The loose end
Right then. Our 2019 crowdfunder is officially over (the page is actually still live at the moment because several readers have asked it be kept open until the weekend so they can make their own donations, but it’ll be finally closed down on Sunday night).
And good heavens.
The main page alone narrowly beat last year’s all-sources total (ie including donations made via other routes like direct bank transfers) by nearly £600, and the actual final figure for 2019 [EDIT: updated 24 June] is, jawdroppingly, this much:
£171,849
Blimey.
That’s almost £17,000 above the previous all-time record, despite the total deadness of the Scottish politics scene for the last two years and my personal determined efforts at alienating certain sections of the Yes movement at inopportune moments.
Once again, your support leaves us lost for adequate words, and since inadequate words are no use to anybody we’ll leave it there.
So the Wings finances are in a healthy state. Irrespective of what you’re about to read below, we have plenty cash to sustain us for the next 12 months and achieve all the goals set out in the fundraiser.
(We can also afford the frankly inflation-busting pay-rises that myself and our itinerant crayonsmith Chris Cairns are getting this time round, because the last couple of years have to be honest been quite a trial one way and another.)
But there’s a giant elephant in the room that needs to be dealt with now before we can wrap this whole business up for another year and get back to proper work, and the elephant was identified in this paragraph on the fundraiser page:
My defamation lawsuit against former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale is not yet a done deal. There are valid and viable grounds for an appeal against the sheriff’s decision and we need to decide quite soon whether to file one or not.
For hopefully obvious reasons we won’t be discussing the merits or otherwise of the judgement, or the prospects of success for any appeal, in detail. While we’ve taken legal advice on the latter, we can’t discuss it here.
(Because if our lawyer said “You’re 95% sure of victory” it might be interpreted by the court as arrogant presumptuousness – which judges tend not to like – and if they said “You’ve only got a 10% chance” that would obviously be thrown in our faces by the other side’s lawyers. SPOILER: the actual figure is in between those two.)
So what we’re going to talk about is the bare financial reality.
The sheriff, unusually, did not make an order for costs. A hearing is now scheduled to decide that, the two parties having failed to reach agreement between themselves. However it’s normally the case that the winning party – Dugdale – can expect to be awarded the bulk of their legal expenses.
(Though not always. Alert readers may recall the case of one A. Carmichael.)
You need to know what’s at stake to decide what we do next, so here goes.
[Please note that due to the way the law works, almost all of the figures given below are approximate to some degree or another, and/or subject to alteration.]
– Dugdale is seeking costs of around £100,000. (Made up of £77,000 in itemised expenses plus an unspecified “uplift” likely to be in the very rough region of 30%.) We’ll challenge this figure at the hearing and seek to have it reduced, since we believe it to be excessive in several respects, but there’s no guarantee of success and it could even go up.
– we’ve currently spent somewhere in the region of £55,000 on our own legal representation (that’s the full and final bill, except for the relatively small sums that’ll be incurred at the costs hearing).
– the cost of an unsuccessful appeal is likely to be somewhere very roughly in the general ballpark of £50,000 (that’s including the expenses of both sides).
What this means is that were we to lose the appeal, it would probably increase the total amount we had to pay by perhaps 50%, from around £100K to around £150K. (ie the settlement to Dugdale plus the costs of the appeal.)
On the other hand if we were to WIN an appeal, we’d have to pay Dugdale’s lawyers nothing (probably – see Carmichael) and could also reasonably expect to recover a large part of the £55K we’ve paid our own legal team. That would effectively put up to £150,000 extra into the Wings Fighting Fund, compared to if we don’t appeal.
Expressed in crude terms, what this means is that an appeal would risk £50,000 to potentially save £150,000. Or in summary:
– don’t appeal: pay up to £100,000
– appeal and win: pay £0, recover up to £55,000
– appeal and lose: pay up to £150,000
And since that’s essentially your money, we don’t believe it’s a decision that should be taken without soliciting your feelings on the matter.
Below is a poll. It won’t in itself be the total be-all and end-all of the decision because we also have to factor in our legal advice (and website polls can be sabotaged), but it’ll be considered along with the balance of your comments on this post.
Should we appeal the sheriff's judgement in the Kezia Dugdale case?
- Yes, appeal (89%, 2,035 Votes)
- No, accept the verdict and pay her costs (11%, 247 Votes)
Total Voters: 2,282
Loading ...So let us know what you think, and we’ll answer any questions that we’re able to. (The views of donors, should they make themselves known, will be given considerably more weight than those who didn’t contribute financially – it’s their cash – but everyone’s opinions are sought.)
One way or another, let’s get this wrapped up.
If appealing is viable go for it.
I for one will shove another ton in.
I’d trust your readership to chip (again) in a bit extra in the event that an appeal is lost. I would.
The ruling elite in this country need to learn the lesson that the ‘poor’ can now afford lawyers and take them to task. This ‘verdict’ was a complete travesty of justice, imo. This was a defamation case. You WERE defamed by Dugdale. There’s no dispute about that. And YET the judge expects YOU to pay HER.
Utterly beyond belief, imo.
Aye–the law really can be an ass sometimes. But it’s not too late for it to redeem itself.
Make it so, Rev.
It’s a no brainer for me – appeal.
Frankly I felt the Sheriff fudged the verdict in the first place. To say that you were defamed but then say it was fair comment by Dugdale does not make sense to me there is no logic to it.
Donor – Yes, appeal!
Go for it I don’t think that you were in the wrong. Keep on keeping on.
I would be willing to contribute more to take on the risk of appeal.
It is vital that we attempt to strike back in their pockets, if possible, and for the moral victory.
We might wonder whether this case is seen as an opportunity to defund and deflect Wings Over Scotland (if we were acting as conspiracy theorists) but I feel that this typically open and respectful consultation will certainly encourage me to contribute.
And, in any case, there is no way on earth that, even the relatively or absolutely non contributory part of this community, wouldn’t act if they saw Wings in financial trouble.
I donated and would chip in again if you lost go for it
I donated and am happy for you to appeal.
If you can wait for the costs hearing then do.
If costs are split a la Carmichael smile and walk away.
If the bulk or all costs go in favour of Kez then appeal because she lost the fundamental point on defamation and justice has to figure in somewhere.
Unfortunately I was not in a position to make a donation this year due to other financial commitments so do not feel it would be right, or proper for me to vote. That said I will say that if I were to vote I think I’d be voting for the appeal. I can not believe a Sheriff can openly state that she DID defame you but at the same time SHE wins the court case cue brain in a spin!
I also feel that this is an important case in the general legal sense.
It seems that the judgment is allowing defamation so long as the defamer thought they were being truthful.
This seems like a potentially huge legal issue.
For all the suspicion we have that they weight of the Establishment is against us, perhaps due to the combination (rather than conscious collusion) of individual personal gravities.
If this judge has been swayed to confect a judgement based on tortured logic then this is more important to challenge than anything Dugdale said.
Another fundraiser for the appeal, if lost, would get a donation from me.
The decision was bizarre.
Appeal … more will go in from me.
For what little I chip in I’ve voted for appeal, but I would opine that you needn’t be under any obligation to go with the final results if you don’t think any possible repercussions are worth your time or infringe on your privacy (or sanity).
I would donate more for an appeal but I am happy for you to go ahead with WoS donations if you feel the risk is worth it.
Look at how that ‘victory’ for Dugdale has enhanced her standing with the MSM. How she got a cushy job out of it all the while getting away with defaming someone. Life isn’t fair and sometimes you have to make a stand.
Rev
Can you say a bit about the potential stress and distraction from the Indy campaign on you?
It could not have been easy in that courtroom, and to face it all again must be daunting!
Yes appeal. As at the moment everyone really thinks she won (including Kezia) when it was really a victory for nobody. Although the Judge decided on the main question you were not homophobic this does not appear to be widely understood. You need clarity and that’s only possible by appealing.
I say appeal. I don’t accept that defamation can be “fair comment”. If this stands then anyone can be defamed and the law just shrugs and says it’s OK.
Another thing is the standard of public debate that people like Kezia Dugdale harp on about. She has a newspaper column and a platform in Parliament and in the media to spread her defamation far and wide. To attack private citizens for nothing more than expressing their views in public is unacceptable.
If you weigh up the situation and want to appeal then I will certainly chip in again to support it.
Gambling odds are favourable
Morally it’s imperative
Appeal
Is Dugdale assumed as the winner for legal costs?
I’m confused. I thought the judgement was that you won and she didn’t need to pay you damages.
Rev: Appeal, it’s a no-brainer
Noli Illegettimi Carborundum. (I hope I spelt that correctly).
Hey Stu, TBH I was unhappy with the verdict. I don’t get how you can be defamed, but it’s ok.. The fact that you’re being persued for costs adds to the insult here.
As a donor, I’d say appeal and would chip in again if necessary..
Good luck in whatever you decide.
Cheers.
TD.
Appeal, definitely can’t find you to have been defamed and then you have to pay costs!
She used a tabloid and the parliament to defame you and shouldn’t be getting away with it.
If you appeal and lose, I’ll put my hand in my pocket. I’m physically sick of hearing screams of “homophobe”, “racist”, “bigot” and all the rest because somebody doesn’t see things the left’s way.
I’m for going ahead with the appeal Rev, those are good odds. I doned.
Go for it. Happy to donate again.
You were found not to be a homophobe and her article was untrue and defamatory. The “fair comment” decision, however, sticks in my craw and, to be frank, puzzles me.
I would like to see the decision appealed to have this clarified. I’m aware that nothing is certain in law and that there is a possibility of losing but I’m willing to risk it.
Ultimately, it’s your decision but you have my support whatever you decide to do. I would be willing to contribute financially if it was needed.
Appeal.
Justice and democracy needs you to appeal.
Donor (possibly twice by mistake!). I say appeal and I, like others, am prepared to chip in again.
Have donated and would again if necessary. Please appeal and get this put to bed with a fairer result. The sheriff tried to please everybody last time which rebounded badly on you and was unjustly lenient to Ms Dugdale.
Another fundraiser if required.
God, Stu, I don’t know. I’ve been here, by the way. (Don’t ask, it was a business thing.) I showed my soon-to-be business partner an algorithm that demonstrated that there was a decent chance of a win if we pressed ahead, but that if he threw in the towel (which he was minded to do because he over-reacted to his lawyers doing the caution and warning talk) he’d be making the worst possible outcome a certainty.
I persuaded him, we pressed on, and we ended up with a compromise sort of win that we could live with. And I got pretty favourable partnership terms for basically saving the business with that algorithm.
This one? I don’t know which way to jump, because there are two probability figures I don’t have and which you’re not about to publicise. One, obviously, is your lawyers’ estimate of your prospects of winning an appeal. The other is the actual likelihood of your really being stuck with as much as £100,000 if you don’t appeal.
My gut feeling is go for it, but I’ve been reading maybe way too much about the most outrageous miscarriages of justice recently (many in Scotland) and the high-handed behaviour of judges who seem simply to decide who is the respectable party and who isn’t and interpret all the evidence to favour the “respectable” one. (Nearly always the police and the COPF department in criminal cases, of course.)
In this one I believe you have moral right on your side, but that your opponent – being a unionist, Labour, and an (ex) MSP, also a woman and gay and therefore you’re so privileged against her as a heterosexual man and a transphobe to boot – is in the “respectable” seat. After what happened last time I think my money would go on a repeat performance, due to the need to support the respectable party against the maverick outer darkness party.
Part of me wants to hang on to what Wings has and not risk any more of it. The other part of me wants to go for it, because YOU’RE NOT A HOMOPHOBE, DAMMIT, and that bloody woman used her position and influence to call you that in public out of sheer personal spite.
So I’ve thought about it now, as I was typing this, and I’ve realised I need to factor in my perception that indyref2 is not imminent given Nicola’s shilly-shallying carrot-always-out-of-reach behaviour. In that case, we should risk the money, because what else are we going to do with it?
And if I’m wrong and indyref2 happens within a year, I’ll be so bloody overjoyed and so will everybody else that we’ll make do with what we have and find some more and please God that happens.
Go for it.
If a new fund raiser is required I would gladly donate again and I am sure I would not be alone.The verdict left many confused and the judges comments seemed at odds with the verdict a matter that needs challenged for clarity. Good hunting
Doner Appeal
I say don’t appeal as you are appealing against the state. I fear they will use the opportunity to financially ruin you regardless of the merits of your case. You are up against a cable of liars and cheats. Remember the Chagos islanders. After they won in every court the state just said fuck you we own you.
Learn to spell Alex Sorry Donar appeal
It’s a tough one tbh. We have the moral victory against Dugdale and part of me feels we should keep what cash we have left for getting the wee blue books out prior to the next vote.
On the other hand, a moral victory feels hollow knowing we’re having to cough up for her expenses.
Would we be able to bring a completely separate case against Westminster challenging whether they have the authority to unilaterally block another indy vote? That seems more pressing than anything to do with Dugdale tbh.
On sheer point of principle, I wouldn’t let her away with it.
I’m prepared to contribute towards your legal expenses.
Go for it!
This is a tricky one. Appealing and losing wipes out a huge amount from the fundraiser.
It’s a pretty big gamble, having £170k cut down to £20k would be a brutal punch in the gut.
I have donated roughly £450.00 since 2014 Stu £50 this time. you should appeal, I will chuck another £50 nearer the time, The way Dugdale has been feted by the media even some SNP politicians makes my blood boil.
Your dedication to facts ( shown again today re MP Field stooshy) is a fucking shinning beacon of wondrous light in these dark times.
ps, loving the sisterhood of beardy woke bro meltdown is a thing to behold. I thank you.
mick.
I don’t care what it costs, she was wrong and I will give the shirt off my back to have the right to say so.
You could have a fund raiser every week and each time I will always contribute.
I donated a modest sum to your annual appeal however I’d be willing to quadruple that if it came to the situation you lost a court verdict thay could give you catastrophic costs.
To paraphrase Yoon loon George Galloway, “This isn’t Alice in Wonderland, Judges don’t get to decide what words mean.
Good luck whatever way you decide to approach it.
As long as the solicitor thinks it has a realistic chance, appeal. If the worst comes to the worst, I’m sure most of us can find another £10 or £20 quid to offset the cost of a loss.
You were defamed and she got away with it on spurious grounds. That now clouded area of law should be tested.
++++ Urgent Newsflash++++
Could ALL newsagents put the daily record,daily mail and daily express on THE BOTTOM SHELF ONLY.
So Britnats can practice kneeling.
P.S. I donated : appeal. ( will donate again)
Why not start a new crowdfunding appeal just for the appeal. I would put money in again. I voted for appeal
To whom do you appeal to? I trust that it goes to a higher court. This verdict was a disgrace but I smell plotting going on here. If it goes to the same court I do. Not expect a change if it goes higher then you may win. Only you and your lawyer will have any inkling but my gut instinct is to go for it. I know we will help because we need to see justice me of in this country regardless of who we are otherwise there is going to be anarchy. What you got in that court wasn’t justice, the man should hang his head in shame because it wasn’t clever.
I’ll not give an opinion yes/ no on whether to appeal as I believe others to be more worthy.
But, a) it might be best to consider the figures in terms of number of wee blue books, and b) Dugdale is a rapidly fading star and an appeal keeps her celebrity status going. Already can’t avoid her name and mugshot everytime you Google WoS. And c) I think it’s fair to say you beat Dugdale but lost out to the establishment, and the establishment is still very much in place.
Anyway, just thoughts.
IF decision on costs is unfavourable
AND there is a 75% probability of success on appeal
THEN separate 25k appeal fundraiser
ELSE
No;
I would like to have “ignorance is not a defence under law” reinstated and frankly the misreporting of the outcome of this case boils my blood. I was hoping you would appeal when I donated so I can reassure you on the “use of donated funds” front.
Ask yourself this question, if we walk away from this what message does that send?
People have fought and died to defend Scotland’s cause and the rights of Scotland and our people, if I can’t take that fighting spirit forward, then what do I have.
This is my understanding … Dugdale cast aspersions on the Rev Stu’s good character, the court agreed, but the court said she didn’t understand what she had done. This may be legally correct – I’m no lawyer. However, why does the Rev Stu have to pay the bulk of the costs? Dugdale did not win, she just avoided losing.
Justice has not been done. Appeal.
The law is NOT about justice. You are putting your life in the hands of someone else – you are not in control. This case is so much a matter of interpretation that the appeal judges could decide that your joke shows you as homophobic – there is no telling.
So given that you can always point to the fact that the judge DID state that KD defamed you, so you could sue anyone who says different, my vote is to let it lie – do not appeal.
You will sleep a lot easier and be able to focus on getting Scotland back to being an equal country instead of a colony. Then you can come home, leaving that squalid abode you currently have to put up with. 🙂
[I am a donor, by the way, if you need to know.]
Opinion so far seems unanimous.
Wonder what Peatworrier aka Andrew Tickell would advise?
Looks like I did bung a tenner in for that and I’ve voted ‘Yes, appeal’.
I don’t understand how it can be acknowledged that, without good cause, she embarked on a course intended to be devastatingly damaging to you but, then, is judged not to be responsible for the consequences of her attack.
Stu, I am a wee bit mibees aye, mibees naw on this one.
The Establishment are now well aware of who you are and the legitimate chaos you bring to them, by simply holding them to scrutiny and calling them out.
I feel they will bend the rules to try and bring you down at any chance given.
If there is a fund raiser I’ll chuck in a few dineros for the cause.
My feeling is that you should appeal, however, I would like the funds already raised to be used for the normal business of the site and as base for Indy Ref2.
Given that an Appeal will take some time, perhaps open another fundraiser to cover the appeal court costs?
Donated. Appeal
But will defer to your judgement.
I’ve skimmed over a few of the comments and if I’m getting this correct, the third option (not in the poll) is to decide on appeal after the costs hearing. Have I got that right as an option?
It’s just that in my view, there has been some degree of victory by a) getting exposure for wings, not highly negative despite the best efforts of MSM (N.Brtain) and b) confirmation that you are not a homophobe, despite Dugdale claiming you are.
I’d be concerned about this being made to appear like a vindictive wealthy male hounding defenseless Dugdale (yes, I know!). However, if costs are awarded to her, I’d go for appeal, because I think that’s taking the piss and suggests she is fully vindicated.
Appeal if it has a reasonable chance of success according to your legal advice.
Appeal – but I’d prefer a second crowdfund for the purpose of your legal costs, I feel the standard one is to fund what you do already.
I’d contribute for certain. One for you, and one for the cause if you like.
Appeal! Shitebag if you don’t ; )
Stu, I always donate to your crowdfunders and donated to this one.
If you need more I’m happy to put my hand in my pocket again.
Can you decide to appeal after and IF the expenses are awarded or does the appeal have to be lodged before expenses are awarded? – I voted yes above but think it’s not worth distracting your efforts if there is no award to her.
It feels wrong not to appeal, despite the pragmatist in me.
Completely disagree with the judgement and reasoning. I think you have a good chance of winning an appeal so go for it.
As any gambler is no such thing as a certainty, that’s why most gamblers prefer poker/cards as you are always in control of your actions, (know when fold them, know when to hold them etc.).
However if you must take a risk, you are in the unique position of be able to see the other players cards and can definitely see you hold the winning hand, although what we are looking at, is the version of the game and a ‘do the rules apply’ scenario….it certainly looks that way and that is the risk.
I don’t want to see a Cincinnati Kid moment but that looks very unlikely and while your opponent is certainly no Edward G Robinson, I keep hearing Joplin’s ‘Entertainer’ in the back of my head.
All things considered I will go along with the recommendation from your legal team and for your peace of mind,I will match this years donation pound for pound if required.
#PokerFace
I only donated a small sum, but will donate again if you make the call towards an appeal.
I think I’d want to chip in for that whoever the parties were, the judgement seemed, to this lay person, to confuse rather than clarify the law. As a precedent it seems like a mess that wants to be sorted.
If you’ve the stamina, go for it.
I voted for you to appeal. I make a monthly dd contribution to Wings. It’s not much. My income is only just above the limit for receiving Benefits. Along with my church offering and other charitable donations, I’m quite stretched, but I’m passionate for Scottish independence and I think Wings makes an important contribution to the cause. So, I think you’re well worth my small monthly dd, but to contribute more would be too much of a stretch. Please excuse me!
Risking £50K to potentially save £150K seems like good odds, especially if your lawyers think you have a good chance of winning. However if you did lose, I would donate again to replenish the wings fund
At the hearing for costs, since the sheriff said she did defame Rev Stu, but it was fair comment, then while I think that’s a rubbish verdict, if costs are not awarded either way and you both walk away, I think given that hers are much higher – then you wrap it up and get on with more important stuff.
That said, if Rev Stu is made liable for ANY of Dugdales’s costs, then absolutely appeal, because that would be wrong.
Is what I think.
Financial considerations aside, there is sure a matter of both principle and practicality here. There may well be a few squeaky bums within the British political elite at the thought of the proles being undeterred by the economic barriers they erect to discourage challenges to their power and status. If we are to loosen those sphincters further and keep them that way then we have to be relentless.
Set against the financial gamble of an appeal must be the thought that backing down later rather than sooner is still backing down. And backing down at this stage must surely devalue, to at least some extent, what has gone before.
Crumbling at the bully’s second threat kinda takes the shine off having defied their first threat.
Very obviously this is your decision, but I will certainly support an appeal financially.
Dear Stu,
I have not chosen any of the two options you propose because I have a third one:
Considering that it was acknowledged during the court case that the accused was not innocent as all and in fact it was accepted that she indicated that your tweet was homophobic when it wasn’t, I think I would only be reluctantly convinced that a non-appeal route should be followed IF SHE is expected to pay her own inflated costs and you only yours.
While I still think that she should pay the lot in an ideal world, I would be willing to see past beyond that with such verdict because I would accept that such a verdict will still serve as a valuable lesson to all politicans and political figures that they need to be more careful in the future when choosing to open their big mouths to insult anyone without thinking in the legal consequences of it. This is a much needed lesson because it is not fair, nor justice, and it is discriminatory to even suggest that politicians/public figures can say what the hell they want while you and me cannot.
While I would not be dancing in joy with such verdict, I think your time, your inspiration to write here, your health and your intellectual input in the YES movement are far too valuable and too precious to be wasted or spoiled by having to worry yet again about another case. She is not worth that much, Stu, so don’t grant her the value she does not deserve. At the end of the day, and I am convinced that it was in part due to your legal challenge that exposed her stupidity, the individual in questions is now a hasbeen in politics, so in some respects that is some form of payback/vindication.
However, if after it was acknowledged in the court case that she called your tweet homophobic, and she was therefore not the innocent puppy that she made up to be, you are forced to pay her over-inflated legal costs to protect her reputation and to cover up her own negligence, then I think you should appeal because it would be spectacularly unfair and unjust that you are forced to pay basically for the cover up of the stupidity of a mediocre politician with bigger ego than common sense.
I think in that case you should appeal also because to me, such a verdict will send a very strong negative message that nobody can ever fight in the courts to re-establish their reputation against any politician that chooses to insult publicly anybody else and then hide behind pretended naivety.
In other words, in my view such verdict will set up a precedent in Scotland for
1. indirectly gagging non-politicians/public figures against politicians/political figures.
2. indirectly allowing from then on only rich people the right to defend their reputation and integrity.
3. Will openly discriminate average citizens, like you and me against public figures, who can say what the hell they want while we don’t, and then of course expect us to pick up the bill if we are “dumb” enough to challenge them in court for their lies and damage to our reputation.
That is in my personal view, completely and utterly unacceptable and flies not only in the face of justice but also in the face of equality.
But it is not really our decision, Stu. It is your life. It is YOUR decision. As I said, your life, your health, your time, your contribution to the YeS movement is far, far more valuable than the overinflated costs this mediocre politician saw necessary to cover up her own stupidity and oversized ego.
My own view is that you should leave it be. The court vindicated you and found that you are not homophobic and that Kezia’s comments were without any factual justification. So the record has been put straight. She was wrong, your character was upheld. Yes, the money is a bit annoying but as far as I understand you have it covered. I’m not sure really what you have to gain and I think your focus and energy are better used in doing what you do best – making the case and challenging the MSM. I know this is not the popular view but I do think “let it go and move on to more important stuff” would be my choice. Though no question I would donate again if you follow a different path
appeal Rev she won’t be so smug
Be very very careful of this Stuart
You know that if you do this Stuart it will be in every newspaper and all over TV that you are waging a personal war against Kezia Dugdale funded by Independence supporters
Have you considered the wider ramifications of how and what that’ll look like, because you know that the media in the whole of Scotland and the rest of the UK will side with Dugdale and they’ll fight back, front page tooth and nail and drag every aspect of your life through as much mud as they can inventively create to stick all over you and make life a living hell
I’m no lawyer and no media expert but you know the media and what they’ll do, are you healthy enough for the kind of shitfest they’re going to throw at you
More when needed.!!
I’d wait for the outcome of the costs hearing.
If you are liable then appeal.
If not, walk away. There are more important battles to fight and we may need your focus on them soon.
Stu, I’ve voted for appeal with the rider that your mental well-being is the most important factor. If you decide eventually that you don’t want to go through the trauma again or, if costs are not awarded either way I think I’d go along with pa-broon74. Whatever you decide I’m with you all the way and would be happy to contribute further if necessary.
I think you have to answer the following:
1. What is the cost to you personally (time, energy, well-being)
2. What is the cost to the campaign (time, distractions, etc.)
3. How is the appeal conducted and can it be used to tie you down in time and money.
4. Is Dugdale really worth going after
5. Is the final verdict from the point of view of establishing the law worth pursuing.
You obviously have a good idea of #3 but the others (apart from #4) are hard to quantify.
An appeal plays into the hands of wings opponents, even if they lose – to some extent at least.
I didn’t answer the poll but will once I’ve given it some thought.
I donated and I will donate again if you need it.
Seems that the defence of “Fair Comment” is soon to be abolished in Defamation cases:
link to scotlawcom.gov.uk
Page 7 of Draft Report.
Not a donor but may I ask a question. Do you need to decide on whether to appeal before the costs hearing? I’m not a lawyer but it would appear you have grounds for a “Carmichael” ie not paying her costs since she did defame you and therefore not a frivolous claim.
If you don’t need to pay her costs it might be better to leave it there and use the money for WBB. If you do need to pay her expenses, well that’s a different ball game, you’d be paying to be defamed and so well worth appealing.
But like I said not a lawyer or a donor so not up to me.
Craig P says:
21 June, 2019 at 2:35 pm
With the caveat of course, that if you do appeal, more funds will be forthcoming from me.
I have already contributed twice to the current appeal and will do so again if required to meet costs if you lose, because I would prefer you to go for it. The decision was utterly useless and Kezia is lauded as the winner but no recognition that she was also in the wrong – Britnat justice may well kick out your appeal but it will show to all of us just how ludicrous the justice system is and am confident you could raise the same again through a separate crowdfunder.
Donor and voted for appeal.
More or less agree with lots of comment of how the judgement felt wrong with mass confusion of what actually happened.
Obviously you make the final decision but you have never been one to back off if you believe you are in the right.
Anyway fuck it, damned if you do and damned if you don’t! 😀
Rev.,
I’m not a lawyer, but since you’re soliciting opinion(SWIDT), I’ll throw my tuppence in, on top of my donation.
If there is a chance of winning appeal.
I’m sick of the media and commentators in this country. If nothing else, a win would ensure we never hear about the case or from KD again.
I’ll happily throw in a few extra quid, if needed.
I would say appeal. Your supporters and detractors both know fine what it is about regardless of how it is reported. If it has to be another fundraiser I’d like to think the support was there. You probably have a better idea of that yourself but yeah, go for it.
I donated just short of £140 this year,I say appeal.if necessary I could find a little more.
I’ve voted for the “appeal it” option (assuming your legal advice is reasonably positive) and will happily donate to any new crowdfund that you set up to this end.
It’s pissing me off that she has been found to have defamed you yet somehow you have to pay her. I can’t get my head around that at all. It makes a mockery of justice.
I still feel the case lacks clarity or any sort of real conclusion. I also feel that justice has not been served. For these reasons I think an appeal (if there is a reasonable chance of winning) is the best course of action.
Go for it Stu.
I can so easily say appeal as I didn’t donate £1000.
I think personally, I think those that donated over £100 or more should be the ones to decide as they did dig deep to fund WOS for another year.
My gut feeling is to say appeal as the media are deliberately distorting the facts of who won, YOU WERE CLEARED & Keiza lost but it’s claimed as a Kezia victory and she is allowed to freely tell her sob stories to the media about how such vile man named Stu ruined her relationship with her father.
Did you ever get a chance to put in your right of reply? No, you didn’t and you won’t be allowed to.
These are the reasons I believe that you should appeal but whilst I did donate, I don’t feel if it’s enough to merit myself voting what to do with that total raised as there were as I said, some very deep and generous pockets that contributed.
If anyone replies to this comment suggesting that I still vote on the poll, I shall consider it but for the time being, I’m standing by.
The injustice of the decision (and the rub-your-face-in-it glee of the press) makes me want you to appeal if it is viable.
All I can say for definite though is if you appeal, and if you lose and have to do another fund raiser to rebuild the fighting fund I will find the means to put in some more.
But honestly if you do appeal, to borrow from Kevin Keegan, I will love it if you beat them.
I voted “Appeal”. And I will back that up with more of my money if it comes to it – as will many, many others, I’m sure.
Appeal. I’ll donate double what I did last time.
[…] Wings Over Scotland The loose end Right then. Our 2019 crowdfunder is officially over (the page is actually still […]
Proper link for Defamation Consultation paper here:
link to cdn.prgloo.com
Always been a reader rather than a commenter on here but I’m all for you using any donation I made to finish fighting this case. You know what? If you lose I’ll donate the exact same again (more if I can) to make up for it. Keep going mate. Every small but honest step you take with these cretins is a step towards ending their influence here.
I agree he should appeal. However, was it not the Twitter Rev Stu entity that the case was brought against, rather than the Blogger Rev Stu entity.
At 17mins 40 secs into his interview with Alex Salmond he stated that that he regarded the website as a separate entity. Which would imply that there should be a Chinese wall between the two entities.
So by all means let’s have have another crowdfunder for an appeal against the decision but the current crowdfunder should be ringfenced to protect to the site and WBB reserves.
Appeal,appeal,appeal!
We will all donate again if need be I’ve no doubt.
With the current political situation, I would rather see £50k worth of wee blue books printed and distributed as widely as possible this year…..as we need to get more folk opening their eyes to the lies they have been fed.
However, I would be happy to contribute to another crowd funder to cover court expenses if your legal team feel you have a good chance of winning costs.
Appeal Stu , I am tired of the crap we get from the media and how they protect their wee chums by lying and obfuscating .Equally that ridiculous judgement has got my dander up.
Go get ’em if you can stand the pressure and as someone pointed out the attention of an entirely hostile media.
Hand in pocket ready for fund raiser.
I will donate again for you to appeal.
Appeal, please.
1. The judgement was pathetic and has to be addressed to be crystal clear.
2. This dubious judgement is already being spinned & twisted out of all recognition and that can only be rectified by appealing.
3. Not appealing will just encourage more of the same malicious misinterpretation
4. Not appealing will just send the wrong signals (‘scaredy cat’, ‘guilty’, ‘no support’, etc.)
5. This lurker will gladly contribute another year’s tv tax if needed.
Donor here (donated from different email address but same personal TLD as provided here). Yes, appeal.
I would be inclined towards an appeal – I think it was very unjust to say ‘yes, she defamed you, but it was fair comment’. I for oe would love to see the smarmy triumphalist grin wiped off her face. But a lot depends on the legal advice you have been given, and do you trust your legal advisor. I would also suggest you consider the potential effects on yourself if the appeal went against you. Sometimes it is wise to pick your battles. Obviously we readers dont have all the information that you do, and that would be an important factor in your decision. As a very small donor, I would still be happy to donate again to help fund an appeal and it would make more sense to my mind to have a seperate crowdfunder for the appeal, and keep that wonderful war-chest for the main fight. But you are intelligent enough to make your own decision on this, and whatever you decide I wish you the best of outcomes.
…Oops not TLD, just domain. Although a personal TLD would be…nice.
I contributed, Stu, and will contribute again for an appeal. I’ve had a hard time financially for some years but that is now behind me. Go for it.
Please, people, STOP talking about justice. The law is not about justice.
I speak as the wife of a solicitor [and with some legal work experience myself].
My vote is NOT to appeal this case. The Rev got the decision that he was defamed by KD. This should be enough to prevent anyone saying otherwise – they could be sued in turn.
The verdict in the 1st instance was a copout
I would say appeal, I supported the first fund and will support this one.
if the legal team say it has a chance good, of not put the money to whatever use Wings sees fit.
Either way, its an afy heap o’ thon Wee Blue Book thingumys.
I would go for it (but then since I’m broke I’d have nothing to lose). Its your call but start the crowdfunder anyway with the proviso that should the cash not be needed for any reason then it goes into the fighting fund.
There’s a heap of good causes out there from local food banks to WGD and others such as the AUOB pipe band. Maybe Wings could hep out directly. Just a thought mind so hope no one is upset at the suggestion.
Good luck and whatever you decide you know Wingers will have your back. Its an important message to get out in the wild, attack us and we WILL bite your arses one way or another.
I say appeal, contributed to the fundraiser and if worst comes to worst I would do so again to help pay costs. Also just on principle it infuriates me when politicians break the law and are held to different standards than anyone else. The current incident and ignorance of the law suddenly being a defence for Wendy Alexander back in the day spring to mind.
Appeal.
I did not donate any money cause i just cant afford it. And i did not vote in the poll above mainly because i just dont know whats best.
My concern is that were not in a positive state in Scotland with regard when their may be a new referendum. Politics UK wide is just to dynamic at the moment, no one knows what tomorrow will bring politically.
And id hate to encourage an appeal and whilst that gets going, something changes nationally or within Scotland towards a referendum, an appeal may have greater focus for the press than a ref campaign.
Wings is clearly a huge positive force in the fight and it would be a shame if that momentum is lost because of Kezia.
Appeal, I’ll contribute again if needed.
I agree with Sarah would vote for a third option – no paying of Dugdale’s fees.
The sheriff stated that the Rev was defamed so on that basis, has the right to defend himself in court. Was there not even something about if an award had been given , it would only be in the amount of £100?
Send the bill to the Daily Record and maybe next time some puff-piece opinionist will think again that just because they can say something doesn’t mean they should.
As a donor, I admit to having ambivalent feelings about this.
The Sheriff’s ruling seemed somewhat perverse and one which leaves it wide open to different interpretations. A fudge and clear as mud and possible endless legal argy-bargy. I was heartened that your professional reputation and personal integrity were legally and unequivocally protected in the ruling.
I would hope, perhaps naively, that the Sheriff’s discretion in deciding costs should reflect the above. I’m finding it difficult to make a judgement call without access to the advice and guidance on the pros and cons of appealing.
I do want you to move on from this and focus on what you do best. Kezia Dugdale’s political career started and ended in failure and I don’t think any more time or money or effort should be spent on her. I would be willing to donate again to cover costs, as a separate thing so that it doesn’t impact on the money raised for our fighting for Indy fund.
Go for it another fundraising if needed
Should say, “I agree with Sarah and I would vote for a third option”
Appeal Rev. We got your back.
Stu – it is, as you indicate, a big ugly question. I’m a regular donor & voted for you to appeal – largely, I admit, because I am seriously irritated by Kez getting away with it AND making hay with it at the same time. I’m also ticked off on your behalf – the judgement was flawed IMO (not a lawyer).
So the message is this – fight it if, and only if, it makes sense (given legal advice, chance of winning, personal choice, funds, etc.) I wouldn’t feel my donations had been wasted in any way.
Appeal please Stu.
The political scene has shifted so much of late. The question can be asked as to how much the Sheriff was influenced by the political scene then.
I am a donor and am prepared to donate again.
Fifi needs to grow up!
Rev you made the observation in your evidence had that story of Kezia’s been looked at by a Editor or Sub E it wouldn’t have been printed because of the homophobe allegations .
If Kezia had agreed for costs to be shared, I would probably have conceded a draw and left it at that. But as others have already said, the notion that Kezia can be formally judged to have defamed you, Stu, yet you have somehow to pay all her costs just ‘cos she’s “won”, is an outrage. An affront to justice. On top of the insult of the media continually skewing the evident attempt at a compromise judgement.
She may be a has-been, but she’s still an establishment shill. Make them all swallow their sneers. Continue to challenge the greedy self-serving defamer.
Go by your legal advice and your own judgement and welfare. Will support whatever you decide your health and wellbeing more important to us than anything else. We have so much to thank you for.
You were defamed. You won. Everyone knows it.
Don’t let the establishment distract you from the main goal !
They want to put you out of the game.
Your straight talking, data driven analysis and desire to deliver “Wee Blue Book II” to every voter is essential to achieve the converts required for independence.
I say APPEAL.
Launch a fund raiser for the specific amount when known. Pay with funds already in hand. Don’t close it until the sum is met.
Those who already donate will never leave you in the lurch.
I’ve voted, as a donor, that you should not appeal, because that’s the best course for indy. My reasons:
1. The worst outcome is that we lose £150k out of a £170k fund, reducing our campaign fund to zilch.
2. Stu may actually have more than £170k in his back pocket; he needs to have enough to cover what he realistically expects to achieve for indy, after losing £150k on a failed appeal. If he has that, an appeal is possible, but is still not the best course of action.
3. Our goal is to win independence, not to demolish Kez. She’s going to be less and less relevant as time goes on.
4. An appeal will give us publicity, and wind up the Yoons rotten, but directing th £150k to soft No’s will be more effective.
Yes, I agree that the judgement was total fudge, and a slap in the face to the Rev Stu’s self-respect, but those aren’t obstacles on the road to indy – they’re off to one side, strategically irrelevant. So lastly:
5. The indyref is going to be won on facts (that’s why the Yoons have stopped engaging), and Wings is crucial to that (the Wee Blue Book even more than the site). So we need to keep Stu on track and free of distractions. No more crisps, please, no more pizzas and ice-cream, just keep exposing the lies, and more power to your elbow.
I was in no position to contribute last time, but am now. I say appeal. I’ll happily contribute again when needed
I donated and would gladly donate again if you lost so go for it Rev.
@Derek Rogers: well-explained. I agree entirely. WE know, as do the MSM, that KD was found to have defamed the Rev. The Rev has won and made his point.
Anything more is a distraction from the primary aim of the Rev, Wings and us all. KD is a low-level and incompetent politician who is leaving the arena shortly. Give a cheer and leave it at that.
Do not look for JUSTICE in court – you will be disappointed.
Go for the appeal.Can spare a tenner a tenner for the pot.
Appeal – from regular donor.
If you decide to appeal, might I suggest a seperate fundraiser………….if it goes half as well as the last one, we’re laughing.
Don’t forget, even if we loose this it will keep Wings in particular and the Yes movement in general at the front of people’s conciousness.
I’m willing to contribute as always.
Stu….sometimes in life, you’ve got to go with Gut Feel !,
What ever way you thinks right, right by me !
I did not vote as I believe the decision should be mainly that of your legal team and/or your own health and personal considerations.
Can you leave the decision until the decision on costs is known ?
Either way, if this goes financially against you I expect another fundraiser, and will contribute again. I think a specific fundraiser for legal costs would be well in order.
I had thought at one time, that it might be pragmatic to leave appealling against the ‘fair comment’ thing to others – on the grounds that surely the legal profession would be unhappy with such a loose end, and somebody would need to clear it up eventually. But I see above this situation is set to be abolished – or is that just some muddying of the waters that will be dropped once your decision is made ?
Stu, appeal . I will double up on my donation if you lose the appeal.
Appeal and risk all , including the demise of wingsoverscotland at a critical time in the history of Scottish independence campaigning ?
Or do not appeal , walk away with a result that said you are not what she claimed you were , and keep what funds you have to campaign for Scottish independence ?
Of course it all depends on how much money wingsoverscotland actually possesses at present and that is the crucial point
Don’t gamble if you’re skint
If wingsoverscotland had a million quid in the bank I would say yes go ahead and appeal
But I doubt if wingsoverscotland has even a quarter of that
So I say keep your focus on the real prize which is Scottish independence
Do not appeal and risk losing more money in court
I will stand with you on your decision after your legal consultation.
I would like to add that Dugdale has proved herself to be a stupid
Wee girl in a job she was never fit for.
She made a complete fool of herself so many times as proved by
Your own validate research.
We have a bigger fish to fry now focusing on Independence for Scotland,
For Truth, for Justice and to cast Bojo the Clown and the corruption of
Westminster from our lives for ever.
I’m with you none the less so I won’t press the button above to influence you.
Great to see you getting a better pay deal as no one deserves it more.
I think you should run a separate fund raiser for legal costs as you did before. The small print did not indicate the amounts involved and I for one would have preferred knowing where my donation was going.
That being said I would have donated to both funding the website and your wages as well as your legal costs.
Yes go ahead. Even Kezia’s dad knows she’s wrong. Happy to contribute more dosh. The dentist took £80 off me yesterday for a painful filling, so I think I can do the same for painless justice!
Donor Stuart & I say go for it. Appeal.
Right now Dugdale is getting away with committing defamation & is intending to make money out of it. If you don’t appeal then there is nothing to stop any politician from doing the same to any other member of the public. We have so many dishonest politicians in government right now who think they can get away with anything. What about Mark Field? Where does it end?
At some point we have to say “enough is enough” & we aren’t going to let her away with it. If we can’t get justice with the weight of this site’s readers behind it then it’s a “poor do”. Behind you all the way. Let’s go for it.
I donated and would do so again if the appeal failed.
Appeal.
As a donor. I’d say go for it if YOU think it’s worth it
But I’d also suggest a crowdfunder purely for the appeal starting next month? As I’d chip in another tenner once I’m paid again ?
I considered this at the time (having followed it in detail) and came to the conclusion that you should appeal.
Short of that, I really wouldn’t even mind if you absconded with the party funds and put the lot on a nag at 33/1.
We owe you anyway.
As an intermittent donor since 2012, I say go for it.
How can you be found not guilty of being a Homophobe, yet still be found guilty by the MSM?
Stupid question, I know.
go for the appeal. if new crowdfunder required, wont take long to hit target.
Appeal, if necessary I will donate to funds , decision was outrageous, surely they couldn’t get it wrong twice , if they did it is undeniable bias !.
Rev. I’ve think it’s an imperative that the appeal is raised. For all the reasons stated, if you don’t do it it goes on unchallenged and no one sees a conclusion. The sheriff’s decision in finding for you but not awarding is a get-out. You need to take it further, win or lose. There’s an inevitability surrounding this.
Derek Rogers @ 15:47,
Sarah @ 15:53,
I appreciate what you’re saying. It has merit. I would actually have been inclined to agree, but Kezia demanding full financial restitution after being judged to have defamed Stu just sticks in my craw, I’m afraid. I reckon she was lucky with that verdict, but to me she is now ratcheting her luck a notch too far.
However in the end it’s Stu’s call, after taking due professional advice and weighing up the chance of success.
Lots of folks suggesting wait till the decision on who pays how much in costs. That does seem to be a milestone on the road. IMO it would be completely unacceptable for Rev Stu to pay Dugdale’s costs. That definitely needs challenging, should it happen.
I still think if the legal team say the full judgement can be challenged with reasonable chance of overturning, then go for it.
However, perhaps if they suggest 50%ish AND Dugdale’s costs are hers to pay, it might be worth moving on focusing on Indy.
If Rev Stu has to pay her costs, she will definitely be seen to have won.
If Dugdale pays her own costs, and given the judgement did say she defamed, perhaps that is different.
Rev Stu’s call, with the asstance of expert advice.
Donor speaking (and also to the case against the Liar Carmichael)
I’m hoping for a Carmichael-type award as to costs as the best result and end to it all.
I’m concerned that the QC who led against Carmichael so effectively, Jonathan Mitchell, tweeted (I think) an opinion that it was unwise to pursue this in the first place.
But I’m indignant that the decision appears to have given all manner of trolls and Yoons the belief they have free rein to call you a homophobe (and to “defame” others because “opinion”).
And also indignant that poor wee confused hard-of-thinking KD has been celebrated for her “brave stand” and for winning “her case”, and paraded around by her MSM pals as a suffering heroine who absolutely deserves her new nice little earner because horrid wicked Stuey.
So I don’t know how to vote. I think you must decide and consider the effect of any course of action on your wellbeing and on the (surely-to-God imminent) campaign for independence.
If you pursue an appeal, could that jeopardise your ability to devote enough time and energy to the campaign?
Could some arcane legal restriction compromise your ability to publish all you would want to publish (so convenient for the Establishment).
Would any appeal coincide with Alex Salmond’s case, thus delivering a juicy double target for the Yoon media?
Who was it who said the law is an ass?
“The sheriff, unusually, did not make an order for costs. A hearing is now scheduled to decide that, the two parties having failed to reach agreement between themselves.”
Well, from that statement it’s clear that Dugdale – having been found by a judge to have defamed you (which is why the case went to court in the first place) – expects not to have to pay her own costs (at east).
The arrogance and sense of entitlement is truly staggering.
Do it, appeal, just donated you have to.
I’ve not voted yet but it appears the British state has Dugdale’s back. I can’t see you obtaining justice, whatever you do. I’m leaning towards settling and moving on but I’ll see if any btl comments change my mind.
I was, at first, in the camp of just pay up and let’s get focused on indy but now having seen the figures involved i say to hell with that. In for a penny in for a pound. Appeal it Rev!
Donated then, will donate again. I strongly believe the judgement was politically arrived at. My strongly held belief. Appeal, justice is required.
I’ll put in double the license fee I donated for the fundraiser if you go for an appeal. The decision was bizarre to say the least and requires clarification otherwise any politico can claim “fair comment” defence which is outrageous.
As a repeat donor – I’d like you to appeal and will give further support.
Donated last time, will donate again. Appeal!!!
.
Hi Stu.,
Our family cumulatively contribute between £25 to £100 at each WoS fundraiser with compliments.
We vote to APPEAL.
Based on your forensic analysis above it makes sense.
As other Wingers have hit the nail on the head, some people need to know that the poor can now afford lawyers. Even though many here are not poor, the very high legal fees make it a wealthy persons game with most of we mere mortals WERE locked out. Not any more, and that is worth more donations from this Winger and probably many others.
If you need another WoS APPEAL fundraiser for dim Dugdale, count us in. Minimum £50 and more if needed.
I would hope that even just the 1% donating this level would give you peace of mind. However, should the law go completely off the rails (and after Carmichael I believe there is some fairness) then I would hope the 99% of WoS lurkers would also chip in.
Lastly, WELL DONE. Such is the quality of your writing that your readers value your words above diamonds and golden nuggets.
How can we assess the potential likely outcome, does the verdict give us clues? IMHO, it does, as the decision defied coherent legal reason. That is the strength of opposition we are up against and the lengths that power will go to defend itself.
I’m not urging caution just to be different, I think an appeal has the potential of ‘bleeding you dry’.
If you have the energy for it I say appeal. Happy to add more to the coffers if needed.
The Sherriff’s ruling was that “Parties should attempt to agree expenses”. It seems to me that, based on the ruling that Kezia did indeed defame Stu, but did it kind of accidentally because she actually believed the tweet to be homophobic, that the best outcome would be for both parties to call a truce and walk away wiser.
An apology from Kezia would be nice & a magnanimous acceptance of the apology by Stu would end the whole thing. Stu has spent money, Kezia has spent money. Lessons have (hopefully) been learned.
Is it the case now though, that Kezia is being small-minded and petty enough to pursue Stu for her costs, even though the judge found that she did indeed defame Stu? If so, then I’m with the majority of commenters that I’d support an appeal. Kezia presumably now knows that Stu is not a homophobe & his tweet was not homophobic, so she should realise that her actions in using both her column & FMQs to attack Stu were wrong, even if the Sherriff’s finding was that she is not required to pay damages as a consequence. Chasing Stu now for costs is just adding insult to injury.
BTW Happy Summer Solstice / Midsummer / St John’s day !
iScotland should be more Nordic and make it a fun day. Bonfires, watching sun rise, a wee tipple or three, whatever..
I think aspects of the judgement NEED to be challenged. It essentially establishes that you have no right to defend your good name. It also makes some baffling leaps of logic and seemed to me to make at least one key factual error. That’s not OK.
As a recent donor who was more than happy to chip in for the indy cause, I am dismayed that so much of the appeal fund might be used up in this way. It feels like a distraction, especially as political events are moving quickly and the end of days of the UK may come sooner than expected. It will also undoubtedly be reported as a vendetta against a gay woman and not help in securing soft yeses. If the decision is made to appeal then a separate earmarked crowdfunder is necessary. While the legal costs were mentioned in the recent one, the headline cause was indy. Let’s not forget that priority.
I say appeal. Happy to donate again if needed
(Donor) Dear Rev Stuart, I’m not presuming to give advice, only to relate my thoughts
. I’m sure the British state would be delighted to have you drawn into another potentially distracting court case,could it even be at a time of their own choosing? If you won, the media would simply report that you had lost, and the hard of thinking would continue to insist that was the case.
Although these are large sums of money for us it is loose Change for the state.
Kezia Dugdale is nobody and one day soon (maybe thanks to the Wee Blue Book) she will wake up in an independent Scotland and that will be a far sweeter victory than could ever be gained in any courtroom.
.
CameronB Brodie, you are absolutely right about the attempts to bleed WOS dry, but those of the learned legal establishment that are rabid Masonic Bretheren/OO, they are in a very difficult position.
If they pervert natural justice and precedent too far, then they risk bringing the legal system into disrepute.
Removal of a sheriff does not happen often, but up here in Caithness we had a sheriff who was removed.
Fortunately there are a decent number of neutrally minded sheriffs in the Scots legal system and the ones who do have political views are reasonably good at putting those pecadilos to one side.
Should that fail, there are sufficient of the 45% now within the legal establishment to balance the worst excesses of rabid OO behaviour.
If YOU decide to appeal i’ll chip in!
I haven’t voted yet. Going to mull it over for a bit longer but at this point I tend to agree with the thoughts of Maria F, Sarah, and Derek Rodgers.
My heart says appeal, but with other such important matters that we will inevitably have to deal with in the near future, my head says don’t be distracted.
With solicitors and lawyers costs being so high and out of kilter with median wages, they could well be hoovering up 1000 wee blue books worth an hour.
I’d prefer if my donation went towards 1000 WBB 2.0s rather than it just be part of the ongoing game of extrication of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
Is the protracted time and stress an appeal will involve really the most beneficial use of your / our resources in the quest to help Scotland end this unequal union.
Switched on folk can see the judgement seems a bit of a fudge, and that it should actually raise internal questions amongst the pin head dancers united profession because it’s a bit of a Pandora’s box they opened for themselves.
It might be better to concentrate on Indy campaigning rather than be distracted by an extremely hungry squirrel.
We know exactly what we are up against so should choose our battles wisely.
This is worth consideration
link to gov.scot
The Scottish government is reviewing defamation law in Scotland because it has not changed in the last 20 yrs or so and the internet is mentioned specifically as an issue
This suggests to me that the current law is seen as weak and unreliable
For this reason alone I would strongly recommend that you do not take a case back to court because the internet was a factor
Al-Stuart
See, I haven’t a clue about the in-and-outs of it all. I just have a bit of legal theory and practical reason to go on. I’ll away back to weighing up the opinions of others. 😉
Well Stu, what have you actually done that is wrong? I much enjoyed your interview on RT. You present facts and provide evidence. The truth is important and why should the media get away with portraying you as the bad guy in this one. Lots of good relevant advice above.
Whatever you decide you know ALL of us are with you on this one. 100% support never mind the poll.
Personally you were right to go to court and there is no good reason why the courts should award the bad guys with all that money. You should pay nothing. Appeal.
Have contributed and would do so again if your lawyers advise you to appeal.
I’ll donate, can’t think of a more worthy cause.
Donor and will again if need be. To appeal or not? I am minded to say go for it as it would stick in my craw to have to pay any of her costs but would relent only if at the costs hearing you only have to pick up your own tab. My reasoning for the latter being – we all know and any reasonable minded person looking at the case knows who won, you have that in the bag so, as I say, it might be worth just leaving it at that. On the other hand, if you are awarded costs against you, then hell no, I say fight it all the the way.
The original judgement was a scunner and a further illustration of a rotten establishment looking after its own, granting absurd wriggle-room to an ex-pol that an ordinary prole would never have been given. If you feel there is any mileage in appealing, I have no doubt that you will get the financial backing, including from me again. However, my honest take is that I have no faith in the judiciary ever playing it straight in this matter.
Your legal counsel will be your best guide, I suspect.
The weight of support here shows that most of us will happily provide more donations if the need arises.
Cameron B is quite right to suggest being wary about diving in, and the risk of “bleeding dry” will always be there regardless of outcomes.
If it isn’t this battle, there will be another one concocted shortly afterwards that will be a continuing attempt at tying your time and efforts up in such wrangles. Based on that alone, go for it.
When Right You Fight, Enough of this Establishment Bullshit. If we need another fundraiser You`ve got my contribution every time. There`s another 99% watching from the sidelines. Give them a reason to join in……
I’ve voted to appeal but I’d be okay if you decide not to for any reason, not just the obvious one. Everyone knows what you are and what happened and I wouldn’t want her to win one single fucking penny of costs. We’d never hear the end of it.
Voted yes gave you £20. Willing to give more if appeal fails whether Wings needs it or not.
I have the strong impression now that even Scottish courts will find ways to find for the Unionist side in any Indy dispute. Plus the additional anti-Wings screams to follow from the oleaginous Britpress. So I, as donor, say let it go.
I voted yes appeal but subject to your caveat about your lawyers’ advice and your own judgement which I trust Stu. Several aspects of the judgement struck me as odd. Firstly that you were defamed but not of sufficient standing to warrant a pecuniary judgement in your favour for that. Secondly that Kez is so stupid she didn’t realise her words were defamatory when there was lots of discussion to that effect between her initial words and repeating it in the Holyrood chamber.
It would seem the Sheriff paid little to no attention to the latter. Normally if you defame someone then carry on and do it again when aware of the legal jeopardy that will count against you in the judgement. That Dugdale tried to use parliamentary privilege to repeat it at Holyrood (my understanding is that doesn’t apply here in Scotland) should also be a black mark against her. Also her recent appointment to a senior academic position should also bring into doubt her claim of being too dim to recognise what she had done.
Okay, she got the job because the Centre is going to require donations and bequests to keep going and so they need a figurehead with political and civil society connections and a track record of smooching folk. But it is still a senior academic management role as well.
As a former academic I look very askance at the idea that such a job went to a demonstrable idiot.
Don’t appeal.
Then make a statement that you (and us) have been energised to redouble efforts to achive Indy.
Reason being that post Indy we, to borrow a phrase, drain the bog of unionist, British Nationalist corruption that has poisoned Scotland’s institutions.
If the appeal will cost another 50K, chances are it will cost Ms Dugdale’s financiers another 100K+ making potential gain/loss of +0 (cost recovery)/ -250K+ (defendant’s cost + possible counter claim) rather than the somewhat optimistic +/- 150K stated.
Given the original claim appeared to be won on principle, but failed to substantiate the damage arising, it might be impetuous to appeal anything other than costs – which ought to go with the claimant since there was no other way to get the defamation withdrawn or shown to be such.
However, in the matter of people calling each other silly names, there is surely no guarantee that the judgement on cost will be any less convoluted than the judgement on defamation and perhaps any out of court agreement that eases her personal burden and involves her apologising to her father might be the least worst option, if feasible.
frogesque 3.13 there is not such thing as Auob Pipe band SAPB started by Derek H Campbell & others ( if I had used the full name of the Pipe Band it would have been caught in the wordpress filters but most people will know their name )
I’m a regular donor and I say appeal but based mainly on positive legal advice.
I ticked for appeal.
However, as the blue day book says..
Listen to your heart, but use your heid.
I want to say appeal.
However, it may be draining on your mental health and also your time. And at the end of the day the establishment will pull ranks and find a way to make you pay up most probably.
We need you focused. This could be the most important times ever and if you are not 100pc on it the Unionists will pounce on any weakness in the Yes movement. They have already taken out AS.
Only you can decide I think.
I have no doubt we will all back you whatever.
Go for it Stu, the judgement is a shambles and should have been given in your favour. There’s a general idea that sheriff’s know what they’re doing but that just isn’t the case. Best appeal and try and get a more experienced judge looking at the case
Hmmmmmm!
Have donated and voted –
Having taken on a long legal battle myself I would advise caution.
I eventually got a sort of result in my favour but it was exhausting.
Many are pointing out that KD has the establishment behind her and they would love to launch a full scale demolition job on you and your supposed relentless picking on this poor defenceless woman.
Lawyers will get richer whether you win or lose but what will you get out of it?
Ultimately Indy is the goal and this could be a huge distraction.
Go with your legal advice – we’ve got your back if you decide to go for it.
I’ve given this a fair bit of thought, and, I think that you should go for it Stu.
It was a totally bizarre verdict. How on earth can she have been found to defame you, but it was fair comment. How the hell did the sheriff square that circle. A very odd ruling, with serious legal consequences, so yes, challenge it.
I’ve given twice to this years fundraiser, and if you should lose the appeal, well, I’ll donate again, as I’m sure a lot of others will.
The MSM seem to consider that the matter is closed, and Dugdale won. It appears that they have not considered the fact that you might appeal. More fool them.
Anyone know the outcome of this review of defamation law by Scottish govt
link to gov.scot
First time donor, voted for appeal, would donate again if appeal falls, go for it…
Tough decision.
The factor that Parliament was used to air a personal grievance is always worth shutting down hard, whoever does it. That part was a rank abuse of Parliamentary privilege, despite the subsequent court case – that alone was my vested interest and what my piffling donation was for at the time.
I’d appeal if I was solvent enough to do so as a private individual. It’s a sair gamble, but sometimes principles are worth fighting for. If it were to make ANY Scottish politician think twice about abusing our Parliament, for any reason, then aye. That abuse would enrage me even more than the accusations.
I am deeply saddened the Scottish Parliament
did not treat it with the seriousness it deserved at the time. I hold our Parliament to the very highest standards and that sort of shite does not fly.
Otherwise, if I recall, you did make overtures to settle the case out of court, which was declined a few times? The fact there was a definite finding supporting your right and reason to bring the case (as opposed to the ultimate award) kinda leans to thinking there would just be a ‘knock for knock’ with a reduced payment a-la-Carmichael, as mentioned.
However, being no stranger to courts, It can be very much at the whim of the court. Albeit there are specific ‘guidelines they’d still have to follow – how vindictive would the court actually be or want to be to “Wings”? It can only be your call.
Anyway, my donations are unconditional payments for services received, do with it what you will.
Hmm, given Dugdales new job, who will fund her additional costs on an appeal? Has any organization committed to doing this, or will it need to be funded personally?
Still think, wait for outcome on costs before deciding.
Appeal. In the unlikely event that you lose, another crowdfunder will soon replace the funds. Keep up the good work Stu.
As an openly gay woman, Kezia Dugdale must be fully aware of what homophobia is. Therefore, to accuse someone of being a homophobe without evidence is absurd. That can’t be “fair comment”. It simply isn’t credible that she genuinely believed it.
The sheriff’s ruling is politically motivated IMO. Fortunately they can’t transport people to a penal colony these days although they are doing their best to make life very difficult for their enemies.
Next up – accusations of transphobia and demands that everybody stop reading this blog, that WordPress close it down, that the twitter account is suspended and a state of emergency declared.
History as it was taught to most of us
What did you learn in school today ?
I learnt that the government of Britain was English and that in England both parties, Liberals and Conservatives, favoured peaceful progress and social reform unlike most countries of Europe afflicted by conflicts and political revolution.
I learnt that Dr David Livingstone from Blantyre was English.
I learnt that the poet Lord Byron was English because he had an English father (and Scottish mother) and he was born in England.
I learnt that the philosopher economist John Stuart Mill was English because he had a Scottish father – uhm – but he was born in England so he was definitely English.
I learnt that the writer Rudyard Kipling was English because he had an English father and was born in India – but couldn’t possibly have been Indian because he was English, after all.
History our flexible friend.
To Capella. Your post at 7.11pm
See para 12
“The defence of honest opinion”
What better evidence is there of her “honest opinion” than her own
link to gov.scot
weird – over the last year or so I’ve frequently thought ‘ach, it’s not worth it, just let it go’ but reading this article I’m reminded of something I myself tweeted: Fundamentally, either a member of the public has the right to legally defend themselves against what a politician says about them, or they don’t.
Go for it Rev. You are not alone. You deserve to have the chance to clear your name. Standing order coming soon.
I’m probably being stupid, but I can’t find the poll to vote in.
If I could vote in the poll, then I would say yes to the appeal.
The ruling was terrible, as it allows any politician or journalist to call somebody they don’t like a homophobe with no evidence to back it.
The sherif allowed his dislike of the Rev to sway his judgement.
The airbrushing of Scotland’s history and identity
link to lenathehyena.wordpress.com
Stuart = this donor would like you to appeal.
To George wood…
There was a yes no button at the top of the page just below the percentages shown in favour or against
The button has gone so I guess the poll has ended
People who make accusations of anything with ‘phobia’ at the end without good cause are completely dishonest, slimey, hateful scum and should never be backed down to for any reason. Appeal and win and you will have a very large victory on your hands. Appeal and lose and will have still done the right thing. These types need defeating
Capalla
“As an openly gay woman, Kezia Dugdale must be fully aware of what homophobia is. Therefore, to accuse someone of being a homophobe without evidence is absurd. That can’t be “fair comment”. It simply isn’t credible that she genuinely believed it.”
I agree 100% with this, as the “probability” that KD is unaware of what homophobia is, is vanishingly small, IMHO. Subsequently, the judgement appears unsound but are we here to sort out Scotland’s legal system, or to support independence?
Probability—The Logic of the Law
link to academic.oup.com
@ Terry callachan
Thanks for the explanation.
From what I can see you have already accepted the judges decision that KD defamed you. So it is the costs alone that need to be hammered out.
State that you accept the judges decision, see what happens with the costs that are awarded at this hearing thing and then decide what to do. From what I am reading above there might be a different way forward where you pay her poxy fees and then you can double back and sue her for the defamation to get your costs back.
Keep fighting it all the way.
England expects
link to lenathehyena.wordpress.com
The Labour Party in Scotland and the BBC in Scotland are exchanging staff
link to lenathehyena.wordpress.com
I wonder if the tories and Lib Dem’s in Scotland do this sort of thing too
Good luck with the appeal. Such an ODD verdict, saying that she WAS wrong and that you’re NOT a homophobe but then NOT finding against her? Using her own ‘stupidity’ as a defence?
A bit like the ‘insanity’ defence in criminal cases. It SHOULD have left her with egg on her face but she has, of course, misrepresented (a nicer way of saying a lie)the verdict. Had she not been a former Labour leader and you not an Independence blogger the result would very obviously gone your way.
She’s a cheek asking for costs, even letting the verdict stand she should pay her own, she sis what she was accused of doing. The court accepted that your point was NOT baseless. But…Indy.
Reminds me of what one of my local councillors is going through. Chris McEleny, SNP councillor for Gourock on the Inverclyde Council, has gone thru the mill as an MoD employee. During the Indy campaign he was (wrongly, and they’ve admitted that) accused of being an ‘SNP Spy’ and taking pictures at the submarine base and sending them to “SNP Headquarters” Now ‘vetting staff’ are saying that there was NO wrongdoing and no reason to think there was. Despite this he had his security clearance withdrawn, was hounded and asked personal questions about family background and political belief. At the hearing the also tried to taint him by saying he “quoted a line from an IRA song” This should be getting UK coverage but has only managed to get to my (and his) local paper (rag) ‘The Greenock Telegraph’ which has reported it in as Labour/Unionist friendly a way as it possibly can.
Justice is FAR from blind, justice wants to know who you vote for, what religion you are and where your family came from. Scotland has come a long way, but has MUCH further to go yet…
The vote is still open.
George Wood@7.45pm
Callachan is giving you incorrect info. I just voted. Scroll down the post and you will find the current voting percentages and the option to vote.
To Cameron B Brodie ..your post at 7.44pm
I agree that we should use our energies for Scottish independence and not sorting the Scottish legal system
However I fail to see how the judge could refuse K Dugdale,s evidence about what she says she thought.Only K Dugdale knows for sure what she thought .
True to say that what she says she believed , appears to be extremely doubtful
I would say she may well have lied but no way can I prove that it’s just a hunch for all the reasons you and others mention
But the judge would have great difficulty as would anyone other that K Dugdale proving
what K Dugdale believed to be true
Unless you can read her mind !
If she says that is what she believed then that is what she believed and nobody can prove otherwise
And that applies even if (what she believed ) was factually incorrect information
It is this aspect that is covered in para 12 of the Scottish govt review of defamation in Scotland
link to gov.scot
Funny that …I do not have the voting button on my page anymore ?
Appeal 100%
I will happily make a donation to any costs involved.
The application of the law needs coherence with the outside world, if the law is to deliver justice. This application of law appears grounded in utilitarian rationality, and is, subsequently, only coherent in a yoon universe. That is the outside reality we live in, apparently.
JUDGMENT AND DECISION:
Theory and Application
link to meteo.mcgill.ca
Callachan @8.07pm
Funny that – perhaps it’s because you have already voted.
Terry callachan
That might be why the judges are paid big bucks and are allegedly skilled with good judgement. 😉
To scrubby
You could be right
CameronB Brodie
Ahh yes good judgement
I’m sure they have it , but do they always use it hmmm
Taking a look at nicola sturgeons twitter. This is what happens when you play the identity politics game. You cant win. Dont play it. One day your a champion of the ‘oppressed’ the next your a somethingphobe. Serves her right for getting on every social justice bandwagon goimg. Learn the lesson. Run the country. Thats all
Callachan @8.17pm
Or perhaps in your mind a big bad Englishman sneaked up and stole it away from you.
Choke on your cornflakes when you read the headline in the National this morning.
I’ll remind you – IF YOU LIVE HERE YOU VOTE HERE
Hope that didn’t give you indigestion.
rev
i voted to appeal
i have reservations about your legal team tho
the initial verdict should never have been reached had they been totally in control
this makes me worry about them handling the appeal effectively
i’m sure you trust them implicitly
i dont trust anyone tho
will donate again, if reqd
Can I chicken out of voting if I fess-up? I don’t feel comfortable simply cutting loses, but I really have no confidence in the Scotland’s judiciary. If only there was a way of shining a light on the structural manner that British nationalism has poisoned civic society in Scotland. 😉
link to journal.sjdm.org
CameronB Brodie…
Please send this to the judge ?
link to meteo.mcgill.ca
Wow that was quick! Even for Boris.
Daily Wail (so it must be true) reporting that police were called to Boris’s home in the night after report of a big rammy with his girlfriend.
I voted to appeal. I will bung in at least the same as I gave to this fundraiser if you are needing a fighting fund.
You should appeal. If there was another fundraiser in the event of an unsuccessful appeal, I would certainly donate again.
It was a perverse verdict – if her intemperate response was “fair comment”, then so was your original comment on Mundell Jr. If the lawyers reckon it’s worth a try, I’ll certainly chip in, in the interests of putting that blithering doughball where she belongs – in the wrong.
You’ve got to go for it with the appeal if there’s a chance of winning. Otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent. Happy for my money to be spent that way.
If your brief says do it – do it.
As for the £, you know where we are…
To scubby…
I didn’t read the national this morning
I don’t eat cornflakes
But I did read the Scottish governments bill about who can vote in the Scottish independence referendum and how it will be conducted
I also read the electoral commission Scotland response to the consultation that was conducted prior to the bill
There was a lot of discussion about who should be eligible to vote
and whether there should be conditions such as nationality or length of residency
as there are in all countries around the world when deciding these matters
It was decided that if you say you are resident in Scotland you can vote
There will be no time limit so one day in Scotland and you are eligible to vote
there will be no proof of residency in Scotland required other than you registering with the local authority as living at an address in Scotland
You can apply online
I think these are weaknesses
I still think English people should not be allowed to vote in a Scottish independence referendum because they are from the very country we seek independence from
I believe firmly that our captors should not be able to vote for our continued subjugation at the hands of their country
I believe also that if England ever has an independence referendum ( why would it ) Scottish welsh and Irish people should not be able to vote no matter where they live
In my view , residency as the only qualifying condition to determine a nations future is as loose and open as you could possibly have especially if there is no time requirement
No country in the world allows people to vote in elections if they have only been in the country a day ,sceptical Scotland
Nothing racist about it
English people are not a race by the way
England do not allow people to vote in elections or referendums purely on residency
Hi george wood at 7:30 pm.
you typed,
“I’m probably being stupid, but I can’t find the poll to vote in.”
Scroll back up to Rev Stu’s article. Underneath where it has,
“Below is a poll. It won’t in itself be the total be-all and end-all of the decision because we also have to factor in our legal advice (and website polls can be sabotaged), but it’ll be considered along with the balance of your comments on this post.
Should we appeal the sheriff’s judgement in the Kezia Dugdale case?”
Immediately under that, you should see a “VOTE” button. Click on it and the two choices should become visible. Click on the one you choose, then click on “VOTE” again.
As cubby pointed out, if you have already voted (on your current device), you probably won’t see the “VOTE” button.
I voted using my work iMac this afternoon. On my home iMac, when I click on “VOTE”, I’m getting the two choices so I could vote again but I won’t.
I would be inclined to let the whole thing slip and concentrate on watching the Brit media and getting the Indy message out there.
Sometimes it’s hard to let injustice go but real injustice is a victim of rape, or physical abuse etc.