The severed baby
My legal team and I have just received, unexpectedly early, the sheriff’s verdict in my defamation case against Kezia Dugdale. The short and paraphrased version is that yes, she did defame me by inaccurately calling me a homophobe, but because she’s an idiot who doesn’t know what words mean, she’s allowed to, so we lose.
Some key passages of the 37-page judgement are appended below.
We’re surprised and disappointed that despite the sheriff finding that I’m NOT a homophobe, and that it WAS defamatory to call me one (“the article is accordingly defamatory of the pursuer”), the judgement has gone in Kezia Dugdale’s favour.
In almost every sense that the case was brought, we’ve actually won. I sought to defend my reputation against a false accusation of homophobia, to establish that I’m not a homophobe, and to prevent anyone from being able to make such claims in future. All of those aims have been upheld, in explicit terms, by this judgement.
Dugdale had claimed that she’d only said a single tweet was homophobic, not that I was a homophobe in general. The sheriff rejected that and noted that any reasonable person reading the article would have concluded I was being called a homophobe.
Dugdale’s lawyer also – curiously and contradictorily – advanced the defence that the allegation that I was a homophobe was true. The sheriff also dismissed this.
Finally Dugdale’s QC said that even if the article was defamatory, I couldn’t technically be defamed by anything as my reputation was so terrible it couldn’t be lowered. The sheriff threw this out too.
The sheriff found that “Ms Dugdale could [not] explain why the tweet was homophobic” by any known definition of the term (and nor could her witness Colin Macfarlane of Stonewall Scotland, despite that organisation’s own definition being used in court) yet found her belief that it was to be fair on the grounds that she took an “impressionistic” approach to the meanings of words.
That is, Dugdale’s feelings about what homophobia is trump the actual meaning of the word. It was on that basis that he found in her favour on the grounds of “fair comment”, while repeatedly emphasising that the comments were wrong.
My team and I will come to a decision on what course of action to take next after fully digesting and considering the judgement.
Jesus fuck. But maybe that’s the Law for you. A client of mine was advised by his solicitor once that Justice and the Law are not necessarily the same thing.
That is an extraordinarily inconsistent judgement.
I really did not think that was how the law is in Scotland. Is there any avenue to appeal?
Pretty well follows my prediction, having attended the court case: https://wp.me/p4fd9j-nwX
The justice system is a joke, needs sorted after indy!
The law is an ass.
I’d sue her arse again, tout suite!
Brotyboy says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:05 pm
Jesus f**
I find your comment offensive.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/
I see the pro independence paper the Daily Record is gloating.
Stu, step by step to victory.
Depressingly reminiscent of the Liar-Carmichael findings, but also another worrying consequence of an era in which individual thoughts, feelings and beliefs, and in this case sheer failure of comprehension, are allowed to triumph over facts.
Thank you, Rev, for standing up for truth and WHAT WORDS MEAN.
Since when was ignorance a valid form of defence in law?
If an impressionistic view of someones written words, rather than the semantic definition, is taken and furthermore, supported in law, then we are further down the slippery, greasy, nasty, right-wing civil liberty slide of the loss of civil liberties than I’d feared!
The only silver lining is you have a legal judgment that confirms a newspaper pays people, who don’t understand the meaning of words, to write articles for them. No shock there, but, a legal confirmation nonetheless.
What did you expect? Justice?
Aye well!
If advised we go again Stu.
Looks like its an AWI for Kezia ( adults with incapacity act.
Scotland 2000)
She’s not reasonable for her own action.
Kez (and specifically her counsel) will know she has been extremely fortunate to get off on a technicality.
If she tries to get some mileage out of this publicly, she would show herself even more ignorant than the judgment suggests.
The judgement reminds me of the judgement in the Alistair Carmichael case. The man was a liar, but because it was a political lie he can get away with it.
As far as I can see the law is almost always on the side of the establishment.
Kez is establishment.
Unfortunately (or thank fuck!) you’re not.
Dugdale’s an idiot but a *legitimate* Labour party idiot of the establishment, whereas The Rev’s a rebel Scottish Independence blogger
Both can now claim victory except Dugdale will get to do it in the Daily Record the Herald the Scotsman da dah da dah because she’s *legitimate*
Alistair Carmichael rings a bell there, totally guilty but *legitimately* innocent
Costs?
“Pretty well follows my prediction, having attended the court case:”
Um, what you actually said was “Where does this leave the case and its outcome? Having read this far the reader will be disappointed to know I have not the slightest idea. It is impossible to say.”
I thought ignorance was no defence?
“Costs?”
No judgement was made by the sheriff on costs, which remain to be settled.
“Is there any avenue to appeal?”
There is, I’ll be guided by the advice of Counsel once he’s analysed the judgement.
Hamish100 says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Brotyboy says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:05 pm
Jesus f**
I find your comment offensive.
I find your comment offensive. He’s being offensive about something that doesn’t exist whereas you’re being offensive about an actual human being, that I know personally. Fuck off!
FFS. What happens when the law takes an “impressionistic” view of reality? Totalitarianism, that’s what.
So anything I say can and must be seen as someone else may interpret it rather than what I say it means?
This is awfully fucked up. That’s the end of humanity.
Anyone saying anything will always find someone else that disagrees and assert they’ve been hurt, offended, discriminated, disadvantaged or attacked, even if they’re platitudes.
“The sky is blue”. “I’m colourblind and you are discriminating against me”.
This is slithering fascism stopping us having any discussion about anything, lest someone else somewhere gets uppity.
A sterile life without debate and meaningful discussion not to upset Dorothy fae Facebook.
Kill me now.
Dear God that’s depressing. Just how can that be?
The Establishment has its claws deep into…well, everything.
The BritNat media will now gloat. Their reporting will be piss poor, ignoring facts as always. I do wonder how many of them transgress the line of legality!
I’m sorry but I’m confused here.
Dugdale IS guilty of defamation as agreed by the judge himself! the defender’s article contained statements which were incorrect and defamatory of the pursuer. as well as many other comments in a similar vein in his judgement.
I can only draw one conclusion here …according to this judge Dugdale IS guilty but because Stu is NOT homophobic, as he repeatedly says, then she is NOT guilty.
Nah!
Sorry … I’m STILL confused!
Arbroath1320 says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:35 pm
I’m sorry but I’m confused here.
Dugdale IS guilty of defamation as agreed by the judge himself! the defender’s article contained statements which were incorrect and defamatory of the pursuer. as well as many other comments in a similar vein in his judgement.
I can only draw one conclusion here …according to this judge Dugdale IS guilty but because Stu is NOT homophobic, as he repeatedly says, then she is NOT guilty.
Nah!
Sorry … I’m STILL confused!
———————————-
It’s because Dugdale was honest in her comments. She didn’t fully understand what homophobic meant therefore her comments are “fair comment”.
Very dangerous decision by the Judge. It needs appealed on future human rights issues.
It would appear if your stupid head thinks something then that’s ok – very reminiscent of the Carmichael case, he did it but got away with it. Same here she did defame you but because she can claim one word is homophobic she gets away with it. It does seem that if you are part of the establishment (mps) you can say what you like and you will be backed up. Lots of examples recently.
Everyone and their granny knows the dear Kez was raging at being called out by wings and used her position in Parliament (which I think was even worse) and in print to find something to get her own back. She is still a disgrace and if she and the Record make capital out of this without saying that she did indeed defame you it only proves their guilt.
There is, I’ll be guided by the advice of Counsel once he’s analysed the judgement.
Pleased to hear that an avenue exists and I look forward to hearing what your legal team say about it, if you’re in a position to share that.
Would it not be better to move on?
How can a made up word have meaning?
You know what Mountain Shadow … this just confirms to me at least that she is even thicker than I have given her credit for in the past.
FFS! SHE is a Lesbian herself and if she has NO clue what the meaning of homophobic then god help everyone in the LGBT community!
I totally agree with you and others who have opined that an appeal is called for here but as Stu says he’ll need to wait until his legal team have done their proper analysis of the judgement.
Just because someone is ignorant of what homophobic means should NOT be a defence in any way. To call someone homophobic and yet clearly NOT understand the meaning of the word, especially for someone who is writing an article about homophobia, must fall into the ignorantly stupid legal category. ?
I’m in for the fundraiser for the appeal (s)
Kind of similar to the Carmichael case, just kind of.
I can see the “dilemma”. Defamation v free speech (fair comment).
I’m trying to think of a similar “fair comment” but can’t be arsed.
It should of course be an individual’s human rights to have the right to good name and character, unless they impugn it themselves. That would be a third consideration to weigh against the other two.
Ho hum.
Stu, bitterly disapointed for you right now and I know you will be too. Whatever decision you and your counsel makes, me and Mrs Morgatron and wee Morgatron are behind you. Not only where you defending yourself from people speaking from a privileged and now what appears protected position , you were speaking up for is all. Forward Stuart.
As per others I also thought that ignorance was not a legitimate legal defence although I appreciate this might be in Criminal cases as opposed to Civil ones like yours.
Remember that this is the verdict of one particular Sheriff (his take on the facts presented versus previous legal precedents etc.)
I would like to think your Legal Counsel will think it would be worth an appeal as it does appear to be a bit of the “Carmichael Principle” with the Verdict.
‘Aye, they did it but they aren’t used to being held accountable for what they say or do, so we won’t be holding them accountable today.’
As a gay Transexual I am bitterly disappointed for you Stu over this judgement but rest assured should you and your legal team decide to take matters further you have both my and my partner’s FULL support!
We do not have much in the way of pennies in the bank but we will, if called upon donate whatever we can to any future fundraiser for the cause!
Ooops!
I forgot to add this to my last post.
Under NO circumstances does Dugdale ever speak for me or my partner!
So the court decision is that defamation is not illegal if it can be construed as fair comment.
???
I’m disappointed for you Rev but, as you say, it’s a win for you in all but name.
How you wish to proceed is of course entirely your own decision. Legal advice is one thing but lengthy court cases are a stressful business (I know from experience they can become all consuming), and if you decide that this business has already taken up enough of your energy it would be entirely understandable.
We’re all with you, but don’t feel pressured into any appeal is what I’m trying to say.
Am I right in thinking that this amounts to, “if you are an idiot you win”? What the fuck has happened? My generation has a lot to answer for.
Poor Stu.
Appeal?
Any decision on costs?
Will this affect Wings?
Sadly some comments remind me of the Brexiteers opinion on the Supreme Court judges.
It’s one thing to support Stuart (as I do) and another to rail in this way against the Court.
Having read the judgement, I would like to know where I can read the Wee Ginger Duck blog.
Stuart
Yes that was my written comment, only part of what I wrote, meaning I did not see a cut and dried outcome for you.
(Nor did I think it appropriate to pre-empt the Sheriff’s ruling, sub-judicy.)
Thereafter I wrote: “There are any number of permutations the presiding Sheriff could adopt. The question is whether the imputation – that Campbell is a “homophobe” – is true in general. ‘In general’ is the key phrase. Then again, there is something called ‘fair comment’.
In a talk I gave a few days ago I was asked the same question and I made a similar response, adding, “I hope the court finds for Stuart but if they do I suspect it might be greatly reduced damages or none at all.”
Howsoever, this blog article here is clearly a fair comment.
Hey, I’m getting the heng of this 🙂
If *Fair Comment* is now accepted as a legal defence does that not kinda open a big bad and very wrong door for anyone who decides to engage in the avoidance of facts by making *Fair Comment* and would that judgement apply to all and anyone’s lack of understanding of any words
Where does this leave the libel laws in Scotland? Looks like anyone can publish anything and just get the law to deem it stupidity for being incorrect and face no consequences. There’s no way forward there , clearly an establishment friendly decision which flies in the face of the evidence.
So if I falsely state that someone is a murderer I can get away with it by saying I did not understand what the word murderer meant?
Kaz was employed as a journalist, journalist have to understand the law and the meanings of words. I remember a case (in Scotland) when a journalist described a sentenced man wrongly as a murderer when in fact he was found guilty of manslaughter, cost the rag £60K
The establishment look after their own.
kez not liable for damages
no decision on the costs (when will that be?)
roughly how much has it cost wos?
OK, it’s very hard not to laugh, sorry Rev, when you’ve been through a lot humour is the best antidote, perhaps the only one that can be afforded some times by many.
In this case it is quite possible that Dugdale will be laughed at, and since the case was never really about money, your name is cleared, your reputation restored, and it really is Dugdale that’s lost dignity.
I think using the word “muppet” would be fair comment.
TBH this judge has kicked the door aff it’s hinges for ANY bampot that wants to call anyone racist , bigot , anti semite ,anti Islamic or any other othering , all the protagonist has to say is that they believed in their mind that it was so .
So freedom of speech is okay as long as you believe what you are saying , your reputation and future employment can be trashed and destroyed by the utterances of one imbecile
“My team and I will come to a decision on what course of action to take next after fully digesting and considering the judgement.”
Good luck with that. I hope you’ve stockpiled the Gaviscon.
So in summary, it stands that a Unionist politician is at liberty to defame a Nationalist blogger without fear of being found guilty of defamation in a court of law.
We’re through the looking glass here people…
If it’s any consolation Stu, this self serving careerist is firmly within a host of bastards, who will spend their lives attracting the scornful looks and shakes of the heid whilst out in public.
The modern day unclean.
It seems The brit nat estblishment have the courts! what a surprise!!
Oooh, well, “fair comment” might relate to the author herself, but what about the publication that published it?
“____ are all ____” (insert appropriate words)
#faircomment
Well, you did punch her in the feels, so fair comment is fair…whether it is in fact true or not.
Does this mean I can say whatever I want about anyone, as long as I am daft enough to believe it to be true?
This is good news for some, as it would appear then that ignorance IS now a defence in law. Or at least stupidity is. “Oh, my client couldn’t possibly have known stabbing him was going to lead to his death. He took the ipressionistic approach it is harmless having seen countless Hollywood films.”
And not to forget Andy Coulson. He lied in the witness box was was found not guilty of perjury.
Sorry Guys but I had a feeling in my water, that something like this would happen.
From Day 1 the Sheriff obviously decided that he felt it was two rather petty Politico,s acting like children (not my opinion)and thus he issued this judgement.
Court of Session, anyone ???
So in future anyone’s defense will be the Humpty-Dumpty defense, “Words mean what I want them to mean, no more no less”
A confused final decision by the judge having spen the majority of his opinion clearing up the two most pertinent issues:
1. Was the Rev a homophobe – NO
2. Was Kezia’s comment defamation – YES
Then decides in her favour? If I was a conspiracy nut, I’d be asking who got to him?
As a logic-loving homosexual, I find the most homophobic thing in the entire case the implication by the judge that we are incapable of applying dispassionate logic. Fucks sake.
This smells a lot like the Carmichael ruling.
The only thing I can think of is in Dugdale case the Scottish education system failed as she went to university got one or more degrees ………and doesn’t understand what she wrote…..Mark Twain was correct…… “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
“You’re an adulterer”.
“Eh?”
“Oh, I just thought it meant you were getting older”.
So it was fair basis for Dugdale to call you a homophobe, even though the sheriff ruled that you weren’t one.
I’d say you’ve good grounds for an appeal, its not your fault Dugdales an idiot.
So being ‘gay’ protects you from all of life’s little problems?
I’m gay, therefore I’m more qualified to comment on matters gay thatn you Straightos?
When did that happen, Sheriff?
Aye, right.
Is it fair comment to postulate that Dugdale indulged herself in a bout of ‘political’ name calling, in the hope that mud would stick?
Not that I’m saying that, but, mind, but, some may consider it fair comment that she was being the usual Branch Office Dirty Trickster, some might say, but definitely not me; I’m sure that she’s an honest upright human being…
Go after them, Stu.
The Brit Nat Establishment at its worst.
Carmichael was a liar, Dugdale was wrong, but they’re innocent?
That last paragraph is absolutely terrifying.
It’s absolutely infuriating seeing all the right-on sorts on Twitter (you know who) congratulating Kezia on her “victory.” Victory!?! She made statements which were found to be both defamatory and untrue, but because we’re supposed to expect she had no malicious intent towards a constitutional & political opponent, and that she is speaking from her own experience, it qualifies as “fair comment”?
This is so, so dangerous. This is not a victory – for Kezia, for her supporters, for gay rights, for anyone – because the court found that Stuart WAS NOT homophobic, that the tweet was not homophobic, and that Kezia’s article WAS defamatory. How is that a victory against bigotry, for crying out loud?
You might think it’s fine for people with protected characteristics to redefine facts to suit them. You shouldn’t be surprised when people with power and influence start to do it themselves – which is exactly why we cannot afford to play around with facts like this.
“The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”” – Isaac Asimov
Weird non result which really needs clarification or else others will fall into holes in the future.
Good that he recognised you were no homophobe but where does this leave Stonewall if they haven’t a scoobie what homophobia is?
Finally, it reveals Kezia in ways she might not be too grateful for…
Disappointed but not surprised…
This judgement (and Grousebeater’s article too) takes absolutely no account of Dugdale, because of her position, being media trained.
She would have had coaching in presentation from Labour’s party machine.This background negates the little miss innocent act the Judge seems to have swallowed.
NONE of which the Rev has had…The difference between an experienced Politician and a guy with a blogg giving evidence, should have been startling. A forensic examination by a QC should have shown a media savvy politician who was in command of the situation and aware of her position.
Not someone who wrote from feeling a bit butt hurt on her opposition’s behalf and really really felt those feelings.
The Rev is a wordsmith,it’s how he earn a crust,yet this seems to be held as a disadvantage in the judgment although it was noted.
Dugdale had a somewhat larger platform/platforms from which to pontificate her “mistaken” opinion,and took full advantage of them to attack.
One of which was “in theory” earning from the written word,yet no account seem to have been taken of the demonstrable fact that she should know a bit about word’s too!
This judgement,while clearly saying she was wrong,offers no incentive to admit and apologise for being wrong.
Being wrong in an supposedly honest way is still wrong,and absent an acceptable apology,damages is how she could have been made to correct her “mistake”!
Her being wrong hurt someone and that should be put right,otherwise there’s no real justice ( a thing the Judge is supposed to now a thing about) here!
I’ll make it a point never to favour any business which advertises in the Police Gazette known as the Daily Raggard again.
You can’t beat the Scotia Nostra Branch of the Brit Nat Iron Heel Oligarchy, Stu.
But if I were you, I’d go after them for this insult of a ‘judgement’.
She was wrong to accuse you of homophobia, but it was ‘fair comment’ because it appeared in a disgusting wee Red Top?
Oh, and she’s gay, so that’s all right then.
As for Stonewall…whit?
If we ever needed to get rid of this stifling Iron Heel Oligarchy who keep us in colonial subjugation, this farce of a decision serves as a timely reminder.
God, I’m a white, male, heterosexual.
How come I don’t have ‘laws’ protecting me?
Oh good grief.
The law, politics and the media truly are a nonsense.
Too bad, Stu. Seems that we can all say anything we like now about another person, no matter how dire or how hellish the repercussions, but if we go on to indicate that we didn’t understand the gist of what we were saying at the time (over and over again) then that’s alright. That ruling seems to me to be more in line with dealing with someone suffering from insanity or diminished responsibility. Does that criteria apply to Kezia Dugdale? Seems not as the Sheriff has deemed her to be ”rational”.
http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/3612/7989/6586/rep195.pdf
”Miss Dugdale honestly and rationally formed the view.”.. Seems too that the Sheriff has been duped. Kezia Dugdale has demonstrated on numerous occasions that she’s not honest nor rational at all. And why didn’t Mundell, or one of his Tory mates, open his big gob at the time instead of Kezia, Labour? It’s clear that she wanted to ”sort you out” Stu, but to my mind this was more about trying to undermine the Independence movement, Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP and if the Sheriff couldn’t see that then I despair for the future of the Scottish judiciary, especially following the outcome of the Carmichael case.
If you want to appeal this verdict Stu, raise the money to do so, you’ll have my backing.
At least an appeal would be on 1 part of the judgement not every point.
And this is why taking the legal route to gain independence is just too risky, IMHO. The law is culturally biased, it tends to favour power and those useful to power.
Don’t believe me?
https://socialchangenyu.com/review/addressing-cultural-bias-in-the-legal-profession/
The judiciary isn’t too keen to get involved in politics and it looks as though the Sheriff here has tried to give something to both sides. That said, I don’t think his reasoning is wholly correct or appeal proof.
The Sheriff outlines the key elements of the fair comment defence at Para 57. He states that if any elements are missing then the defence fails. He goes no to acknowledge that several are missing but then dismisses these as irrelevant. There is a flaw in that logic.
The Sheriff also seems to have wholly ignored the wider context to the relationship between pursuer and defender. Had Dugdale singled out some unknown rando blogger misunderstanding or misinterpreting a random tweet could be more believable However, the tweeter here was well known and Ms Dugdales behaviour, particularly what she said in the chamber at Holyrood, does not seem to have been considered.
Wow.
The BBC headline is a keeper.
“Kezia Dugdale wins Wings Over Sctland defamation case.”
Clearly you lost and she won. Until you read the article.
“In a written judgment, Sheriff Nigel Ross said Ms Dugdale was incorrect to imply that Mr Campbell is homophobic.”
Go on the BBC.
As for the legal twisting and turning, wow, wow, wow. Within the explanation Dugdale is excoriated. The Rev is exonerated. And yet, she ‘wins’. Marvellous legal chicanery.
That said, I can’t say I’m surprised. If I had to bet, I’d have bet that there would be some incredibly clever way of legally wriggling out of finding a ‘leading politician’ wrong against a ‘lowly blogger’. Thats the way it looked with Carmichael, thats the way it looks here.
Sit on it for a day or two Rev. Let emotions calm a bit and then decide what to do. You can be sure of the reaction of most people on here. Stay strong and keep fighting the good fight.
Ok then Stu.
I call you homophobic judge says NO you are not.
Was my comment defamation YES.
Judge it was fair comment from me and finds in my favour.
Just where the hell is this going I can say anything about anybody and its ok if it was just a fair comment from me.
Help go for a review as this is crazy.
Angela Haggerty self styled one time Independence supporter who now works for the people who don’t support Independence so thinks like them because they pay her to now Trolling the internet in support of Kezia Dugdale in the hope of somebody saying stuff to her she can claim a WOS *pile on* of the innocents
So predictable!
*Fair comment* I think
“The short and paraphrased version is that yes, she did defame me by inaccurately calling me a homophobe, but because she’s an idiot who doesn’t know what words mean, she’s allowed to, so we lose.”
No, that’s not the short version is it? The short version is “she did defame you by inaccurately calling you a homophobe, but you’re such an insufferable prick you don’t deserve to win.”
We really are living through the Looking Glass now:-
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
Radio in car :”Dugdale WINS her defamation case”
Judge: “Mr Campbell is NOT homophobic, Dugdale DID defame him”.
Media: “Dugdale wins”!!!
Can we all go on twitter etc and make homophobic jokes, then just claim we dont know what a joke is, ergo, fair comment ?
Of course not, that would just be dumb.
Yet here we are, down the rabbit hole, and absolutely certain if this was Dugdale v anyone else, she would be preparing to sell her house at this point to pay for her ignorance.
Looks like you can sue the Daily Raggard now, Stu for inferring that you were somehow ‘guilty’.
“In his written judgment Sheriff Ross said: “Despite incorrectly implying that Mr Campbell is homophobic, her article is protected under the principle of fair comment.”
“She is not liable to pay damages to Mr Campbell.”
‘Despite incorrectly implying that Mr Campbell is homophobic’, which this Rag interprets as Dugdale ‘winning’.
Sue their erses aff, Stu.
They headline this as Dugdale ‘winning’.
The Dead Tree Scrolls are their lies….
The Brit Nat Establishment is crumbling before our very eyes.
I’m not sure this is a safe judgement. It surely sets a very broad precedent that could be exploited in future.
If you do decide to appeal, the judge has been very helpful in many of his findings. Several matters I was concerned about he has unequivocally found in your favour.
It is said that no publicity is bad publicity – many more people will be aware of Wigs Over Scotland now and perhaps will pay a visit. Record and Dugdale crowing might have an adverse effect.
Like i said before the case, the brits look after their own.
Should your crowdfunder, heaven forfend, not reach its accustomed “record beating”TM total the world will have a measure of the amount by which you have been defamed
Reading this article gave me a deja vu feeling, about something similair, it has now came to me.
Wayne Hennessey, Crystal Palace goalkeeper, cleared by FA disciplinary panel of making Nazi salutes on night out, because he didn’t know what one was !!
Here is the statement:
“Crystal Palace goalkeeper Wayne Hennessey did not know what a Nazi salute was when he was charged with making the offensive gesture, says a Football Association panel.
The charge was found not proven this month and Wales international Hennessey, 32, will face no punishment.
The regulatory commission has published its written reasons for the decision.
It said Hennessey showed a “lamentable degree of ignorance” about Adolf Hitler, fascism and the Nazi regime.
Hennessey was pictured with his right arm in the air and left hand above his mouth in a photo posted on Instagram by German team-mate Max Meyer after Palace’s FA Cup win over Grimsby on 5 January.
Hennessey denied the charge and said any resemblance to the Nazi gesture was “absolutely coincidental”.
The charge was found not proven after two members of the three-man panel believed the photograph had been “misinterpreted” and the other said the “only plausible explanation” was that Hennessey made the salute.
Hennessey said he “waved and shouted at the person taking the picture to get on with it” and “put my hand over my mouth to make the sound carry”.
He submitted photographs to the panel of him making similar gestures during matches to attract the attention of team-mates.
The panel said Hennessey was “able to corroborate” his explanation with a series of photographs, including one that showed his right arm raised and left hand across his mouth in a “similar way” to the photo posted on Instagram.
Hennessey said “from the outset” of the hearing that he did not know what a Nazi salute was.
“Improbable as that may seem to those of us of an older generation, we do not reject that assertion as untrue,” said the panel.
“In fact, when cross-examined about this Mr Hennessey displayed a very considerable – one might even say lamentable – degree of ignorance about anything to do with Hitler, Fascism and the Nazi regime.
“Regrettable though it may be that anyone should be unaware of so important a part of our own and world history, we do not feel we should therefore find he was not telling the truth about this.
“All we would say (at the risk of sounding patronising) is that Mr Hennessey would be well advised to familiarise himself with events which continue to have great significance to those who live in a free country.”
The panel said other photographs from the evening showed Hennessey’s arm “raised in slightly different but comparable postures” that “at its lowest” demonstrates he was trying to attract the attention of the photographer, Jordan Bussolini.
It said the FA was “entirely justified” in bringing the case but that “rather than giving a Nazi salute, we think it more likely that Mr Hennessey was, as he says, trying to shout at and to catch the attention of the waiter.”
………..
As I said, before the case entered court, I cautioned proceedings when I saw that the Daily Record was to become involved.
For them, loosing was not an option, they needed a “win” in order to maximise their Wings over Scotland is really,really bad for Scotland story.
Talk about the law sitting on the fence!!.
I’ll say this: – Dugdale is and always will be a Grade A cunt.
The complexities of the law make it an arse.
Equally, the complexities of the law can be used in a way that protects The Union and the willing practitioners of Unionism.
It is no coincidence that Carmichael and Dugdale share similar outcomes.
Scottish law protects British Nationalists.
Hope you can find a way to appeal (that is not extortionately expensive). Ready to support you financially in any case.
Hand in purse – just give the word.
Oh Stu, you and your literal, semantically-correct language!
Am I missing something here, did a judge, in a legal verdict, just call Kezia Dugdale stupid?
Which, wanting to be literal, means:
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
So because the defendant is thick, the court allow for that intellectual challenge in giving the verdict. That cannot be right surely!
It opens the flood gates for other intellectually challenged to make false claims, and then plead innocence on the grounds of low IQ’s.
I hope you are going to appeal this.
Cause guess what! The press are reporting that she won. When in fact the system of judgement failed here. In this verdict the press can infer that you were found to be a homophobe. The technicalities will be lost on the public.
CameronB Brodie says:
17 April, 2019 at 3:14 pm
And this is why taking the legal route to gain independence is just too risky, IMHO. The law is culturally biased, it tends to favour power and those useful to power.
I hear what you’re saying Cameron, but after YES2014 and Brexit, plus all the shenanigans going on with dark money, and the farcical Electoral Commission, you still fancy your chances with IndyRef2 – presented impartially by the BBC???
I kinda do trust Europe and the ECJ, because a) I think they have fewer conflicts of interest, and b) IF there is a systemic bias or prejudice, it might favour a Remaining Scotland over a Brexiting UK. I firmly believe however it would play it straight down the middle, and Scotland’s Sovereignty would be respected.
Hamish100 says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Brotyboy says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:05 pm
Jesus f**
I find your comment offensive.
Sorry Hamish, be offended, because despite what I’ve just said above, what I have experienced more than once in a so called Law Court was as far away from justice as it’s possible to be, and the Court didn’t give a flying fk about it. Thoroughly shabby carry on in every respect. Trust in a Scottish Sheriff Court from that day to this = 0%
Personal integrity and honesty counts for absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing.. Make an error in protocol and in the eyes of the law you are scum they cannot wait to be rid of. Justice? You’re having a laugh.
I’m more concerned about the cortical horsepower of the judge than anything else.
She did defame you. That’s a legal opinion. You are entitled to a legal remedy. I would certainly back an appeal if you choose to go down that route.
It seems to me that the Sheriff in this case has worked very hard to find a way to let Dugdale win, despite knowing and stating that she was wrong to make the accusation of homophobia. We have to give him full marks for ingenuity – she was wrong but she felt she was right. She takes an impressionistic view of words. I’ll bet they didn’t teach that in law school. The implications are horrendous. Basically I can say whatever I want about anyone provided I can argue that that is what I felt. It is a nonsense and I would very much like to think that it will be overturned on appeal. I for one will certainly contribute to a fundraiser if the legal advice is to take this to appeal.
A few posters have mentioned the Carmichael case but seem to have forgotten that he ‘won’ the case on a narrow point of law BUT, important but, he was NOT awarded costs as is usual in such cases and so was left with a considerable bill which a crowdfunding appeal did nothing to address.
The judges by not awarding costs clearly took a dim view of his lying.
The temptation to appeal this dog’s-dinner of a judgement would be irresistible for me. I sincerely hope you’re wrong @Giving Goose – but it certainly looks, from a fair-minded perspective, as if you’re right.
so a wee thought popped into my head whilst I was outside my wee box.
Does this mean that I can now say with impunity that the judge was bought and sold by Scruffy Fluffy and my defence is clearly “it is only a comment NOT fact”?
I’m not waiting. Just sent twenty quid just because!
Just like Carmichael. A disgrace and the Scottish justice system should be ashamed.
Count me in for a donation to your appeal, Rev.
page 11 of the Sheriff’s judgement refers to the “Wee Ginger Duck”?!?
predictions, no expenses [nb ‘costs’ is an English phrase] as there is divided success
anticipate appeal here
Vote her out
In a way though a judge found that Kezia Dugdale ex leader of the Labour party in Scotland has little or no understanding of the English language and its use
And again in a way is this not an indictment on the level of competency of the Labour party in Scotland and the very reason Miss Dugdale was originally rejected for candidacy by the SNP and following on from that a reflection of the standard of person who passes as a *journalist* employed by the Daily Record
I’d say that’s definitely *fair comment* and *here’s the thing* as Miss Dugdale always says, Miss Dugdale’s own father agrees with the judge as his own Tweets to his daughter have shown oft times
*Engage brain before opening mouth Kezia* was one such famous Tweet by Mr Dugdale
Reminds me of an old boss who closed a heated dispute by telling me “Its true AS I believe its the truth!”
She was talking about The Di Vinci Code!!
Taranaich @ 2:52pm
I think you should be a witness at the appeal, should it happen. Your view is spot on.
At several points during the 3 day hearing I thought there was a examination of the definition of words in the dictionary .
I’ll stand ready £££ awaiting your decision Stuart .
You can bet your next fundraiser that had the judgement gone against Kezia and she had been instructed to pay up she would appeal it.
Accept nothing less than a very public grovelling apology or an appeal goes forward.
Personally I think if funds, time and personal cost are not prohibitive then appeal anyway as a service for straightening out those in the legal profession who have their heads screwed on the wrong way. Mince doesn’t even come close to this doublespeak.
For all those who want to moan about Scots Law, remember who has been the Scottish Govt for the last 12 years, so primarily responsible for making the law: The SNP.
The SNP was going to be the new broom that sweeps clean: open govt and reforming- until they became the new Scottish Establishment administrators of UK Govt, with all the same bureaucrats working for them.
Now the SNP and Scot Govt are all spin doctors and secrecy too, who put the interests of the UK and Scottish Establishment before the little people and so not much different from the other parties.
The only major difference WAS independence. It remains unclear if even that difference still exists or whether Ms Sturgeon has flushed the democratic mandate for indyref2 doon the pan.
CA
It is my considered opinion and in no way to be construed as derogatory that you should just piss off with your barrack room lawyer piffle.
geeo @3.50
I read that article about Hennessey yesterday too and thought how utterly ridiculous the decision was. Little did we know it would be a mirror for today’s verdict.
It really does suggest that the thicker you are the more clout you have in court where education and intellectualism are clearly a hindrance. Sounds like full on Marxism to me.
The way the Rev’s case has been universally reported as a win for KD is pretty sickening too.
…and I was the one who thought you were all being excessively paranoid about the establishment and media being fervently against indy.
Don’t I look like a bagful of dicks.
does this make Dugdale a ‘heterophobe’ then?
@Rev
Does point 78. of the judgement set a precedent in law that gay brains are quite different from straight brains and that straight people shouldn’t expect gay people to understand logic in the way that straight people understand logic?
As a gay man, I find that a concerning judgement – especially as the judge notes it is “common sense” to view straights and gays that way.
Add in the trans community and just how many brain types do we have and will they never see eye-to-eye with each other?
@Essexexile: 4.58
We can all be a bag full of dicks at times lol!
You are right though, something very weird and unsavoury is happening in all our legal systems and reportage.
Colin Alexander @ 4:52 pm
This comes under fair comment even though it is incorrect.
The SNP have only had a majority for four of those twelve years.
Before Scotland goes down the independence route for a second time it makes sense to have an orderly withdrawal.
So lets wait for Westminster to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement and put the ‘transitional arrangement’ to the use it was intended for…
Facilitating an orderly succession and rejoining the EU under Article 50 part 5
Tony Little @ 14:35:
It seems like that.
Or if you’re are an idiot (or a politician trying to demean your opponents), you can say what you damn well please.
Looks like we won’t be able to call those men pretending to be women misogynistic violent arseholes who deserve to have their imaginary c—s kicked in.
Or will the ‘fair comment’s defence’ hold up for us brain impoverished straight men as well?
I can’t get my head around the decision that the statements were incorrect and defamatory but fall under the heading of fair comment.
Not surprised one little bit. They’ve got form for making murky rulings to look after their own, who can forget their handling of a certain Glasgow football clubs dirty dealings?
Dugdale proven to have made defamatory and untrue accusations and Stuart declared not a homophobe. Dugdale wins case!
FFS! Only in Scotland! Ridiculous any way you look at it.
I too will support any attempt to pursue this/her further.
@Legerwood
From Rev’s post btl earlier:
“No judgement was made by the sheriff on costs, which remain to be settled.”
Perhaps that’s the point to draw the line, depending on the result.
Sorry to hear that Stu. I had always thought that ignorance was never a legitimate defense. Please pass on my thanks to the sheriff. Now I know what to do next time I’m lifted.
She will inevitably tweet her victory saying she won the case, which is again calling you a homophobe. Just take her back to court when she does.
So you were defamed, but it was fair comment to do so because she didn’t understand what she was commenting about.
Really?
Ignorance of the law is no defence as any lawyer will tell you. The law is there to protect those with money, property, status & privilege.
This judgement will be challenged because it opens the floodgates for ridiculous cases. It is a human rights issue & if not dealt with quite quickly that Sheriff’s career is over. Other Law officers will have to dig him out of the hole he created for himself & other law officers. The law does not say that bloggers can’t defend their own reputation. Human rights legislation states that a person has a legal right to be heard in a competent & unbiased court of law.
The Sheriff chose to discount the political positions of both despite the press printing articles about Stu after the case had had started (sub judice). So why no warnings to the press for contempt? Stu’s photo of the news stand shows the press couldn’t care less about contempt.Every front page was about him.
For me this outcome just confirms that independence is the only way forward for Scotland. If you can’t trust your courts to return a fair verdict then those courts need scrapping & starting again.
Being advised that he wasn’t homophobic (we could have told you that)wasn’t news to us. Being told by a Sheriff that someone is allowed to claim Stu is a homophobe when she doesn’t even know what the word means is crass & just tells us that the little guy is always going to lose.
Stu the decision is yours to appeal or not but whatever you decide I’m with you. We can’t let the establishment win every time. At some point we need to fight back when folks think that they can twist the law to suit themselves & yes to all the people drawing comparisons with the Carmichael case-its exactly the same. In both cases the defendants were guilty but they were on the union side so they got away with it. #DissolvetheUnion
The Sheriff of Edinburgh doesn’t like Stu’s style (according to the BBC report online)
Does Stu dismiss the reputations of his opponents cheaply? I’m wondering what the Sheriff was referring to.
In my experience Stu provides clear evidence of any criticism he makes of politicians. That’s why this blog is so widely read. If it was simply taking cheap shots at political opponents, like unionist politicians usually do, then I wouldn’t be here reading it.
The Sheriff insults all of us here.
As Philip Sim points out, it’s point I that got it. The I’s have it, the I’s have it.
“Wee Ginger Duck”?? Surely grounds for appeal or another defamation action from Kavanagh Jnr!
It would be nice if Mundell come out from under the duvet and commented.
I think the way of looking at it is, if it had been Dugdale taking Rev to court on some basis, she would have lost completely. But as it was the other way around, Rev lost as not proven. Basically it’s similar to a case of not proven, the implicit homophobia case was lost by Dugdale, the defamation case was won by Rev, but the “fair comment” case found for the defendant.
I don’t think Scots Law can be criticised for that, but the interpretation might be open to queston. IANAL.
#faircomment
Mmm, having said that, it weakens defamation beyond use. A newspaper could write whatever it wants about anyone it doesn’t like, and it’s just “Fair comment”.
That’s not good enough, the human rights of the individual are being trampled on by a herd of elephants.
A number of people on here are claiming that the judgement means we can now say anything we want about anyone but that’s not the judgement (as far as I can see).
The judgement was about interpreting someone else’s comments and concludes that gay people naturally interpret things differently from straight people.
I may be taking that too far – maybe the judgement applies to just interpreting jokes and maybe it’s just saying gay people may not find straight people’s “gay” jokes funny and thus it should be expected that some gay people will take the huff.
If that’s the extent of the ruling then (as a gay man) I can sort of live with it but it also has the odd conclusion that gay people are sensitive wee souls who have a right to bitch about straight people whenever they mention anything relating to homosexuality.
It’s a cotton-wool wrap of a judgement!
Is it not the case that Dugdale is in possession of a Law Degree just like Carmichael?
I always thought that the law was designed to be meticulous in its
reasonings in order to expel the subjectivity of feelings, in the similar way that scientific reasoning works to establish natural facts, as feelings are unreliable and unquantifiable.
After the proven illegality of the Iraq invasion in 2003, Tony Blair began to use the “I felt it was the right thing to do” argument, perhaps because he knew how nebulous and therefore non-incriminatory it was. Whatever, this judgement is a very weak show of the law.
So you can make a defamatory statement about anyone and as long as you “honestly believe it’s true” it will be “fair comment” and you will face no legal consequences?
Somehow I think this “law” only applies if you have friends in the right places!
Gordon Bain says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:33 pm
Hamish100 says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Brotyboy says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:05 pm
Jesus f**
I find your comment offensive.
I find your comment offensive. He’s being offensive about something that doesn’t exist whereas you’re being offensive about an actual human being, that I know personally. Fuck off!
Prove it. Happy Easter
yesindyref2 at 5:23 pm
Yes I had noticed that a judgement on costs had yet to be made. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I think Carmichael was more than a bit taken aback that we was not awarded costs. I thought it was a pretty clear statement from the judges in the case as to what they thought of him. They had to obey the law but they also dispensed justice of a sort
Unfair comment. Unfair judgement. Good luck contesting it. Front page National splash to redress the media balance?
@Legerwood
Yes. It would seem to be fair that Dugdale was not awarded costs. But I think the decision on whether to appeal or not has to be taken before costs would be determined (or agreed).
No idea, even thinking about it, whether an appeal is a good idea or not. Luckily it’s not me has to make the decision 🙂
Dugdale isn’t thick,
She made an angry comment then wished she hadn’t but by then it was too late
She was challenged
It came to court
Dugdale,s lawyer knew she would lose
So she made out she didn’t understand the meaning of the word
The judge then said he accepts that Dugdale a lesbian didn’t understand the meaning of the word homophobic
The judge also said Dugdale is guilty of accusing stu of being homophobic
The judge then miraculously said that because Dugdale accused him of something she doesn’t understand the meaning of ,there is no defamation and no damages to be awarded to stu
Whenever you go to court from now on as an accused just say that you didn’t understand that what you were doing was wrong ,you should then be told you are guilty but there will be no sentence
I hope he appeals
The decision is warped
But as ever there is a cost if you are seeking justice
The nearer the top of the legal tree you go the more likely you are to get a correct judgement
Sorry I meant “… be fair if Dugdale is not awarded costs” (future not past).
STVs Bernard Ponsonby summed up the case very fairly then added a between the lines comment basically suggesting if you’re going to take a politician to court be prepared not to win
I must confess I feared this might happen. Just as anyone can identify as whatever they like, anyone can express offence at just about anything. Impressionistic inference is all we have now and words have no actual meaning. Like that fecking cat, Stu can be not a homophobe and give homophobic offence at the same moment in time with the same comment.
Is this a good thing? I think not and it is ultimately going to bite everyone’s arse including the proponents of this foolishness.
Terry callachan @ 6:14pm said: “The judge then miraculously said that because Dugdale accused him of something she doesn’t understand the meaning of ,there is no defamation”
No, Terry, it’s even worse than that. The Sheriff ruled there WAS defamation: “The defender’s article contained statements which were incorrect and defamatory of the pursuer”. See statement (1) at the top of this blog article.
Yet, despite ruling Kezia Dugdale did defame Stuart Campbell, the Sheriff also found that what she’d written was “fair comment” since she’d had the “impression” Mr Campbell had made a homophobic tweet! So what MS Dugdale BELIEVES is true trumps the widely accepted dictionary definition of what she SAID! If that isn’t the ultimate example of splitting of dancing on the head of a pin I don’t know what is. “Warped” barely covers it!
Sorry. Posted on previous thread in error. Still without comment:-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law
This judgement is nuts. Just nuts. Doesn’t even make sense.
I’m gay, and in no way, was the tweet by Rev STU homophobic. For heavens sake, it was a joke. Even if it hadn’t been funny (it was), it was still not homophobic. In my opinion, oh so precious gay people who insist on this utter p*sh of ‘ooh it hurt my feelings’, when anybody says something pretty harmless, do gay rights no good whatsoever. A homophobic comment is calling somebody a dirty queer b******, or similar abuse (and I have experienced it – REAL ACTUAL homophobia, Kezia!). A wisecrack about Mundell, is NOT nor ever will be homophobic.
This ‘feelings’ nonsense that is indicated in the judgement above is piffle of the highest order. Not all gay people subscribe to the ‘feelings’ stuff, or indeed many of the other new oh so trendy things, like calling gay people ‘queer’ etc.. So in that respect the sheriff is wholly wrong. Gay people do not all think the same way about such things. Their are a wide range of views. I thought revstu’s tweet was funny. It never crossed my mind that anybody gay or straight would take umbrage or have ‘hurt feelings’ due to what they would term ‘homophobia’.
And let’s be clear here, would Kezia have said so much about the tweet if it were somebody from the Labour party?? I thinketh not. Political gameplay masquerading as ‘concern for gay rights’. Kezia should be ashamed of herself.
For many years I was incorrectly dubbed a “Fenian Bastard” and on occasion subjected to physical attack by supporters of Rangers FC who were clearly unaware that, although I supported Celtic FC, I was in fact Church of Scotland.
I now realise that this was their honestly held view and was therefore “fair comment.”
I see the greens, including, sadly, Andy Wightman are cheering the judgement. Lost all respect for them now.
Gregory Beekman @ 5.56
If your right then that’s not equality of treatment for gay people.
But nevertheless it’s still not Justice as the Court determined that Stu wasn’t homophobic so therefore her claim was wrong..
Also gay people can be as sensitive to being the butt of a joke as anyone can,but, no one should be able to use a media platform to brand someone as homophobic unless they are absolutely sure they’re absolutely right.
She was wrong and therefore wrong to do so.
Where the Court fell short was in clearly and demonstrably righting that wrong,when asked to,and,I’d say, none of us should be happy to live with that!
I am surprised that anyone is surprised…..this is a Country who found a guy guilty of a hate crime for teaching a dog something distasteful…..its at times like this I wish england would just swallow us up and be done with it.
I am not expecting KD or the DR to take this magnanimously
Somebody called it schrodingers judgement. That sums it up.
As Dugdale gives her interviews claiming a win, what we will remember is that Labour in Scotland was led by someone a judge effectively described as too stupid to understand what some words mean, that she defamed someone but was to suffer no consequences.
PS Andy Wightman has joined in the Kezia congratulations, hope nobody on wings has been funding his case.
Breeks
All I’m saying is the legal route is undesirable, IMHO. I also kinda of trust Europe and the ECJ, but I also think a popular demand for indy will be helpful to legitimising it in the minds of many of our older Scots.
——
re. semantically-correct language and stuff. 😉
journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0957926516677193a
Well if there was ever any doubt about the unionists running the media there isn’t now with the result of the case firmly skewed in Dugdales favour.
correct link.
info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/TheLinguisticTurn.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn200lvmTZc
Sounds like this judgement makes things fair game.
Without prejudice and a fair comment because I don’t understand words now!
All Britnat Unionists are cunts, especially the ones I don’t like.
But it was pointed out to her it was untrue many times and she still repeated it
So how can it be fair use
Remember kezia has form on honesty, think back to the furore over her “jungle” appearance and how she alluded that all of her fee would be going to charity, yeah, for homeless politicians !
Orwell knew the power of language. Sorry for the length of this post but there is a lot of back-story going on that folks simply aren’t aware of. Time for some Political Philosophy?
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uctyjow/APP.doc
Here’s the BBC in Scotland Teletext take on it:
‘Kezia Dugdale wins blogger defamation case’
“Former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has won a legal case brought by a pro-independence blogger who accused her of defamation.”
“Wings Over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell took Ms Dugdale to court after she claimed in a newspaper column that he had sent homophobic tweets.”
“In a written judgement, Sheriff Nigel Ross said Ms Dugdale was incorrect to imply that Mr Campbell is homophobic.”
“But he said her article was protected under the principle of fair comment.”
O/T
BBC getting it in the neck.
If you are not watching CH4 news just now then watch their item on Aron Banks which will presumably be on their website if not now then later. The BBC does not come out of it well – a bit of an understatement on my part.
Wee bit o/t here, just had my MP Martyn Day at the door doing a “wee bit doorstep surgery work” asking folk if there is anything they want brought up at WM by his good self.
“list by category or alphabetical order” got a good laugh !
Got chatting about the EU Elections, and after i asked how likely winning a 3rd seat was, he said there was actually a chance, although it was going to need everything to come together on the day, that a 4th SNP seat was looking possible.
This was based on sub samples rather than full polling results for Scotland, so obvious caveats there, but SNP support is showing as very good indeed for the EU elections.
Chatted away for near on 10 minutes, very affable guy.
Back of 7 at night and chapping doors, never seen any other party politician at my door in 5 years since indyref.
Says it all really.
Hamish 100 @ 6.04
Gordon Bain isn’t making the Jesus claim you are!
The burden of proof is yours…
Jeezo! Perhaps we should assess the laws as being completely idiotic or in the pay of some party or other and then say that it was just the ‘impression’ we got.
Appeal if she gets costs.
Let it go if she doesn’t.
Life’s too short.
Given the judgement is so clear that Stu is not a homophobe it would be a brave soul that gainsays the judge and repeats the original accusation.
I suspect many a yoon might not read the judgement and believe the hubris of the likes of the Record.
From the judges comment I can call anyone a liar with no consequences, since if I consider myself a liar then I can have a different viewpoint of what lying is. I assume that goes for anything as the judge has ruled that if you have the attribute you are ‘having fair comment on’ then you are covered against deformation, as long as you also claim stupidity.
I wonder if the same judgement would have been reached by a jury or are all defamation cases heard by a judge in Scotland? Do we now have the thick politician defence now enshrined in our ‘wonderful’ Scots Law?
The judge says Rev Stu’s income and living were not affected by this, but what it has done is give licence to his every critic to come out with their supposedly fair comment about him. Also, it will be mentioned in every article about him from now on.
So he is not a homophobe but the word homophobe will be associated with his name at every opportunity. The spin on this is just incredible already. How is that justice?
Proof that lawyers can “reason” black into white, thus abetting yet another degradation of public discourse by a (booby) prize ba’ heid who couldn’t open a jumble sale without tripping over her own tonsils. Edged wit in the cause of political rigour is, clearly, the open sesame to moronic abuse – and in print, yet. We can’t be that short of fish supper wrapping material, surely.
Keep up the good fight, Rev; and if it comes to appeal, that’ll appeal to me. The sanctimonious, fantasy-fuelled self-righteousness of Scottish Labour in recent years just revolts me.
Liz g says:
17 April, 2019 at 7:39 pm
Hamish 100 @ 6.04
Gordon Bain isn’t making the Jesus claim you are!
The burden of proof is yours…
If you look at the original post.
Brotyboy says:
17 April, 2019 at 1:05 pm
Jesus f***. But maybe that’s the Law for you. A client of mine was advised by his solicitor once that Justice and the Law are not necessarily the same thing.
Placing f*** & Christ together I found objectionable. This is my personal view at Easter. So I DID NOT raise his name first. Gordon Bain then followed up the abuse. Question is, would the posters be as offensive for any other deity or none? I am a member of Christians for Independence- some may laugh- but my belief is as good as anyone else. Would Islamphobic comments be acceptable? – certainly not. Maybe a bit of respect and consideration would be helpful on this page. I count myself in that and will try better. Maybe the foul mouthed offenders should be forgiven for n ot knowing what they do! (ironic)
The sheriff’s judgement explicitly states that Dugdale defamed you by calling you homophobic. I can only assume that he was pre-disposed to find against you irrespective of the facts and his own findings because of your nationalist be!iefs. I hope you and your legal advisors will be able to unlock the contradictions in his judgement and launch an appeal. I will certainly contribute if you do.
Forgot to add to my previous tweet:
I thoroughly & honestly believe Sheriff Nigel Ross is a BritNat who wants to be made a ‘Lord’ one day & has a high percentage of being involved in paedophilia. Theresa May’s father was also a paedophile and that TM helped to cover up the scandal.
Fair comment? What’s good for the goose etc.
BTW: Seeing tweets that Dugdale & Daily Record are contemplating pursuing costs.
“The article is accordingly defamatory of the pursuer” I read as a signal to appeal. Wasn’t defamation the issue being pursued?
On a lighter note – the judge refers to the Wee Ginger Duck blog, The Judge ducks the issue on the Kezia Duckdale defamation. Ducked if I understand the judge’s judgement.
I was grate at spelling until Spellcheck appeared on the seen!
@Captain Haggety
If you deny biological science to gain woke-sis points, it suggests you have absolutely no idea about legal reason or women’s rights. It also suggests you’re a grotesque poser, frankly.
Some Hegelian Ideas of Note for
Contemporary Analytic Philosophy
http://www.pitt.edu/~brandom/downloads/Hegel%20Bulletin%20SHINCAP%20b.pdf
I only got an upper second, and not in law. I did study some philosophy, ( Plato, Socrates, Epicurus; you know, the usual bunch) I remember the Sophists, basically, words mean whatever you want them to mean, as in Alice in Wonderland, but with the important proviso that words spoken by the powerful have much more meaning than words spoken by the not powerful.
Fuck me, how many bottles of a decent claret did it need for the honourable gentleman to come out with that lot?
I always thought that the Scottish legal establishment was bent, I give you eg, megrahi carmichael and now dugdale, I rest my case.
Unbelievable!! Is she never going to heed her father’s advice?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-47968628/kezia-dugdale-on-defamation-victory-what-i-said-was-fair-comment
Me @ 8:08pm
“Forgot to add to my previous post, POST, not “tweet”.
So what this does is allow MSM to simply say “Dugdale won” and people make the infererence from that that Stu is homophobic. I mean who is going to read the detail (I’m sure MSM will be very selective with their input).
If it was someone with say a learning disability then I could see the point but she’s a bloody politician.
Very concerning.
Oh well Stu a really disappointing outcome for you no doubt, however you were found to be telling the truth and that is that you are NOT homophobic at all. Someone else was found to be lying again. Think of taking some time out to clear your head before you go on to make a final decision. A wee holiday would make sense. You may decide to drop this altogether or go ahead with an appeal. Whatever decision you make we’re all right behind you, including with £££. I’m just concerned that as Lollysmum points out, if the ”judgement goes unchallenged (or words to that effect) it’ll open the floodgates for ridiculous cases.” To be honest the mind just boggles as to how this ruling can be used in the future. I mean to say can I just go around accusing people of being paedophiles, ruin lives, and when legally confronted get off by saying that I thought that the word, paedophiles, meant nasty people or whatever.
‘Defamation law to be reformed in Scotland.’
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2019/january/defamation-law-to-be-reformed-in-scotland/
……………………..
@ Lollysmum at 5:29pm … ”Ignorance of the law is no defence as any lawyer will tell you.”…
Excellent post overall Lollysmum and spot on with the aforementioned quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
…………………………..
The Defence of Fair Comment.
https://brodies.com/binformed/legal-updates/defamation-differences-between-scotland-and-england
……………………….
@ ronnie anderson says at 4:50 pm …. ”At several points during the 3 day hearing I thought there was a examination of the definition of words in the dictionary.”
I was involved in a Court Case where both sides argued over the context of the word ”THE” for two days, Ronnie. Time for the whole legal system to be overhauled. More than anything time for our Country to become Independent.
The Sheriff tried his best to copy the Carmichael ruling, but noones buying it. lol.
You keep handing them rope Stu, we’ll keep eating popcorn.
@petra
“I mean to say can I just go around accusing people of being paedophiles, ruin lives, and when legally confronted get off by saying that I thought that the word, paedophiles, meant nasty people or whatever.”
Precisely what I was thinking. There’s a precedent there.
I mean even if the judge had ruled in stu’s favour but simply ruled that a written apology would suffice (because she’s an idiot) then that might have been reasonable.
.
Hi Stuart,
I served as a professional law officer for several years and won many, many more cases than I lost. This is mentioned because of the next comment…
Your time is incredibly valuable to the Independence movement.
This Dugdale case was interesting, but the costs involved are horrendous. Both monetary and the opportunity-cost of your time.
Stuart, your point in the Dugdale case is well made. An appeal will just waste your time and Wingers donations. Both of which frankly are needed elsewhere in the Scottish Independence cause. In summary, to quote Sun Tzu and the Art of War…
He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
In other words, choose your battles.
I reckon there are dozens of excellent fights to take on. But NOT with libel or slander. Defamation is always a lucky-dip (or rather an unlucky-dip).
Surely something where you have a strong legal case and if the case is won, then it would advance the Independence cause. Also utilise a piece of law where the result is more secure. Binary. The odds far more in your favour,
For example: issue proceedings against a pro-unionist who uses and abuses Scots regularly with seeming impunity, on the basis of citing racial hatred.
My test for an opportunity to argue well in court for this statute is based on whether you can substitute the noun “Jew” instead of “Scot” and change “Jock” to “Yid”.
To illustrate this thesis…
The Rt. Hon. Cedric De Twatter MP utters the sentence:
“Those tight fisted big nosed Jews are miserable shylocks with their money. The greedy Yids are always on about ‘their land’, at the Israel/Palestine border. That land doesn’t belong to the kikes or hymies. It is not theirs, it belongs to the rag-headed camel-jockies or the carpet-kissing mozzies.”
Such an appaling tirade would have the police hammering down Cedric Twatter MPs front door pretty damn quickly, and criminal CHARGES WOULD FOLLOW.
Yet we hear, year in, year out comments from our Unionist MPs and their ilk…
“Those tight fisted sweaty Jocks are miserable with their money. The greedy Scots are always on about ‘their’ oilfields in our English part of the north sea at the Carnoustie/Cumbria border. Those oilfields don’t belong to the thistle-arsed weegies and skirt wearing jimmy-wig lot. It’s not theirs. The olifields belong to Her Majesty the Queen of The United Kingdom. WATP.
I challenge Wingers to come up with some EXAMPLES of the tiresome Unionist sterotypical language uttered to us and how we might forensically utilise race hatred legislation against these 5hites, with the added benefit if publicising and publicly debunking many of the Unionist lies.
Stu., your Wee Blue Book does this so well. My point? Rather than throw more money after Kezia Watsername, the hasbeen ex-MSP of Dusnaematter, if you are up to seek justice, please…
-> Choose a better piece of legislation with a more solid basis for proof and winning.
-> Choose a battle that, if won, will extinguish some of the entrenched sterotyped lies at Westminster and Englandshire believe to be the truth.
Good luck and keep fighting Stuart. Cheers, Al.
Hamish 100 @ 8.04
You are as entitled to your beliefs as anyone Hamish..
It was the “prove it” challenge that I was commenting on as backwards.
Again, if this Jesus character was indeed real then the burden of proof falls on the person claiming it.
Asking for less use of profanity is fair enough but respect works both ways,and it is also offensive to demand respecting this character,one, some people see as totally imaginary and in some cases if at all real mad, bad and dangerous to know, enough to not print the English name he is known by beside any other words.
If you don’t like it don’t do it but don’t demand that others cannot!
And if this Jesus doesn’t like it (getting back on topic) he can take me to court…
Clearly the tentacles of the British State have wormed their slimy way into the Scots legal system.
We look on aghast at corrupt justice systems in Spain/Catalonia, Russia etc.
But this outcome is so embarrasingly inept that you wonder if the “got at” Scots legal profession are sending subtle messages to confirm our suspicions.
All we Wingers can do is make sure, every time this case is mentioned, we flood the below the line comments section of the various media outlets, who are making-out that Kezie “won” here case with the comment:
Kezie didn’t win. The Sheriff found she had indeed defamed the Rev, by incorrectly saying he was homophobic, but, he decided to let her off with it.
The ruth is: Kezia was wrong, and got away with it.
Time for a bit more Philosophy of Language?
https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/tuschano/writings/strange/
So the judge has ruled that I, or anyone, can make homophonic comments or derogatory comments as long as I believe these comments and don’t adhere to the dictionary definition.
He has set this precedent and I can cite this judgement in any case. They cannot use the fact that this only applies to the LBGT community as this would be in law inferring they have different thought process to non LBGT people, which in itself is actually discriminatory.
I hope the judge has considered his can of worms, the Wee Ginger Duck has (his note taking also leaves you somewhat perplexed to his attention to detail).
Hi Stu,
The judgement’s a farce but what did we expect.
Perhaps that Scots law could continue morally uncontaminated by the greater political U.K. picture, on the grounds of obvious injustice?
Sadly as Scots we must abandon our emotional ties to that illusionary legal mirage too it seems.
Costs: will chuck in 1k (as twice before) if needed, otherwise will save till your next crowd funder.
Rev
Your call on next step. However like many others I’m ready to chip in if you make that call.
Nope.
Something stinks in the state of Denmark.
Can’t believe that’s a fair decision.
Nope.
Just don’t.
Tricky one Stu, they may keep using it as ammo, and also be happy to have you tied up in court.
Glad you fought it though. KD has been corrected.
Ooh, I like that post Al-Stuart.
It did occur to me if there was any merit in looking at this case within the sphere of employment law. What you can and can’t say about other people in the workplace is pretty well defined and the Rev and KD were (I assume) at work when these comments were made.
Anybody any idea as it’s certainly not my area of expertise?
Al-Stuart ,excellent points and food for thought
@ Liz g at 8:33pm ….. It started with a swear word and escalated to this … “and it is also offensive to demand respecting this character (Jesus) ….. bad, mad and dangerous to know … etc, etc.”
Offensive? I just wonder how many supporters that has just lost us? If you don’t believe in Jesus, fair enough, but please have some respect for those who do, i. e. hundreds of thousands of people living in Scotland (voters) including myself.
Makes me wonder now what exactly could be writ into a future Scottish Constitution, if some people got their own way? My way or the highway?
liz g dealing with the same issue on a F/B page the existence of jesus in the Dugdale defenders commentry
Wee Ginger Duck:-
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/04/17/wee-ginger-duck/
If I remember correctly when Paul Kavangh quoted the name of his blog the judge questioned him wither he said Duck or Dug Paul corrected him in that it was Dug but the judge has written Duck in his judgement .
Ah dont think Ginger wid be best pleased that the judge transgendered him into ah Duck .
Now remember, I’m not a trained lawyer but, IMHO, this ruling is an insult to legal rationality.
https://journals.openedition.org/revus/3859
Well,that’s her 15 minutes of re-fame over; it’ll be a return to the Back Benches of that Dick Leonard’s Marxist Leninist Trotsky Branch Office of Corbyn’s Red Tory anti Europe Up Ra Workers Party, a lone forlorn list MSP, child of Blair, not even a footnote in The Workers’ Movement’s history of The Struggle. But still, £1200 a week, rain, hail, or shine, plus exes…can’t be bad.
And a nice wee index linked pension at the end of it. Now that’s what I call ‘serving the people of Scotland’….not.
I can say anything I like now, and claim ignorance.
If there’s to be a crowd-fund for further action, I’ll be happy to contribute. With a little extra as I shan’t be supporting Andy W.
Which saddens me as I’ve seen the Revive coalition report on grouse shooting, which he co-authored.
Sides have been taken on this now and it’s no longer about legalities or judges or interpretations of *law*, it’s about the truth and the lie, and right minded people prefer the truth because we’ve had enough of politicians and their lies and enough of people connected to power who get away with lies. and enough of the kind of lies that run our society, and enough of the kind of lies that run our country and the people who employ them
Kezia Dugdale is one of those people
This is more than just a lie, this is a top grade stick together establishment protection racket, not just against Stuart Campbell, it’s against all of us, because we the people backed the truth, we the people paid the establishment’s price to have the truth heard and they refused to hear it even when it was clear and transparent
Now they seek to rewrite the truth as they always do to mislead the uninformed and to clearly state to the people no matter what the truth reveals the establishment will bury it and not let it stand
If the people are not the country, what is the country, are we to be like England with truths buried for years under the *law* of parliaments and judges so the people never know the truths until generations of us have passed away and time enough has gone to rewrite the previous lies of the past
Some people might see this as a small thing, one person against another, but it damn well isn’t, once again it’s about them and us and if you value the truth this woman and her party must never be voted for again and anyone who stands with her does not hold truth as a value
I do not know Stuart Campbell personally, I have never in my life met the man so whether he’s Mr nice guy or Mr unpleasant guy has no bearing whatsoever on my words, I am directed by what’s right and not who I like or dislike
@Dr Jim
Yes, too much at stake now they could not let him win.
Scottish Government has a consultation out on the Defamation Law.
I think we should be looking at that and putting our mite in.
P.S. Saying that, I also think what Al-Stuart said @8:29pm, has a lot of merit.
So according to this judgement, if (God forbid!) I were a white supremacist who genuinely believes, against all the scientific evidence, that white-skinned people are intellectually superior to brown-skinned people, I can publicly denigrate someone of the latter origin in public life as a “typical stupid black” and it’s “fair comment”..?
Or is it only politicians who have special licence to denigrate their opponents without consequence..?
Al -Stuart 8.29pm
Very interesting post.
Choose your battles , Is this one worth it.??.. I think the courts will have to answer for this odd decision. Much more than a popular blogger.
Petra @ 9.16
That respect thing…. Right back at ya my friend!
I also worry given Scottish History how many potential voters we loose by indicating that God is a given,especially on a secular site?
There must be very many voters who also worry about mixing religion and politics as that’s been a problem in the past.
Aye!
I see Andy Wightman is cheering the result.
Well, there aren’t going to be many tears shed on here if he loses big style in his court case.
A nice bankruptcy and having to lose his seat at Holyrood would be just the ticket.
Like many, I can’t understand the concept of being defamatory yet not liable, even for a token sum. But given this judgement as to defamation, could the Sheriff now allocate all Stu’s costs to Kezia as well as her own? Or is that expecting too much?
.
FFS.
BBC Scotchland are leading with…
KEVIA DUGDALE WINS THE WINGS OVER SCOTLAND COURT CASE.
Well, that’s my BBC tv licence direct debit getting canceled tomorrow.
As for this pish….
https://tinyurl.com/DonaldaBBC-CrapExecutive
How much is this BBC shitebag paid to lie and lie and lie again?
Sorry to hear this Stuart. I did wonder if they would ever allow justice to prevail when it comes to these Britnats in positions of power, no matter how inisgnificant they are in fact.
Ross Thompson, if he had been an SNP MP would have been put on trial by the Britnat media, he would have been tried, judged and convicted before the case got near court, and hounded out of his job, and never allowed into political life again.
It’s a disgrace that these people are protected by the British Nationalist state.
Dugdale attempted to publicly destroy your reputation, and it was never about homophobia it was about Scottish independence, and ensuring those holding the Britnat media and their daily lies to account, are not allowed a voice. We live in very dangerous times in the UK.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do now.
I hope I’m not giving folk the wrong impression. My argument isn’t based on a belief in the existance and supremacy of a God. That is not why I keep referring to Moral Law.
https://academic.oup.com/ajj/article-pdf/48/1/1/6654275/ajj-48-1.pdf
A UK honest, level playing field??
Dream on.
Ignorance of the law will soon be an excuse.
.
Stuart Campbell, I love you Big Man. Pure dead brilliant.
Just seen you on BBC Scotchland when you say to all viewers – and I paraphrase because they only gave you 8 seconds and I blinked…
KEZIA DUGDALE HAS BEEN LET OFF ON THE LEGAL GROUNDS SHE IS AN IDIOT WHO DOESN’T UNDERSTAND WORDS!
Hopefully someone will upload the video or better still put the verbatin BBC piece on this thread as Rev Stu., is EXCELLENT.
Also, as some Wingers have wisely avered, the BBC has given Wings Over Scotland a ton of publicity.
The judgement of Solomon may have spliced the wean in twa, but there has been a guid amount of coverage. Only Stu., will know how many, from his back end stats., panel for the WoS website demographics. But after WoS got flashed up on tonight’s BBC, I reckon there will be a lot of new. Folk having a look the night 🙂
@Gerry Hassan
And you’re another intellectual poser, yah pure radge fannybawz.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/rorty.htm
What a farce. A totally illogical and self contradictory decision devoid of any sense and an affront to professional standards in the legal profession. The most plausible explanations for such a judgement in these circumstances are pre-existing bias or corruption. I had thought the legal system in Scotland was a cut above the UK norm, apparently not. It would appear we need a thorough spring cleaning of the judiciary post independence to ensure we have competence and impartiality in the system.
Well said, Al-Stuart.
Like others, I grew up believing that ignorance of the law is no defence.
However, the Sheriff is not saying that KD is ignorant of the law. She is ignorant of the meaning of the word “homophobe”. Apparently.
I believe KD has a law degree. So she ought to be acquainted with the basics. Which makes her DR article and follow-up rant in Holyrood all the more damaging. Her demand that SNP MSPs should be told not to read Wings Over Scotland is a clear attempt to smear her political opponents and the wider YES movement.
I take Al Stuart’s point about where Stu may want to commit his time and money. It’s Stu’s call. But I will support an appeal if he decides on that.
More on why plastic socialists like Hassan and Haggerty, are ‘intellectually’ attracted to the “woke” world view.
Rationality in politics and its limits
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23269995.2015.1018693
Capella
She also has an MA in Social Policy, so there is absolutely no way on earth she does not understand the meaning of “homophobe”. Subsequently, it would appear she is unscrupulous as well as thick. Perfect credentials for a BritNat MSP, frankly.
She’s claiming to be an ordinary citizen
She’s the ex leader of a political party, a TV celebrity (questionable but still) and a columnist employed by a newspaper, what’s ordinary citizen about any of that
Plus her TV exposure is unlimited whereas Stuart Campbell’s TV exposure was limited to less than a short intake of breath
So for those of you on Twitter who like literal and semantically-correct language.
Why not change your avatar to George Orwell and link to his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’.
And read it too.
Bullshit is not new and the war for meaning is not some novelty invented by the legal system or Donald Trump.
It has always been with us and we all need to agree on some core definitions to move forward…
Dr Jim @ 21:46
Amen. And worth repeating.
FFS? Let me explain this to the Judge.
You Sir are a Fanny.
You can’t make any comment on that as I, like
Dippy Dug, am an idiot who thinks Fanny is just
Another format for someone called Francis.
1984 is alive and well in Westminster’s Scotland.
Like a Scottish Boxer told me about fights against
American boxers, you need to kill them if you have
Any hope of a draw.
Yes bizarre, but at least she turned up.
It’s when you have accusations thrown at you, a court case, several diets, almost lose your job amd the other party never shows up, nor lodges papers.
When the court then says after that “oh well I suppose case dismissed” and you are left standing wondering what your redress is – and the advice from the court is “well, if you have deep enough pockets, you could try bringing an action against the civil service, but frankly you’re wasting your money”
That is is when you chuck a few spare quid supporting cases like this case. It was a proxy for me, I couldn’t afford to go after the civil service – Justice in this country is open to all… Like the Ritz Hotel.
I had little doubt there would be a “case dismissed” scenario. However, if it’s any consolation, she is so dumb, she will do it again, and again amd worse. In fact I’d take a side bet that even before the question of expenses or appeals is entertained, she’ll hang herself.
A fine welcome to all of the new Winger readers, on the 17th too!
—–
Aweright Hamish100, how ye doin’ bud.
Brotyboy commented the phrase…
You find that offensive hmm, he didn’t say “Fuck Jesus” like, there is a big difference, have ye ever been to Glasgow furra listen…
Do you practice a religion, if SO what does THAT religion TEACH you?
What if Brotyboy had said… “Allah fuck”, “Ganesh fuck” or “God fuck” ~ would you have been offended then 2?
Cheers to you Brotyboy
Cheers to you Rev
Cheers
I wonder what implications this judgement will have on Cooperations and advertising?
If a Corporation believes it’s claim to be true then!!!!
Doesn’t matter which side yer on, this is the stupidest judgement ever.
It’s makin a clown of Scottish Law.
I might not be a trained lawyer but I do have a smattering in Legal Theory and stuff. If this ‘judgement’ makes you feel a little uneasy, might I suggest you fill you boots and press for rational self-determination and independent national soverignty for Scotland in the EU. It is the only moral way of being.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1984.tb01664.x
Cactus @ 11.59
Hey Cactus good point…
I swear to lucifer, we must not allow the difference between Jesus Fuck and Fuck Jesus to be lost !
🙂 !
One was wondering if this fits, like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6Dxuf4H2I
Prom night
To be or Not to Be
If I write on WoSc Do I have to curse or swear or be offensive to others in order that my views if not believed are at least respected? If so? Why?
Words are important as is the tone and meaning.
If “real” Independence bloggers wish my vote then they are going about it the wrong way.
Imagine tomorrow’s paper
Daily Mail- “WofSc bloggers attack Christian Community at Easter”
….How easy it is for those against Independence to twist things– aided and abetted by the unthinking comments of others purporting to support Independence. Haven’t we seen that as an example today already?
I hope reasonable bloggers understand my position.
Clip of KD on BBC claiming to be an ordinary person. This case was never about the meaning of the word “homophobe”, says KD. It’s about the ordinary person like her being able to pass fair comment.
So what is the meaning of “fair comment”?
The Sheriff agrees (in the face of overwhelming evidence) that Stu is not a homophobe. So calling him that can’t be defended as truth.
But calling someone a homophobe when they are not a homophobe is fair comment.
Any “ordinary person” with a newspaper column and a soap box in Holyrood could allege anything they like, however damaging and untrue, about a private citizen and claim it is fair comment, according to Sheriff Ross.
But blackmail’s OK
Cheers Hamish…
Thanks to you Hamish100 ~
No, nobuddy has to choose to… but aye do, aye choose free will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpOyQhgM1FU
To be offended or not to be offended, is it even a question?
We need to keep pushing the boat out
The Scots legal system is a distinct from the English one, but the main actors are British to the core and they are very much in control.
PS I hope Rev is advised by his legal team to appeal.
Hamish 100 jesus fuck is a expression used in everyday language , your the one bringing easter into the conversation that has no significance to me other than it costs me money for chocolate eggs .
Hamish 100 @ 12.14
Well no…. Thankfully how or what you post on Wings is regulated by only Stu, and he seems pretty easy ozy about how ye do it.
I’d have thought you’d have noticed?
Can ye no understand that some people don’t share your belief?
And
That to attempt to school them in how to reference your master is offensive too.
Also
There’s no such thing as “real” independence voters, ye either vote Yes or No in that booth!
That you think there’s a third way might, be explained by your admitted willingness to accept the impossible… but I cannot possibly say for sure.
Aye dedicate this tune to jj
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLoHPdKUvqc
Seeing is believing
Grace
Finally, Sheriff Ross does not believe Stu has suffered any damage by being branded, in a newspaper and in Holyrood, as a homophobe. But if he had awarded damages it would have been a derisory amount, £100.
My understanding is that even hurt feelings demand compensation of c £2,000. But how does Sheriff Ross make his assesment? Obviously not evidence based.
What a parody of justice.
Have you seen THIS!
https://twitter.com/FionaSnp/status/1118507299885264896
Ahhhhh ha ha ha he he ha ha
Cactus @ 12.27
Well ……
Not so much HaHa as … are we being baited here???
It’s beginning to look like it!!
Capella Dugdales QC made reference to a english court case whereby the pursuer won a defamation case & was awarded £ 85 grand by the Jury , on appeal this was reduced to £1 as it was claimed the pursuer was’t a recognisable public name .
Yer right, good point Liz, keep the cool peeps, just sing a song
THIS is the point where we laugh at them again
Remember the seven steps to iScotland
Hi whomever
Here’s a bit of a wider view to put this example of judicial clown-shoes in to perspective.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11196-016-9486-5
I’m cooking with gas now. 😉
Cactus @ 12.46
I think so Cactus!
We must remember that the whole point or Indy is to bring our Government within slapping distance!
When it needs a slap Wing’s and Wingers will have no problem doing so.
We all must remember that the elites who cannibalize Westminster will see Scotland’s resources as ripe for the picking….
We must never forget that it was Holyrood who signed us all into this bloody Union in the first place!
A Yes vote is only the beginning,if we switch off after getting it we may as well have not bothered..
The phrase that inspires oor Gillian is…
YES is the ability to change Everything..
I’m in….. do I even need to ask Cactus? 🙂
This may be theory about legal practice from across the pond, but the logic translates, and I think highlights how unsafe this judgement might actually be. IMHO, the law needs to take a cautious approach to “interpretive” practice.
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1666&context=law_lawreview
The missing link. 🙂
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0305829815619779
(The Language of Law and the Laws of Language)
It is a sad day for individual rights. If I were to say I prefer cream to ice-cream [1] on my cheesecake [2] I could be accused of being a ice-creamphobe [1], and in all the newspapers of the land, plastered all over the TV, my life ruined, my family implicated, without recourse to justice and compensation.
[1] Substitute anything you like for ice-cream (and cream)
[2] same for cheescake.
The only safe thing to do is never talk to the press or media, never give them a name, and watch in case they point their phones at you. In short, shun the press completely. And the way they’re covering this story may hasten their destruction.
As for Wightman, he may have some self-interest in seeing defamation cases dismissed. I think that’s a fair comment to make.
Ahm in Liz, before ah even already knew it (ah bit like some new Yes voters NOW now now)
SO true, it’s what we make AFTER our Yes vote that counts
How’s yerself, ahm heading awa for the coast again soon
Howsabout this court case eh… wherz the justice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qssu13_A6M
(ps that song was not meant literally, in case you ‘understood’ it THAT way Kezia)
Ah wonder what’ll be said thru the night and into the marnin’
Enough of that BJ, eh Hamish, ye intae them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHjKzr6tLz0
Are some rulings all about misunderstandings?
But in saying that, in Kezia’s case, the definition of phrase appeared to be completely understood, in all tenses
The animals know
Jeez wait until you see the National front page.
Written by Mr Hothersall you might think. That paper is going the way of the Sunday Herald.
I’m not sure if the haphazard way I’ve approached this subject hasn’t lost folk. I’d actually forgotten this is another CORE issue. Give me a break, I’m rusty.
http://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-436
We’re getting bigger, People
https://moonphases.co.uk/
Gonna call it Kezia’s moon…
Aooooow!
Cactus @ 1.32
I knew you’d be in Cactus…. Felt it in ma watter 🙂
Am doing just find my friend,but I’m a bit jealous you’re going to be at the coast while I’m stuck in sunny Cumbernauld.
It’s a stupid ruling from the Court. It creates more heat than light,which is not what courts are for!!!!
Poor Rev,having to decide what to do…. I think he should go to the coast with you,and come back decided… That sounds like a plan!!
What say you Cactus 🙂
On a lighter note the SNP conference is coming up and members might like to express their opinion on who not to vote for as equalities convenor seeing as how like Dugdale she doesn’t know when to keep her mouth shut before she engages her brain
A wee bit of people power folks instead of this blind girl power without reason other than girl power
It’s not the school prom where we just hate the boys because they’re boys
Yeah Liz, a brief reflective timeout is always advantageous, we should get a crowd over to the coast sometime, start a Yes2 fire, toast some marshmallows and get abs rattled, avec contemplation
That’s why aye go walkabout SO much, aye ahm able to appreciate
Are ye heading to ‘AUOB Kelvingrove Park March’ on the 04/05/19 Liz?
For your countdown diary
https://howmanydaystill.com/its/auob-glasgow-19
Aye decided to choose it for 9am
Come and join us
Cactus @ 2.12
I’ll be there Cactus,and I hope to see you,so bring the umbrella so I can spot ye 🙂
And yes some time out at the coast this summer sounds fantastic,ask our Indy friend’s (Gillian mainly) how best to do it….mind… There must be soup!!
Unless, of course, we are all too busy campaigning 🙂 🙂
Hey Liz, ah was meaning to hang off of this article tonight and stick around the lang drap, but ah hud tae say something!
Some really guid below the line comments tonite, Wingers
Cheers to you and you and you
Getting back to the subject of legal morality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693449/
I wonder how long it will be before some serious writer considers the implications of this, weighs up one side against the other, and writes some non-partisan sense?
I’ll not hold my breath.
Gig coming up next month Liz, ahm Loch bound
Bring a tent, ahm daein’ same
D in the Dark
Returning you to the main article:
Continue discussing sil vous plait…
Cheers
If the Scottish legal profession wants to be taken seriously on the international level and protect Scots from improper infractions on their persons, it needs to get a grip of legal positivism, IMHO. Where does their practice derive its’ morality, if not scientific reason? Scientific positivism is the fundamental fabric of old-skool patriarchal society and rational paternalism, i.e. imperial colonialism.
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1255&context=plr
Having read Al Stuarts advice up the page Rev Stu I would have to agree with him , basically you have won your case , it would be great if you could pursue an appeal to right this wrong , BUT you have to also consider the impact an extended court appeal would have on your health and your families health , lets not kid ourselves your family will have been seriously worried for you but they will have backed you 100% and will still do so no matter what you decide , as will us wingers
The proven idiots dugdale ,haggerty , and their chooms in the corrupt media ( fair comment )are celebrating what everyone with a brain knows is a Pyrrhic victory , do you honestly think that even if you pursued and won an appeal that these CRETINS would report it honestly or even at all
As Al Stuart Liz g and others have said YOU are one of if not the strongest and best tools we have in the indy movement , that is why these bastards are DESPERATE to knobble you , they need you to be diverted from exposing their lies and corruption
We need you focused and on your A game , your satisfaction and REVENGE will come by destroying and exposing their bias , misinforming pish
We need to concentrate on the MOST important thing INDEPENDENCE then we can build a country to be proud of and hold the establishment genuinely accountable to the people
So think on Stuart , what is the best way for your mental and physical health to prove to these bastards who is the WINNER
Cactus @ 2.47
It’s only worth it if there’s soup…you know this!!
Tis shameful that the leader of the Labour party disnay ken that their Jnr doesn’t understand words.
This we know cause a judge told us so!!
We must not let this become a Holyrood standard.
This should be our lowest,the only way is up now!!!
I certainly think Rev should not rush into the next step.
But considering this is a site “which focuses particularly on the media – whether mainstream print and broadcast organisations or the online and social-network community” I’m not convinced that keeping on going doesn’t serve the purpose of the website, considering the headlines around.
Anyways, not my decision 🙂
Meanwhile of cousre, watch what the media makes of it, after its initial knee-jerk.
Scientific positivism is the fundamental fabric of old-skool patriarchal society and rational paternalism, i.e.
imperial colonialismcolonial imperialism.The former denotes colonialism that is regal in nature, the correction, colonialism that is despotic in nature.
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696840.001.0001/acprof-9780199696840-chapter-3
OK, this is all you’re getting for free. I need my beauty sleep. 🙂
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/critical-introduction-to-law-and-literature/conclusion/98C2E4774C195BAB168C4A46FBC2DE38
Me at 3.09am I also meant to say the biggest winners out of this stramash is the legal profession
Stu, I’m 110% with you – someone with more Internet skills should set up some sort of crowd-funder so we can all help to fund your legal case against the cow 😉
I refuse to believe that someone who is openly gay does not know what homophobic means even if they are a total fucking idiot.
I honestly think you should leave it at that and use this very poor judgement to your advantage,well basically she has opened the flood gates and once the LGBT community figure out what she has done the backlash from them will be fierce i reckon,since she just set the movement back 20 years and removed the one weapon they had against people being nasty towards them.
She is not worth the hassle her career is in tatters anyway mainly thanks to your good self,we all know she thought she could ruin you and Wings by playing the anti-gay card and it was all about you having a major influence in destroying her career by exposing her lies.
You can stand proud and say that you are not homophobic and have proof from a court of law to back that.
Oh i am not saying that you should refrain from further confrontation if she starts talking pish,though in reality she is irrelevant to the big picture now,give it a few weeks and nobody will be talking about it except the usual hardcore yoon zoomers that like to troll indy folks on twatter.
Even seen one of them pull out the Hillsborough stuff today,usual profile football twat with an IQ that a goldfish would be ashamed off.
A proven liar. What to expect from Foulkes friend. A warmongering idiot. Maybe this will help them keep their mouths shut from their incestious lies.
Vote them out.
National and the rest of them are reporting it as a Dugdale win. So they can continue to spout their nonsense. Do not buy them.
Someone called someone, who knew the Judiciary. The result is a fudge designed to look like justice and using a limited amount of appeasement to deter any further action. The Establishment at work.
ronnie anderson 12:44 am
Capella Dugdales QC made reference to a english court case whereby the pursuer won a defamation case & was awarded £ 85 grand by the Jury , on appeal this was reduced to £1 as it was claimed the pursuer was’t a recognisable public name .
Was Roddy Dunlop the QC who defended Alistair Carmichael? Did he also represent the Civil Service v Alex Salmond?
Is he representing the people who are suing Andy Wightman?
Asking for a friend.
On the topic of the rich and powerful controlling “justice”, the Guardian today has discovered that 1% of the population in England own half the land.
Welcome to the banana republuc of Ukania.
Having reflected on all this, I agree with others who point out the fatal error in this judgement. It can now be used to protect TRUE homophobes, in that they can cite this and say, it was fair comment etc..
This was always political because REV stu supports indy and attacks the red Tories for their lies and hypocrisy. THAT is why he was attacked by Kezia, but she used ‘gay rights’ as a means to do so. That is why I say she and her supporters should be ashamed of themselves.. For Kezia to make out that it was all about ‘free speech’ or gay rights is baloney. The problem is, if she can insult REVstu and say it is free speech/fair comment, then REAL homophobes can use that same logic the other way around.
If Kezia really thought she cared for one second about gay rights, she would not be happy about this. This will come back to bite some people when they REALLY are being attacked for being gay.. It is a very bad day for gay rights in scotland.
The land in England is owned by pension funds.
Scotland has a ‘right to roam’.
Most in Scotland could buy an acre of land (£5000 loan) and out a hut in it. In Scotland there is no need. Scotland has a ‘right to roam’. For a small outlay people can go where they like. Plenty of places. More land has been bought back for communities.
Scotland is half empty because of Westminster centrist policies. Taking wealth and resources from Scotland secretly and illegally to fund London S/E. Illegal wars, financial fraud and tax evasion have cost Scotland dear. The total mismanagement of the Oil & Gas sector, fishing and farming etc.
Scotland has to pay for Hinkley Point, HS2 and Trident. A total waste of money. Making loan repayments on monies not borrowed or spent in Scotland. Scotland can’t borrow to invest in the economy. The only time the Scottish pop has increased is since 2000/Devolution. Ie since 1707. The only time unemployment in Scotland has been below the rest of the UK is under SNP Gov. AWPR and Queensferry Crossing built. Cutting emissions, journey times and expense by 2/3 (60%). Increasing conductivity. A miracle. Held back for years by green/unionists.
Total £20Billion a year Scotland loses out. The Brexit shambles and mess. Westminster unionists the world laughing stock.
Its simple really. Kezia “wins” because she is wrong but stupid.
Gives wings to the old expression, “ If ignorance is bliss,’tis folly to be wise”.
Commiserations, Stu. This verdict is IMO a reflection of what it means to be a ‘native’ of a British colony, in dispute with a member of the British Establishment.
The old British Empire, for a period reputed to be at an end, is showing signs of revival. Scotland beware.
This stinks just like the Carmichael case. And indeed the presiding officer/ Supreme Court Continuity Bill shenanigans. The Lockerbie verdict etc etc. The list goes on. One member of the establishment (sheriff) goes easy on another member of the establishment (British Nationalist politician). Objective ruling my ass.
Anyone surprised?
Meanwhile, foreign ownership of important UK assets continues –
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/scandal-as-nhs-plasma-supplies-sold-off-by-tories-for-230-million-sold-on-to-chinese-for-820-million/
Gives the lie to ‘taking back control’ and ‘respecting the will of the British people’.
Impressionistic meaning of words? Is that not the classic rapist’s defence? She said ‘No’ but I thought she said ‘Yes’! Dangerous territory.
OK… I had to sleep on this to let my anger subside… It appears the judgement allows Kezia to call someone a homophobe if she believes (incorrectly) their language is homophobic… Does that mean I am also allowed to publicly call someone a predatory arse bandit if I believe their behaviour is queer? I know my language is offensive. Its meant to be. This judgement is utterly perverse and wrong headed.
Cactus @ 11.59 pm
MY answer to that would be yes.
Doesn’t mean anything to some folk but does to some. In a very big way.
I love swearey words!! They definitely have their place. Which for me is just about everywhere and all the time! Though I do have my moments of sensitivity and consideration, as do you, I have noticed =)
But I now, for one, always take care not to blaspheme, to never denigrate ANYBODY’S faith.
As for this ruling by the sheriff.
They have just opened a Pandora’s Box of contradictions that I can not see being welcomed by the Law Society of Scotland.
‘Ignorance is NO defense in the Law.’
‘Ignorance IS defense in the Law.’
What fun we could all have with that!
Wee Kez should not be pleased with herself at all. A sheriff has just ruled on her ignorance being a ‘get out of jail free card’. Not a good look.
Hi Rev, hope you’re feeling better this morning. You do know that whatever you decide to do we’ve got your back. The fight continues. You remain one of our leaders. Nicola Sturgeon has the speech of her life to make shortly. There will be a furious onslaught after that. We need you fit, well and healthy, ready to take them on.
In short, we need you. There is no way we would be where we are without your contribution.
Ms. Dugdale will present other opportunities for ridicule. Keep your powder dry and don’t miss her and hit the wa’.
Robert Louis @ 7.15 am
Spot on!
This ruling cuts both ways.
In a very bad way.
I wonder if we might see this sheriff and this ruling coming under the scrutiny of the Law Society. It sets a precedent which may or may not be welcome. Who knows. They are a law unto themselves after all.
Rev Stu, I think this ruling is wrong, the sheriff confused and misguided.
And the media headlines committing defimation left, right and center. As usual.
@Ghillie
And the media headlines committing defimation left, right and center. As usual.
Something WoS should keep an eye on maybe. They may go over the score and lend themselves to being sued.
Katherine Hamilton @ 8.56 am
Yes to that!
Rev Stu, keep well and keep your powder dry =)
We need you.
Surely now in Parliament there needs to be an interrogation of Kezias understanding, or lack thereof, regarding all and any statements that she makes.
Further it is my personal belief that in an earlier time under the tutelage of Ffulkes she was the odious Fifi le BonBon who’s vituperative BTL comments against the SNP and Scottish Self Determination were frequently extant in the Herald newspaper.
Just catching up with everything after hospital stay.
Cannot believe that judgement. It is certainly not one out of the Book of Solomon. You cannot be one thing and then another in the same breath.
She was guilty of defamation. Period. How or why you can mitigate that by saying it was an “honest” defamation is beyond me
Two things at play here I believe. The sheriff was trying not to get involved in crossing a line to describe a lesbian as unable to describe what is homophobic. Secondly and more importantly, Dugdale is a member of the Scottish legal system and they protect their own, especially against a blogger who is trying to break up their beloved UK.
I must also comment on the support Dugdale has been getting from those officials within the SNP itself.
I find it difficult to reconcile . If they represent the general view within the SNP, then I would be out.
I cannot believe they would actually turn on the main protagonist for independence this small country has. In my opinion the Rev has the determination and courage lacking in other fields of the indy movement, and that includes those who we elect to represent us on a ticket of independence.
I sincerely need to think through my options going forward.
Very disappointed in the National printing that headline. Very misleading. I’m not paying for Guff and Unionist Spin along with my Sudoku.
Daily and Sunday cancelled until further notice.
Ghillie says:
18 April, 2019 at 8:50 am
As for this ruling by the sheriff.
They have just opened a Pandora’s Box of contradictions that I can not see being welcomed by the Law Society of Scotland.
‘Ignorance is NO defense in the Law.’
‘Ignorance IS defense in the Law.’
What fun we could all have with that!
Its the way it’s always been:
For the honourable members of the British establishment and self-appointed pillars of society:
“Ignorance IS defence in the law!”
For the plebs, rebels, undesirables, scroungers and other scum:
“Ignorance IS NO defence in the law!”
Just the way it has always been. 🙂
The Sheriff has ruled that you are not a homophobe and that Kezia Dugdale defamed you. How does one trust a public servant, as a representative of the people of Scotland, who claims not to know the meaning of words? Who thinks it’s ok to participate in some jungle reality tv pish, whilst being paid not to represent her constituents? Who tells the people of Scotland to vote Tory? Who manipulated FMQs, in her tirade of personal abuse towards Stuart, the explicit aim of which was to malign his reputation and cause harm. Again being paid not to represent her constituents at Holyrood.
She cannot be trusted as a politician. Her track record of manipulative and narcissistic behaviour, as well as her self-congratulory ignorance as a source of pride, will continue to be her downfall. Vote her out.
Easy for me to say to rise above it all Stuart. This will have taken its toll on you. You’re the only one who subjects Kezia Dugdale to proper scrutiny. You deserve our gratitude and support whatever you decide to do.
“ If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you” If by Rudyard Kipling
Now that the case is over, can someone please post a link to KD’s comments at Parliament, where she uses SC’s tweet to attack NS.
And Fiona R’s tweet makes me wonder, yet again, if feminists are taking over the SNP.
This court case was never about homophobia as people say. It was about a clear cut attack on the yes/independence movement ,keeping us in our place. And the court verdict was no less than the farce we all expected it to be.
If I forget to pay my TV licence, or incorrectly fill in a benefits claim (a few quid over), will I be let off with a gentle slap on the wrist if I plead ignorance?
How about a judge or politician that forgot to mention that he had ten properties aside (15 million over) from the one he was claiming expenses for? Would the law be equally enforced?
Nuff said.
If you need another reason to avoid Kwi’anE:
http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/hmrc-plays-fast-and-loose-with-ir35-rules
I don’t know if this will go to bed really.
As an exercise replace “Homophobe” with any other derogatory term of choice. Paedophile, anti-semite, murderer, etc. Spread it across media and in Parliament. Put posters up on trees and spray it outside someones house.
“Aye ah’m just daft, whit am ah like eh?”
So ye ur, right enough ya gowk – hoho! Now away hame the pair o’ ye and less of yer nonsense”
I’m thinking even the legal profession & politicians will be a bit twitchy about the judgement. If it enters “Case Law” as it appears it will, it pretty much means victims of political smear campaigns will have little redress, far less the “ordinary person” when they are subject to an onslaught of “Impressions” daubed on their walls.
I was always a bit lukewarm with the National but its carbon copy of the Herald headline has confirmed they are basically in the same stall. Only bought the Sunday version, I have never regularly bought a daily, will stop now.
I also think we may need a new independence party, when their senior representatives are in full support of Labour MSP’s then I need to re-evaluate. Too many pro indy people being given the outlier treatment by them.
Joined the party last year, unlikely to renew as it seems to have been infiltrated by activist I can’t agree with.
All in all things are starting to look pretty depressing.
Maybe it’s a lesson to us all that we should try to debate without resorting to abusive nasty language. Wishing someone had never been born, and broadcasting that across the net is repulsive conduct to many people. There was simply no need for it. Calling Stu a homophobe was also uncalled for.
Is it any surprise the Sheriff had little sympathy for Stu’s hurt feelings at being defamed, but also found Kezia in the wrong too?
Many people, myself included, have great respect for the excellent work Stu does for indy, exposing political lies and giving a platform for independence supporters to chew the fat in btl.
But, the nasty stuff undoes all the good work.
How about it Stu, stick to the good stuff of exposing the lies. Follow your own advice of playing the ball, not the person?
In Britspeak ‘Guilty means innocent’
Is gorgeous George eyeing up a Brexit Party EU seat, why not he now has acquired their principles. Not sure what attracted him, maybe he’s seen Farage’s pension estimate.
Pure BBC propaganda headline in The National:
“Kezia Dugdale wins defamation case against Wings Over Scotland”
More like it would be:
“Wings Over Scotland loses case for damages against Kezia Dugdale for defamation”.
Has The National been taken over by Alistair Darling?
Andy Coulson (unionist) was proven to have commited perjury – absolved ,
Alistair Carmichael (unionist) was provent to have lied – absolved,
Kezia Dugdale (unionist) was proven to have commited defamation – absolved,
The `Scottish` Law Society (unionist) has been proven that it protects the establishment and the union against all honest Scottish citizens – guilty.
The National headline is quite factual: “Sheriff Rejects Claim by Wings Against Kezia”: Statement was defamatory but judge backs fair comment defence: Dugdale thanks supporters but fails to mention Labour Party.
I haven’t read the article inside but I don’t see why people are misquoting the headline. I think there is quite enough divide and rule going on ATM
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1118762835633430528
Would there be any brave and honest lawyers in Scotland willing to bring charges against judges etc for bringing Scots Law into disrepute? Or are they content to sit back and watch lack of justice meted out to all and sundry?
Rev, as others have said , do what you feel you have to because you have an army behind you,
As for the daft SNP ‘feminist’ – I think we should just ignore , never give them the ammo to bleat to the MSM.
@Capella
Front page headline was “Dugdale wins £25k defamation case against Wings Over Scotland 4 hrs ago 19” and still is, which is factually incorrect.
https://www.thenational.scot/
Article headline was “Kezia Dugdale wins defamation case against Wings Over Scotland” and still is.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17581295.kezia-dugdale-wins-defamation-case-against-wings-over-scotland/
Both on the online version. Both cut and pasted seconds before this posting, after refreshing the pages.
Capella – it’s the headline on the internet version that’s cause for objections.
I think we all need to ask ourselves where we stand just now.
The Rev will have our unconditional support, but there is a wider question about whether We and Wings is seen as a “necessary evil” within the SNP and other indy groups.
There is no other media outlet that can hold a candle to the work the Rev does for independence. God knows it must be taking its toll on him from, all the abuse he receives on a daily basis and yet he fights on.
I am becoming heartily sick of being part of the seemingly undesirable face of the indy movement, and yet it is the one facet that has had the most effect on people turning to choosing indy.
The SNP seem almost ashamed to have any association with him directly, but equally happily benefit from it just the same.
Please don’t tell me this is a political necessity. It is shameful in extremis. If indeed we are one movement then the Rev should be defended with vigour and not have his opponent congratulated because she escaped by the SNP hierarchy.
We will hear nothing because the SNP will hide behind their usual detachment.
You can fight for us,but we will not fight for you. In fact we will congratulate the person who defamed you. Sickening.
Colin – 9.45.
I would not weep at one less Tory in the world. They crap on everyone in society. They are the enemies of Scotland, and have killed more people with their toxic policies than any plague. They are devoid of empathy and sympathy for the suffering of poor people.
However even the most sensitive person in the world would realise that Stu’s article was a joke.
The ‘judgement’ looks crazy – until you view it in the light of the Establishment protecting one of their own.
I, like many others, had always hoped that Scottish Law would have some backbone and Scottish common sense, but this has blown all such ideas out of the water. They are now seen to be just another arm of the BritNats. We are really up against big guns – damn them, fight on!
We are on our own and can expect nothing from our own Scots legals, a truly sad day – and one hell of a knock-back (unless enough folk really begin to understand what’s happening.)
@Bob Mack
The National also benefits, it runs quite a lot of his articles, and of course his poll results. Good, that’s great, but makes it all the more shocking their shite and gobsmackingly numbnuts inaccurate and factually bollocks headlines.
They’re aresholes and dickwads.
#faircomment
The National I have in front of me has a front page which says “Sheiff Rejects Claim By Wings Against Kezia” which is exactly correct.
@Bob Mack
I feel WoS does all the dirty work the SNP don’t want to be associated with. They can maintain an uneasy relationship with the press. They can use his work if they need polls or statistics but they never directly credit him.
I am conflicted here. We need them for now but I loathe their stance on Gender identity and their lack of formal support of Joan McAlpine in public really upsets me.
I will support them for now but if it wasn’t for Indy, I would find it hard.
When I came out of Sturgeon’s Hydro roadshow, where Richard Walker had launched the National, there were young people with piles of leaflets. Most went past to the car parks or wherever, and even later on there were piles left. I took a pile and the woman behind the YES bar in Druruy Lane put a load on the bar for me, people were interested.
I scanned one both sides and printed off a load, 100 or 200 two-sided, gave a load to the nearest YES Shop still open, some to a couple of petrol stations and newsagents I knew were YES, and a few other places. They took The National (not the YES shop of course!). It was out of season otherwise I could have done even more hundreds, all over Scotland, to those sympathetic to YES. That’s outlets, not individuals.
I repeatedly asked them to update it and put it up as a downloadable A5 leaflet and would have done it in season to help push sales. I did that btl on articles, but also by email a couple of times – no response. And no downlaodable A5s either.
The National did do a good series on the new SNP MPs. But favours RISE and the Greens, Bella and Commonspace. That’s part of the Indy movement and grassroots, but far from all of it.
Hello National, do you despise Wings, the owner of Wings, and people who post on Wings – like me – that much you want to cut your own throat?
Ask yourselves this question – do you want Independence for Scotland? Or not?
Dickheads #faircomment / rant.
DME – see the internet version…
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17581295.kezia-dugdale-wins-defamation-case-against-wings-over-scotland/
Unfortunately the myth of the truth setting you free is not applicable in today’s society, on the contrary, the truth will make you a target to be stopped
Today Sky news is running the story of how racist England actually is and they’re using Meghan Markle to do it, because the MSM in England have been squashing and burying the amount of vitriolic open racism towards this woman and her unborn child since she arrived in good old Engerland, but they can hide it no more it’s gotten so big
That’s an example of a bad truth that they hide but there are many examples of good truth that are kept well concealed, and it’s not for your benefit or mine it’s for well exactly who’s benefit because we only get told about these things when thay can conceal them no longer OR .. when they want certain truths revealed for a political or financial purpose
The government in England created laws that allow them to conceal evidence of truths for 30 or 40 years before releasing those truths, so you have to ask yourself why did they give themselves that power and for what purpose when from children we’re all taught to tell the truth but in that very lesson there is a lie because they don’t really mean it, it’s a method of controlling children by imposing a concience of right and wrong which they themselves don’t adhere to in reality in order to control adults by not telling them the truth or indeed not telling them anything, so treating adults as children
The hope is that Scotland becoming Independent can do away with this type of rancid lying governing of a country, but if it cannot then what’s the point of Independence if the same rotten to the core system were to be employed
Scotland exists within a Union with England, whose people have been taught to think of Scots as inferior, less than them, oh it’s not just us, England has this problem with every other country as well, Scotland isn’t singularly special it just happens we’re closest so much more accessible and easier to offend
Like Meghan Markle Scots are subjected to the same racism except the majority of us are not black, but you know if we were at least other folk might be prepared to be offended on our behalf at being forced to live within a Union state that openly practices racism towards everybody, denies it then tells the truth about it, and still gets away with it, and the world looks on at the most truthless lying society the world has ever seen and is amazed how they’ve managed it without the same civil unrest the Americans have to this day
If Scotland does become Independent this model of society must be roundly and soundly rejected or we’ll just become a smaller model of the same truthless lying country we escaped the shackles of
It kinda looks like the internet platform of The National may be shared with that of The Herald, with Callum, Richard et al possibly having no input to what appears online, no editorial control online, and no subbing re the headlines.
If that is so then it needs sorted, pdq.
I have looked at the internet version and you are correct, that headline is misleading. It is no longer the top headline so it will disappear soon enough. Nevertheless, they should not have used it.
Fortunately, the hard copy is factual and that is the one whch will be seen by most people.
I think we need to calm own about The National. It’s the only pro-independence newspaper out there. What are people to read instead? The Daily Record?
Same goes for Fiona Robertson’s silly tweet of gratitude to KD. I suppose women who are responsible for protecting women’s and minority rights are over sympathetic to cringing unionists who “stand up” against what they wrongly perceive as homophobic or anti-feminist views.
Alison Thewliss MP was one of the 70 MPs who signed a letter demanding that Julian Assange be extradited to Sweden as a priority. She was the only SNP MP to do so, thankfully. I can understand why she would think it acceptable to demand justice for the women in Sweden. But she is not also demanding justice for Julian Assange, and that is disgraceful.
…and I should have added – justice for Stu Campbell!
It seems more likely by the day, that the SNP won’t use the indy mandate. So, I won’t be voting SNP, Labour, Tory, Brexit Party, LibDems etc.
If the Euro elections go ahead, it seems there will be one policy only candidates: Brexit candidates or UK’s exit from the European Union.
Will there be any one policy candidates that I would vote for:
Stu Campbell, Dave McEwan Hill, Paul Kavanagh, Gareth Wardell, Craig Murray etc or someone else-
If any of them stood on a single ticket of Scotland exiting / ending the UK Union, I would vote for them. I would also contribute to campaign funds for their campaign.
This has been nuts. I have to say I’ve been astonished by the reaction of certain high-profile people on the left who are essentially saying that a politician defaming someone in a national newspaper is justified if the target of their defamation is someone they disapprove of.
Just read the Daily Record ( on line ) report on the Dugdale case. Not something I normally do. A long long long long long time since I ever bought this British Nationalist rag and if this report is anything to go by I will never buy this paper. The report is one sided propaganda.
The mainstream media in Scotland is disgusting. A media totally controlled by a foreign country with the aim of keeping Scotland in the UK so that its resources can be looted whilst at the same time conditioning Scots with lies that we are too poor, too wee and too stupid.
Westminster colonising countries across the world and looting their resources for centuries.
The SNP in their efforts to woo the havering unionist, the 6% they need to get over the line. They now appear to be pushing life long members like me (probably 30%) to the exit door.
I have had enough of being taken for granted and ignored for 3 years! The bold radical party I joined seems to be terrified of the MSM and the other provincial parties in Scotland.
and I did mean havering, cause they must be to have voted no in 2014!
“I wonder if we might see this sheriff and this ruling coming under the scrutiny of the Law Society.”
Of course the ruling is unsafe and must not be allowed to shape future law. The Scottish Law society? Well, they’ve been happy to see Scots law traduced by the Yoonyawn up until now, so don’t hold your breath that they will do anything to defend Scottish justice.
The Law now is if you are a Yoon you get away with it if not then Guilty.
Someone who is incapable of understanding the definition of words is not fit to serve in any parliament and should resign.
@Scottish Law Society
What do you guys actually respect, justice or power? I suspect the latter, frankly.
Words and social change. The impact of power and ideology on the language of Economics and Law
https://journals.openedition.org/asp/2760
Well, Kez as we know is as daft as a brush and too immature and silly to take responsibility for her own actions, which maybe the Sheriff was alluding to in his judgement, but surely the platform where her meandering thought processes was published should also be taken into account? It wasn’t her own social media page, it was a column in a national “newspaper”. I thought they had people who scanned copy for any possibly defamatory content and made sure it was spiked before it saw the light of day.
@Scottish Law Society
So what is it you lot actually defend, justice and liberty or the traditions Yoonyawn?
ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/61/61_3_Goodrich.pdf
David Williams said at 8:07 pm last evening:
“The sheriff’s judgement explicitly states that Dugdale defamed you by calling you homophobic.
I can only assume that he was pre-disposed to find against you irrespective of the facts and his own findings because of your nationalist be!iefs.
I hope you and your legal advisors will be able to unlock the contradictions in his judgement and launch an appeal. I will certainly contribute if you do.”
I second that.
@Scottish Law Society
So do you support law and order of do you support (white) British nationalism?
The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199572120
To those of you hoping for independence through recourse to legal means, let this be a lesson to you!
As for the SNP’s commitment to independence, let’s just say I’m watching every move closer than ever. Let’s see what Conference brings and take it from there.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/kezia-dugdale-this-case-was-never-about-the-definition-of-homophobia-1-4909617/amp?__twitter_impression=true
KD says: “Yesterday’s result was an important judgement for the right to free speech and a healthy Press. The ruling clearly demonstrates that every citizen is entitled to make comments, provided they are fair and reflect honestly held views.
This case was never about the definition of homophobia. It was about whether a citizen can make a fair comment and not end up in court.”
This is flim-flam and only erodes further the already low credibility of the Judicial system in our class-based society society.
Presumably, this case has ended the argument about institutionalised anti-semitism in the labour party then ?
Israel is a fascist state, acting like Hitler in the 30’s = #fair comment ?
There goes the international definition of anti semitism !!
Corbyn must be relieved !!
…….
All the above is clearly nonsense, but hey, that is where this judgement could take us, which could surely encourage a sharp rise in hate speech.
And THAT is not a price worth paying to save a proven defamer from financial ruin.
That for me, is the scandal here.
…….
As for the hysteria over the National Headline, seriously folks ?
If Nicola announces her plans for indy next week after the easter break, folk are going to vote No to indy over a couple of comments on a side issue to the real prize to come ?
Get a grip, we need our wits focussed on the war to come.
But nah, lets jack in our SNP membership at the moment of proof !!
@Colin Alexander
…anything that helps cause division and maintain the Union in other words….YAWN!
Liz g says:
18 April, 2019 at 12:08 am
Cactus @ 11.59
Hey Cactus good point…
I swear to lucifer, we must not allow the difference between Jesus Fuck and Fuck Jesus to be lost !
You mother and father must be so proud of you.
Wings over Scotland used to be about Independence in Scotland.
Now it is increasingly an excuse for foul mouths to exhibit their grasp of language. I suspect this may lose some potential support rather than promote.
@Geeo,
OK buddy. I bet you here and now that Nicola will NOT set a date at conference for another indy ref. Independence will be mentioned,but no date and that includes year.
Is it a bet? £50 quid right now. You on?
Stravaiger says:
18 April, 2019 at 12:46 pm
To those of you hoping for independence through recourse to legal means, let this be a lesson to you!
Fair point. 🙂
Well I hope that you got a good nights sleep Stu and are heartened today at least to know that your reputation is intact. Ms Dugdale’s not so much. Your information has led to some great comments being posted on this thread such as Dr Jim’s (9:46pm) ”It’s about the truth and the lie”, plus others too numerous to mention.
Well worth reposting, imo. ”Sides have been taken on this now and it’s no longer about legalities or judges or interpretations of *law*, it’s about the truth and the lie, and right minded people prefer the truth because we’ve had enough of politicians and their lies and enough of people connected to power who get away with lies. And enough of the kind of lies that run our society, and enough of the kind of lies that run our country and the people who employ them.
Kezia Dugdale is one of those people.
This is more than just a lie, this is a top grade stick together establishment protection racket, not just against Stuart Campbell, it’s against all of us, because we the people backed the truth, we the people paid the establishment’s price to have the truth heard and they refused to hear it even when it was clear and transparent
Now they seek to rewrite the truth as they always do to mislead the uninformed and to clearly state to the people no matter what the truth reveals the establishment will bury it and not let it stand
If the people are not the country, what is the country, are we to be like England with truths buried for years under the *law* of parliaments and judges so the people never know the truths until generations of us have passed away and time enough has gone to rewrite the previous lies of the past
Some people might see this as a small thing, one person against another, but it damn well isn’t, once again it’s about them and us and if you value the truth this woman and her party must never be voted for again and anyone who stands with her does not hold truth as a value.
I do not know Stuart Campbell personally, I have never in my life met the man so whether he’s Mr nice guy or Mr unpleasant guy has no bearing whatsoever on my words, I am directed by what’s right and not who I like or dislike.”
@Scottish Law Society
I hope you appreciate the position you are now in. Do you defend legal reason or do you defend (white) British nationalism?
https://www.law.uci.edu/lawreview/Vol1No3Articles/fiskandgordon.pdf
Afternoon Ghillie, thanks, ah was hoping someone would come back on that.
The initial btl phrase used at the top of this article was not used in order to be offensive, many understand and use it as a figure of speech, it’s an ‘exclamation mark’ phrase (aye hear the phrase used in Glasgow often and that’s without the ‘C’ word placed in between)
Ah guess it’s all about personal perception and understood reception… let’s say Frankie Boyle or Billy Connolly said it on stage, would people be offended… generally not, let’s say the Pope said it, would people be offended… ah would imagine so.
Respect to all religions and people who choose to practice such faiths, but ah would imagine it disney come across to many as denigration, once again ah guess it’s how it’s personally perceived in the first place.
Nae harm tae you or your faith Hamish100, people are outraged, we are venting
@Scottish Law Society
You are not the only ones with an appreciation of the law. I hope you appreciate you are now under scrutiny.
The Politics of Jurisprudence: A Critical Introduction to Legal Philosophy By Roger Cotterrell. 2nd edition.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-law-in-context/article/politics-of-jurisprudence-a-critical-introduction-to-legal-philosophy-by-roger-cotterrell-2nd-edition-xiv-324-pp-london-lexisnexis-2003-isbn-0406930551-2295/9A230ACACE3EE8CAEB60939DABAD6B83
You’ve got to hand it to the establishment – they are very good at worming their way around their own rules and laws in order to reach a desired ruling when they need to.
It’s almost as if like they know what they want to decide, and then work furiously to justify their decision, no matter how ridiculous.
Many judges, newspaper editors, politicians and other establishment figures may have dark secrets – it would not surprise me if they get “leaned on” by state operators at opportune moments.
S’ppose they have had plenty of practice over the years.
OT.
I hope we’re all braced and ready for a sucker punch.
There’s no substance to this, just conjecture, but I can’t help thinking about Europe, and in particular the reemergence of Farage and his populist gobshitery.
It makes me anxious that when a Westminster Government which doesn’t want to take part in EU elections sits down to discuss its options with an EU which doesn’t want to re-open the Pandora’s box of Brexit populism, then frankly, the odds on the UK taking part in those Elections begin to look remote. The EU might concede to unexpected compromise just to avoid the latest Faragist invasion of arseholes.
I hope, I really, really hope, the SNP comes out of it’s Conference with ALL guns blazing, and taking some positive initiative that is going to stun the Brexiteers in Westminster and make decisive progress to ring fence and entrench themselves in defence of Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty. Give some forward fkg momentum for the troops to get their teeth into, before the troops are scunnered to death of exasperation and bickering.
I don’t think I’ve got it in me to digest another “michty me, let’s wait and see” non-initiative through gritted teeth. Jeezo.
You’ve gotta “own it” this time Nicola. We put our foot on the gas and we don’t take it off until we are an Independent Country in Europe. Let them beg for compromise and appeal for clemency.
Come on Joanna Cherry. Aren’t you curious to know whether Scotland could revoke Article 50 unilaterally? Seek clarification from the ECJ, just for the badness and mischief of it. If revocation is a Sovereign prerogative, then why not ask the obvious supplementary question? And even if they said no, wouldn’t that judgement by itself provoke and emergency Constitutional Test Case? The ECJ would have to give a reason why it couldn’t respect Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty, and I think they’d know they were in trouble.
geeo says:
Indeed, all pro Indy groups need to be working towards the goal which seems within reach.
The English far right is fragmented into Tories, Brexit Party, and UKIP who will all try and out do each other appealing to extremists. When May falls, she will be replaced by someone from the Tory right. They will all make promises they can’t deliver, again.
Labour seems to have shot off all its own appendages.
Next week Nicola says she’ll make an announcement. Then there is the conference.
This IS the time! We must focus!
When people demand Indy 2 right now! I think of the small number of activists who faught for decades to promote Independence. They put up their own money for seat deposits. They had no Internet and hand printed and delivered leaflets for elections. Many who campaigned through the early years are gone and will never see their dream achieved. Perhaps we can learn from their endurance.
We need to win this time or face further decades of waiting not months.
Hi Hamish100, would you say that you are easily offended? Have you ever worked on the shop-floor of a Glasgow industry before, try the shipyards, have you ever been to Glasgow?
Are you offended by the current result of the above court case?
Are you offended by sweary words?
Are you offended by the word Lucifer? Do you recognise such entity?
For balance, people can also be offended by religion too
It’s not all one way traffic, dude
Luigi says:
18 April, 2019 at 1:07 pm
Stravaiger says:
18 April, 2019 at 12:46 pm
To those of you hoping for independence through recourse to legal means, let this be a lesson to you!
Fair point. ?
You mean like 2014, 2016, and 2017 weren’t “lessons” to us in Democracy???
as madeline kahn says in blazing saddles
HOW VEWWY – AWDINARRY …
bizarre rulings from our legal system are commonplace – the whole pantomime is a gaslighting operation
I followed the whole thing, I know the backstory, the context, the nuance
– kez is a thicko promoted far beyond her level; being a unionist, the rev has found her easy meat – and has given her a pasting, regularly
even BTL, she is a beast to be mocked and pitied more than feared – she must HATE the rev
– when she saw the revs remark she thought – bingo! – hes done a homophobic, I can get him … except she got it all wrong
but when I followed the court case – what I was reading had NO relation to what I knew to be true … all the shady tricks, bringing in the tranny stuff, allowing kez to “have her own definitions of what things mean” – piss off …
– I had hoped there was sufficient residual rigour in the courts but, not if you are an “enemy of the people”
I think the result is political, well – DUH … !!! ya think?
– politicians, esp. unionist hacks spewing shite and ending up in court for it, being made to pay for it – its too damaging, it sets a precedent
– and now this is open mud throwing season for the indy bloggers, all aboard for
IDENTITY POLITICS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION BINGO
the indy movement is caught in pincer move
– its the usual tory, hun, mason, establishment deep state reptiles, their parties, their media but then you also have
– the identity politics fake left, the “right on” brigade and the guardian liberals – their job is to queer the pitch, inject all the diversionary bullshit no one gives a toss about
the REV is not a member of either club (if he is deep shill, then its spectacularly unsuccessful) – his punches land, his words have weight, and he acts as a rallying point for the majority of normal scots who just want independence
– they loathe your position, they loathe your success
– so keep kicking against the pricks and stay angry buddy – you are the tip of the spear – but you’ve been slicing and drawing blood for so long, you’re gonna chip a bone eventually …
@Scottish Law Society
Are you comfortable with how this judgement diminishes Scottish legal reason?
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/03/11/jurisfiction-notes-on-the-thought-of-jean-luc-nancy/
Geeo, an SNP Office Bearer Fiona Robertson is tweeting in support of Dugdale , she is The SNP’s National Women’s and Equalities Convener, she tweeted “Many thanks to you for fighting this case, Kezia – I’m sorry you had to go through it at all, but your testimony was powerful and vital. I hope you can get some peace now.”
To be honest Idont know if I want to be in a party with Office Bearers that are so detached from reality. Im giving it a day or so and will decide if I will remain a member.
Off course if a resign from the SNP,I will still vote yes and help out during Indy Ref 2 (if our Glorious Leader ever gets round to calling one)
Hey Lenny Hartley, aye understood and perceived Fiona’s comment to be expressed as tongue and cheek
Cheers
This wasn’t a “fair comment” to express an opinion about a blogger’s homophobic tweets and it is disingenuous for Dugdale to claim this.
This was an attempt by Dugdale to smear the Indy movement and the Scottish government for her own personal and political gain.
Big Jock says:
18 April, 2019 at 12:02 pm
The SNP in their efforts to woo the havering unionist, the 6% they need to get over the line. They now appear to be pushing life long members like me (probably 30%) to the exit door.
I have had enough of being taken for granted and ignored for 3 years! The bold radical party I joined seems to be terrified of the MSM and the other provincial parties in Scotland.
Well said, add me to that list. Im not a lifelong member but have been on and off mostly on for 40 years.
Bob Mack says:
I bet you here and now that Nicola will NOT set a date at conference for another indy ref.
—————————–
I hope she doesnt
treeza is literally days away from being pushed out or resigning.
dont interupt your enemy when they are making a mistake
@Scottish Law Society
Do you see yourselves as defenders of legal reason or (white) British nationalism?
Legal Discourse
Studies in Linguistics, Rhetoric and Legal Analysis
https://www.palgrave.com/fr/book/9780333515846
I’ve read through the judgement again and can’t get away with a number of the Sheriff’s comments, such as ”Ms Dugdale honestly and rationally formed the view that it treated homosexual people as inferior because same-sex relationships do not directly result in pregnancy.”
Kezia Dugdale was really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that statement and one wonders why the judge didn’t ask her if she wasn’t aware of the fact that same-sex couples do go on to have children. Encourage her to lie through her teeth again and get it on record. As a lesbian she must have known, fine and well, that many same-sex couples have children. The Ruth Davidson duo for one. I also know a number of same-sex couples and every last one of them has discussed whether to have children or not. Even asked for my advice, lol. It would be a real humdinger if her long term ex-partner came forward now and called her out as a liar, just as Ross Thompson’s ex-partner did very recently.
And so it continues with her latest comments on the BBC video. ”This case was never about the definition of homophobia. It was about whether or not your average citizen can pass a comment and not end up in Court.”
Well of course it was all about the definition of homophobia. As already mentioned, often on here, are we all now legally permitted to define words as we will and defame people as a matter of course? The definition of a word has to act as a baseline in communicating with another / s and therefore lead to an true understanding of consequential actions, such as in this case, not one’s ”impression” of the word. I mean to say is it alright now to say that I ”feel” that X, Y and Z are paedophiles, so I’ll go on to denounce them publicly and get away with it? How on earth can someone like Kezia Dugdale continue realistically to hold key positions in the ”communicative” world of politics and journalism that depend on your capacity to do the basics, credibly and effectively, and that is to define words? Looks as though she can’t, for what ever reason, so, imo, should consider looking for a less ”communicative” role in life.
And she of course is not an ”average citizen”. She used the power that she had as a politician to get her vile, manipulative comments across at Holyrood and as a journalist to reach even more people via the Daily Record.
And the lies just go on and on with her saying that, ”She did not intend to label the author.” So why do it?
…………………………
@ SilverDarling says at 11:04 am …. ”Bob Mack … ”I feel WoS does all the dirty work the SNP don’t want to be associated with.”
You can understand why the SNP have to distance themselves from Wings, SD. They go through a process of selecting representatives who act as role models (mostly) for good governance. That doesn’t happen on here. Stu does amazing work, but is like a loose cannon, and more than anything one has to consider the comments btl. Some are brilliant of course, extremely informative, but many of them are highly undesirable to say the least: Highlighted even more so to me by a number of people that I introduced to the site. So it’s easy to imagine that every time someone posted racist, or otherwise repugnant, comments on here the SNP would be hit by the flack via the MSM … on a daily basis in fact.
……………………..
The National: What I see online is, ‘Kezia Dugdale wins defamation case against Wings Over Scotland’, followed by a fair explanation of the Sheriff’s findings. Like it or not, legally, Kezia Dugdale did win the case, so why expect the National to publish otherwise like the biased Unionist controlled newspapers?
As far as I can see the article is truthful and gets Stu’s side of the argument across well. And just as a reminder the National is not the SNP only tabloid, it’s rather the only newspaper that we have supporting Independence. Instead of moaning about the National what about informing visitors to the site of what’s being reported in the Daily Record, Scotsman, etc, today? Then again maybe that’s not the name of your game?
We’re nearly there folks and now we’re getting the pathetic, ”I won’t be buying the National”, ”I’m considering not supporting the SNP” etc, etc. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! There’s times when I read some of the posts on here that leads me to think that we don’t deserve to be Independent. Staff at the National working on a shoe string budget. Nicola Sturgeon (and many others) working 24×7 on our behalf and all we hear are complaints, complaints, complaints. If it drags me down one wonders what effect it must have on those who are giving their all for the Independence cause? Maybe they should just think of throwing in the towel, too? What about it?
@Lenny Hartley:1.40.
Bizzar comments from F. Robertson. Promoting Duggdale as a paragon of virtue, the same Dugdale who promoted voting Tory over Labour to keep the SNP out.
Everyone has gone mad since Brexit and the promise of some Easter sunshine.
Clootie says:
18 April, 2019 at 1:21 pm
When people demand Indy 2 right now! I think of the small number of activists who faught for decades to promote Independence. They put up their own money for seat deposits.
————-
exactly, those who are so impatient that they cant wait a few weeks.
we need clarity about what exactly brexit means before firing a starting gun.
until then indyref2 remains off the table.
@lenny hartley
How would you feel if the SNP had said, after delivering an indyref in 2014 and being let down by the People of Scotland, “fuck this, you demanded an indyref then voted No, we are giving up on the People of Scotland, let fucking unionism save you lot” ?
Where would we be ?
I couldnt give 2 fucks what Fiona Robertson says or does re:Dugdale, the SNP are the only party able to
deliver independence for Scotland and we need strength and unity to prevail.
Handing Dugdale elevated importance by having a hissy fit over remarks, misguided or even plain wrong, especially at this time, when our enemies try to divide us, is madness.
Why not inform your local branch and register your displeasure and ask for it to be discussed at the upcoming Local AGM ?
One error of judgement and the whole organisation is condemned, seems a bit over the top, surely ?
Aye, for those in favour of another glorious Highland Charge through the Brexit mist.
Remember Culloden. 🙁
Clootie,
Sooner rather than later there’s going to be a split in the SNP ranks between pro-independence supporters and the Sturgeon supporters who use the SNP primarily as a vehicle to promote theirs and Ms Sturgeon’s feminist and LGBTi agenda via UK Govt devolution.
@Petra
agreed 100%
geeo says:
I couldnt give 2 fucks what Fiona Robertson says or does re:Dugdale, the SNP are the only party able to
deliver independence for Scotland and we need strength and unity to prevail.
———————-
well said,
btw, the latest poll for the eu elections has snp on 49%
warning…… it is only a sub sample
@ Breeks says at 1:20 pm … ”Come on Joanna Cherry. Aren’t you curious to know whether Scotland could revoke Article 50 unilaterally? Seek clarification from the ECJ, just for the badness and mischief of it. If revocation is a Sovereign prerogative, then why not ask the obvious supplementary question? And even if they said no, wouldn’t that judgement by itself provoke and emergency Constitutional Test Case? The ECJ would have to give a reason why it couldn’t respect Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty, and I think they’d know they were in trouble.”
How I laughed at that one. Daftie Cherry QC, who’s not as smart as Breeks, should seek clarification. Aye right! Are you for real, Mr?
I’m in for another go if you decide to.
PS:
Job vacancy Scotland manager…anyone for the poison chalice?
Indeed, the Scottish National Party quite rightly chooses not to link directly to, support or give reference to Wings. If that was the case the MSM would jump on their assumed support and would single out persons therein and try to make an example of them and discredit via association
Wings and our AUOB Yes rallies are for the People of Scotland
The SNP rightly remains independent from associated influence
That’s why they are the party of independence 🙂
And then again there are some on here who suffer from a total lack of insight. You couldnae make it up, lol.
Fiona Robertson has form. Remember the Grousebeater witch hunt?
This seems to be a tried and tested method of smearing prominent independence supporting bloggers.
Then in steps Fiona Robertson and pours some high octane fuel on the fire. Perhaps she is naive. If so, she ought to be in a position where she can’t do any harm.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46373363
And then again there are some on here who suffer from a total lack of insight. You couldnae make it up, lol.
Oh the banter, that’s why aye LOVE being here, lolly
Wings twitter 59,917 and growing
@Cactus
Indeed, Wings quite rightly chooses not to link directly to, support or give reference to the Scottish National Party.
if he did, he would be oblidged to tow party line. not doing so means he is free to say whatever he likes.
many yes activists are also snp members, its a question of which hat one wears on any given day.
it is a fine line between the two but one many have become adept at not over stepping
British Nationalists lie and they lie all the time about nearly everything. The British Nationalists will now be able to say “we are too stupid to realise we were lying”.
Is that a “fair comment.”
So you are not a homophobe, and it’s ok for anyone to publicly call you one. Right.
This decision smells more of politics than the law.
Yeah that’s right, why don’t we all just come in to class, sit quietly at our desks awaiting the arrival of the righteous headmistress, don’t speak when teacher is speaking, no swearing in class, legs together ladies or you’ll get a punishment exercise or maybe the strap. Nae daydreaming or masticating gum permitted or we’ll be sending you tae see the heidy
Let’s all be good boys and girls and teacher will like us
Jesus Jings, welcome to the 21st century!
I recall many years ago a stand up quipping:- ‘She’s so repulsive, the midwife slapped her mother when she was born.’
Another, from Glasgow Uni Rag Mag in the ‘sixties: ‘The best part of him ran down his mother’s leg.’
Campbell’s joke is as ancient as the two examples cited above.
Horrible, disgusting, offensive, but…
Let’s get on with taking Scotland out of this treacherous Union with England.
I wouldn’t rule out English Black Ops setting fire to Notre Damme either, just so that May can get some peace walking on the Brecon hillside.
It’s a while since we’ve had a photie of Davidson Supermum in the Dead TreeScrolls.
What’s her view on all of..well..everything…
Now there’s a person who knows when to hide under the duvet.
Hamish 100 @ 1.02
Oh dear, I thought for a minute you might be finally getting it, and accepting that Wings is a political blog!
Not a political blog that minds it’s manners over Jesus.
But sadly no you don’t seem to.
So again I point out that the burden of proof is yours!
Could you do that since you clearly feel so strongly about it?
Because it’s so wonderfully simple…
Prove Jesus was real and you might , just might ,be credible when you demand that other adults have a care when posting his name.
Although I should caution that the concept of deformation doesn’t apply to the dead,so you may want to look at demonstrating his current status too.
Or are you just going to deflect again and demand that others respect something that you cannot show needs respecting AKA an honestly held belief…
@Scottish Law Society
Do you see yourselves as gatekeepers of Scottish legal reason and justice, or as defenders of (white) British nationalism?
ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/61/61_3_Goodrich.pdf
Thanks for reiterating the above schrodingers cat, cheers
That’s the reason aye CHOOSE not to be a MEMBER of a political party
Some of us NEED to make the necessary noises that could otherwise have an impact on a political party, look at the effect it’s already had on ukUnionist party card-carrying members
Aye choose to remain on the outside, be you a good cop or be you a bad cop, we are all somebuddy with meaningful eventual purpose
The goal is indy
Cubby says:
That appears to be the Dugdale assessment. Carmichael knew he was lying. Wonder if he always felt he could get away with it? As things turned out it was OK for him to lie, because it was a political lie. A teflon coating appears to bless BritNat politicians, for the time being!
One analyse of the current constitutional situation is that British Nationalism and English Nationalism are becoming incompatible. Until recently the difference could be swept out of sight in the same way as many folks throughout the UK couldn’t see much or any difference between UK/’Britain’/England.
English Nationalism is asserting itself. British Nationalism is being attacked from two fronts – those who want to end the Union and those seeking English supremacy. Dugdale, Carmichael, and a whole raft of others probably don’t have any long term political future.
Kezia Dugdale will be forgotten, Stuart Campbell and WoS are destined for the history books IMO.
some wild swings for brexit party
European Parliament voting intention:
LAB: 33% (+8)
CON: 18% (-6)
BREX: 17% (+17)
CHUK: 9% (+9)
LDEM: 9% (+2)
UKIP: 5% (-22)
GRN: 5% (-2)
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 33% (+1)
CON: 23% (-9)
BXP: 14% (+14)
Via @ComRes,
Changes w/ 5-7 Apr.
treeza’s phone will be red hot
Completely forgot to listen to the Radio Scotland lunchtime media review. BBC is becoming so irrelevant I just forget about it most of the time. However, Stu listened and is hugely unimpressed with DR “journalist” Anna Burnside’s opinion on the Dugdale “win”.
I suppose I’ll have to listen. Maybe he will post a clip for our enlightenment.
@gala
agreed, i saw a poll recently which showed people in england have changed dramatically from identifying as english and british from ten years ago to now identifying only as english
Rev Campbell. Thank you for your work- keep on truckin.
@Scottish Law Society
Don’t be shy now, are you rational liberals or are you racist Tories?
https://www.cairn.info/revue-langage-et-societe-2010-2-page-15.htm#
@Scottish Law Society
So what is more important to you, defending legal reason or defending the status quo?
Law and Method
Methodology of Comparative Legal Research
https://www.bjutijdschriften.nl/tijdschrift/lawandmethod/2015/12/RENM-D-14-00001
Interesting how the MSM including the BBC report she won but in the small print confirm the details
You just got to love them
Stu remember you are annoying the authorities because they can’t control you. It would be well within reason that they would find in her favor and award her costs against you and throw you in jail and say you were not homophobic.
Strange I know but we are living through the time of Caligula – it might be Nero – Can Theresa play the violin??
One other point
Why is the Indyref 2 march in Glasgow not passing the BBC
@Scottish Law Society
It would appear that Scottish legal reason has come adrift in a sea of British nationalist exceptionalism. Are you lot happy with that?
A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking
https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-brief-history-of-the-idea-of-critical-thinking/408
@Scottish Law Society
It appears as if Scottish legal reason has become entangled with the ideology of British nationalism. Are you happy with that?
Entanglements in Legal History: Conceptual Approaches
https://www.rg.mpg.de/gplh_volume_1
I see Kezia has learnt nothing from all of this, and is merrily bobbing off about her win etc… It truly is remarkable.
What I do often wonder about is where her loyalty to Labour starts and ends. Her partner is an SNP MSP. So, let’s for example assume at some point the FM briefs her MSP’s about her plans for indyref. Is that kept from Dugdale, and if not does her loyalty to the lying red tories mean she will tell them and any other unionist/British Nationalist party?
It is a serious question.
As for an appeal, if the lawyers had suggested it, I was originally going to suggest in my opinion, that it be dropped. But given the behaviour of Dugdale, cavorting around the media about her ‘win’, then if the lawyers suggest an appeal, I say go for it.
This judgement should not stand. Regardless of REVSTU’ winning’ or ‘losing’ I think it sets a truly awful precedent in Scots law. One which may one day be used AGAINST gay people.
Disappointed in the SNP applauding her defamation of REVSTU. They should mind who votes for them – and it certainly isn’t Dugdale or her lying Britnat Labour chums. Ditto to ‘The National’ newspaper.
Anyone who thinks a GE election is coming needs their heads seen to.
The Tories will not go near an election with those polling numbers. What they will do is get shot of May and have a leadership contest. Boris enters stage left and carries on the destruction.
No election required, same as Gordon Brown. That’s why Nicola needs to name the date for indy ref 2.
I will repeat this again. Salmond didn’t wait for permission. He named the date and then sorted out the paperwork later.
CBB,
The Scottish law society will merrily insist on Scots law being different and all that, but given the chance and at the drop of a hat, they will all merrily scurry down to london to play their part in the London pretendy ‘supreme’ court in England, created a few years ago by Tony Blair.
That is how much they truly care for Scots law, or for that matter, Scotland. For London’s gold they are bought and sold, and all that. Yet it is the court of session in Edinburgh, that was and should still be Scotland’s highest court, for both criminal AND civil matters (as it was previously).
@Scottish Law Society
What is Scottish legal reason, who are its’ beneficiaries and how do they benefit?
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198763840.001.0001/acprof-9780198763840
Big Jock at 329pm,
Totally agree. The Tories are not going to call an election, especially with Farage on the up.
Agree with every single word you posted.
Big Jock says:
Anyone who thinks a GE election is coming needs their heads seen to.
The Tories will not go near an election with those polling numbers. What they will do is get shot of May and have a leadership contest. Boris enters stage left and carries on the destruction.
———————
wrong, if bojo or any other no deal tory becomes pm, then ukip and brex parties will disappear over night.
boris will call an election
the 70-80% of tory party members who support no deal will deselect any pro eu candidates/mps
the polls show support for no deal among english voters at between 38-45%
ergo, the tories will win in england
Robert Louis
I know that and you know that but Scots has been kept in the dark about how their legal personality is diminished by British nationalism.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275462063_Law_and_Legal_Reasoning
you could/would see farage standing as a tory candidate in a ge with a tory manifesto promoting no deal
also, bojo as pm wouldnt be able to get his no deal motion past the present mps in hoc
if this brexit fiasco can be described as an internal war in the tory party, then these polls help the erg. not treeza
Robert Louis @ 3.26pm
“”Disappointed in the SNP applauding her defamation of REVSTU. They should mind who votes for them – … “”
Guess I missed that. Care to elaborate? Links?
Geoo if you could advise me howto get my local branch to discuss at conference i would be thankful. The conference agenda was decided months ago, i wish this latest incident was my only gripe with the SNP. Leadership, its not by a long measure
Your right, on reflection wont be resigning but im not very motivated to be tramping the streets to get yet another mandate Sturgeon wont use.
I thought that, before the Supreme Court was established, cases in Scotland would go to the House of Lords as final arbiters?
Whatever the case, this Sheriff’s decision is appalling. I’m hearing that Kezia is discussing the possibility of suing Stu for her costs. A defamer suing the person defamed for her costs!
An appeal seems inevitable. The Court of Session ought to conduct a judicial review.
Schrodinger 3.36 – Really!
Recent poll by the Tory loving express.
The results were eye-opening, with 7,093 people voting between 2pm on Wednesday, April 17 and 3.30pm on Thursday, April 18.
A decisive 81 percent of respondents backed former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, versus just eight percent for Home Secretary Sajid Javid who came in second place.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Environment Secretary Michael Gove completed the list on.
BoJo is a tosser , but he has the backing of the maniacs in England. The Tories know he is popular so he will walk it.
@Scottish Law Society
Don’t think I’m bumming my gums, I edumicating the readers of this blog to understand how far removed this judgement is from the concept of justice.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20403313.2015.1082818
Big Jock says:
18 April, 2019 at 3:57 pm
Schrodinger 3.36 – Really!
um, arnt you repeating and making exactly the same point i am?
Capella
Perhaps talk of KD suing for costs is aimed at encouraging the Rev. to appeal. Or perhaps its’ more evidence of her apparent narcissism? Whatever, she’s a twisted little monkey.
@Scottish Law Society
Who benefits from poor jurisprudence?
Law and Interpretation: Essays in Legal Philosophy
Abstract
Interest in interpretation has emerged in recent years as one of the main intellectual paradigms of legal scholarship. This collection of new essays in law and interpretation provides the reader with an overview of this important topic, written by some of the most distinguished scholars in the field. The book begins with interpretation as a general method of legal theorizing, and thus provides critical assessment of the recent “interpretative turn” in jurisprudence. Further chapters include essays on the nature of interpretation, its objectivity, the possible determinacy of legal standards, and their nature. Concluding with a series of articles on the role of legislative intent in the interpretation of statutes, this work offers new and refreshing insights into this old controversy.
Keywords
Law Interpretation and construction Law Philosophy
https://philpapers.org/rec/MARLAI
Judging by the various comments before and after the verdict, this case was all about right-on sexual politics, with actors across the leftoid political spectrum intent on demeaning Stu because of his robust take on extremist trans issues.
If the SNP are wise to distance themselves from WoS, none of their office-bearers should be making any commments on the case. Maybe the party should have a rethink about some of those who seem totally detached from mainstream public opinion.
As has already been observed, this is just one more diversionary hobbyhorse issue that seems to be a consequence of far too much displacement activity.
“In almost every sense that the case was brought, we’ve actually won. I sought to…prevent anyone from being able to make such claims in future. All of those aims have been upheld, in explicit terms, by this judgement.” – are you absolutely sure about that? Surely someone could make similar comments about the tweets and rely on the defence of fair comment again, even if they already know from the judgement that the standards for veritas won’t be met?
Shrodingers cat @2.05pm
Re: EU poll.
Chatted for 10 minutes with my MP Martyn Day last night at the door after 7pm (see he taking his easter hols easy then!)
He stated that they are not just hoping to get the 3rd seat, but polling (caveated due to only having sub samples) suggests getting the 4th seat “is possible” despite being incredibly difficult to win!!
Labour looking like they coud lose BOTH current seats.
I was gobsmacked, as i only asked what the chances of winning a 3rd seat and how that would itself be a good achievement !
Woke politics are a direct assault on the “coherence” of legal reason.
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2099&context=californialawreview
No Schrodinger.
I am saying there will be a leadership contest. You are suggesting an election will follow. An election requires the general public to vote Tory not just the members of the Tory party.
The Tories will not risk an election when they can just coronate Bojo. The poll was among Tory voters, not the general public who in England are divided on Brexit.
Bojo will drive floating voters away from the Tories and into Corbyn’s hands. Bojo is only popular amongst Brexit voting Tory voters. Tory remainers would not vote for Boris in a general election.
Big Jock @4.28pm
You underestimate the stupidity of Tory voters i reckon !!
Cameron
Have you ever heard the phrase ‘less is more’?
I’m not going to count, but that must be 30 odd on this thread mate. How could anyone even begin to find time to skim through that amount of material. Clue, they won’t!
If you want to edumacate, expand on the relevance, and pick wisely.
Ration your offerings. Please.
It seems WoS got caught up in some psychodrama between Dugdale and her father. She appears to live a drama filled life most of the time. Can you imagine the carnage she would cause if she did ever join the SNP? I don’t for a minute think she would.
However, she is and always has been a member of a cosy cross-party group of people who enjoy the favour and patronage of the arbiters of what is ‘the right way to do things’.
These arbiters talk together on Twitter, appear on Shereen, John Beattie and Scotland Tonight and have columns in newspapers etc. One could almost assume it is because of this consensus of thinking that is why they get the gigs.
They claim only to vote differently and I am suspicious even of that. They are the system and ultimately the voices we are allowed to hear and there is no breaking the hold they have on Scotland at the present time.
defo
Yes, I appreciate it’s an avalanche of information. I’m not trying to train legal theorists, my aim is simply to highlight how dangerous this decision is. I would imagine there are a few legal minds I’ve touched though, and some non-legal minds might choose to examine in more depth. I’m being as selective as I can be but our legal system really is not fit for purpose, frankly. 😉
geeo
re the polls, warning subsamples
this is very very good news but i would also warn of the potential low turn out in eu elections
@bigjock
bojo, possibly but then again the tories have a habit of pulling complete unknowns out of the hat. not that who they chose is as important as what they stand for ie, no deal.
the reason i believe they will call an election is because of the impass in the hoc, any new no deal pm will have the same problem may has getting any deal passed
a ge will enable bojo to clear out the remainer tory mps and candidates. indeed this has already started
the do deal position is very popular in england. i believe it would win
schrodingers cat @ 15:40,
I think this is the wrong way round. May has clearly shown that she is determined to hang on as PM and Tory Leaderene until after her “deal” is passed, with modification if necessary in the political declaration to appease Corbyn. So her successor won’t have to deal with the exit, but the ongoing trade agreement. (And people who think Brexit is over are in for a nasty surprise, because this could go on for a decade.)
So what happens if Corbyn doesn’t play ball? He wants a hands-off Brexit from which he hopes to gain the advantage. But after a likely drubbing in the EU elections, how will he feel then? Doesn’t look like his fence-sitting is going to work out too well for his party. Could he even be replaced before May?
Too many variables, still. But I can’t wonder at this apparent reliance on a UKGE as a way forward for us. For the SNP, it is the most uphill and skewed struggle of all available plebiscites. Even if we get back to 50+ MPs, all it achieves is a continuing enforced institutional subservience. How far can you get by whining in the HoC that Scotland is being over-ridden and ignored, without any obvious and effective counter in prospect?
Hmm imagine Scotland and England were BOTH already individual independent countries who were part of an ACTUAL equal union, which was previously formed along with a further 27 other countries and was called something like… the European United Kingdom (EUK)
Let’s say the headquarters for the EUK was in Edinburgh
If the people in England voted to leave the EUK and tendered their Article 50, their country’s government would be more than welcome to depart (and then we’d rename it to be the EU)
But then, of course, if we were already individual independent countries, they wouldn’t have the power or the levers over Scotland’s MASSIVE natural wealth
Wings reputation for integrity and cogent debate ensures it is held in exceedingly high regard by the general public as attested by its successful fundraising ability.
Unfortunately despite that reputation having been sufficient to have mitigated general damage (apparently allowing the sheriff to declare himself satisfied that the infamy had been beneficial!) the court has betrayed its bias by pontificating that, had it been so inclined, the value attributed to that reputation for the purposes of malicious redress would have been quite so low. (ie 0.4% of that requested).
On the plus side the judgement does seem to indicate that, in the absence of further bias, contested costs would go to the pursuer (who presumably has still not received an apology, and – given what was said or left unsaid in parliament – could not otherwise have cleared his good name) in addition to giving cause to reflect on the true extent of damages caused by the assoilzied malice of a former (Scottish) labour leader.
me @ 16:50,
Should of course be “But I can’t help but wonder”
Big Jock says:
18 April, 2019 at 4:28 pm
No Schrodinger.
Big Jock says:
18 April, 2019 at 4:28 pm
No Schrodinger.
An election requires the general public to vote Tory not just the members of the Tory party.
—————
yes and the polls of the general public show 38-45% support for a no deal
The psychic abilities of Scottish Sheriffs and Judges must be the reason they are chosen for such offices
To uphold and form a judgement of a reasoning of *fair comment* in a legal case based on nothing more than the belief that the individual’s belief is honest and genuine astonishes me
This amounts to nothing more than the judge tossing an imaginary truth coin in his head and producing the answer he *wants* to give in a case where the outcome is to be decided by who is the most honestest or who I like the mostest even who I dislike the worsest, but in this particular case who is the stupidist, silly language yes but if the eventual outcome of cases like this is based on something that simple we could have saved very much time and money and have a nice cuddly puppy lick the hand of the person they liked the bestest
This is not law, this is some kind expensive invented profit making M&S law when what we needed was Aldi law where most people shop for the price people can afford to pay
Ordinary individual citizens can’t afford M%S law but politicians political parties and newspapers can so you can’t
Yes indeed Miss Dugdale is an ordinary citizen, and she states clearly she believes she is, are we really to believe a judge believed that
She was a celebrity and she did get out of it, so how come we noticed that but the judge’s psychic abilities didn’t
Petra says:
18 April, 2019 at 2:07 pm
How I laughed at that one. Daftie Cherry QC, who’s not as smart as Breeks, should seek clarification. Aye right! Are you for real, Mr?
Well if you don’t see the train that’s coming, then Hell mend the lot of you. I’d laugh at your hubris if it wasn’t such a grievous tragedy and squandered opportunity for my country.
No doubt you’ll be first pass the buck when it happens though. Some parts of the SNP are less of an enigma than others.
Robert J. Sutherland says:
I think this is the wrong way round. May has clearly shown that she is determined to hang on as PM and Tory Leaderene until after her “deal” is passed,
—————–
oh i dont doubt treezas tenacity in clinging on. she fought and won 2 vonc
but i cant see where she is going to go with her deal, corbyn is her last hope and i very much doubt he will come to an arrangement and share treezas deal and the blame.
she won the last commons vonc by 19 votes
with the defections in the tory party and bad polling due to the extension and meetings with corbyn, it only takes 10 tories or the dup to support corbyns next vonc and treeza is toast
Politician seem very contradictory at times.Quick to take offence and for retribution or resignation to take place immediately,yet are in the very job where they are themselves open to such comments being directed towards them.Are they thin-skinned or thick-skinned?or both at the same time?And is it really all they’ve got to do with their time.
re. the rule of law and the future for Scotland’s public, who’s legal personality is entirely unprotected by the British constitution (see Brexit).
http://bbktheses.da.ulcc.ac.uk/136/1/cp_Fullversion-2014KellyPphdBBK.pdf
There is a Term for it, But it would appear the Law Ignores it’s Own Law
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for “ignorance of the law excuses not” and “ignorance of law excuses no one” respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.
stuart mctavish @ 16:54,
Well, if costs of both parties were put on Kez, I might be persuaded that it was a judgement of Solomon, and (if it were me) be tempted to leave it at that. As things stand, though, it hardly seems right. One gets the impression that the Sheriff has bought the argument that a person of (assumed) low repute can’t be defamed.
It was a damned cheek for her QC to argue both ways, that her comments were both unsubstantiated fair comment and they were also defensible as being true. That kind of sophistry may be all fun-and-games to the legal profession, but it doesn’t sit well with ordinary people.
From her public comments, Kez certainly doesn’t seem to have yet registered that the Sheriff judged her comments to be defamatory. Kez the (unrepentent) Defamer.
What a reputution to walk away with. Yet another low for the political classes.
(Oh, and “assoilzied”. That’s a new one for me. I had to go and look that one up. Word of the day, I think!)
Capella,
Prior to the treaty of union, ALL cases were heard in the highest law court in Scotland, the court of session which has existed since 1532 (or the high court of justiciary in Edinburgh for criminals) . That applied to both civil and criminal cases.
However, just a few years after the treaty of union, the lords in London, who at that time were much more powerful than today, took it upon themselves, without consulting Scotland, to start hearing appeals on Scottish civil cases. Effectively meaning that if a person lost their case at Scotland’s highest court, they could then appeal to the house of Lords in England.
Thus the lords in Westminster took on a role, completely in breach of the treaty of union.
Specifically, article 19;
“That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice, do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Priviledges as before the Union….”
AND
“And that the Court of Justiciary do also after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Priviledges as before the Union..”
AND
“And that no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-hall; And that the said Courts, or any other of the like nature after the Union, shall have no power to Cognosce, Review or Alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland, or stop the Execution of the same..”
When Tony Blair decided to create his very own pretendy ‘supreme’ court in 2009, the things that the lords previously had taken upon themselves to take over from Scotland, were transferred to Tony Blair’s pretendy ‘supreme’ court.
That is why I and others refer, quite correctly, to the so-called’ supreme’ court in England, as a pretendy court. It is a made-up, pretendy court, created by Tony Blair.
It’s actually a complete f****** disgrace that it happens at all.
And they wonder why Scots want independence from these lying, conniving, machiavellian, Scotland-hating, schemers in London. Pretty obvious really.
Robert J. Sutherland says:
Too many variables, still. But I can’t wonder at this apparent reliance on a UKGE as a way forward for us. For the SNP, it is the most uphill and skewed struggle of all available plebiscites. Even if we get back to 50+ MPs, all it achieves is a continuing enforced institutional subservience.
————————-
we are relient on the sovereign will of the people of scotland as expressed in a popular vote.
whether that be an election or referendum
the main difference being that once this ge is called and the tory and lab manifestos published, the snp will publish its manifesto entirely based on independence, eg vote snp for independence.
every vote from now on, whether a referendum or election will be fought on this ticket until we get 50%+1
Assoilzied: To absolve, to release from blame or sin
Why didn’t the Sheriff just say that, or is that why we pay the big bucks for Barristers to translate that for us to prove the superior education of the people making judgements upon us so that we the lesser mortals will understand that that’s indeed what we are
I guess for any people of the Catholic faith they must now know they’re getting a bargain from their local priest for any absolution they receive because if you ask a court to do it it’s gonna cost ya, and if you’re a religious person at all do you believe or did you even know that God was involved in the court system
I always thought the courts were the judgement of mankind on it’s fellow man using the law in the context of the year in which we live and not the 10 commandments that were reduced from around 194 because that was too many for folk to remember
Apparently not
IMHO, this judgment is fundamentally flawed and unsound.
Interpretation and Coherence in Legal Reasoning
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-interpret/
@ Liz g says at 2:41pm .. ”Oh dear, I thought for a minute you might be finally getting it, and accepting that Wings is a political blog! Not a political blog that minds it’s manners over Jesus.” …”Or are you just going to deflect again and demand that others respect something that you cannot show needs respecting AKA an honestly held belief…”
Liz you indicated earlier that this is a political, secular site, whereby the posters should avoid commenting on religion and yet you, yourself, went on to do so in an offensive way, in particular for Christians who visit the site (8:33pm).
More than anything I thought that we were all looking forward to living in a Scotland that respected people’s rights and beliefs, even if they didn’t co-incide with ours. Show some concern for them regardless of race, colour, creed, religion, gender or class.
I agree that discussions in relation to religion are best avoided on here although we’ve been known to discuss religion / schools and so on previously, but when the subject is raised surely we can respect the posters beliefs rather than what the responder believes in or not? Accept that to them it IS ”an honestly held belief”, whether that’s a belief in Jesus, Allah, Muhammad or whomever.
Asking someone to prove that Jesus is ”real” seems strange. Why should they have to do so? The impossible in fact. Can’t you just accept that billions of people, worldwide, don’t agree with you, some will find comments like yours hurtful, and that includes many people who live in Scotland? And of course not everything that we believe in is tangible, ”something that you cannot show”, but still deserves our consideration and respect.
This is a political site however there’s more to the people who visit it, much more, than just their political point of view.
………………………………….
Just posting an article from yesterday’s news that highlights how much ”faith” matters to many people. One example.
‘Former MP’s ‘indescribable depression’ after losing four children.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47932324
……………………………
More news:-
‘Scottish Lib Dems unveil Euro election candidates.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47974501
If you’ve not seen/read the full judgement in Campbell v Dugdale:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2019scedin32.pdf?sfvrsn=0
schrodingers cat @ 17:09,
In any case, we’re going to have to first see what happens with the English local elections, and then (unless Treeza manages a nifty sidestep with Corby at the 11th hour) the EU elections.
But of themselves, are they not simply likely to reflect the heightened popular polarisation, both between Leavers and Remainers within England, and between Scotland and England? (Even albeit with the odious Coburn still on our account.)
Perhaps the best outcome of such a repeated Scottish-English differential, if we can muster the necessary GOTV, would be as the trigger for the much-needed IR2.
Sigh, you don’t get it Petra, it’s not about religion, yer reading it all wrong and blowing it way out of proportion!
You are encouraging discord and are occasionally disparaging about this site… why Petra?
Again
My opinion of the Scots legal ‘profession’ stems from the experience of a relative who dipped his toe into its murky waters some years ago.
He became disillusioned seeing the fat brown envelopes doing the rounds whilst he was ‘devilling’. He eventually challenged his ‘devilmaster’ on the subject, who casually informed him that it was how the system worked.
Despite being one of the top students in his year, he was sufficiently scunnered to quit Uni and pursue an alternative career. He subsequently left Scotland and I suspect never looked back.
schrodingers cat @ 17:38,
While it’s vastly encouraging to hear that the SNP in future elections will put independence up in neon lights at the forefront of their manifestos instead of leaving it merely to be understood, I hae ma doots about a strategy that is dependent on getting 50%+1 of votes in any conventional multipolar election, if that’s what you are saying, because the BritNat opposition will inevitably turn their majoritanianism on its head and argue that it needs to be 50% of the registered electorate. So just as in 1979, the disengaged and the dead will vote.
(And ironically, the more people whom the likes of RISE manage to register who are no-shows on the day, the higher the barrier will become.)
Further to Petra’s comment re. people’s rights and beliefs. Please feel free to fill your boots, if you have the time. 😉
Religion: A Public or a Private Right?
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9883/
Dr Jim @ 5.42pm
“the 10 commandments that were reduced from around 194 because that was too many for folk to remember”
……….
Or, the brilliant Mel Brooks, in History of the World:Part 1
Moses down from the mountain: “I bring you these 15…(drops one of 3 stone tablets)…10 commandments” !!
…….
But if you are claiming you know better than Mel Brooks’s Moses, i must yield!!
……
Later in same movie,the French Revolution scenes.
“Your Highness, the people are revolting”
King: “i know, i can smell them from here”!!
I say king, but maybe it was Jacob Rees-Mogg, hmmm..!
Our wonderful Britnat media are getting up steam with a deluge of hysterical SNPbad nonsense in the build up to next week’s SNP Conference.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17581295.kezia-dugdale-wins-defamation-case-against-wings-over-scotland/?ref=ar
Judging by BTL, the big loser is The National.
Breeks says:
18 April, 2019 at 1:26 pm
Luigi says:
18 April, 2019 at 1:07 pm
Stravaiger says:
18 April, 2019 at 12:46 pm
To those of you hoping for independence through recourse to legal means, let this be a lesson to you!
Fair point. ?
You mean like 2014, 2016, and 2017 weren’t “lessons” to us in Democracy???
Breeks, please don’t get me wrong. I probably give your posts more credence than most others here do. I’m simply pointing out that things may not always turn out the way that logic dictates.
All the more reason to explore every avenue, be prepared for every eventuality, and try, try, and try again.
PS Breeks, I think 2014 was lost fair & square (pretty much), 2016 was a combination of buyer’s remorse and a two-finger salute from the safety of no actual consequence situation, and 2017 was back to business as usual, aided by the SNP taking their foot off the gas.
Lessons indeed. Let’s learn from them.
@geeo 6:19pm
Stephen Fry told me it was around 194 and I thought who am I to disbelieve Stephen, but then again he may have believed in genuine honesty he believed it and was making fair comment
This fair comment thing’s gonnae run and run eh
In the meantime, Richard Leonard MSP & leader from Sheffield of the London registered Labour Party Scottish Branch, has published his Annual Report for 2019, in a folded A3 glossy flier posted through letter boxes throughout his List seat in Central Scotland Region.
Our Richard headlines saving Monklands Hospital from relocation to Gartcosh, an SNP project from the beginning BTW, him and ‘an army of community activists’. That’ll be about six then.
Richard Leonard, pretty shoddy representative I would say. I think that’s a fair comment, as any Sheriff will tell you. Well, one anyway.
@ manandboy says at 6:21 pm …. ”Judging by BTL, the big loser is The National.”
http://www.thenational.scot/news/17581295.kezia-dugdale-wins-defamation-case-against-wings-over-scotland/?ref=ar
I don’t see anything wrong with that heading / article manandboy. I don’t get it. What were they supposed to headline that, ”Stuart Campbell of Wings over Scotland wins defamation case against Kezia Dugdale” ?
And then of course as Paul Kavanagh’s pointed out some of the BTL sections on the National are choc-a-bloc (infested) with BritNat’s posting.
…”The National piece has provoked a furious, indeed enraged, response from the SiU trolls who infest the comments section of that newspaper. And I must confess that provoking them was one of the main reasons for writing the piece in the first place.”..
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/04/16/the-corporal-joneses-of-british-nationalism/
…………………………………
The latest from WGD:- ‘Writing our own future.’
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/writing-our-own-future/
It’s a better result than I thought you’d get.
There was NO WAY they were going to find in your favour for one simple reason. You are a prominent independence supporter. If you’d been a blogger for ANYTHING ELSE you would have won your case.
I think the result you have DOES vindicate you because if there were ANY way to find COMPLETELY in her favour the judge would have found it. There wasn’t one so he has sought to mitigate this in a verdict that no one would have heard of, nor expected.
Still, maybe she’ll think twice before libelling you again…
Well, maybe time to O/T
I read Nancy Pelosi and her heavy team have just put the US/UK Trade deal ball up on the slates.
A pretty categorical “Nae chance” if the GFA is affected in any way. They should know too, they are the Irish mafia in the “Big Hoose”. As such, much like the EU, they are backing Ireland to the hilt.
Meh, American politicians – Obama in his day, did tell Scotland to go and take a flying fuck to herself (on Scottish soil no less) toured other wee Euro countries and told them they were wonderful though.
So I don’t have a particularly high regard for US politicians. This Pelosi one seems to think she’s it. Certainly got a mouth on her anyway (apt for a speaker) wonder how long it will be before she tells Scotland to take a flying fuck as well?
Anyway, have a lovely Bank Holiday, though frankly the weather is shit, there’s nae rain and the rivers are on their bones, it’s no use to me. Suppose I’ll just repair the waders or something.
re. the “interpretive” practice of the law. IMHO, this dolt of a sheriff has sullied Scottish legal practice.
chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12566&context=journal_articles
Petra @ 5.53
That’s quit a myopic view of the conversation… and if I was minded to be unkind, hypocritical.
The point is telling other posters how and what they can post in accordance with a particular set of beliefs.Which in this case happens to be demanding respect for Jesus.
When it was pointed out that a real live person was being insulted on the behalf of a fictional one, “prove it” was the challenge in answer!
As I’m sure you will agree that the person alleging Jesus was real is the party who has the burden of proof and I cannot see why pointing that out on a site dedicated to facts and evidence would be offensive?
As is pointing out that should Jesus be demonstrated to have been real then there’s still quite a bit of work ahead to establish any respect nevermind respect to the extent of word order around his name from strangers.
As you have said many people do honestly hold the Jesus narrative to be true,(although the lack of any evidence from such a numerically string group is shocking) there are also many others who honestly don’t.
And some who having read his book do find him a most disagreeable character.Are those people not to say so?
Freedom from religions is just as important as freedom of religion don’t you think?
For a believer to jump in and demand that others adjust their own speech lest it offends the believer….
Is the same thing as a Gay woman taking offence at a straight man over something he said and demanding she be the arbiter of offence on behalf of gay people,because that’s her honestly held belief,the very thing that we have all agreed right here is not on….Aye?
It cuts both ways Petra,people are absolutely free to believe what they want to but that doesn’t open the door to enforcing others to behave in accordance with those beliefs!!
As to Scotland’s future…well I’d argue that Scotland didn’t do very well out of religion having any power in the past and that we might want to learn from that!
Which will be impossible to do when only one side of the debate can speak freely and the other side kept in its box…Something else we in the Yes movement know a bit about!
NB I see the BBC reports this as a ‘Win’ for Dugdale on it’s site. I’d expect nothing else. In view of ‘balance’ the actual facts of the case are IN the article and NOT the headline a la The Daily Mail.
Dugdale’s interview sees her carefully avoid saying that she was ‘right’ about ANYTHING and drone one about ‘good news for ordinary citizens’ which she, obviously, isn’t…
CBB @ 17.20
If the British wrote a constitution my guess is they’d have kept it somewhere important ie between the dispatch boxes, aside the mace and in place of Halsbury’s Laws Of England.
O/T
Re the rabbit story which has been all over the media for the last couple of days – I have always understood that it was a long accepted fact that rabbits were introduced to Britain by the Romans.
stuart mctavish
The truly evil thing about this judgement is that Scottish legal reason is being undermined by class prejudice and cultural bigotry.
Liberal Neutrality: A Compelling and Radical Principle
http://www.gaus.biz/GausOnNeutrality.pdf
Dr Jim @6.39pm
Indeed it will, “fair comment” will become OUR go to phrase in any future indy debate.
BT2 representative: “SNP BAD”
Us:”i honestly believe you to be a conniving, snivelling excuse for a human being, who spews out uneducated shite for the thick and the gullible, in a ‘fair comment’ and purely illustrive kinda way, obviously, ya rampant twat, sorry, but the law is the law”.
BT2 rep: “bugger, fair do’s”
Thing is the SNP need to be masters of their own destiny. What if a people’s vote never happens. What if a GE never happens?
The SNP need to start making things happen, not being reactionary to perceived future variables.
@ Liz g says at 7:04pm .. ”As you have said many people do honestly hold the Jesus narrative to be true,(although the lack of any evidence from such a numerically string group is shocking) there are also many others who honestly don’t.”
That’s fair enough Liz, (even in my home I have faith and my husband is an atheist), but surely the two can show respect for each other’s belief system? No one is forcing religion down your throat, asking you to convert or not state your agnostic position, only to consider other people’s feelings when you make comments. No hardship surely to cut out the ”Jesus F***” remarks (from others) and some of what you wrote subsequently?
Lack of evidence – shocking, Jesus’s book and so on, well I would be here all night responding to your post Liz and I don’t have the time, as I’m rushing out to attend a religious meeting …. eh, boozy 50th birthday party, lol. It’s also a subject that bores, antagonises and so on. Anyone who bothers to read will have their own thoughts on the matter, one way or another.
So when all is said and done it looks as though we’ll just have to agree to disagree, once again.
@ Robert Louis 5.29 pm – thx for the history of the Scottish court system.
So it is a wonder that nobody has objected to this theft of our legal independence. Or have they? Yet another dark corner into which a bright light should be shone.
The Sheriff, of course, could always be dismissed of he fails to perform his duty. Which he has IMO.
IMHO, this judgement is an example of British ‘moral stability’. The sort of moral stability that brought us austerity and the full-English Brexit. The sort of moral stability that fails to apply the principles of Magna Carta to Scotland.
Moral Stability and Liberal Justification:
An Examination of the Notion of Stability in Rawls’s Theory
http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2802/1/U615751.pdf
@Scottish Law Society
I appreciate you lot are legally trained but have you an appreciation of ethics? This judgement suggests this is an area that requires urgent attention if you seek to bolster the moral foundations of Scottish legal practice.
Rawls’ Political Liberalism. Foundations and Principles
http://www.ethical-perspectives.be/viewpic.php?TABLE=EP&ID=832
For those looking at The National WOS story now, theychanged the headline on the article and that on the main page, almost certainly because of the justified outrage below the line. The originals gave the unionists the whole thing on a platter “Even The National says …”. Here’s what I posted this morning.
————–
Front page headline was “Dugdale wins £25k defamation case against Wings Over Scotland 4 hrs ago 19” and still is, which is factually incorrect.
https://www.thenational.scot/
Article headline was “Kezia Dugdale wins defamation case against Wings Over Scotland” and still is.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17581295.kezia-dugdale-wins-defamation-case-against-wings-over-scotland/
Both on the online version. Both cut and pasted seconds before this posting, after refreshing the pages.
—————-
Like I say, they changed eventually, quite late in the day I think from a comment, though I was out the day.
People with religion tend not to mock those without religion.
Though I have heard the odd one or two saying like “Poor things, imagine having to do all the limbo dancing for ever and ever. Can’t be good for the back”.
Everyone to their own religion, including secularists.
#faircomment
The Sherriff’s remarks about Dugdale make her look even more glaiket. Sadly, there are no winners in this case.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
That’s my favourite.
People who live in grass houses show not stow thrones.
Today is a strange day. Spin and counter spin all around us. I am sorry that WoS did not suceed in obtaining a defamation award.
Beliefs are strange things. People are happy to believe all sorts of things contrary to the evidence in front of them from vaccinations cause obesity and autism to the idea you can change sex because girl brains can be wrongly put in boy bodies and wearing make-up and saying out loud that you are a woman will make it true.
Is it a delusion, though? Well depends on your cultural background.
Delusions are false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary; these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture. – DSM 5
According to DSM 5 and as any young doc will tell you, a belief in God is not a delusion until God tells you to murder someone or appears to you in a bottle of Irn Bru.
Unfortunately, we are at a stage in history where the sex as gender argument is one such evidence free zone verging on the delusional. More worrying though is that culturally it is being adopted by craven, vote chasing politicians.
It is worth remembering the following quote – “There is no delusional idea held by the mentally ill which cannot be exceeded in its absurdity by the conviction of fanatics, either individually or en masse”…Hoche
Nicola Sturgeon should take note.
Brexit Court Case – two days ago:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcjz6Jz8rqI&t=1s
Petra @ 7.56
Im kind of struggling to see what it is your disagreeing with to be honest.
Surely respect for someone’s beliefs ends where your freedom of expression begins?
And I can only repeat that my position has very little to do with religion it’s self and everything to do with telling other adults what they should or shouldn’t say.
Yes I could have used other phrases to describe the God delusion but that choice is mine and I brooke no interference in it.
Why dont you think it’s disrespectful to try to tell other adults how they should communicate?
Where is the respect for others to speak,and to question?
I realise your not in a position to reply,but I do hope that you do later as I really would like to know what exactly we are agreeing to disagree about before I agree 🙂
Anyhoo
have a nice time at your party….be good and if ye can’t be good be careful
Liz g
@As to Scotland’s future…well I’d argue that Scotland didn’t do very well out of religion having any power in the past and that we might want to learn from that!@
John Knox insisting on universal education (so we could read the sky god story for ourselves, in Scots) was one, rather fundamental exception to your rule.
Your main point nails it, I actually read the initial reply as a well worked sarcastic joke! Words eh?
We all seem frazzled, maybe some Spring Sun,the celebration of Chocolate, and then The Big Speech NS is choking to give…
Not Coveting Asses wins for me. Everyone to their own tho.
Defo @ 8.45
Sarcastic???
I was going for edgy 🙂
As you say word’s ….LOL
@Liz g “God delusion”
The problem with that is that’s a self-arrogance, which doesn’t make for respectable debate. You are saying “I’m right and you’re a fool”.
Here’s another one though. You are all a figment of my imagination, you don’t really exist.
OR
I am a figment of your imagination, what on earth is wrong with you?
It’s all about existentialism, to those who are outside it. Whatever “it” is.
Yesindyref2 @ 8.55
Or are ye just a brain in a vat?
And
Nope I’m not saying that at all,I’m perfectly willing to say that God is not a delusion any time,my position on it is not absolute,that would be arrogant….. I just need convincing that the claim is true and unless and until that happens I view it as a delusion.
But feel free to prove me wrong…. You’ll get dead famous for it too…
Is Cameron a Spambot?
……….
spambot
noun
COMPUTING
an autonomous program on the Internet that sends spam to a large number of users or posts spam on online forums.
……………..
Hmm…
What is ‘spam’ ?
……..
spam
noun
1.
irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.
2.
verb
1.
send the same message indiscriminately to (a large number of Internet users).
……….
Not looking good, Cambot !!!
#fair comment, so tough tootie 🙂
We live in a world of *journalistic* Pharisees where everyone expects the politicians of the day to cure all or be crucified on the cross of perverted public opinion
Nicola Sturgeon suffers such attention because she cannot make the lame walk or the blind see and her knowledge of everything does in fact not passeth all understanding
So burn the witch
Nicola Sturgeon held my hand once, I was not cured of anything, my health did not improve, nor did I grow any younger, but did I feel any better, well yes I did because I know this woman is doing the absolute best that she can in the circumstances she’s in with all the ability that she has, and I don’t doubt that for a nano second
Is Nicola Sturgeon imperfect then, well of course she is she’s human and that’s part of the Pharisees problem, no one wll ever be the Messiah the Pharisees pretend is just around the corner waiting to be elected to the job the Pharisees want the exisisting encumbant (no matter how good) to be fired from
*Journalistic Pharisees* keeping you angry, because it’s their job
@Liz g
What do you mean “just” eh? eh?
My vat is THE BEST!
@Liz-g.
My mate uses the Mr Tickle theory with the ‘god’ squad.
‘God’ exists because it says so in his book (the bible), ergo, Mr Tickle must also be real, as it says so in his book (Mr Tickle).
If Mr Tickle is made up, then so is ‘god’.
If anyone is not aware of the pending court case in England:-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1109121/brexit-news-latest-court-english-democrats-robin-tilbrook
The decision by the Sherrif was pragmatic. He probably wanted to say yer a perr a wee diddies now go and do some good for the Scottish people.