Oh Kez!!!

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

That is a good example of why I don’t post on Twitter. I have an account and was banned for 24 hours for tweeting Scotrail ‘f**k off and die’ while I was pished and they have cancelled the last train home from Edinburgh. Hate speech, apparently.

Turns out he is just a big supporter of gay rights. So...ahem...here goes...”I would like to publicly apologise to Stuart Campbell and retract my assertion that he is a homosexual. I sincerely regret any distress caused.”

It would seem the only thing Stuart Campbell is attracted to is controversy and himself.

[Scary Bear]

You're just making things worse for yourself, claiming he'd be offended at being labeled as homosexual, making him a raging homophobe. Shame on you!

As I say, can you imagine how this would have gone on Twitter? I would have to shut my account down.

As you say, not sure attacking someone for labelling him homosexual would help his homophobia case.

[ICTChris]

3 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Boasting about year on year record breaking fundraising etc, to try to get more real donations. Might be bollocks but when almost every other similar thing struggles to get near much more modest targets it did make wonder. Particularly as outside the odd poll/defamation case, he doesn't seem to do very much with all this cash and by all accounts lives modestly.

If he has been doing that then the bill for legal costs will reveal it.  I don't think he will have.

Crowd funding is something that I find strange, I'm sure I've posted on P&B about it before.  You get people who have a persona, a profile and they use that to just ask for payment to be that person.  I've seen several people I follow on social media post asking for donations for new laptop or for their rent.  it's really odd to me.

[Detournement]

He only really needs 5,000 marks to make 100,000 grand a year.  

There is no doubt those roasters are out there.  And on here. 

[ayrmad]

I think he is reviled by too many politicians of all hues to get away with telling too big a porkies about his fundraising, he's also helped others to reach their targets very quickly in the past.

[Scary Bear]

If he has been doing that then the bill for legal costs will reveal it.  I don't think he will have.
Crowd funding is something that I find strange, I'm sure I've posted on P&B about it before.  You get people who have a persona, a profile and they use that to just ask for payment to be that person.  I've seen several people I follow on social media post asking for donations for new laptop or for their rent.  it's really odd to me.

I see crowdfunding as a good way to support causes I like. £20 here or there is nothing and it makes me feel good. It’s supporting in a half-hearted way.

The latest one I supported was Andy Wightman in his defamation case. I feel that he may lose as he’s named names but I support his general cause of land reform and am happy that someone is so committed to land reform that they are willing to try and fight for change. I feel he is being bullied and want to support him.

[tirso]

Wings over scotland did more to disseminate information like;

ERM Euro requirement

Labour needing Scotland at Westminster

Scotland's GDP higher than rest of the UK during immediate years to 2014

Spanish acceptance of Scotland under specific circumstances

than about any other outlet.  

Nobody references the site but you know the facts because you all read it.  That's the power of the site.

He's never shown much inkling towards flag waving and is actually against gaidhlig unlike some of the well meaning sites.  I don't know him but some of his language doesn't help.  And the tweet on Mundell was ill-advised and unnecessary.

Stuart Cosgrove sums him up well.  He's up til this point been an important platform to spreed information third party.  He's in danger of turning readers away though with this obsession on trans people.  In my opinion, he's not far off being right but it makes him an easy target.  

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by tirso

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, tirso said:

and is actually against gaidhlig

You say that like it's a good thing. What's his beef with Gaelic, does he object to the Latin inscriptions in the Roman baths down there?

[ICTChris]

13 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

I see crowdfunding as a good way to support causes I like. £20 here or there is nothing and it makes me feel good. It’s supporting in a half-hearted way.

The latest one I supported was Andy Wightman in his defamation case. I feel that he may lose as he’s named names but I support his general cause of land reform and am happy that someone is so committed to land reform that they are willing to try and fight for change. I feel he is being bullied and want to support him.

 

I think the difference between some of the things I've seen and the Andy Wightman case is that the Wightman case is specific.  He needs lawyers to defend him, he needs to pay for them, that's what you are donating for.  It's when people appeal for money for day-to-day costs and expenses that I think it's a grey area. 

[tirso]

16 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

You say that like it's a good thing. What's his beef with Gaelic, does he object to the Latin inscriptions in the Roman baths down there?

it was to demonstrate he's not a flag waving Siol Nan Gael by referencing a marker of one thing they may be interested in.  Really have no idea what you mean with the Roman stuff.

You're probably one of his many readers.  I'm sure you can work out his thoughts on it.

Edited July 10, 2019 by tirso

[welshbairn]

29 minutes ago, tirso said:

Wings over scotland did more to disseminate information like;

ERM Euro requirement (Do you mean that he pointed out examples like Sweden to show it's unenforceable?)

Labour needing Scotland at Westminster (Hardly a state secret)

Scotland's GDP higher than rest of the UK during immediate years to 2014 

Spanish acceptance of Scotland under specific circumstances (The Spanish position was widely reported)

than about any other outlet.  

Nobody references the site but you know the facts because you all read it.  That's the power of the site.

Not sure about the GDP stat but the other stuff was either widely reported elsewhere or just taken for granted, like Labour needing Scottish seats. I doubt many but the converted read his blog, so I don't see the power in it for changing hearts and minds. I find his blog pieces mainly unreadable and self absorbed, but I do admit to checking his tweets ocassionaly for the latest daftness.

[tirso]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Not sure about the GDP stat but the other stuff was either widely reported elsewhere or just taken for granted, like Labour needing Scottish seats. I doubt many but the converted read his blog, so I don't see the power in it for changing hearts and minds. I find his blog pieces mainly unreadable and self absorbed, but I do admit to checking his tweets ocassionaly for the latest daftness.

it doesn't change minds.  It spreads information, like the above, among the converted in a centralised place.  Allowing others to rebut.

For what it's worth, I believe you.  You read it daily in one form or another like most on here.  Some will then post about the topics as if they've gleamed it from somewhere else.

[tirso]

I had no idea I read wings daily

Glad to be of help.

[NotThePars]

I have no problem with people plagiarising his material. He might do a lot of digging but his politics are abysmal and increasingly counterproductive to any positive vision of an independent Scotland. 

[welshbairn]

5 hours ago, MixuFixit said:

Didn't Euan McColm (another damaged man lashing out in Scottish public life who should quietly f**k off) once say his choice of crowdfunding platform let him donate his own donations pseudonymously? Like he might actually make 20 grand but make it look like 150 this way

 

5 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Why would someone do that?  To make themselves look like a bigger deal than they are?  

It would be worth doing if you were suing someone or getting sued to make the other party think you could afford shit loads of lawyers and court fees, to make them think about settling or dropping the case. Doubt Wings is doing that though.

[Kuro]

On 09/07/2019 at 09:02, Savage Henry said:

 

Let’s not go down the Kuro line.

The homophobia or otherwise of the Tweet was never the issue of the case. The case was entirely about whether calling Wings homophobic was legitimate comment. The judge ruled that it was, and there was no defamation of his character by doing so.

It’s a stretch of gargantuan proportions to suggest that Wings didn’t lose.

 

The judge actually ruled the comments defamatory but said no damages were due.  Read the judgement.

I think people are getting this the wrong way round, a high profile politician used her column in a national newspaper and her position in parliament (protected by parliamentary privelege) to twice wrongly label a private citizen a homophobe.  What is his response to that supposed to be?  Just say 'no I'm not' on twitter?  She was bullying him, defaming him and lying about him using her high public profile to do so.  Anyone would take legal action, the judge ruled she did defame him and her statement was incorrect, she is not the one that has been wronged here.

[GTG_03]

22 hours ago, sophia said:

No, no he wasn't.

He wasn't because his historical and ongoing conduct renders him open to robust challenge.

Think Lennon and McCoist scuffling and imagine one of them whinging to court afterwards.

He likes to separate his Twitter and blog personas. I'm afraid that he can't.

His Twitter output and this case has tarnished his entertaining but diminishing blog output.

Are you arguing that because he's abrasive/ a dick on Twitter that he can be called anything without consequences. 

If McCoist and Lennon had handbags and then Lennon accused McCoist of racism should that be discounted too? 

 

[ayrmad]

4 minutes ago, GTG_03 said:

Are you arguing that because he's abrasive/ a dick on Twitter that he can be called anything without consequences. 

If McCoist and Lennon had handbags and then Lennon accused McCoist of racism should that be discounted too? 

 

I think that was the opinion of the judge.

[sophia]

54 minutes ago, GTG_03 said:

Are you arguing that because he's abrasive/ a dick on Twitter that he can be called anything without consequences. 

If McCoist and Lennon had handbags and then Lennon accused McCoist of racism should that be discounted too? 

 

Yes and is perfectly logical.

It's the same principle as pointing and laughing at trolls and those that reply to them on here.

It's not just on Twitter that he's caustic, his blog carries highly charged content.

This episode and his concentration on freaky stuff on Twitter at the expense of his entertaining debunking schtick on his blog means that (coughs) people I talk to on the doorsteps of Scotland see him as suffering a credibility debit that is damaging to him.

[Ad Lib]

On 10/07/2019 at 03:22, GTG_03 said:

Surely he has been defamed tho. Dugdale called him homophobic in a national newspaper and brought it up in FMQ'S. 

I get that he's a dick but that tweet was proven not to be homophobic and his name has been dragged through the media accused of homophobia. 

Nope. He hasn't been defamed. It was something someone could reasonably believe to be true and say.