Jamaldo Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 No, that's fine. I'm just a bit confused as how threatening to kill someone via twitter as opposed to "in a scary letter" renders it any less of a death threat. Well with a letter they obviously know your address. Twitter is shrouded in anonymity. When you have female celebrities getting so-called "death threats" from 12 year-old girls because they were standing next to a member of One Direction it completely rips the arse out of the term "death threat". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 the email was an attempt to discredit her, i think this has been accepted on all sides. So what was discrediting? You must be able to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 He's furthering the aims of the party, like he's supposed to. This is not the function of a Special Adviser. The function of a special adviser is to further the aims of the Government, not the Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 This is not the function of a Special Adviser. The function of a special adviser is to further the aims of the Government, not the Party. "to take full advantage of ideas from the party" f**k off, Libby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 So what was discrediting? You must be able to say. he was attempting to discredit the descritpion of her as an "ordinary mother" again, i thought this was something all sides had agreed upon. "to take full advantage of ideas from the party" Is spreading false information about the family life of an oppostion activist SNP policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 "to take full advantage of ideas from the party" f**k off, Libby. "Taking full advantage of ideas from the party" =/= Pursuing ad hominem attacks on party-political opponents on government time, using government resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 he was attempting to discredit the descritpion of her as an "ordinary mother" again, i thought this was something all sides had agreed upon. Is spreading false information about the family life of an oppostion activist SNP policy? It was BetterTogether/ No Thanks' description of her as an "ordinary mother", that's what he was discrediting, brainiac, not the woman herself. How many "ordinary mothers" are members of the Labour Shadow Cabinet and members of Labour's National Policy Forum? Answer = zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 It was BetterTogether/ No Thanks' description of her as an "ordinary mother", that's what he was discrediting, brainiac, not the woman herself. That is exactly what I psoted and you quoted. My point is whther Gunn, in his tax-payer funded civil servant role, should ahve been doing that, the SNP and Yes Scotland have plenty of spin doctors to indulge in the dark arts, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 This thread is fucking terrible. People abuse each other on both campaigns. Sorted. Banterman on here and acting like its only the NO camp that get abused is fucking tragic. Poor wee NO campaigners eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 This thread is fucking terrible. People abuse each other on both campaigns. Sorted. Banterman on here and acting like its only the NO camp that get abused is fucking tragic. Poor wee NO campaigners eh. At no point have i said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Obviously, if they have a job with such prestige as leaflet giverouterers then there is no way that they are ordinary mums. ETA: For the yes campaign obviously. This makes them visionaries, damn good people and extra-ordinary mums. Or Supergrans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 "Taking full advantage of ideas from the party" =/= Pursuing ad hominem attacks on party-political opponents on government time, using government resources. Nobody was attacked. Swing and a miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 That is exactly what I psoted and you quoted. My point is whther Gunn, in his tax-payer funded civil servant role, should ahve been doing that, the SNP and Yes Scotland have plenty of spin doctors to indulge in the dark arts, He's a spin doctor for the current government, as part of his communications remit he was supplying clarity where there was deceit. Admirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 He's a spin doctor for the current government, as part of his communications remit he was supplying clarity where there was deceit. Admirable. Clarity in the form of utter lies? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecto Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Do Labours SPAD's never send emails to journos then? Are you naive or stupid enough to believe that westminster's tame civil servants never meet/communicate with journalists? Of course they do, but what did Gunn hope to achieve by sending the e-mail? the only thing must have been to "expose" Clair Lally and link her to Better Together and Scottish Labour, if he thought his "win" would be in exposing her, this was one dumb move for someone who was described by both Bernard Ponsanby and Brian Taylor as a "shrewd political operator", next we will all be saying his crime was not sending the e-mail, but being caught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Of course they do, but what did Gunn hope to achieve by sending the e-mail? the only thing must have been to "expose" Clair Lally and link her to Better Together and Scottish Labour, if he thought his "win" would be in exposing her, this was one dumb move for someone who was described by both Bernard Ponsanby and Brian Taylor as a "shrewd political operator", next we will all be saying his crime was not sending the e-mail, but being caught It's not even his first bit of stupidity. He's already made a total tit of himself recently with his laughable threats to DC Thomspn newspapers on Salmond's behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 That is another valid point, even ignoring the fact that its not his job to spin for independence,I don't understand what Gunn was hoping to tangiably achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 That is another valid point, even ignoring the fact that its not his job to spin for independence,I don't understand what Gunn was hoping to tangiably achieve. I think he should go. There. End of. Did anything change? Naw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Of course they do, but what did Gunn hope to achieve by sending the e-mail? the only thing must have been to "expose" Clair Lally and link her to Better Together and Scottish Labour, if he thought his "win" would be in exposing her, this was one dumb move for someone who was described by both Bernard Ponsanby and Brian Taylor as a "shrewd political operator", next we will all be saying his crime was not sending the e-mail, but being caught Just how thick is your skull. No one, in any way, exposed Clare Lally personally. What the e mail highlighted was that BetterTogether were portraying her as an "ordinary mother", which we all now know is very far from the truth. This isn't an attack, with the exception of one idiot on Twitter, on Clare Lally. This has now been explained to you at least half a dozen times. Please get to grips with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 No one, in any way, exposed Clare Lally personally. What the e mail highlighted was that BetterTogether were portraying her as an "ordinary mother", which we all now know is very far from the truth. This is another point - she was protraying herself as an ordinary mother, by attemting to discredt that you are attempting to discredit her personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.