The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Charity with menaces

Posted on January 31, 2016 by

Brian Spanner Fan Club chair JK Rowling yesterday moved quickly to correct some press reports that she’d abandoned her plans to sue independent MP Natalie McGarry over alleged defamation.

Tweeting to Herald reporter Martin Williams, she snippily noted:


The true nature of the “request” therefore seems unmistakeable – “make a donation to my charity or get sued by someone richer than the Queen”.

And we can’t help wondering whether that’s tantamount to blackmail.

Rowling’s case for defamation is extremely weak, which we suspect is why she’s had her agent contact McGarry rather than a lawyer.

But with Rowling said to earn £1m every three days from sales of some books about wizards, she could afford to throw essentially limitless amounts of money at a court case and not care if she lost. Even defendants acquitted at libel trials can be left with enormous bills, whereas even the most vast legal invoice imaginable would be at most a few weeks’ earnings for Rowling.

In demanding that McGarry hand over money under threat of what would likely be ruinous legal action win or lose (McGarry, of course, no longer has the shelter of the SNP), Rowling – who could fund the charity herself for a thousand years out of her petty cash – is attempting to bully the MP into caving unjustly.

In the context of the two parties’ relative wealth, it is without question a despicable and cowardly piece of intimidation – particularly in the highly public manner it’s been conducted, which has seen Rowling’s Twitter followers bombard McGarry with abuse. We just wonder at what point it would actually become criminal.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 31 01 16 11:43

    Charity with menaces | Speymouth

172 to “Charity with menaces”

  1. Andrew Davidson says:

    I made a similar comment to your blackmail one but thought, rather extortion.

    Give money to something of mine or I’ll put the lawyers on you. Extortion.

  2. Me Bungo Pony says:

    So is Ms Rowling now the school bully for the yoonies?

  3. heedtracker says:

    Super rich bullies, liars, hypocrites, appalling hypocrites, the media and Rowling in their Scotland region. So without a shred of dignity, Rowling demands an apology and money. Just do that and move on, to the next UKOK farce in Scotland.

  4. Hugh MacDiarmid says:

    I will forever be in JK Rowling’s debt for getting my youngest daughter turned on to reading (now an honours graduate of Oxford University). But goodness, what a nasty person she has turned out to be (JK, not my daughter 🙂 )

  5. Proud Cybernat says:

    Stand up to the playground bully, Natalie. Bullies should never be allowed to subvert the truth in this way.

    Rowling has made a huge miscalculation here as we have your back (even if the SNP don’t). She has way more to lose (her world bran tarnished forever) than you do.

    Come on, JKR – pick on someone your own size.

  6. Me Bungo Pony says:

    I reckon the sorting hat would definitely put Ms Rowling into Slytherin.

  7. Johnboy says:

    Would parliamentary privilege be a way of shedding some light on this dark corner of the authors imaginary world?

  8. Sassenach says:

    A perfect example of the ‘power’ of wealth over us all.

    Disgusting how society has developed like this.

  9. Jimbo says:

    Extortion, do it or else – Yes indeed. And done publicly too. Surely a matter for the police.

  10. harry pothead says:

    J.K Rowling knows within herself she is on a loser here. She is coming across as petty and small minded. Her toys are well and truly out of the pram. I would let her take it to court because those tweets from spanner aren’t going to magically go and disappear with a wave of a wand seeing as they have been screenshotted. I would also request Spanner attend court to call her out and see if she is the aforementioned tool. I personally think a court case would hurt her way more than she thinks it would.

  11. Capella says:

    Let Google decide. I googled “demanding money with menaces” and it came with Blackmail at the top of the list.

    Certainly a prima facie case I would say.

  12. D S. Briggs says:

    I received similar threats from Hothersall in 2014, but in a round about way told him to fuck off. We haven’t spoken since and I’ve yet to be sued for defamation.

    Looking at the definition of blackmail provided by Stu any sentient being would consider Rowling’s threat to be just that.

    If you don’t like what someone says or threatens block them. I suggest the bully Rowling do the same. A definite character flaw on her part.

  13. galamcennalath says:

    “Rowling’s Twitter followers bombard McGarry with abuse”. I doubt very much is those followers have actually checked on why McGarry called out the Spanner connection. Those tweets ( no longer public, but archived ) are certainly the most vile I have seen on Twitter.

  14. HandandShrimp says:

    The use of the law to get your way by the very rich has been a major problem in the UK for a long time. Robert Maxwell used litigation to hammer anyone who crossed him. If anything the Tories have in recent years made the law favour the very rich, like Rowling, even more.

  15. Richardinho says:

    I used to just think Rowling was just a rather tiresome whiner, but now I’m beginning to think that there’s something actually quite sinister about her.

  16. mealer says:

    Margaret Curran lookalike JK Rowling doesn’t have a hope in hell of successfully sueing Natalie over this matter.Natalies defence would be so simple and straightforward that it would be advantageous to handle it herself at no expense.She should tell Ms Rowling to sue and be damned.

    Ms Rowlings attempts to get money out of Ms McGarry are despicable,whether or not the proceeds are to go to her charity.It seems clear this is a case of blackmailing and bullying and,when considered along with her friendship with a foul mouthed internet bully who goes by the name of Spanner,it surely asks questions about Ms Rowlings fitness to be involved with any charity.

  17. winifred mccartney says:

    I feel very sorry for Natalie McGarry – stuck between a rock and a hard place – JKR is undoubtedly a bully and seems to me a very very unhappy person – these unionists are running scared and will use there money and therefore power to and stop at nothing MONEY is the new god, fairness and morality have disappeared – was it not ever thus. 20 pieces of silver comes to mind seems a good donation to make 50p in total.

  18. Almannysbunnet says:

    If the Herald are true to form they will issue an apology on Martin Williams behalf then fire him.

  19. StevenM says:

    I wonder what the regulatory body the Charity Commission would make of someone so closely connected to a charity using such tactics to gain them funds.

  20. Scott says:

    Can this horrible woman be charged with demanding money with menace,who in the msm has the guts to out spanner oh sorry they are all gutless and cowards.

  21. ‘Off with her head’ said the ‘Jaikey Queen’in the entirely fictitious fairy tale and ‘paint the roses red white and blue’.

  22. Ian Guild says:

    Once again proof that british Justice is the b=est money can buy

  23. Graeme Borthwick says:

    JK believes in Magic….the Magic of Money. But I suspect she has thrown a Spanner in her Works.

  24. ScottishPsyche says:

    Spanner’s own tweets have been deleted and he/she is now trawling for any tweets of anyone who criticized him/her.

    I wonder if the account was set up as a means to do just that? With the patronage it has there is a whiff of Project Fear about it. Whether it just evolved that way or was deliberately set up, who knows.

    Whoever Spanner is, it doesn’t really matter now as they all seem to endorse and support it.

  25. Ruby says:

    ‘JK Rowling leak lawsuit settled as firm makes donation to charity’

    She hasn’t stated how much she wants Natalie to donate!

    Would a 50p donation suffice?

    I think it’s weird that a feminist masquerades as a male soldier.

    Why was she hiding behind the pseudonym Robert Galbraith and pretending to be an ex-soldier?

    It’s not as if women crime writers are not successful.

    Agatha Christie, Val McDeirmid, Patricia Highsmith, Ruth Rendell, Martina Cole etc etc etc etc etc etc

  26. Grouse Beater says:

    A squalid affair.
    Some upper cuts to Scottish press in this:

  27. winifred mccartney says:

    Sorry 20 pieces of silver is £1 not worth 30 – Judas only made one mistake JKR continues again and again.

  28. Dorothy Devine says:

    I look forward with relish to a court case which unmasks all the lovely people involved.

    Miss McGarry, you have already made an ” apology” now make a one penny donation to this wealthy woman’ s charity.

    On second thoughts, if you feel you must donate , why not donate to Revive for MS sufferers – I believe Ms Rowling no longer offers her services to them , preferring the Labour Party for large donations.

  29. Valerie says:

    How absolutely disgusting and sordid.

    I’m struggling to remember anything recently that is just as sordid, as this episode where JKR is making all the running. To what end? An unwanted glimpse into the internal landscape of a famous author.

    McGarry did apologise for any inferences made about the author, but the threat of legal action continues to be repeated?

    Are there no journalists out there willing to expose this shite?

    Absolutely disgusting behaviour, and by so many enabling it.

  30. Socrates MacSporran says:

    I have noticed previous posters flying the kite of Lynn McGarry perhaps using parliamentary privelege to embarrass Jakey.

    Might the SNP’s best brains come up with a means of doing this, then, surely, the mainstream media, instead of protecting Jakey and her evil trolling friends, will turn on the trolls, for letting slip what a shower of evil bar stewards they really are.

  31. Az says:

    Don’t comment often but have to say even as someone quite hardened to offensive insults, and as someone who definitely is no fan of Margaret Curran, I was genuinely appalled by that tweet. It’s surely the very definition of ‘vile’.

    Compare and contrast ‘union cowbag’.

    I wonder how loud the uproar would be on all fronts had this comment been made by a known independence supporter?

  32. Socrates MacSporran says:

    From where did I get “Lynn” McGarry in my last post?

    This auld age and mental instability is a cruel thing.

  33. gillie says:

    Who would want to donate money to Rowling’s charity if this is the way she behaves?

    Rowling’s public persona has been burst in Scotland she is no more than a rich bully.

    Rowling has no place in Scottish society and you can sense the growing resentment to her presence. Better for her to go and buy another country and lord over that.

  34. Lollysmum says:

    Natalie McGarry was absolutely right to call JK out on her association with Spanner. There’s enough screenshots out there to prove that association despite the fact that the people involved are busy deleting and/or protecting tweets. Such actions demonstrate that they know those tweets are bad & kill JK’s threatened case stone dead so now there’s a stampede to hide/destroy the evidence.

  35. Capella says:

    @ StevenM
    “I wonder what the regulatory body the Charity Commission would make of someone so closely connected to a charity using such tactics to gain them funds.”

    Especially a charity dealing with vulnerable children, such as Lumos.

  36. Robert Peffers says:

    Having just researched this question in relation to a quite different circumstance I can say that without doubt Jaykays demands are criminal under Scottish law.

    For example there is precedence under Scottish law that clamping, or otherwise demanding money, to free a vehicle held by a private landowner on private land is deemed to be, “Demanding Money with Menace”. While other cases show that the unwarranted threat of legal action can comprise, “Menace”.

    The independent MP should ask Police Scotland to investigate Jaykay’s criminal actions. This, not being a civil matter, would cost her nothing. Police Scotland are legally bound to investigate and report their findings to the Procurators Fiscal.

    Who in turn are duty bound to decide if Jaykay’s actions are actionable under Scottish Law.

    The grey area being just who has jurisdiction – Scottish or English law.

  37. Ken500 says:

    The rich try to buy politics in Britain. Why are the Police not at Brian Spanners door? It will damage all charities. If there was litigation how much crowdfunded money would be wasted to charities, food banks etc, which coud be better spent. It would bring extremely bad publicity. It is just bizarre.

  38. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Just a thought – might all this tweet deletion, back-tracking and covering-up be a BUM dress rehearsal for all the work they are hoping to get, hiding the facts in the time between SLAB being booted out of the various town halls prior to new SNP administrations coming in in 2017?

  39. Capella says:

    OT apologies
    Had a very enjoyable night out with the Wingers in Aberdeen last night. Great to be able to meet so many dedicated commenteers and put faces to names.
    Sad to have missed ronnie anderson though. Hope you are feeling better and fighting fit.

  40. Proud Cybernat says:

    Hey JKR – check this out:

    The People V JK Howling has a certain ring to it.

    Just because you’re ‘rowling’ in it, doesnae mean you’re untouchable in the eyes of the law. We have Natalie’s back just as we had the Orkney 4’s back – keep that in mind.

    Now I know how Malfroy was such a perfect little Hogwarts bully-boy and his maw, Narcissa such a black witch who would do anything to protect herself.

    Says it a’ really.

  41. Papadox says:

    Yep money talks. If you have enough money you can buy your justice. You would think this system was set up by people with money and power for people with money and power. Just to keep the peasants in their place.

  42. Wuffing Dug says:

    What a vindictive individual.

    You can’t get any lower, abuse of power, money, menace, threat. SICK.

    The whole truth about spanner needs to be exposed.

  43. r baxter says:

    brian spanner.have you the nuts to give wings an exclusive. (you are worth it) cxxt.

  44. Jomry says:

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise”

  45. Auld Rock says:

    How about suggesting to JKR that goes off and joins Trump the Chump’s campaign team – seems like a match made in hell to me???

    Auld Rock

  46. The Rough Bounds says:

    I have never read any of Rowling’s books. I have no intention of doing so. I have seen three or four of the movies of her books and I felt that there was something very dark and unhealthy about them.

    I couldn’t figure out what it was about them that slightly disturbed me then I read about this ‘Brian Spanner’ issue and this very thinly veiled threat to Ms. McGarry to either cough up for a specific charity of Rowling’s choice or face a court case.

    I now know what it is about her books that disturbs me. To me they have come from a dark soul. The same as the dark souls that produce all those zombie and vampire horror movies.

    We ought to avoid these things like the plague for our own sakes. They are seriously unhealthy for our minds. I suspect that Ms. Rowling is not happy in spite of her millions.

  47. HandandShrimp says:

    You would think this system was set up by people with money and power for people with money and power. Just to keep the peasants in their place.


    Spooky that isn’t it


  48. Vestas says:

    I would quite understand if Natalie McGarry caved in to Rowlings’ demands but I really hope whe doesn’t.

    If half of the scuttlebutt about the various people who’ve controlled the “Brian Spanner QC” twitter account is true then I suspect Ms Rowling would be put back in her place by her unionist friends long before any case came to court.

    The alternative would be the complete implosion of the unionist press in Scotland.

    Money undoubtably buys influence but “new money” doesn’t gain you automatic admittance to the establishment, it merely makes you temporarily useful. Probably best if she bears that in mind.

  49. Dr Jim says:

    The woman’s right out of her own book, she’s Bellatrix Le Strange a bullying nutjob, certainly one of her own plagiarised baddies
    I bet this woman goes about her house waving her wand at stuff and shouting

    She’ll be moving to England soon though because of the internet bullying by Scottish people
    The Internet works different in England Michelle Mone told her

  50. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Stu, the blackmail link goes to a page which covers Eng and Wales law. Dunno whether Scots law has a different definition, although I guess its close enough for comparison. As Jakey is in Scot and the “claim” originates with her, that would make it Scots Law jurisdiction

  51. mike cassidy says:

    So we need a collective name —

    A Rowling Of Spanners

    Oh, and check Irvine Welsh’s twitter account.

    He got involved in his usual earthy way —

    but has since apologised for identifying McColm as Spanner.

  52. Graham MacLure says:

    Passing thought, no idea where it came from, The higher the monkey climbs…………

  53. Andrew Mclean says:

    The remedy for this is at Natalie’s door,
    She is a MP, stand up in parliament and name the Mz Rowling, name spanner, in parliament read the tweet calling other females C@@@, this will hit the world press, not just in the UK.
    Tell Parliament that under the treat of being sued by Rowling she has tried to stop abuse of females on line.

    Go on Natalie, at test that would finish Mz Rowling’s chances of ever getting a gong, too tainted!

    Now how do you like that threat Parliamentary immunity, just like the best spell ever thought up in hogwarts!

  54. Fergus Green says:

    How much would it cost to defend this in court. Would it be anything like the £208000 in the Carmichael case, or significantly less? Bearing in mind that Natalie can expect to win this, if well represented, I would be happy to chuck in a few Scottish £s.

  55. ScottishPsyche says:

    I wonder what Glasgow School of Art feel about Muriel Gray finding Spanner ‘hilarious’?

    I would think there are a few students and staff who would not agree.

    Yet another great institution shackled and suffocated by the Unionist cabal. Of course Cameron piled in with money when it went on fire so better to have a Yoon mouthpiece at the helm.

  56. Scott says:

    Sorry O/T
    With all this about Rowling and Spanner this might have been overlooked just heard Rowley say that Lab want to build 45thousand houses maybe I am wrong but I thought Kez said she wanted 50thousand houses am I wrong.

  57. Andrew Morton says:

    When I called out Euan, sorry Brian Spanner yesterday he trawled through my entire tweet history desperately trying to get some dirt on me. The best (worst) he could come up with was I had referred to an unnamed SLab MSP as clueless.

  58. Onwards says:

    Rowling increasingly starts to look like a nasty piece of work. She knows she would be 99% sure to lose a court case, so uses the charity in an attempt to save face.

    Rowling was undoubtedly supportive of that abusive account. It’s just not credible she was unaware of the constant stream of nasty remarks. This is someone who makes a point of denouncing such abuse and loves to play the victim. Yet when it is directed towards the SNP she turns a blind eye and continues to engage in friendly banter with this individual.
    What a hypocrite.

  59. Andrew Mclean says:

    If Natalie names her using parliamentary immunity no court would entertain Rowling’s claim, no sheriff or judge would hear the case. Sine Die.
    Because Rowling’s claims would be an attack on Parliament itself!

  60. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Scott, last week it was 60,000 houses which was a bit of a jump, seeing as the last time they were in they only managed to build 6…

    Kezianomics, you gotta love it!

  61. Calum McCulloch says:

    Bullies like maxwel, chump and would be labourite billionaires use their wealth to rail road people, organisations and yes, countries into their way of thinking, criticise them and they will ruin you without the blink of an eye.

    So much for freedom of speech or pointing out to one of these billionaires that one individual they have praised has made comments that no decent, sane or rational person would make. Then the word play on comment exchanged becomes key, not the original intention, but word play spun by £5000 a day London based litigation lawyers.

    Ultimately this and other examples of bullying supported by a mailable press and media will come home to roost as people delve beyond the headline and seek alternative views and ultimately the truth.

    My advice for the bullies is to stick to your day job! And, to Natalie McGarry, stick to your constituents like a limpet and work your backside off to help them and you will emerge from this intact, rejoin the SNP and be part of that movement that takes us to freedom!

  62. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Worse case scenario – Natalie McGarry HAS to make a charitable contribution. She says OK and makes it to Alex Salmond’s charity, then, when Jakey squeals, she points out that Jakey’s charity only works in England, and, as a Scot, she prefers charity to begin at home.

    Suddenly, Jakey looks like the nasty tube she is.

    Mind you, I don’t think it will come to that. Jakey’s witches hat is on a shoogly nail on this one.

  63. Brian says:

    Onward: my thoughts exactly, Rowling: a nasty piece of work indeed. They always turn out to have feet of clay.

  64. chris kilby says:

    Richardinho says:

    “I used to just think Rowling was just a rather tiresome whiner, but now I’m beginning to think that there’s something actually quite sinister about her.”


    But I think Rowldermort’s shot herself in the foot this time.

  65. chris kilby says:

    Proud Cybernat says:

    “Come on, JKR – pick on someone your own size.”

    Donald Trump?

    (They certainly deserve each other. But what could we have possibly done to deserve either of them?)

  66. Robert Peffers says:

    @Alan Mackintosh says: 31 January, 2016 at 11:41 am:

    “Dunno whether Scots law has a different definition, although I guess its close enough for comparison.”

    Scots law’s definition is indeed different from that of English law, (English in this context is the Kingdom of England which encompasses both Wales and N. Ireland).

    Even the basis of Scottish Law is different from English law.

  67. Steve cameron says:

    How great would it have been if JKR had graciously replied: “OMG you’re right. Those are awful. Just blocked him. Thanks Nat”

  68. chris kilby says:

    Socrates MacSporran says:

    “Suddenly, Jakey looks like the nasty tube she is.

    Jakey’s witches hat is on a shoogly nail on this one.”

    The trouble is it’s on her head this time for all to see.

    (# Jakey, where’s yur broomstick…? #)

  69. gordoz says:

    O/T Politics Scotland today

    Focus on Labour North new blood at Holyrood election.

    Oh yes their listening / their learning ??

    Monica Lennon (new candidate) : We will be the best party for this ‘region’ (aka Scotland).

    Still mesmerized by the ‘British rhetoric’. (Closer to the people ??)

    Country now somewhere near a 50/50 (YES/ NO) split at moment and Labour still mired in the quagmire Unionist end of the political spectrum : no where near middle ground by any shape or form.

    Sinclair & Hutcheon on to give impartial view of rest of show along with Brewer ??

    BBC still no idea of balance or counter voices (sighs)

  70. gordoz says:

    O/T Politics Scotland –

    No discussion of Rowling ???
    No discussion of Herald ???

  71. slackshoe says:

    How much longer can the media keep up the “Saint Rowling” charade? Tell it like it is, you spineless arse-kissers.

  72. James MacIntyre says:

    I cannot see Rowling pursuing this. This would be frontpage news across the world for weeks, if not months, and it would focus on whether Rowling ‘supported’ Brian Spanner or merely liked him. Maybe apologise for the photoshopped picture, but make it clear that associating with Brian Spanner is not something Scotland’s richest person should be doing.

  73. Valerie says:

    @Steve Cameron. 12.11. Spot on – that is surely the expectation of reasonable folk?

    Noticed the Brewster mentioned nothing on the Sunday Politics, have the BUM been told to damp it down?

    The show was one long, tedious drone about North British Labour trying to prevent their eradication.

    SNP x 2

  74. thoughtsofascot says:

    She should only be referred to as She-who-must-not-be-named, because clearly she has a heart as black as :He-who-must-not-be-named”

  75. asklair says:

    It appears that the MSM will troll through social media to work with JK Rowling to undermined self-determination of my community. Now this is my opinion and view, one side has access to power of the few and large bank accounts, while the other has vision, passion which no money or power can buy. Voting SNP 1 and 2 is an action which will challenge the 1% bullies and deliver a better place to live for everyone on these islands we call home.

  76. Karmanaut says:

    What got me was that not a single one Unionist was prepared to speak out against Spanner’s horrendous abuse in any way. Instead, they actually defended him. And JK was right at the vanguard with her legal threats.

    It looks like they have zero respect for those women abused by Spanner. They don’t see them as deserving the same rights or protections as other women. It’s like they see them as a different *caste*. And that’s dehumanising.

  77. Gary45% says:

    Too much space on this site getting wasted on this “person!?”
    As said before if Natalie wishes to give a donation to charity, give it to a Scottish charity, personally she has done nothing wrong so she should tell the “cowardly one” to go and “do one”.
    Last comment on this hasbeen.

  78. Fiona says:

    It is unfortunate that Ms McGarry apologised: since what she said is true, that in itself should be a complete defence, to my way of thinking. Don’t know that the law works that way, though. Often seems less than straightforward in practice. Deleting her tweets is also unfortunate, but balanced by deletions on the other side. I assume they are all still accessible though

    I understand the power of the money, and so do the elite: hence the attacks on legal aid, though not directly relevant here.

    To me, if Ms McGarry pays and caves the impression left on many will be that she has done something wrong: that is clearly how the media will report it and Ms Rowling will again portray herself as a victim. So it is important that Ms Rowling is shown for the hypocrite she is, and that can only be done in court, by now.

    I wonder if she has threatened the same action against this site. If not, why not? It would be a victory of sorts if they won such a case against Wings. But I suspect they are aware that Rev Campbell will not cave, and that is the reason they may not pursue it. If that is so they are typical bullies. Ms McGarry take note.

    In the event, the job is done. Much like the job done with the insinuations about Ms McGarry’s involvement with WFI’s finances. Mere accusation is enough, when it comes to SNP MP’s: and is not in play when it comes to others, demonstrably

    To me, I would prefer if we grew up a bit about offensive comments. Mr Spanner’s tweets are not hilarious, they are vile. But they are not serious and he is not to be taken seriously. No one in their right mind could feel actually threatened by such tweets. They serve merely to change the subject from serious debate to manners: which has always suited the elite.

  79. thomaspotter2014 says:

    The whole corrupt Corpmedia Central Communications Department has been instructed to downgrade the McGarry/Rowling/Spanner spat to damage limitation as they are well aware it can come back and bite them on the arse.

    Expect the downplay to continue but I think it’s already too massive to get quietly swept under the bulging Unionist carpet.

    Who is Brian Spanner?

    With that information the whole debacle will go global.

    Keep digging folks,the hiding places for this saddo must be found and the net must be getting seriously tighter.

    Why aren’t direct questions about Spanner being asked of the people who know who he is?

    Can’t be that hard if so many know who he is.

    The truth will out and it’s hilarious watching these treacherous shills peeing their pants in panic,LOL.

    Top entertainment for a quiet Sunday.

    Who is Brian Spanner?

  80. Brian McHugh says:

    Rough bounds, I think the same regarding Rowling. History is littered with successful people, who turned out to have psychologically troubled personalities.

  81. Mrs Grimble says:

    galamcennalath at 10:54 am:
    “Rowling’s Twitter followers bombard McGarry with abuse”. I doubt very much is those followers have actually checked on why McGarry called out the Spanner connection. Those tweets ( no longer public, but archived ) are certainly the most vile I have seen on Twitter.

    I’ve had several of her fans angrily tweet at me, all saying, essentially, “Our lovely Jo did nothing wrong!”. I could have given them a link to the Spanner screenshots, but I’ve no intention of exposing children to that kind of filth.

  82. ClanDonald says:

    Someone should set up a twitter account to re tweet screen shots of the deleted tweets so there’s a public record in one place.

    Also, people, beware who you accuse, they are setting traps, their greatest wish is for Wings to publish a false accusation.

    The pro-union journalist, Alan Cochrane pinned a tweet hinting Spanner is McColm. Do you think it’s to identify Spanner?

  83. handclapping says:

    I dont think its who is Brian Spanner, it is who are Brian Spanner.

  84. Clapper57 says:

    gordoz says:
    31 January, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    ” O/T Politics Scotland –

    No discussion of Rowling ???
    No discussion of Herald ??? ”

    Hi gordoz

    I read your post and was just about to write something re lack of news on this via MSM . We ARE talking about J K Rowling here and potential MSM spin on SNPBAD news .

    This is very strange, the silence is deafening . What are they trying to hide and who are they trying to protect.

    Is it fear of being sued by the one who sues if she no likey what you say ?

    Is it that they may highlight to the unenlightened the nasty misogynous tweets from a UKOK supporter.(note other UKOK supporters surprisingly are supportive of both JK & Spanner, didn’t see that happening lol , in fact Frances Barber changed her twitter profile to Frances J K Spanner lol , clueless ! I actually laughed at that , what an idiot lol lol lol )

    Considering she is still threatening to sue if donation not made to her charity this story is still ongoing , No ?

    So I would think this would still be considered news , pretty big news considering her (undeserved) high profile and (undeserved) reputation .

    wtf is going on ????? .

    The plot thickens . Mwahahaha

  85. Bob Mack says:

    Interestingly there is a commonality about the “pack” of rats who contribute frequently to this vile being.

    When you look at it, they are all intertwined by the media, arts and broadcasting. Could this individual be someone in the hierarchy of either BBC or even STV for that matter rather than a mainstream paper? I suspect STV myself.

    I think we will find out soon enough. Natalie should tell JK to piss off. We the ordinary folk raised over 200,000 to let an
    MP know he cannot take us for granted.

    The money generated to hear JK taken apart in court would be astronomic.

  86. heedtracker says:

    Once again creeps like Rowling use their charities for a weapon in the politics. Try it yourself. Set up a charity and every time someone criticises you, bring up your charity work.

    I’m no

    but the MP did tweet Rowling defends misogynist trolls. Andy Coulson walked free from a Glasgow court room so UKOK courts don’t seem to make much sense but legally, does Rowling including Spanner in hundreds of tweets show Rowling defends Spanner?

    The court will probably ask the MP to present proof that Rowling has defended Spanner but its highly unlikely Rowling’s twitter inclusion of him can legally be called be a defence of him.

    You’re messing with the UKOK fourth estate. From the Pacific Quay freakshow to the street of shame, they know they have great power to destroy any opposition. Rowling’s a beloved children’s author to countless millions. Ofcourse she knows that more than anyone.

    Sometimes you just have to accept you lost and move on. Apologise, pay up to her charity, and stay away from Rowling anywhere.

  87. Sorry but I must come back on here one more time to think this woman jkr and her like had a vote in your nations future for goodness sake make ref2 only those born and who live in Scotland have a vote no Incomers allowed to vote whether they would vote yes or no does not matter only the native people of Scotland have the right to determin the future of their country what could be fairer than that ?

  88. Robert Peffers says:

    Here is a definition of Extortion in Scotland. It comes from, of all places, the UK Custom & Exceises.

    Offence of blackmail

    The offence of blackmail is created in England and Wales by S21 Theft Act 1968. This says it is an offence for anyone to make an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view of gain to himself or with intent to cause loss to another. An ’unwarranted demand’ is made unless the person making the demand has reasonable grounds for doing so and the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. Accordingly, money demanded may be properly due but there would still be an offence if improper menaces are used.

    Offence of extortion in Scotland

    There is similar legislation in Northern Ireland and Scotland. In Scotland the corresponding offence is called ’extortion’.

    Note the bit, “Accordingly, money demanded may be properly due but there would still be an offence if improper menaces are used.”

    The point being that whether the MP is right or wrong any defamation is a civil law matter and has to be proven in court but there is no doubt that the attempt to extort money by Jaykay was carried out in the public domain and is, in Scotland, a criminal act.

    BTW: being a criminal act it does not require that the MP makes the a complaint – if anyone brings the matter to the attention of Police Scotland the police are legally duty bound to investigate the matter and report any criminal act to the Procurators Fiscal who decide if there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges and to prosecute the offender.

    Shall we order the pop corn now?

  89. Effijy says:

    Super rich bitch with lucky break has enough money to ruin 99%
    of the population who doesn’t agree with her point of view!

    She is the child of the Westminster government and represents everything that I don’t want for my country, Scotland.

    I’d like to send her a brochure on the luxury apartments that
    the former Mrs Moan has moved into overlooking the Thames.

    How nice it would be to all our grotesk £Millionaires in the one corner of London where they can look down upon us.

    And did those greedy from ancient time
    Treat England’s Colonies mean?
    And was this vicious wealthy sod
    Of England’s rule supreme?
    And did their Countenance Divide
    Shine forth upon our Lorded shills?
    And was fear and mayhem built here
    Among these dark Satanic Mills?
    Bring me my bow of truth uphold!
    Bring me my arrows a nation’s desire!
    Bring me my spear! O crowds, unfold!
    Bring me my chariot, independence to inspire!

  90. heedtracker says:

    Or look at this way.

    “JK Rowling, given that you have now won substantial defamation damages and a formal apology from Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry, why do you include Brian Spanner QC in hundreds of your tweets in your twitter account?”

    is a question you will never read or hear asked of Rowling by any teamGB hack anywhere, be it any and all BBC gits or any print newsroom ligger, ever.

  91. Brian McHugh says:

    Handclapping… BOOM.

    Spot on.

  92. mealer says:

    JK Trumpette.

  93. heraldnomore says:

    Look forward to hearing Eamonn O’Neill and Stuart Cosgrove this week. Beattie will presumably have his fact-checker handy.

  94. AFewHomeTruths says:

    The law in Scotland as it applies to defamation is distinct from England. English Law has been revised with regard to developments in the new media and adapted to the internet age.

    Although review is underway here it is in the submissions stage of consultation and will not report till 2017. I am not legally trained but I believe that at present the outcome most here would wish to see may be more difficult under an unreformed Scots Law.

    In any case given recent crowd funded legal events I’m concerned many seem to see a slam dunk here. Would it be any surprise if evidence which doesn’t help a certain party is disallowed? Even what may be considered the only moral and legitimate outcome need not be the actual legal outcome.

  95. James Westland says:

    heedtracker brings up an interesting point about Jakeys charitable work. Makes them fireproof. If you criticise them in any way shape or form it gets portrayed as churlish. Means they can do as they like.

    And its happened before.

    I am certain that if anyone had criticised a certain TOTP presenter and disk jockey several years ago, the same criticism would be levelled “Oh but he’s a good guy” “look at his charitable work

    Charitable work is like the ultimate trump card.

  96. ArtyHetty says:

    Rabbit blown onto roof! Not O/T!

    It’s true, have a look online, the Metro has it covered. :-))
    Whilst reading that story, (it is more interesting than most of the ‘news’) I noticed a story about a woman who was apparently stopped by the cops at Edinburgh airport, for owing £55 on her television license. Thing was she didn’t owe it but paid up on threat of spending a night in the cells, I kid you not. Again, the Metro has it covered…

    Blimey, how scary, the cops can now arrest you if you don’t hand over cash at an airport for a debt you don’t owe to the tv mafia! They clearly have nothing better to do with their time, unless of course they take a look at JK’s threats to Natalie. Aye.

  97. Brian McHugh says:

    Blair Patterson… that is not feasible or in line with democratic principles.

    I was Born in Yorkshire (Army family), then lived in Germany for a few years, before finally moving home to Scotland. I am a Scot and nothing else.

    It has to be; ‘if you work and live in Scotland’… no matter what creed, colour, religion… or none (a wise choice in my opinion)… alien being… etc.

    I understand the system is not perfect and open to wealthy individuals taking advantage, but I still consider my corrupt blank backed ballot (no unique number or barcode) in the Indy-Ref, a more pressing issue to resolve for Ref2.

  98. Onwards says:

    IMO, she would almost certainly lose in court.

    The issue is whether she is supportive, not of the abusive remarks themselves, but the individual behind the remarks. Any reasonable person would likely agree that was true when evidence was shown.
    1. It is her Twitter ‘best friend’ according to their stats.
    2. She continues to interact and engage in friendly banter after she is no doubt aware of the abuse.
    3. This is what turns it. She has a history of condemning such abuse and denouncing ‘cybernats’. So any reasonable person would expect her to do the same in this case. Yet she turns a blind eye. It’s just not credible to conclude she isn’t tolerant and supportive of this individual, because the abuse it is directed at political opponents.

    The danger is if any court case has a sycophantic judge and jury who would take her side, even if there was only a 0.01% chance of anyone else winning a similar case.
    Most people can’t afford to take even a tiny chance of losing a court case.
    So she looks like a bully – using her wealth to silence anyone who exposes her hypocrisy.

  99. Frazerio says:

    Regarding slebs who raise mega amounts for charity…

    An article in Private Eye a couple of years or so ago made an impression. Twas in the wake of Britains greatest ever charity fund raising individual, you know who I mean, someone who was untouchable while alive due to his public profile and fund raising associations.

    The article quoted Max Clifford giving advice to slebs along the lines of ‘if you have anything dodgy to hide, get involved in charity fund raising, the more you raise, the saintlier you are in the eyes of the public, the less likely it is you’ll be exposed’. The article finished by saying something like ‘Simon Cowell raised £30m for charity last year’.

    Sounded to me they were saying something they couldnt say if you see what I mean. Post Savile I think we should be very suspicious of slebs who raise millions and let it be known.

    Did someone say JKR raised $160m last year? Good grief.

    JKR reputed to be worth £500m. If I had that, I’d say ‘how much do you need, £3.5m, ok, here it is, next!!!’. JKR in this instance says to McGarry ‘donate or I’ll sue and destroy you financially’. What a bitter old hoss.

    Must be extremely misleading when everyone around you says how talented you are, how right you are, laughs at everything you say, wants you to sign things for their kids, tells you how important you were to their kids learning, the rich, the famous, the powerful all beating a path to your door. Must be easy to start believing it after a while, retreating further into a self protecting bubble until before you know it, you’re using threats of financial armageddon to blackmail people into donating to a charity of your choice and everyone in your bubble laughs, claps and says ‘ooooh, look at the weaselly rats squirm with fear at your lawyers threats’. What a sad, bitter, sad, rich, bitter and sad individual she seems to have become.

    I’m financially much poorer than her too and believe in greater democracy for the people living to the north of this island wonder, if she’ll come after me next.

  100. ArtyHetty says:

    Re Blair Paterson@12.51

    I can see why you say that Blair, but honestly, most of the no voters round where we live and a few so, called friends, voted no. The yes voting ones were sound Scots or incomers, hate that term though. I wonder if we can make sure that only those fully resident should have a vote in an Indy ref2.

    There are many who have second homes here, grr, and also the rich buy properties for their rich offspring, probs all could vote as being resident. Plenty seemed to be registered to vote who very possibly should not have been as they live in england or even abroad cor much of the year, and have litttle care for the population of their second country.

  101. Robert Peffers says:

    How convenient for the Establishment and Jaykay that Old Sir Terry has popped his rather ancient clogs. It’ll give them a diversion for weeks now.

    I won’t speak ill of the dead but the living are providing us wall to wall Wogan on the radio now. We will get it on an increasing basis for the near future.

    I’m glad I don’t watch TV. it’s probably worse than the radio.

    In my own opinion I’ve always regarded old Tel rather as I regard laxatives. All right when necessary and in small doses.

    He wasn’t a bad old guy, and he always meant well, but I found him incredibly boring.

  102. TD says:

    Heedtracker at 12:49 p.m.

    “Sometimes you just have to accept you lost and move on. Apologise, pay up to her charity, and stay away from Rowling anywhere”

    I have to disagree with this advice. Of course Natalie McGarry has to make her own decision and given the overwhelming financial resources of Rowling, who could blame Natalie if she followed your advice. For ordinary mortals, (even an MP) we are talking about potential financial ruin.

    But I really hope that Natalie does call Rowling’s bluff – because that is what it is. If Rowling were stupid enough to take this to court, think of the reputational damage to her of pursuing such a case. Win or lose, the tweets would be widely publicised for all to see – it’s hard to see how even the corrupt MSM could report the case without showing the relevant tweets by Spanner, Natalie and Rowling. And it would be difficult for her to avoid the accusation of bullying. Rowling’s carefully nurtured “saintly” image would be destroyed. She knows that.

    I know it’s asking a lot of Natalie McGarry, but I think she should report the attempted extortion to the police and then just sit tight. I don’t think Rowling will sue. And who knows, the police and fiscal might have something to say to Rowling.

  103. Iain More says:

    JKR is turning into one of her more sinister fictional? characters.

  104. Iain More says:

    Anybody want to bet that the Charity Commission and the Brit Nat MSM will be silent on this quite obvious demanding of money with menaces. I am not holding my breath for anything on the BBC or ITV in relation to dodgy tactics employed by Charities to raise money in this instance.

  105. osakisushi says:

    I searched Google News for ‘J K Rowling and Spanner’. Not much came up. At the foot of the page, Google reported;

    “Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe”

    Then it got odd. I moved my internet logon to UAE, an Emirates address usually ensures I can view the stuff HMG prefers I not see. Once again, the foot of the page said;

    “Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe”

    Then I got bored as the next stage involves turning on another computer and it’s Sunday and not snowing/raining/windy.

  106. heedtracker says:

    Onwards says:
    31 January, 2016 at 1:23 pm
    IMO, she would almost certainly lose in court.

    The issue is whether she is supportive, not of the abusive remarks themselves, but the individual behind the remarks.

    Its part this and part the MP’s use of the word “defend” in her tweet at Rowling. Its a civil law threat here from Rowling but in civil law we are not legally responsible for the conduct of others merely by association, of any kind, whether we know about it, agree, disagree etc.

    It would mean simply buying and reading any defamatory or libellous thing in any newspaper, makes the reader culpable.

    This is why Rowling has left the threat of legal action open, maybe.

    James Westland says:
    31 January, 2016 at 1:14 pm
    heedtracker brings up an interesting point about Jakeys charitable work.

    Rowling clearly attracted a lot of criticism for her one million quid BetterTogether donation during the ref but she used the below to deflect criticism that she was against Scotland in various terms.

    £10 million, tax deductible, stunning St JK PR, focuses on Edinburgh, a very big STFU stick to beat down vile separatists, bish UKOK bosh.

  107. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Robert, I’m well aware that Scots Law is completely different from English law and that they have their different roots. My point was that the link led to an English Law definition rather than a Scots Law definition which as I explained would be applicable as Edinburgh was where the implied crime of extortion took place.

    As an aside I think N Ireland has its own law system and in not simply included in E&W

  108. Jim says:

    Has Spanner really been unmasked:

  109. heedtracker says:

    TD says:
    31 January, 2016 at 1:36 pm
    Heedtracker at 12:49 p.m.

    If there’s one thing that can and often does differentiate YES from NO, its conducting ourselves with good manners and dignity.

    Decide for yourself which side characterises the above:D

    McGarry is appalled by Spanner, Rowling includes him in hundreds of tweets.

    You decide where that UKOK meeja moral compass points and on the moral character of both Rowling and McGarry.

  110. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Jim, re tommy. Not yet, that may be another diversion. Could be who he says but, concensus is leaning to a multi-admin spanner. What is surely without doubt though is that it is someone/somefew who are in that small group of yoon journos and Jakey that are shown in the analysis of the twitter traffic.

  111. Zen Broon says:

    Britishness is a bully culture, always has been.

  112. Alan Mackintosh says:

    After Osakisushi post above. Yep, did search with terms JK and spanner and got the same “some results…data protection…” Then tried JK on her own, same result, some data withheld… Spanner however doesnt trigger any withheld data. So google is limiting some internet search traffic with JK in search. Curious

  113. heedtracker says:

    . So google is limiting some internet search traffic with JK in search. Curious

    Max Hastings in the Heil on Conservative party and google.

    France made google pay triple the tax the toryboys did, despite google earning far less in the France than the yew kay.

    “For example, on Monday, Osborne was pictured with Bill Gates celebrating a joint commitment to the eradication of malaria. Yet the tax arrangements of Gates’s company, Microsoft, in Britain and around the world, are as opaque and evasive as those of Google, Apple, Facebook and the rest.
    Since 2010, Osborne and Cameron have held repeated meetings in Downing Street and elsewhere with the bosses of all these companies, whom they treat as if they were groupies entertaining rock idols.
    Google’s especially warm relationship with the PM can scarcely fail to have been influenced by the fact that until last year its public relations chief was Rachel Whetstone, a prominent member of Cameron’s Chipping Norton social set and wife of his former strategist Steve Hilton.”

    As red and blue toryboy world rapidly loses control of their Scotland region, its only going to getting worse.

    SNP x2 and Firefox.

  114. Jim says:

    @Alan Mackintosh

    I am not sure how these things work but would enough complaints to police Scotland cause them to act to uncover the scumbag’s identity?

    Do they have the power to force twitter to supply the trolls details to them?

  115. ChrisB says:

    I wonder if Emma Watson, the Women’s Ambassador to the UN, would support Brian Spanner.

    Both she and JKR have been nominated for the “Shorty Awards” (social media awards):

    “J.K. Rowling is categorized in with other authors on social media, and is largely known for her Twitter presence. Emma Watson has been nominated in the Activist category for her work as the Women’s Ambassador to the United Nations, and particularly for her HeForShe campaign.”

    Here’s what the Shorty site says about JKR:

    “Perhaps one of the most successful fictional authors of recent time, J.K. Rowling has truly made a name for herself. And, not just as the author of the global phenomenon Harry Potter series and creator of Hogwarts, but as an outspoken Twitter user, famously shutting down a Serena Williams hater. J.K. doesn’t shy away from giving an opinion or blatant burn to fans, followers, critics, politicians, and trolls alike. Whether she’s writing an entire series or using 140 characters or less, the world is listening to what J.K. Rowling has to say.”

    I like “fictional author”, very good.

  116. Onwards says:


    >The issue is whether she is supportive, not of the abusive remarks themselves, but the individual behind the remarks.”

    Its part this and part the MP’s use of the word “defend” in her tweet at Rowling. Its a civil law threat here from Rowling but in civil law we are not legally responsible for the conduct of others merely by association..

    McGarry clarified that initial ‘defend’ tweet which was badly worded. The issue as it stands is whether Rowling was generally supportive of the individual behind the abusive account.
    It’s clear any reasonable person would agree that she is.
    She obviously enjoys the abuse against political opponents.

    Because going by her past behaviour and condemnation of online abuse / cybernats, she would be *expected* to dispute, reprimand or block the account in question. Because not to do so would make her look like a hypocrite.

    But she doesn’t. She continues to interact with the individual in question as if nothing was wrong. In fact it is the account she interacts with the most, and in friendly terms!
    So I don’t think her case has much chance in court.

    Apart from one thing. She is a well known children’s author, and it is made clear that any damages will go to charity. A judge and jury could be swayed by that alone. Effectively she could use her fame and money to ‘win’ the case, even although a ‘regular’ person would lose.

    And of course it could also come down to the political sympathies of any judge and jury, given Mrs Rowling’s well known stance as a political figure who funded the campaign against Scottish self-government.

    However, there is still no way she will want this to go to court, simply because of the damage it will do to her reputation. Even if she wins, it will look terrible. She knows this herself so the threat is also a bluff.
    Imagine the saintly JK trying to defend an online friendship with some obnoxious creep who abuses women in terms of genital mutilation or the menopause. Regularly calling them bints and c**s. It just looks awful.

  117. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Jim, as I understand it, the police have a duty to investigate and make a report to the fiscal as it is a criminal matter and it has been done in public. Not sure if a complaint even has to be made,in order to get anything done, rather than them just being made aware of it.

    Heed, fixed it for you – “…Cameron’s Chipping SNorton social set…”

  118. Clapper57 says:

    If the worse comes to the worse and Mcgarry feels she must pay a donation to tyrant’s charity , then why not just pay £5 ( or lower amount if feasible ) to Tyrant’s charity, as I assume Rowling has not dictatated amount she requires to be paid to satisfy her pretendy outrage.

    Would be a ‘ffs ‘ moment if Rowling came back and said ‘ Sorry not enough you must pay more ‘

    Now that would be newsworthy surely and also another breach to add to the initial blackmail she has tried to use to get donation for this obvious UKOK retribution moment that is badly disguised as a slight on Tyrant’s character ( we all know they all saw this as another opportunity to present SNPBAD ) .

    Just shows how low UKOK are willing to go to score points against SNP , but whose reputation is really being tarnished with such behaviour as displayed by Tyrant ?

    Hope Tyrant’s stance hasn’t set a precedent for other charities seeking donations .

    Tyrant reigns over legions of fans still under spell of the schoolboy wizard books oblivious to nasty side that Tyrant loves to unleash on country she chose to live in …..unfortunately.

  119. yesindyref2 says:

    The important thing about the Rowling thing isn’t her, she’s just one insignificant little pawn in the machine, to be sacrificed in any unionist gambit in terms of reputation.

    The point is the Unionist cabal that follow Spanner have come to his/her defence, and still follow him/her, DESPITE knowing he’s a misogymist.

    That’s the real target, not Rowling who is just a rich bully.

  120. Anagach says:

    She had her agent contact Natalie ?

    Why not get her “twitter friend” Troll Brian Spanner to contact Natalie as he posts about her.

  121. Capella says:

    @ Clapper57
    If Natalie McGarry donates to Rowling’s charity that would be seen as an admission of guilt. What is to stop Rowling coming back, again and again if necessary, to demand another donation, otherwise she will sue.

    Does a blackmailer stop after the first installment is made?

    This is already “newsworthy”.

  122. Nuada says:

    Just a thought. If there IS a suit, might this not be a glorious opportunity for a crowd funder? If Rowling goes ahead with this, it might be a magnificent chance for the ordinary people of Scotland to tell her what they think of her and her friends. I’ve never bought a Rowling book, but might this not be the moment for those who have to return them to the publisher?

  123. george says:

    can’t help but wonder who spanner is; an awful lot of folk are rallying round this person.

    my own guesses: possibly female, possible tory party official or SPAD, someone who uses easyjet a fair bit.

  124. tarisgal says:

    To be honest, I thought McGarry HAD apologised to Rowling? I’m sure I saw one of her tweets was an apology. So why is Rowling not willing to accept that and let this whole thing stay as it lays? It makes me wonder… can it be she is loving all the attention she is getting from her adoring fans?

    I too wondered about JK’s demands for a donation being considered blackmail. Her threat to sue Natalie McGarry unless she makes a donation to her own charity sounds rather like extortion to me. But I also wondered… if Natalie McGarry did pay a donation (and I hope she doesn’t), if Rowling considers it too little to be deemed ‘compensation for slurs’, will she hold the threat over her until McGarry pays a sum Rowling considers fair? How much is that ‘fair’ figure?

    Will this blackmail condition be held over her indefinitely? No one can live with that kind of pressure – indeed, intimidation, hanging over them like the Sword of Damocles? And thus this threat to the balance of McGarry’s whole life physically and mentally is one that can’t be condoned and surely is a police matter?

    If I was McGarry, I think that’s what I would be questioning.

    PS: My close family and friends have tried very hard to encourage me to read JKR’s books, and just cannot understand why I have absolutely ZERO interest in reading kids’ books about witches. :-/ Thankfully, I have not read one book nor seen ANY of the wizard movies. Their ‘creator’ is not the kind of person I have any interest in supporting. Now Tolkien – THERE is a writer (and I LOVED the movies! 😉 )

  125. Mabel says:

    This turns my stomach. I haven’t liked Rowling for a while and long ago lost my former admiration for Muriel but this now is a whole new depth of slime for them both to sink into. They both disgust me now to the point I actually feel myself gagging when I read about things they’ve said and done.

    To follow someone who writes such despicable things as Spanner is bad enough, but for one of them to try to deny they support his abuse – and in doing so turn to such rotten means of bullying and encouraging all her little supporters who know nothing of Scottish politics into bullying a victim in this way is horrific, for Natalie is the victim now – and for the other to try to shrug it off as ‘Spanner is hilarious and not angry’ which totally decimates any claim she may have had to a belief in respect/integrity in dealings with other people, far less support for feminism – in taking the stance they have they’ve shown themselves far more disgusting than I’d imagined. I’d damn them to hell if I could. I only hope Natalie is ok under the pressure of all this.

    I wouldn’t pay a penny into any charity to avoid any courtcase on that threat from that person, even if I knew beforehand I’d lose I’d still let her try to sue me. The vile stuff that would come up in court from Spanner and his apologists would and should be brought to the surface and scrutinised, the silent papers would be forced into printing some of it in spite of themselves. They are slime.

    i can admire some people who support the Union or even the Tories. I did feel some of the abuse Rowling got for her letter to the paper at the start was far too much and unfair for her stance, which in that letter was pretty fair and balanced, however everything that has developed since then and how her behaviour has evolved has become increasingly petty and vindictive. I almost wish I had ever been stupid enough to buy any of her books for the pleasure I’d now get in taking them to the garden and burning them.

  126. Clapper57 says:

    Capella , it is indeed already newsworthy as it currently stands , however for her to keep coming back again and again for further donations on this matter, well sorry but that is a fantasy that even she couldn’t create as a realistic and credible option.

    Not saying McGarry should donate ….just IF she does decide to donate as assume she has sought some kind of legal counsel on this, bearing in mind the type of person she is dealing with.

    J K has now backed herself into a corner with this latest blackmail threat and will she back down…who knows….so McGarry may have to donate….I feckin wouldn’t but not in her position.

    She is blackmailing McGarry but she is not a ‘real’ anonymous blackmailer , her actions are being monitored so for her to pursue further subsequent payments….sorry that is IMO highly unlikely.

    Know she writes fiction but that would be one plot beyond belief.

  127. annie says:

    I tweeted yesterday that I thought JK was harming her charity with her “extortion racket” and was notified of a tweet saying I was “sailing close to the wind with extortion racket”. I locked down my account, more to piss off any journo trying to trawl through it but the tweet remains, what else would you call it but extortion.

    Who can forget JK sitting white faced and tearful at the Leveson enquiry saying how some sick journo put a letter into her kids schoolbag asking for an interview. It seems even stranger that she would now openly court and promote these same people to bully and intimidate others. Perhaps she is using them and they will all one day end up in one of her crap “grown up” books that she hasn’t quite succeeded with.

  128. Scott Borthwicks says:

    I noticed that if you Google JK Rowling, the search results include three quotes attributed to her. I was particularly taken by the last, but all seem strangely apt:

    “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”

    “It is our choices…that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”

    “If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”

    Personally, I don’t feel I have any inferiors, but we know now that Jo does.

  129. Achnababan says:

    Breaking news… JKRowling to demand payment to her charity from Ross County for beating Celtic through scoring 3 goals.

  130. galamcennalath says:

    This can’t be ‘the beginning’ …
    … Can it? What is McGarry referring to? This sounds like a response to something else. What?

    I can’t see what it was which prompted McG to say what she did. It does not read like and ‘out of the blue’ comment.

  131. Quakeawake says:

    JK Rowling is a c**t

    It’s fine though because I was just being “hilarious”

  132. galamcennalath says:

    Me @ 5:03

    Perhaps McGarry knows who Spanner is and is referring to tweets to/from the real identity of Spanner?

    If true, that would explain a lot!

  133. Robert Peffers says:

    @Alan Mackintosh says: 31 January, 2016 at 1:53 pm:

    ” … As an aside I think N Ireland has its own law system and in not simply included in E&W”

    I’m no legal expert but read and research lots of, mainly Scottish History. Factually Scots law is based upon, “The Institutes (training manuals) of Justinian”. This is the legal system that was codified by a committee set up by the Roman Emperor Justinian.

    This Roman Legal system was used throughout the Roman Empire. Ironically North Britain, (Scotland), was never part of the Roman Empire while South Britain, (England/Wales), was. However the system was so admired that Scotland decided to use it as the basis of Scottish law.

    Northern Ireland, like England and Wales, is a Common Law jurisdiction. Although similar to that in England and Wales, there are important differences in both law and procedure between Northern Ireland and England and Wales.

    The Northern Ireland legal system is different for several reasons, first having its roots in Irish common law from before partition of Ireland, (in 1921): and following Irish independence, Northern Ireland became a devolved jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. It is, though, like England, based upon Common Law.

  134. One_Scot says:

    What is she like. Can you imagine if the police or HMRC tried that on, ‘Look we think you’ve done wrong, just give us some money and we’ll say no more.’ Jeez.

  135. Robert Peffers says:

    @Jim says: 31 January, 2016 at 2:41 pm:

    “I am not sure how these things work but would enough complaints to police Scotland cause them to act to uncover the scumbag’s identity?”

    Legally Police Scotland must investigate even one complaint by anyone but as many complainers as possible would certainly influence how hard they try to find the truth. We are talking here about a criminal, as opposed to civil, matter.

    Thus any criminality brought to Police notice by any means must be legally investigated or Police Scotland could be held to be in dereliction of their duty. Heads could roll.

    “Do they have the power to force twitter to supply the trolls details to them”

    I imagine, but have no evidence, they have the same powers as the English/Welsh Police in that matter.

  136. Onwards says:


    Final day to respond to the BBC survey for News and Current affairs in Scotland.
    Don’t know how much attention they will give to readers opinions, but I highlighted the need for a higher budget and a real Scottish international news show.
    Instead of having to put up with the unrepresentative UK news – where we have to sit though endless irrelevant stories on the English and Welsh NHS, Education system, Cricket etc etc

    Online Survey at:

  137. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Don’t know how much attention they will give to readers opinions”

    I do.

  138. Jim says:

    “Oh, the power – the POWER!” (Demented moans of ecstasy) “SOCIAL MOBILITY!!” Must all be rather daunting for the poor old husband.

  139. liz g says:

    Can any of our legal eagles out there say if Rowling could buy herself one of those “D notice” things if she was to go to court.If she can then that might change the probility of her actually doing so

  140. Jim says:

    In fairness it must be very frustrating for jk rowling just to sit back and watch in impotence as England’s empire continues to crumble. Perhaps she fancies herself as a modern-day daniel defoe type figure?

  141. heedtracker says:

    Takes weird folk to know weird folk. No one has told Spanner to stop tweeting or told Rowling to shut up. Yet Rowling wants money and apology from a Scots MP for saying something she doesn’t like, Spanner thinks Scots nationalism wants to take away freedom.

    And on and on they all bettertogether under toryboy rule, chunter.

    Brian Spanner QC ?@BrianSpanner1
    Scottish Nationalists want freedom so they can take it away from others.

    Weird folk.

  142. mike cassidy says:

    Liz g 7.13

    D-Notices deal with national security

    Mind you, if I may be allowed the sort of spannerism so beloved by Jakey,

    being such a rich egotistical ****, she probably rates herself that highly.

  143. Jim says:

    In respect of SPANNER, it is entirely possible that the individual concerned is also tweeting under their own name. Should this be the case and they haven’t been savvy enough to occasionally tweet at approximately the same time, perhaps using more than one tech device, then a simple comparison o tweet times with that of spanner would be illuminating. If journalistA or politicianB has NEVER tweeted within a minute either side of the very prolific spanner then things would be very interesting indeed, and the net would tighten. If the shoe fits …

    Surely there is some software out there that could be uutilised to undertake the kind of analysis required to finger -and out – the despicable and cowardly culprit. So come on ye right-minded techno geeks, get down on it!

  144. Stuart says:

    Boycott JR books an publicist one way to restore balance.

  145. Capella says:

    “Don’t know how much attention they will give to readers opinions”

    I do.

    Are you thinking of your previous article on the Claim of Scotland and its 46 year old analysis of the BBC?

    Worth revisiting.

  146. Fraser Darling says:

    So has anyone actually contacted the police about what seems to be a pretty open and shut case of blackmail?

  147. BenInsular says:

    My lay understanding of defamation is that the accuser must prove that their reputation has been harmed by an untrue statement. Any damages if proven will usually reflect the degree of reputational harm done.

    J.K. Rowling has done one hell of a lot more to blacken her own reputation in my eyes than Natalie McGarry ever could. Her reputation started out from scratch for me some years ago when she made her admirable stand on paying taxes, remaining resident etc.

    Her last online blow-up made me think vastly less of her. This just clinches it. Boo hoo. She hasn’t ever received one sou from me for her efforts anyway.

    The media coverage has been so one-sided that few who give a damn about the ins and outs of a very rich person’s online lifestyle will have had much grounds for thinking the worse of Rowling unless they read between the lines and detect bullying.

    If they’re then driven to track down the execrable Spanner’s years-long record of eye-gougingly unfunny Twitter abuse and as a result conclude that Rowling’s at it, that’s their affair and their right, and it’s impossible to see how any blame can attach to McGarry for that. It’s known as the Streisand Effect.

    Judging by the Twitter responses I’ve read, those who were slavish fans, and therefore presumably have enriched Rowling by buying her books and going to see the films derived therefrom, showed no evidence of changing their opinions of her. Those who weren’t keen on her in the first place just had their opinions confirmed.

    So I’d guess they might have to locate someone, or a few someones, who had indeed been swayed by what McGarry posted and have them testify to that effect. Or perhaps the old “man on the Clapham omnibus” (“Cathcart omnibus”?) test might apply?

    Funnily enough, Natalie McGarry has a degree in law. If against any sane readings of probabilities it ever went to court, maybe she could reduce the costs by defending herself.

    Or perhaps one of the parties could start acting like a grown-up for a change and get a life. If a billion can’t buy onr happiness to the extent that one can be so slighted by a single tweet that one decides to devote a proportion of what’s left of one’s lifespan to pursue it, maybe it might be time to distribute the entirety of one’s wealth to some people who might have more an idea how to appreciate and enjoy it, thus returning to oneself a sense of proportion.

    And yes, it smells like extortion to me. One of the perils of trying to throw your weight around and make litigious threats on social media is that there are plenty of witnesses and a verbal record.

  148. Bill Steele says:

    Would a lawyer who follows Wings, write an opinion, here, concerning whether police action should be invoked? If such action can be invoked, it should be done.

  149. Cherry says:

    I want to confess to having read and enjoyed all of the potter books. That said I’m speechless at this whole episode playing out in front of us all.

    JKR has a lot of the traits that someone with Munchaunsen syndrome..without actually hurting anyone physically.

    She seems to revel in her power, especially when the cameras are rolling. When she has her victim in front of the “world” she then plays her trump card. Also appears to cry to gain sympathy…poor me,dreadful marriage,not suing for the money and on and on.

    Ruby put up loads of links to some of her previous cries of I’m going to sue. In almost all instances a donation was given to her favoured charity. I am saddened by her attitude to a nation who took her to their hearts. Will never look on her as a successful woman without wondering,who she stomped on to get there! So sad she has fallen so far into the gutter when she could have not only had the millions but also and more importantly….respect from those who put her where she is by buying her books.

  150. JLT says:

    Simply put …it’s blackmail.

    Well, personally Natalie; don’t pay. One thing JK won’t want, is for this to be dragged right out into the full spotlight. If that happens, JK may find herself being asked some very seriously awkward questions, which even with her wild imagination, may struggle to answer.

    Stand your ground. It’s maybe high time that some of these ‘celebrity unionists’ had their views brought out into the open, and defined properly. I would very keen to hear how JK might speak of the 50% of Scots that have a belief in Scottish nationalism. Ask her why she doesn’t like Scottish Nationalism, and then stick the mike right under her nose. Within seconds ….car crash TV.

    What makes me really wonder is, where the hell are JK’s public relations officers in all of this???? You would think that some of them would be screeching at her to shut the hell up and get off twitter, as it could mean the end of the gravy train and all the perks that come with it.

  151. Ghillie says:

    Natalie MaGarry,

    Thank you for challenging Joanna Rowling’s apparent support or friendship on Twitter with Brian Spanner.

    JK Rowling’s association with and appreciation of the infamous foul tweeting Spanner is worrying in the extreme, particularly because millions of children worldwide look up to her.

    Ms Rowling could have, at any point, condemned the content and meaning of Spanner’s words. But so far as I know, she did not. Why not?

    And bullying threats on top of that! What does she think she is playing at?

    IMO the woman herself has lost her way.

  152. Phil says:

    I would’ve thought that charity law might be a bit more productive to look at than criminal law.
    Is it acceptable to receive a charitable donation under threat of legal action? I think it’s OK to ask for a penitent gesture but to make such a blatant demand for one’s own charity rather than ask the person ‘at fault’ for a suggestion!
    On shaky ground legally JK?

  153. David Wardrope says:

    @Jim (8:50pm)

    Was thinking this myself, especially if the coincidental times between accounts are at unsociable hours (middle of the night/very early morning)

  154. Macnakamura says:

    I am considering making a donation to her favoured charity if I figure out how to accompany it with the Spannertweets.

  155. Ali says:

    The vanity of fame. Where’s Natalie McGarry’s legal fundraiser? I’ll happily throw in a few quid to see the courts say out loud what is manifestly true

  156. John Edgar says:

    Having come late to the latest outburst from J K Rowling, I looked on line and noticed the vile and nasty comments about many female politicians in Scotland attributed to Spanner. Reading them, it would appear that they are indeed actionable. The register used to mock MP’s such as Mhairi Black and former MP’s such as Margaret Curran is disgusting. I am sure that such comments attributed to Spanner would not find support among any female. Indeed, I would think that Spanner would be declared persona non grata irrespective of whatever “other good works” he is supposed to have done. Yet, it seems that J K Rowling praised him for his supporting a charity. One can only assume she was unaware of his other afore-mentioned activities and alleged comments.

  157. orri says:

    There’s the debate over whether support for a parody account of the most foulmouthed advocates of the union is actually support for what “he” says. Certainly without a laugh track and the obvious context that he’s the but of the joke it’s hard to play the Alf Garnet card.

    That aside the alleged apology seems to consist of not finding a particular joke funny. More like those who found Jim Davidson with all his racism funny.

    The key note is “Don’t pay Dane Geld”. Especially given the insistence that there’s already been an admission of guilt.

    However tempting it is to assume that the deletion of tweets is voluntary and somehow an attempt at robbing the defense case of evidence if this ever goes to court it obviously misses the point that Twitter will have back ups of it all. It also misses the other possibility that it’s Twitter who’ve had a word in the shell like having been made officially aware that it’s terms and conditions have been breached.

    Wonder if they’d be interested in the use of the word “Spanner” as a term of abuse in Scotland if not the UK as a whole? That the picture used to represent the owner of said account might not be being used with permission?

  158. brian watters says:

    Seems rather ironic that JKR continually complained about twitter abuse during and after the referendum but never sued anyone or challenged anyone personally over remarks made even thought she was reportedly “frightened” by some of the stuff. No action over those tweets but she wants to sue a woman for pointing out she was on matey terms with a well known poisonous women hating troll.

  159. ScottishPsyche says:

    These are the words of a prominent lawyer,Ricky Brown, in anticipation of a change in the defamation laws in Scotland.:

    “As we anticipate the possibility of libel tourism in Edinburgh, it is worth focussing for a second on the chilling effect that an out-dated law of defamation can have on freedom of expression. I recall from many years of practice and experience that far too often legal tactics are not dictated by the merits of an argument. On the contrary, lawyers and parties are all too aware of the power of deep pockets; the impact of the very possibility of litigation; and the utility of swamping a smaller party with a barrage of claims, no matter their validity. We can be sure that legal advisors are informing their clients on reputational management as the modes of communication increase – and informing them further that an alleged defamer may be pressured outside of court into offering to make an apology and pay compensation. The chilling effect I write of will be one that many writers will have felt as they sit down to express their experience, even without knowledge of the details of defamation law, no matter how apparently small the writer’s name or the issue at hand. I know I have.”

    This was written for Scottish Pen. The same organisation that recently gave JKR an award. Irony or what?

  160. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Is it acceptable to receive a charitable donation under threat of legal action? I think it’s OK to ask for a penitent gesture but to make such a blatant demand for one’s own charity rather than ask the person ‘at fault’ for a suggestion!”

    I’ve already contacted the Fundraising Standards Board to ask for their view.

  161. Proud Cybernat says:

    Dear JKR,

    In order to perhaps assist you in understanding how offensive these tweets from this ‘Spanner’ idiot really are, it might help if we substitute your name for those he has maligned, vis-a-vis:

    “J K Rowling could chose to speak normally if she chose to.

    That fucking gutteral nonsense is a joke.”

    “J K Rowling is an arsehole. A wonderful education and passes herself off as an unemployed fuckstick. Piss off you idiot.”

    “Poor J K Rowling. The change has really made her a bitter shovelled old cunt”

    “Apparently J K Rowling thinks I’m condeming my offspring for not voting yes. What a vile little cunt that is.”

    “J K Rowling. Is she a victim of FGM? She is a torn faced cunt.”

    “I see J K Rowling has sought to rubbish Eddie Izzard’s right to his own opinion by rewriting his opinion for him. What a thirsty cun she”

    “Would folk be happier with some cunt like J K Rowling wearing Primark getting out of a Toyota Prius?”

    “J K Rowling. Nationalist fruitcake cunt and pretend gaelic learner.”

    “I see J K Rowling has just realised Nicola Sturgeon made a cunt of her. Well done you daft nationalist fuck.”

    “J K Rowling is a nasty little fuck.”

    It’s not very nice, is it Ms Rowling? Perhaps you now understand why the vast majority of women find this creature utterly vile? And yet, inexplicably, you find it perfectly acceptable to communicate with and keep such an odious and loathesome individual as a ‘friend’.

    Do not misinterpret this, Ms Rowling. This is not some vile cybernat calling YOU these things – merely paraphrasing to demonstrate a point. Had ANY pro-indy supporter remotely tarnished you with any of these deplorable comments, we all know they would be in the Unionist press for weeks on end – such is your seeming penchant for victimhood.

    If you want to sue me over this, feel free. You can’t get something out of someone who hasn’t got anything.

    I hope, however, that you reflect upon this sorry saga and do the right thing.

  162. Hamish100 says:

    Don’t get involved with twitter but interesting that

    A left winger- allegedly converses with Tories like Davidson, and the likes of Muriel Gray, Hothershall and some journo hacks and some author person.

    Parcel of rogues ……. Allegedly

  163. yesindyref2 says:

    I’ve already contacted the Fundraising Standards Board to ask for their view.

    Good stuff.

    Also of interest is that if any donation was made under duress, the donator can demand it be returned.

  164. Hamish100 says:


    I thought spanner might be here. Couldn’t JKR Hothershall and that ilk just tell us!!

  165. Andrew McLean says:

    I found this quote, and really wish we had more from this sage, in a world where tweeting nasty vile comments by vile obnoxious reprobates who hide behind childish names, is thought to be funny, one person stands out as a vision of morality and good sense!

    “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.
    It is our choices…that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.
    If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”

    Where o where can we find this virtues one, this beacon of probity and decency who will lead us unto righteousness?

    Surely a defender of the downtrodden, the libelled, the assaulted?

    “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

  166. Boyce says:

    Seems to me the best thing to do is laugh at her. Parody her as an evil witch who eats politicians for dinner. It befits her new station in life as the unionist dragon-queen.

    I personally hated her novels. I found them very insipid. Tolkein towers so high above her. You can’t help but compare them. My daughter hated her books – she found them really dull. I tried to read them but couldn’t. It is easier to swallow sawdust. I can’t even watch the films based on her books. I always switch over after 20 minutes thinking – ‘what a lot of crap…”.

    Her charity donations are certainly conscience-alleviating but she is now part of the global problem we all have with extremely rich people throwing their weight around like spoiled children. We need a revolution which sees the majority take back the power from this bullish and nasty minority.

    In the meantime, just laugh at the woman. Or ignore her. Both will do.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top