Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John Lambies Doos

Oh Kez!!!

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge said something about how although the tweet could seem as being offensive to gay people, it was not homophobic. A fine distinction. It was clearly taking the pish out of someone using the fact their Dad had recently come out as gay after a long marriage as the punchline. Ho ho ho. If Jim Davidson had said it there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that it was homophobic. There seems to be some notion that it's impossible for someone who is normally not homophobic to tell a homophobic joke. I consider myself to be non racist but I have to own up to telling the odd racist joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on. If Jeff Dugdale donates to Wings, who then used his crowdfund to pursue action against Jeff's daughter, then we have a new challenger for the biggest minter in this whole affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Hold on. If Jeff Dugdale donates to Wings, who then used his crowdfund to pursue action against Jeff's daughter, then we have a new challenger for the biggest minter in this whole affair.

Nah, the crowdfund for the court case had nothing to do with his annual crowdfunds for WOS, as it is I've no idea if he chose to donate for the fight against his daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ayrmad said:

Nah, the crowdfund for the court case had nothing to do with his annual crowdfunds for WOS, as it is I've no idea if he chose to donate for the fight against his daughter.

 

We ought to establish this before anything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NotThePars said:

 

We ought to establish this before anything else. 

Ask him, it wouldn't surprise me as his daughter is a self serving duplicitous c**t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

Nah, the crowdfund for the court case had nothing to do with his annual crowdfunds for WOS, as it is I've no idea if he chose to donate for the fight against his daughter.

In his latest fund raiser he said some of the money might have to go on court costs, although if he was going to appeal he'd come back and ask what the donors think. Not sure how that would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just put the WoS thing to one side for a moment and return to the original point of this thread.

Dugdale is/was completely useless, was appointed to a position that was well beyond her capabilities and did not have the self awareness to realise it.

Mind you that criticism could be validly levelled at both her predecessor and successor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sure they're both just awful. In an ideal world I'd like them both to lose but I'll take how it's panned out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ayrmad said:

I think that was the opinion of the judge.

No the opinion of the judge were no damages were due because Kezia was too stupid to know what she was saying was false, or could reasonably claim to be anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sophia said:

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.

That's irrelevant, the issue is whether he was homophobic or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

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

Except for the bit where the judge said he had been of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kuro said:

Except for the bit where the judge said he had been of course.

The judge didn’t say he’d been defamed. He said that the comments were incorrect but that the defence of fair comment applied. Ergo the civil wrong of defamation did not apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The judge didn’t say he’d been defamed. He said that the comments were incorrect but that the defence of fair comment applied. Ergo the civil wrong of defamation did not apply.

You've obviously not read the ruling, the judge literally said her allegation was untrue and defamatory.  He used the word defamatory. Ergo, you're full of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...