When will indyref2 happen?

[HTG]

3 hours ago, jupe1407 said:

 

That's what I thought

Has Facebook gone into full uniform-jizzing meltdown yet?

 

I overheard a couple of older guys talking about this on Saturday - the sort who still get everything they know about the world from a newspaper. They were aghast. 

My mother in law had her leg amputated in April but only after an attempt was made to do an effective vascular bypass. Living in Dumfries, she was transferred to Carlisle for both procedures and was not sent back to Dumfries to convalesceuntil she was well enough and they were confident that no further "technical" requirement existed. 

So clearly people are not refused treatment and they're not "sent back" just because they're Scottish - otherwise my mother in law would have been sent to Edinburgh or Glasgow for specialist treatment rather than the nearest and most convenient location across the border. 

But there is no obvious reason why people shouldn't have treatment from their own local health authority if that's how the funding model works. 

It smelled like shite as soon as I heard about it. 

[sons superhero]

Certain hospitals received additional funding from Gov for treating service personnel. I took it that this was the problem. Were their from wasn't supposed to be an issue. I may be wrong but I think this funding has stopped or to be stopped.

[HTG]

2 hours ago, sons superhero said:

Certain hospitals received additional funding from Gov for treating service personnel. I took it that this was the problem. Were their from wasn't supposed to be an issue. I may be wrong but I think this funding has stopped or to be stopped.

Again I'd argue that if such additional funding exists, it is there to allow for centralisation of the expertise required to deal with trauma resulting from something like an IED injury.  Once the patient - service personnel or not - is sufficiently well that they're in the convalescence stage there is no reason why that shouldn't happen in their own health authority. Different if they continue to need specialist care or physio.

Anyway, all that aside we need to get to f**k away from crazy old Blighty and the £350m bus types. 

[Baxter Parp]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/choco-ration-soars-again/

Michelle Thomson cleared.  This brings the number of SNP MPs convicted of anything to...er...still zero.

[Shades75]

36 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/choco-ration-soars-again/

Michelle Thomson cleared.  This brings the number of SNP MPs convicted of anything to...er...still zero.

This is exactly why WOS is valuable to the Yes side and why those that want him silenced or vilified are damaging to the independence movement.  If they are on the Yes side, they need to consider their priorities.

[NotThePars]

Maybe if Wings didn't spend his time being a piece of shit to women, LGBT activists and anyone else that takes issue with the shite he spouts on a wide variety of topics people wouldn't feel the need to "vilify" him. 

[Shades75]

22 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

Don't really want to get into a wings/anti wings argument, but the idea that we need some two bit blogger to advance the cause is laughable. That people have given him tens of thousands of pounds on the basis of being somehow essential to the independence movement is a grift of epic proportions.

When it comes to priorities, the level of effort to which some people seem to be going to defend a guy who regardless of the current legal case is clearly a total w****r with a host of terrible opinions speaks volumes about theirs.

Quite clearly people are focussing on the individual and personality of the person producing the material, rather than the material itself.

It seems that it must be repeated forever that I, and I assume others, have no problem with people taking issue with Stuart for some of what he as said or some of his views.  That doesn't seem to me to correlate with going to endless lengths to defend him.  I wish that some people would try and accept that, but it seems futile *sigh*.

The insinuation that I, or others, must hold some distasteful views on LGBT issues, because we read or share WOS content is lazy, unfounded and probably driven more by what you've seen a lot of people say than what evidence you've gathered.

WOS has a readership in advance of some of what we consider the main news outlets.  That it has archived material and is able to produce the piece it has on Michelle Thomson, today - almost instantly, is a source that I think is un-equalled by the independence side.

[Shades75]

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Maybe if Wings didn't spend his time being a piece of shit to women, LGBT activists and anyone else that takes issue with the shite he spouts on a wide variety of topics people wouldn't feel the need to "vilify" him. 

You know that not all content on WOS is written by Stuart Campbell, right?

[NotThePars]

3 hours ago, Shades75 said:

This is exactly why WOS is valuable to the Yes side and why those that want him silenced or vilified are damaging to the independence movement.  If they are on the Yes side, they need to consider their priorities.

 

Do you? It's clear that we're both referring to Stuart Campbell here. 

6 minutes ago, Shades75 said:

Quite clearly people are focussing on the individual and personality of the person producing the material, rather than the material itself.

It seems that it must be repeated forever that I, and I assume others, have no problem with people taking issue with Stuart for some of what he as said or some of his views.  That doesn't seem to me to correlate with going to endless lengths to defend him.  I wish that some people would try and accept that, but it seems futile *sigh*.

The insinuation that I, or others, must hold some distasteful views on LGBT issues, because we read or share WOS content is lazy, unfounded and probably driven more by what you've seen a lot of people say than what evidence you've gathered.

WOS has a readership in advance of some of what we consider the main news outlets.  That it has archived material and is able to produce the piece it has on Michelle Thomson, today - almost instantly, is a source that I think is un-equalled by the independence side.

 

If you don't have a problem with people taking issue with Stuart Campbell then why are you telling people they have to consider their priorities when they're attacking him. His material is being overshadowed by his own incessant need to be an obnoxious dickhead on social media. If he wanted his material to be judged on its own merit he would reign in the edgy shite and tear stained breakdown blog posts when people didn't vote the way he wanted.

[Shades75]

31 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

Do you? It's clear that we're both referring to Stuart Campbell here. 

 

If you don't have a problem with people taking issue with Stuart Campbell then why are you telling people they have to consider their priorities when they're attacking him. His material is being overshadowed by his own incessant need to be an obnoxious dickhead on social media. If he wanted his material to be judged on its own merit he would reign in the edgy shite and tear stained breakdown blog posts when people didn't vote the way he wanted.

I knew this would be difficult.  People absolutely lose the rag when whenever WOS / Stuart Campbell is mentioned.

When I say that people must consider their priorities what I mean is that people should consider whether they want to be on the right side of the Kez/WOS case or whether they want WOS to continue, on the website - which is where the real content is - to provide deep scrutiny of the workings and output of the MSM, BBC etc....

Of course that assumes that those same people consider WOS to be providing meaningful output.  If they have read and considered it and decided that it is a waste of time then that is completely fair, relevant and indeed is a critique that should be considered by WOS and it's supporters.  But,  IMO, it should be on that merit alone - not because they don't agree with what is at times, some pretty opinionated stuff written on Twitter. That seems to me to be very much playing the man and not the ball.

In terms of this court case.  I've said elsewhere that I don't think his tweet was homophobic.  I've also said that I'd be happy to reconsider given a convincing argument and I'd accept that I was wrong if the court decides against Stuart Campbell.  That seems to me to be where we should all put our trust, in the court.

I do see, ironically, a little parallel in the Michelle Thomson case.  Probably more of an example actually;

Her career has been pretty much destroyed by what have turned out to be pretty relentless allegations by the MSM, MP's and TV.  The police have now judged that there is no case to answer.  To Michelle, though, the damage is done be her seat has gone.  Is that really fair?

We do preach the "innocence before proven guilty" line but, given the ubiquitousness of social media it doesn't really hold.  We, the people, judge and the accused often suffers consequences before the legal profession even get their hands on the case.

I'm not trying to paint Stuart Campbell out as some kind of victim here, he's clearly not, but if his website was to be shut down or the credibility of it damaged meaningfully because of reactions to this tweet and then the court found him to be innocent then, I think, that would be unfair.

A lot of people do visit the website.  Journalists have admitted to consulting it.  There are guest writers.  A busy comments section.  Articles are shared and then some are ripped apart, which I absolutely welcome.  There is a narrative about WOS pushed by some though, especially on twitter, that it is some hellhole of evilness colonised by wild-eyed cultists and the unthinking.  I think that that is deliberate and I think it's untrue.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Shades75

[dirty dingus]

The internet is basically a place for airing your dirty laundry without it getting wet, if folk have a problem with a joke and want to display (faux) outrage why not go through old school channels like contacting the perpetrator directly? You can do this with a phone call or a baseball bat instead of a mass flouncing look at me exercise.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Shades75 said:

I do see, ironically, a little parallel in the Michelle Thomson case.  Probably more of an example actually;

Her career has been pretty much destroyed by what have turned out to be pretty relentless allegations by the MSM, MP's and TV.  The police have now judged that there is no case to answer.  To Michelle, though, the damage is done be her seat has gone.  Is that really fair?

 

I'm amazed she got off being as she was behind every deal her solicitor was charged with, and was in any reasonable mind who's not a radical far right capitalist survival of the stong type fascist, ethically suspect at the very minimum. The SNP are well rid.

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

The internet is basically a place for airing your dirty laundry without it getting wet, if folk have a problem with a joke and want to display (faux) outrage why not go through old school channels like contacting the perpetrator directly? You can do this with a phone call or a baseball bat instead of a mass flouncing look at me exercise.

Exactly, so why did Wings get all precious and go to the courts and ask for his fanboys to pay for it?

[Shades75]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Exactly, so why did Wings get all precious and go to the courts and ask for his fanboys to pay for it?

Because Kezia took it to FMQ's in parliament and on TV.

He didn't ask others to pay for it.  He asked them to vote on how it should be funded.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Shades75

[Shades75]

10 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm amazed she got off being as she was behind every deal her solicitor was charged with, and was in any reasonable mind who's not a radical far right capitalist survival of the stong type fascist, ethically suspect at the very minimum. The SNP are well rid.

She didn't get off.  She was never charged.

No smoke without fire eh?

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Shades75 said:

Because Kezia took it to FMQ's in parliament and on TV.

He didn't ask others to pay for it.  He asked them to vote on how it should be funded.

Presumably there was more than one option. eg. Don't bother lads, I've had enough money out of you already, plenty left over.

[dirty dingus]

14 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Exactly, so why did Wings get all precious and go to the courts and ask for his fanboys to pay for it?

I agree he has an inflated opinion of himself too, his embarrassing football shite and his tying himself up in knots on transgender stuff doesn't do his website any favours. I like the fact the research they do on the real issues means they can call out blatent unionionist pish and lies for what it is. I have been at loads of events where I see these sort of folk that want to air their views no matter what, like BBC demos with Palestine flags all over the place or that mental case that camped out with his son in George Square. Independence to me isn't a global issue or a look at me game it's about giving the people of Scotland an option to not be given pocket money from people who wouldn't shit on me or have WMD's in view of my window....simple really. 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by dirty dingus

[Shades75]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Presumably there was more than one option. eg. Don't bother lads, I've had enough money out of you already, plenty left over.

Yes, actually.....

[welshbairn]

Just now, Shades75 said:

Yes, actually.....

Cultists like to please their hero. But fair do's, he gave them the option. Do they get the money back if he wins?

[dirty dingus]

Will Corbyn be funding Wings