheridan did lie in court. The minutes were a
true account. Tommy admitted to the activities that he was accused of."

That video is here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lOkVKmV_ELw

I think the person speaking is MSP Rosie Kane, but I'm not sure. But at any
rate, the person in the video self-identifies as one of the 11 SSP leaders
who testified against Sheridan at the trial, and is the lead-off person in
the video (there are a half dozen others who comment along similar lines).

Take special note of the key passage: "The minutes were a true account.
Tommy admitted to the activities that he was accused of," in other words, to
the News of the World accounts, or rather, the first of the News of the
World accounts, which was the only one that had been published at the time
of the meeting, the one where Khan described the alleged visit to the Cupid
swinger's club. 

*  *  *

Newman takes me to task for both quoting from the Sheridan tape while
questioning its integrity, and he dismisses as "irrelevant" my discussion of
the technical issues involved in verifying the integrity of the recording.

He forgets to give his readers any hint about the context in which I present
that discussion, which was in answer to the NotW claim that the integrity of
the tape could be easily verified and, indeed, had been. 

I discussed why that is no longer the case with the technology that's become
available in the last decade or two because I have some expertise in it, and
access to people who know it in greater detail that I was able to discuss it
with. 

This is not "irrelevant" because it shows once again the mendacity of NotW. 

Another ommission by Newman is my discussion of the circumstances
surrounding the tape having been made to begin with. 

Newman quotes me as saying, "Basically McNeilage, who was one of the three
best men at his wedding, sandbagged and betrayed Sheridan, and is now
running guns to the most despicable of lying bourgeois media outlets to use
against a rival in the socialist movement. Do I believe this person did this
all on his own initiative, independently of the anti-Sheridan faction in the
leadership? Sure, I also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus."

He goes on to say "Bustelo prefers the melodramatic conspiracy explanation."


But McNeilage himself has said that he made the tape in consultation with
unnamed others and for the purpose of showing it to others. And I find
extremely hard to credit the idea that AFTER this trial, a loyal SSP member
unilaterally and without consultation decided to sell this tape to NotW.
However, my point wasn't about conspiracies but about *political
responsibility* as the next sentence after what Newman quotes makes clear:

"But even if there was no direct collusion, the leadership whipped people up
into such an anti-Sheridan mindset, that even such gutter tactics as a
formerly close friend enticing him into a private conversation so that he
could be recorded hopefully making damaging admissions was considered ok."

And I added:

"There is a logic to this breakdown in proletarian morality. It is the logic
of Gethsemane," where Judas Iscariot turned Jesus over to the authorities
for 30 pieces of silver.

Defending his decision to turn over the tape to News of the World for money,
McNeilage says, "Tommy did the same thing with the Daily Record and maybe
from my point of view it was a bit of working-class justice."

However, there is a damn slight difference between agreeing to do interviews
*about yourself* and have your picture taken for money, on the one hand, and
secretly taping a confidential conversation with someone who had been a
close friend and comrade, and for that reason agreed to talk with you about
a sensitive subject, and then turning around and selling that tape to a
class enemy that is carrying out a political witch-hunt against the comrade.

That a veteran SSP militant like George McNeilage could call this "a bit of
working class justice" is testimony that anti-Sheridan fanaticism has led
his SSP opponents to lose their class and political bearings. And that it is
not an individual problem is shown by the way SSP leaders and members have
hailed the tape as vindicating them, and used it as an occassion to demand
Sheridan resign from the Scottish Parliament, be imprisoned, etc.

The person who called for Sheridan's imprisonment, BTW, is Katrine Trolle. 

In the second week's installment of NotW's coverage of the tape, the Murdoch
editors claim to have "proof" that the tape is genuine. The main "proof" are
statements made to them by Trolle: "That's definitely Tommy Sheridan".

This means that Trolle has now, too, become a NotW collaborator, raising the
question of whether she is being paid, how much, and if so, when this
relationship with NotW started.

But Trolle goes much further than asserting it is Sheridan's voice, she also
comments on his mental health, taking up his statements that, when it all
comes out in the end, he thought it likely that a role by intelligence
services would be revealed.

"I think there is something seriously wrong with this man," NotW quotes
Trolle as saying. 

"Nobody who is sane and thinks straight would ever come out and say it's MI5
and the CIA and all that. 

"They couldn't care less. They probably don't even know who he is. And if
they wanted to get rid of him they'd have done it a long time ago and
without all this."

On the contrary, I would say that nobody who is sane and thinks straight
would discount a role by intelligence agencies in this case. That is
*exactly* the modus operandi of imperialist intelligence services, as was
illustrated in great detail by the post-Watergate revelations in the United
States. 

Fred Feldman a few days ago posted an excellent piece about how the FBI
tried to create this sort of scandal around Martin Luther King, how and why
they failed, and the lessons socialists should draw from it. How a socialist
could say about Tommy Sheridan and MI5 that "They couldn't care less. They
probably don't even know who he is," is beyond me. 

*  *  *

Newman's complaint that I treat different parts of the tape with varying
degrees of scepticism is correct.

I don't believe there is any real question that there were one or more
conversations between Sheridan and McNeilage, and that is where most if not
all the material on this tape originates. 

I do believe there is a question about whether in the brief excerpts where
Sheridan seems to make damaging admissions, we can just assume we are
hearing what was actually said. That because we do not see Sheridan speaking
on camera.

McNeilage's explanation for this is that he originally arranged the room to
have Sheridan on camera, but at the last minute realized Sheridan might see
a little red light indicating the camera was recording and McNeilage would
then get caught. Why he simply didn't cover that light with a little piece
of electrical tape or duct tape he doesn't say. Almost certainly McNeilage
had those to hand: his account is that he was in the middle of a
construction project at his house and the camera was hidden in a pile of
tiles he had as part of that project.

At any rate, what he claims is at the last minute he decided to put another
chair blocking the camera's direct view of Sheridan. But, this has the
effect of making it super-easy to audio edit the tape, rearrange words or
phrases, leave out something and close the gap in the audio track. Something
made even easier by the high level of constant whirring noise on the tape.
Pretty much the entire tape is, to all intents and purposes, off-camera
narration. 

For his part, Tommy Sheridan says he knows the tape is a fabrication because
"I have never been in the house in question." 

According to the Guardian newspaper, "The last time he had spoken with his
former friend and best man had been in a car journey through Glasgow that
month. It was possible, he claimed, that their conversation then was
secretly recorded."

I explained in my post commenting on this tape why I think certain parts of
the tape should be trusted. This tape was made by a political opponent of
Sheridan who played upon his former close friendship to entrap Sheridan into
a discussion. It was bought by NotW, and such excerpts as we've been allowed
to see, hear or read transcibed have been offered by News of the World.

Thus, if we find things on this tape that speak against the NotW and/or
anti-Sheridan grouping version of events, I think we are entitled to
consider those as admissions contrary to the self-interest of those
providing the material and thus likely to be reliable. It is unlikely in the
extreme that the tape would have been altered to present the side that is
sponsoring in a less favorable light. 

As for the brief snippets that seem to be most damaging to Sheridan, that is
where suspicion and examination should be focused. As well as on the fact
that neither NotW nor McNeilage have made available the entire tape to the
public. And even what was presented in NotW as a "transcript" turns out not
to have been that, but, at best, excerpts from a transcript, and one that
includes dubious interpretations of what is on the actual audio clips that
have been made available, as I documented at some length. 

That last point is extremely important. In an informal and strictly private
conversation with someone you believe to be your friend, you might well let
your hair down and not watch every sentence you pronounce to make sure it
can't somehow be twisted around to say something you didn't mean. 

Like NotW's stories, Newman places special emphasis on this sentence, where
Sheridan is telling his friend what he told the NEC: "I guarantee you if I
am presented with incontrovertible evidence -- video tapes, CCTV, something
of that character -- I'll put my hand up and say 'I'm sorry'...and I'll walk
away.'" 

Newman adds, "Note that he is not denying that such incontrovertible
evidence could be produced. Surely if the NOTW story was a pack of lies he
would have said, there cannot be any evidence because it isn't true."

But earlier in the tape he had taken a categorical position that Khan's
account was false, and in some detail, going point by point on various
things in the Khan account and saying they weren't true.

He doesn't add there, "But of course they can't come up with any such proof
because it didn't happen" because he had already gone through the account by
Khan and demonstrated that it was false. And he thought he was talking
informally and privately to someone he imagined was his friend and
sympathetic to his point of view. And because he didn't realize he was being
recorded for the public at large, and every isolated sentence would be
parsed to try to tease out of it a meaning contrary to his own position. 

Then again perhaps --just perhaps-- he DID add something to the effect that
of course they can't produce such evidence because it didn't happen, and it
was edited out of the tape altogether or simply suppressed from the parts of
the tape we've been given access to.

At any rate, in the context of the conversation as a whole --or as much as
we've been allowed to see-- the interpretation that this is a statement that
implicitly concedes the veracity of the Khan account is excluded, because he
*explicitly* says the Khan account is fabricated.

Joaquin


-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nick Fredman
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:44 AM
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Marxism] Newman responds to Bustelo re Sheridan

http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-on-those-sheridan-tapes.html



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism