The Real Lockerbie bombers must be unable to believe their luck that the witch hunt against Megrahi is still letting them get off with mass murder even after he's dead

The real Lockerbie bombers, whoever they are, must be unable to believe their luck that they are still not even facing any charges for their criminal act of mass murder, due to most politicians and much of the media continuing witch-hunting Megrahi even after his death. This is helping governments deny Scottish and British relatives of Lockerbie victims from getting the truth which they are demanding, by helping the Scottish and British governments deny them an independent public inquiry.

Megrahi is still routinely labelled a 'mass murderer' or 'convicted Lockerbie bomber' by many politicians and much of them media, despite his trial having been a show trial that Stalin would have admired. There was no jury (1). Key evidence - the timer fragment - was tampered with and probably fake according to witness and timer manufacturer Edwin Bollier. Bollier also says the fragment he was shown in court had a brown circuit board, while those he sold to the Libyan government had green circuit boards (2).

Witness Tony Gauci - who identified Megrahi as the person who bought clothes said to have been found in a suitcase surviving the plane crash - was paid $2 million by the US government to identify Megrahi as the man who bought them ; and had seen photos of Megrahi in magazines before doing so (3) - (4).

Scots Law Professor Robert Black (who helped negotiate the establishment of the trial), UN observer Dr Hans Kochler and Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, are among the many reliable neutral observers present at the trial and appeals hearings who say they were shams and that Megrahi was innocent (5) - (7).

Kochler said the trial verdict made no sense based on the evidence, while the appeal hearing (in which Megrahi was denied an appeal) was more like an intelligence operation than a legal process and also"a spectacular miscarriage of justice" (8) - (11).

Black has written that "for the judges to be satisfied of all these matters on the evidence led at the trial, they would require to adopt the posture of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, when she informed Alice: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." In convicting Megrahi ... this is precisely what the trial judges did. I am absolutely convinced that if the evidence had come out in front of a Scottish jury of 15 there is absolutely no way he would have been convicted." (12)

Theories that should be investigated

There are three theories plausible enough to warrant investigation.

Iranian revenge for the killing of 290 Iranian airliner passengers by the USS Vincennes?

The first is that the bombers were Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists contracted by Syria's government for Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini after he vowed revenge for the killing of 290 Iranian civilians when the US navy warship the USS Vincennes entered Iranian waters during the Iran-Iraq war (in which the Reagan administration was allied to Saddam Hussein) and shot down an Iranian Airbus airliner earlier in 1988 (13) - (14).

This would be embarrassing to the US government and it's allies because it highlights a massacre of civilians by their own forces, whether deliberately or , more likely, accidentally through sheer recklessness and carelessness in starting a battle that could have been avoided and not using their radar system properly (15).

If this did lead to the Lockerbie bombing in revenge it would also show that terrorist attacks are not always random or based on irrational hatred, but sometimes acts of revenge for the murder of other civilians by the US government and it's military.

It was also the original line followed by the first British police investigations into Lockerbie, but rapidly reversed after a phone call to Margaret Thatcher from President Bush senior in 1989. Bush would go on to enlist Syria as an ally against Iraq in the 1990 Gulf War and secure Iran's neutrality in it (16) - (20).

Gaddafi's revenge for US airstrikes using planes refuelling in the UK in 1986?

The second is that Gaddafi ordered it as revenge for US bombing attacks on Tripoli in 1986, in which the planes involved used British airbases with to refuel (with the permission of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher). The bombings killed dozens of people including Gaddafi's adopted daughter but fai (21) - (22).

Cover-up of CIA drug trafficking involvement from the Middle East to Europe,
similar to that from central and Southern America in the 1980s as part of Iran-Contra?

The third is that the CIA bombed the flight to kill operatives who were about to reveal their involvement in Middle Eastern heroin trafficking. Former US Defence Intelligence Agency operative Lester Coleman says some CIA and DEA (US Drug Enforcement Agency) agents' bags were never checked when they flew through Frankfurt or London Heathrow airports (23) - (24).

This would explain how the bomb, which the prosecution claimed was in Megrahi's suitcase, managed to get through airport security without being detected.

John Ashton and Paul Foot’s investigation found that Jim Wilson, a farmer whose farm was near Lockerbie, found a suit-case containing bags of white powder which he suspected were drugs among the debris on his land. He was not called to give evidence at the trial. The name on the case was not on flight's passenger list. On the night of the bombing two bus loads of FBI agents arrived the same night at the site. Residents reported that they had a coffin on one of the buses. Scottish doctors and police had tagged 59 bodies. Only 58 were ever mentioned by the FBI and the prosecution. According toe Coleman the 59th body was Major Charles Mckee - a US intelligence agent who was about to blow the whistle on a deal with Lebanese drug traffickers. (25).

This may sound far-fetched unless you know about the part of the Iran-Contra scandal which involved the CIA and US military intelligence, using Latin American drug smugglers' planes to fly guns to the contras, with the purchase of the guns funded by the CIA taking a cut of the profits from cocaine smuggling into the US in the same planes. This was authorised by senior members of the Reagan administration in order to get round the congressional Boland Amendment which banded any US government funding of arms for the contra terrorists. This has been established by congressional inquiries and investigations by American academics - and it was going through the 1980s - with the Lockerbie bombing happening in 1988 (26) - (28).

This third theory is strengthened by the fact that the US government, after recieving a warning phone call, warned many of it's employees not to get on the flight, but did not warn McKee nor other governments or members of the public (29).

The truth did not die when Megrahi did : Give Scottish and British Lockerbie relatives the Independent Public Inquiry they demand

Whether one of the above theories is the truth or something else entirely, we should give the relatives of Lockerbie victims the independent public inquiry which they are demanding, deserve and are being denied by politicians of every major party in Scotland and Britain (30).

By an independent public inquiry I mean one in which the inquiry is given governmental authority and powers, but it's powers, remitt (the evidence it can consider, questions it can ask and conclusions it can draw) and who heads it are all decided by the Scottish and other British relatives of those killed at Lockerbie.

The truth being embarrassing for politicians and judges is not a good enough reason to deny it to the families.

The governments and politicians and judges for whom an end to any questions about Lockerbie would avoid embarrassment ; and those in the media who have chosen to parrot the government line might prefer to claim that the truth about Lockerbie was lost when Megrahi died , but it was not and will not be.

Sources

(1) = BBC News 20 May 2012 'Lockerbie questions remain following Megrahi's death', http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12191604

(2) = Observer 02 Sep 2007 'Vital Lockerbie evidence 'was tampered with'', http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/sep/02/theairlineindustry.libya

(3) = Herald 03 Oct 2007 'Revealed: CIA offered $2m to Lockerbie witness and brother', http://www.heraldscotland.com/revealed-cia-offered-2m-to-lockerbie-witness-and-brother-1.866400

(4) = BBC News 28 Aug 2008 'Lockerbie evidence not disclosed ', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/7573244.stm ; '...Tony Gauci, who picked al-Megrahi out in a line-up, had looked at a magazine photograph of him just four days before he made the identification. BBC TV programme The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie has now seen documentary evidence that Scottish police knew this was the case. That information should have been passed to the defence, but the disclosure did not take place. '

(5) = Professor Robert Black's 'The Lockerbie Case' blog, http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/

(6) = Dr Hans Kochler , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%B6chler%27s_Lockerbie_trial_observer_mission

(7) = Lockerbietruth.com - The website of Dr Jim Swire and Lockerbie researcher Peter Biddulph, http://www.lockerbietruth.com/

(8) = Independent 21 Aug 2009 ‘Hans Köchler: I saw the trial – and the verdict made no sense’, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hans-kchler-i-saw-the-trial-ndash-and-the-verdict-made-no-sense-1775217.html

(9) = BBC News 14 Mar 2002 ‘UN monitor decries Lockerbie judgement’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1872996.stm

(10) = The Firm (Scottish lawyers’ magazine) 10 Jun 2008 ‘UN Observer to the Lockerbie Trial says ‘totalitarian’ appeal process bears the hallmarks of an “intelligence operation”’, http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/901/UN_Observer_to_the_Lockerbie_Trial_says_%E2%80%98totalitarian%E2%80%99_appeal_process_bears_the_hallmarks_of_an_%E2%80%9Cintelligence_operation%E2%80%9D_.html

(11) = Report on the appeal proceedings at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (Lockerbie Court) in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi v. H. M. Advocate by Professor Hans Köchler, international observer of the International Progress Organization nominated by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the basis of Security Council resolution 1192 (1998)

(12) = ‘The Lockerbie Case’ 21 Aug 2009 , http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/08/this-shameful-miscarriage-has-gravely.html (blog written by Professor Robert Black)

Sources - Iranian revenge for killing of 290 Iranian airliner passengers by the USS Vincennes?

(13) = NYT 15 Jul 1988 ‘Iran Falls Short in Drive at U.N. To Condemn U.S. in Airbus Case’, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/15/world/iran-falls-short-in-drive-at-un-to-condemn-us-in-airbus-case.html

(14) = Newsweek 13 Jul 1992 ‘Sea of Lies : Sea Of Lies : The Inside Story Of How An American Naval Vessel Blundered Into An Attack On Iran Air Flight 655 At The Height Of Tensions During The Iran-Iraq War-And How The Pentagon Tried To Cover Its Tracks After 290 Innocent Civilians Died’, http://www.newsweek.com/id/126358

(15) = See (14) above

(16) = Guardian 31 March 2004 ‘Lockerbie's dirty secret’, by Paul Foot, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/mar/31/lockerbie.libya

(17) = Paul Foot (1989-2001) ‘The Great Lockerbie Whitewash’ in Pilger, John (ed.) (2005) ‘Tell Me No Lies’, Vintage/Random House, London, 2005, pages 214-254

(18) = Sunday Times 01 Jul 2007 ‘Unpicking the Lockerbie truth’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2009603.ece (19) = Guardian 07 Apr 1999 ‘Lockerbie conspiracies: from A to Z ; Based on a 1995 Guardian investigation by Paul Foot and John Ashton’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/apr/07/lockerbie.patrickbarkham (20) = Guardian 29 Jul 1995, SECTION: THE GUARDIAN WEEKEND, Page T22 ‘INSIDE STORY: BODY OF EVIDENCE’, http://leninology4.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-foot-john-ashtons-1995.html

Sources - Gaddafi's revenge for US airstrikes using planes refuelling in the UK in 1986?

(21) = Bovard, James (2003) ‘Terrorism and Tyranny’, Palgrave-MacMillan, NY,2003, Chapter 2, pages 24-26

(22) = Geoff Simons (2003) ‘Libya and the West’ Center for Libyan Studies, Oxford, UK, 2003,Chapter 7, pages 131-134 of hardback edition

Sources - Cover-up of CIA drug trafficking involvement from the Middle East to Europe, similar to that from central and Southern America in the 1980s as part of Iran-Contra

(23) = Coleman, Lester K & Goddard, Donald (1993) ‘Trail of the Octopus: From Beirut to Lockerbie - Inside the DIA’

(24) = Guardian 29 Jul 1995, SECTION: THE GUARDIAN WEEKEND, Page T22 ‘INSIDE STORY: BODY OF EVIDENCE’, http://leninology4.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-foot-john-ashtons-1995.html

(25) = See (24) above (26) = Cockburn, Alexander & St. Clair, Jeffrey (1998), ‘Whiteout – The CIA, Drugs and the Press’, Verso, London & N.Y , 1998, Chapters 12 & 13 (27) = Scott, Peter Dale & Marshall, Jonathan (1998) ‘Cocaine Politics – Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America (1998 edition)’, University of California Press, Berkeley, London & Los Angeles, 1998 (28) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North#Involvement_with_drug_trafficking (this is a wikipedia entry but provides reliable sources - including the Kerry report - a congressional inquiry into links between drug traffickers, the contras and the CIA - and FBI investigations)

(29) = See (24) above

Sources - Give Lockerbie relatives the Independent Public Inquiry they demand

(30) = Herald (Scotland) 22 May 2012 'Lockerbie families vow to force public inquiry', http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/crime-courts/lockerbie-families-vow-to-force-public-inquiry.17660141

Mubarak, the Egyptian Army and Obama all remain responsible for attacks by hired thugs and plain clothes police

The thugs attacking Egyptian pro-democracy protesters and attacking reporters are clearly not mostly spontaneous “pro-Mubarak protesters”, but mostly people paid to demonstrate for him, hired thugs and plain clothes police like those Mubarak used to attack opposition campaigners during the 2005 Presidential election and referendum – which were rigged (1) – (9).

(There may also be some pro-Mubarak demonstrators who simply support him because they have watched Egyptian state TV as their only source of information, or because they work for the government or rely for their jobs in it on the patronage of regime members or relatives in it).

The army were ordered to allow them into Tahrir Square and given no order to stop Mubarak’s brigades attacking (10).

Mubarak hopes this tactic will let him avoid responsibility for the people they injure and kill. He can’t. While the Obama administration continues to provide his government with financial aid they are responsible too. They should cut all aid until he is gone and an all party transitional government is in place.

State Department official P J Crowley said that “We reiterate our call for all sides in Egypt to show restraint and avoid violence.”, as if the attackers (many armed with guns, knives, iron bars and machetes) and those attacked or defending themselves were equally responsible for it. British Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement that “if” the violence was orchestrated by the Mubarak government then it would be “utterly unacceptable” pretended that there was any question about whether Mubarak organised it, even after his use of similar tactics over decades (11) – (12).

These and Obama’s vague statements differ markedly from their straightforward condemnation of the Iranian government when it similarly used Basij plain clothes militia to beat, terrify and kill pro-democracy protesters.

While early statements from the White House suggested financial aid to the Egyptian military might be cut if they harmed protesters - and this has played a very positive role - Secretary of State Clinton later reversed this, saying there were no plans to cut military aid to Egypt. The Obama administration is on the edge of giving Mubarak the impression that he can kill and terrify pro-democracy demonstrators just so long as he doesn't use the army to do it

(1) = Amnesty International 02 Feb 2011 ‘Egyptian army urged to protect protesters’,http://amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/egyptian-army-breaks-promise-protect-protesters-2011-02-02 ; ‘clashes erupted with organized groups of pro-government supporters attacking protesters in Cairo and across Egypt... …An Amnesty International fact-finding team in Egypt reported that the violence appeared to be orchestrated in part by the authorities to suppress continuing protests calling for political reform…In previous election years, Amnesty International documented how hired thugs were used by the Egyptian authorities in order to intimidate voters and to disperse gatherings of their political opponents’

(2) =  AP 02 Feb 2011 ‘Mubarak backers attack foes with firebombs, bricks’,http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt ; ‘The protesters accused Mubarak's regime of unleashing a force of paid thugs and plainclothes police to crush their unprecedented 9-day-old movement… They showed off police ID badges they said were wrested off their attackers.’

(3) = MSNBC 02 Feb 2011 ‘'Total mayhem': Mubarak supporters, protesters clash in Egypt’, http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41383377/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/ ; ‘Several protesters claimed the government sent in plainclothes policemen and hired "thugs" to instigate violence….“We caught a lot of people with police IDs on them,” another witness told Al Jazeera…’

(4) = Guardian News Blog 02 Feb 2011 6.04 p.m summary of events ‘Egypt protests - live updates’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/feb/02/egypt-protests-live-updates ; The violence of the pro-Mubarak supporters appears to be organised, with policemen and hired thugs seemingly involved.  – also see eyewitness accounts from western reporters and Egyptian protesters at 2.29p.m, 2.43 p.m , 4.56 p.m and 5.11 p.m

(5) = AFP 02 Feb 2011 ‘Egypt troops fire warning shots as protesters clash’,http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110202/wl_africa_afp/egyptpoliticsunrestdemoclash ; ‘A witness said organisers were paying people 100 Egyptian pounds (12 euros, $17) to take part in the pro-Mubarak rally, but this could not be confirmed.’

(6) = Human Rights Watch Sep 2005 ‘From Plebiscite to Contest? Egypt’s Presidential Election’, http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/mena/egypt0905/egypt0905.pdf

(7) = Guardian 26 May 2005 ‘Dissent quashed as Egypt votes on reform’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/26/brianwhitaker ; ‘Security forces and violent gangs cracked down on dissenters yesterday as Egyptians voted in a constitutional referendum that opposition parties have denounced as a sham….smaller groups of protesters who ventured on to the streets were set upon by security forces or pro-Mubarak gangs. In one incident, police withdrew to let a gang beat up more than a dozen supporters of the Kifaya ("Enough") movement, which is calling for an end to the president's 24-year rule.

Elsewhere, 150 government supporters attacked Kifaya members with sticks. Police looked on as Mubarak loyalists attacked a woman with batons and tore her clothes.’

(8) = Guardian 27 May 2005 ‘Egypt claims 83% yes vote for change’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/27/brianwhitaker ; In some cities, plainclothes government agents beat protesters and dozens of arrests were made.

(9) = guardian.co.uk 02 Feb 2011 ‘Supporters of Hosni Mubarak attack foreign journalists in Egypt’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/02/hosni-mubarak-supporters-attack-foreign-journalists

(10) = guardian.co.uk 02 Feb 2011 ‘Mubarak supporters stage brutal bid to crush Cairo uprising’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/02/hosni-mubarak-supporters-violence-cairo ; ‘Yesterday, army and activists staffed checkpoints to prevent violence; today, Egyptian soldiers made no effort to prevent confrontation…..At one stage, they moved out of the way to allow pro-Mubarak demonstrators to reach their opponents….Among those attacking the square were groups of armed men who appeared to be plainclothes police officers. Credible reports spoke of some of those involved in the assault in Tahrir Square having been paid by the regime….On one boulevard leading from the square, a group of men had been deployed with weapons in their hands, clearly under orders.

(11) = BBC News 02 Feb 2011 ‘Egypt unrest: White House condemns Cairo violence’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12349662

(12) = guardian.co.uk 02 Feb 2011 ‘David Cameron condemns 'despicable' violence in Egypt’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/02/egypt-transition-of-power-david-cameron

Sun editor's admission that she paid police for stories may show why police are covering up for the News of the World - and determined to get Sheridan

Police took money from the Murdoch press for information – which may be why they’re covering up phone hacking - and so determined to get Sheridan, whose phone they knew had been hacked, convicted of perjury

It turns out that in 2003 Rebekah Wade, then editor of the Sun, admitted to a parliamentary select committee that the Sun had paid police officers for information on people for newspaper stories (1). If that happens at the Sun, what are the chances of it not happening at the News of the World – another brand in the Murdoch cupboard of scratchy toilet paper? What are the chances that it didn’t continue until at least the current phone hacking scandal?

This puts a new light on the police’s unwillingness to investigate phone hacking at the News of the World much;  and their refusal to tell people they and their numbers were listed in the notebook of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire ( a convicted phone hacker, paid by the News of the World). If police officers have taken money for information from the Murdoch press, they won’t shop them for fear of losing their own jobs, possibly being convicted themselves – and at the least losing their additional income from feeding the tabloids in future (2).

It also put’s a new light on their determination to convict Tommy Sheridan, one of the victims of News of the World phone hacking.

Time magazine reports that in 2003 she (Rebekah) told the parliamentary media and culture committee that “We have paid the police for information in the past.”  (3) Rebekah (now Brooks) is now Chief Executive of News International, a subsidiary of Murdoch’s News Corporation. News International owns both the Sun and the News of the World.

MPs apparently backed off from demanding Wade (now Brooks after a divorce) be called before a parliamentary select committee again more recently, for fear the Murdoch press would target their own personal lives (4).

Since Wade’s earlier admission shows the police are hiding corruption in their own ranks and collusion with illegal acts by tabloid newspapers, it’s time MPs got some balls and stopped caving in to Murdoch.

The Guardian also reported in 2010 that 'the officer in charge of the inquiry [into phone hacking], assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, subsequently left the police to work for News International as a columnist.' , which could very easily be the paper rewarding him for being so lax in his investigation of it.(5)

(1) = Guardian 12 Mar 2001 ‘Sun editor admits paying police officers for stories’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/mar/12/sun.pressandpublishing

(2) = See sources linked for this previous post, http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2011/01/glaring-contrast-between-police.html

(3) = Time magazine 27 Jan 2011 ‘Did Police Ignore Evidence in Britain's Phone-Hacking Scandal?’, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044608-2,00.html

(4) = guardian.co.uk 10 sep 2010 ‘MPs backed down from calling Rebekah Brooks to Commons’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/10/mps-backed-down-rebekah-brooks

(5) guardian.co.uk 04 Apr 2010 'Police 'ignored News of the World phone hacking evidence', http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/04/police-ignored-news-world-evidence

The Truth about Tommy Sheridan? - a reply to the SSP's claims

Click this link to see the Scottish Socialist Party Youth Wing's animation on the break with Sheridan - it seems to have had more work put into it than their self-contradictory 'The Truth about Tommy Sheridan' website post, discussed below

The youth wing of the Scottish Socialist Party have a long, rambling, self-contradictory diatribe against Tommy Sheridan and anyone who supports him as being supposedly “misogynists” and “patriarchs” and about how SSP members’ testimony has been completely vindicated, despite all the claims they made about Gail Sheridan lying and 6 of the 12 allegations many of them made against Tommy were thrown out of court. It's titled 'The Truth about Tommy Sheridan'.

Below I’ve responded to some of the main points made in it (the parts in italics). For sources for the claims I make in response to them (parts in normal text) see my previous blog post

In court some former SSP members said that Tommy was partly a victim of the faction fighting around 50/50 -- a proposal to make sure women made up half of the party’s candidates for election. The idea was to try and tackle the obstacles put up to women’s participation in politics by institutionalised sexism, by actively ensuring that women got to be SSP candidates. It was an idea which the majority of the party supported, but drove the old fashioned sexist men bananas, and some began to resent the active role that women were taking in the leadership and public profile of the party. But the reality is that during the crucial votes on 50/50 within the SSP, Tommy was on the SAME side as Rosie, Frances and Carolyn, who were in favour of the progressive move.

So in other words, by backing making half the candidates women, Sheridan proved he wasn’t a misogynist at all – yet you go on to claim he is one

Whilst those of us who are still in the SSP now decided to come to the May 28th meeting with a strategy of being completely reasonable and not losing our heads

Is that what you call claiming that going to a swinger’s club with other consenting adults (sleazy if he did it but no-one's business but his and theirs and his wife's) equals having sex with prostitutes and trafficked sex slaves? I’d hate to see you when you’re losing your heads then

We’ve since learned that when George McNeilage, upset and angered by Tommy’s defaming of honest socialists as “scabs” for refusing to lie for him, decided to sell the tape he’d made of Tommy confessing to being an odious wee troll and a lying scrota

That tape doesn’t even show the face of the speaker, has repeated and unexplained long gaps in it and you’re telling us the £200,000 McNeilage took for it had nothing to do with it? I doubt it.

Apart from not being keen on women, the other thing that was distinctive about Solidarity was being really really really keen on Tommy Sheridan. It was a political party composed of people who were betting their future careers on Tommy being re-elected to Parliament. They went on to reach the stunning electoral success of managing to not re-elect Tommy - but electing Ruth Black as a Glasgow City Councillor

Excuse me? Solidarity don’t like women, but give a woman the candidacy in a winnable council seat?
Or are you trying to claim Ruth’s a man? You’re tying yourself in knots here.

The fact remains however that we’re still here and still recruiting, with the knowledge that we did the right thing and that the truth is still the truth. That’s the difference between us and the confused bunch of losers who attempted a wrecking job on the SSP.

So if everything SSP members have testified in court to is true, how is it that Tommy not only won the defamation case, but even in the perjury trial all the allegations against Gail and 6 of the 12 allegations against Tommy were dropped – many of those allegations having been supported by SSP witnesses?

The votes they have received have dwindled (from their greatest height of not getting Tommy elected). Sadly, with the split in the Scottish Socialist Party and the unfortunate trashing of the Party’s reputation in all of the papers (with the charge being led by Tommy), the SSP’s votes have suffered badly too.

Hilarious spin there. Colin Fox, your party leader, only got 319 votes in the General Election , because he couldn’t even organise getting leaflets printed correctly and in time. Even I got more than twice that as an Independent – and Sheridan got significantly more. Sheridan was the only SSP or Solidarity candidate to come very close to being re-elected in the last Scottish Parliament election – none of the remaining SSP candidates even came close.

After Solidarity failed in its number one mission in 2007, it began to slowly disintegrate, because the only thing that had bound such a disparate group of people together was that Tommy Sheridan was an electoral asset who gave them all reason to live. Their numbers dwindled, their website is pish, and their only elected representative is now a Labour councillor under investigation for corruption

Strange you don’t say how many councillors the SSP have since the “United Left” decided to jump at the chance of getting rid of the person who got the left in Scotland to stop squabbling long enough to form a single party and won them 6 seats in the Scottish Parliament

Take feminism and women’s rights seriously and never let any fuckwit misogynist attempt to ‘put you in your place’. It’s not enough to say that you’re for equality for women. You have to consider the myriad ways in which patriarchy manifests itself, particularly within left-wing organisations -- what myths are we perpetuating within ourselves that patriarchy creates in wider society? The response of some “socialists” to Tommy’s behaviour shows just how powerful stereotypes like the jealous witch, desperate for money and power, are in even among the left. Tommy and his supporters were never afraid to use the most sexist language about the women who disagreed with them, calling them bitches, cunts, witches and whores.

Well I’ve been to Solidarity meetings and never heard any of those words used about any woman at them. I’ve also heard Rosie Kane imply, without any evidence or reason to think it, that Sheridan had sex with prostitutes including trafficked sex slaves, rather than consensual sex (you make a similar implication yourself).

That seems more like political opportunism than principle to me. You seem to have a stereotype of all male politicians as oppressive patriarchs – which is misandry (irrational hatred of men) and just as bad as misogyny - and I suspect you had it long before any of this happened.

Alan McCombes is the one of the few anti-Sheridan witnesses whose testimony I’d trust at all – and no, not because he’s a man, before you put that through your misandrist glasses , but because he was such a close ally of Sheridan for so long.