Ad Lib Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Agreed. We could look to the royal family for examples. However, Mosely was interned for the majority of the war, and the BUF were proscribed. Can you say the same about any SNP leader or the SNP itself? There are varying shades of grey. Not everything is as black & white as Half_Baked presents it. He didn't claim that the SNP were as bad. He merely contested the ludicrous claim that fascism was somehow only the domain of groups and people identifying with British nationalism and that this was "always the case". This isn't true because fascist and Nazi sympathies were present among (some of) those within the Scottish nationalist movement in the 1930s-40s. I thought that you were a lawyer? Where's your evidence from a specifc witness, your proof & your corroboration? It doesn't matter a f*ck what Mrs Donaldson claims if there is no case to answer in the first place. Edited to tidy up original post This isn't a criminal trial. I don't need a specific witness. I don't need proof and I don't need corroboration. There doesn't even need to be a case to answer by the standards of proof expected by a civil court. There is evidence, released by MI5, implicating Donaldson as saying things which can reasonably be construed as rendering him a Nazi sympathiser. Of course, this ignores the existence of unsavoury folk on the right of the Scottish nationalist movement, which even Tartan Tories like Gordon Wilson condemned as proto-fascists, in the form of Siol nan Gaidheal, a group thankfully with negligible influence on the contemporary Scottish nationalist movement or indeed Scottish politics as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 So, you have hearsay? Young supported draft-dodging. Kristallnacht... um... whit? Hearsay is evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 This isn't a criminal trial. I don't need a specific witness. I don't need proof and I don't need corroboration. There doesn't even need to be a case to answer by the standards of proof expected by a civil court. There is evidence, released by MI5, implicating Donaldson as saying things which can reasonably be construed as rendering him a Nazi sympathiser. You are right. It's not a criminal trial. Therefore, Arthur Donaldson was not guilty. QED. However, you now appear to be claiming that he was a Nazi symphasiser, based upon the word of an unidentified person who may have made a statement to MI5. Would you really advise a legal client that they were likely to win a civil case on such flimsy evidence? A friend of mine has just advised me that you owe her £20,000. She's willing to stand up in court & say so. I have her sworn statement. That's evidence. I'm sure you'll deny it, but (with your legal wig on), would you advise her to proceed further? From your example above, it seems an open and shut case in her favour... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 You are right. It's not a criminal trial. Therefore, Arthur Donaldson was not guilty. QED. Not guilty of what? You can be guilty, as a question of fact, of things which aren't crimes. The fact of guilt exists independently of the standard of proof applied by criminal or any other trials for things that are crimes. However, you now appear to be claiming that he was a Nazi symphasiser, based upon the word of an unidentified person who may have made a statement to MI5. Unless you are claiming that MI5 falsified the fact of the evidence of the informant (in which case, evidence please) it is not in dispute that an informant made these statements to. MI5. You can dispute the truthfulness of the statements themselves, but they are nevertheless evidence of Nazi sympathies. I believe that there is at least some truth in the claims made in that evidence in the absence of evidence of the fabrication of the fact of the existence of the informant and in the absence of the existence of evidence as to the fabrication of the claims, either by the informant or by MI5. Would you really advise a legal client that they were likely to win a civil case on such flimsy evidence? No. But this isn't a civil case. The purpose of civil courts is not to find the truth. It is to establish whether there is sufficient evidence able to be produced and insufficiently contradicted to support the establishing of a set of facts to its own satisfaction, pertinent to the existence of a civil wrong requiring action by a court to remedy. This is not the standard we adopt to establishing opinions not relating to actionable wrongs outside of a legal environment. A friend of mine has just advised me that you owe her £20,000. She's willing to stand up in court & say so. I have her sworn statement. That's evidence. I'm sure you'll deny it, but (with your legal wig on), would you advise her to proceed further? From your example above, it seems an open and shut case in her favour... Nope. Because she'd lose as she has insufficient evidence to satisfy a civil court for the purposes for which they are constituted. But we are not concerned here with a question of actionable liability. Those standards therefore don't apply, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I believe that there is at least some truth in the claims made in that evidence in the absence of evidence of the fabrication of the fact of the existence of the informant and in the absence of the existence of evidence as to the fabrication of the claims, either by the informant or by MI5. Yes, its your belief. That's based on second sources, and your politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Yes, its your belief. That's based on second sources, and your politics. What part of my politics is it based upon? Be specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 We can discuss facts. You don't like the SNP, so we discuss shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Stuff So, if I read you right: Unattributed uncorroborated statement to MI5 = evidence & proof positive that Arthur Donaldson was a Nazi Unattributed uncorroborated statement to me = no proof whatsoever against Libby owing money to my unidentified informant Am I alone in sensing conflicting views about the admissiibilty, weight & reliability of this evidence into the court of ad lib? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 We can discuss facts. You don't like the SNP, so we discuss shit. I don't like any political party. Liking political parties is a rather weird thing to do. So, if I read you right: Unattributed uncorroborated statement to MI5 = evidence & proof positive that Arthur Donaldson was a Nazi Unattributed uncorroborated statement to me = no proof whatsoever against Libby owing money to my unidentified informant Am I alone in sensing conflicting views about the admissiibilty, weight & reliability of this evidence into the court of ad lib? 1. I am not a court. I am me. I believe what I want. 2. I didn't say that it has been proved that Donaldson was a Nazi. I didn't even say I thought he was a Nazi, or that there was evidence he was a Nazi. 3. I didn't say that it has been proved that Donaldson was a Nazi sympathiser. I believe him to have been one, however 4. An unattributed up corroborated statement is evidence in both cases of the claimed truths. 5. The veracity and strength of evidence required to hold a personal opinion as to the existence of a set of facts is completely different from that required by a court of law. Neither necessarily nor exclusively arrives at the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I believe what I want. Leave it at that mate. Say that whenever you post. You're just campaigning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 1. I am not a court. I am me. I believe what I want. Oh f*ck. Even though I claim to be the fount of all legal knowledge, I'd better admit I'm not infallible 2. I didn't say that it has been proved that Donaldson was a Nazi. I didn't even say I thought he was a Nazi, or that there was evidence he was a Nazi. Inference goes a long way, doesn't it. Even though I can prove f*ck all 3. I didn't say that it has been proved that Donaldson was a Nazi sympathiser. I believe him to have been one, however See 2 above. Even though there's no real proof apart from an inidentified uncorroborated informant, and MI5 wouldn't go near a real court of law, I have my own beliefs. Let's forget legal training. He's SNP, so he must be guilty. 4. An unattributed up corroborated statement is evidence in both cases of the claimed truths. Waffle Waffle. Seriously. We have legitimate reasons why we can't bring this evidence to court.But believe us. We would never make things up. 5. The veracity and strength of evidence required to hold a personal opinion as to the existence of a set of facts is completely different from that required by a court of law. Neither necessarily nor exclusively arrives at the truth. Aye. And... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Oh f*ck. Even though I claim to be the fount of all legal knowledge, I'd better admit I'm not infallible At no point have I claimed to be the fount of all legal knowledge. Inference goes a long way, doesn't it. Even though I can prove f*ck all Not inferred either. See 2 above. Even though there's no real proof apart from an inidentified uncorroborated informant, and MI5 wouldn't go near a real court of law, I have my own beliefs. Let's forget legal training. He's SNP, so he must be guilty. Why would MI5 go to a court of law to prove that Donaldson expressed Nazi sympathies? It's neither a criminal or civil wrong actionable in a court. I'm not saying he is "guilty" of anything. Waffle Waffle. Which is code for gilp going "oh shit my dichotomous presentation isn't what he said" Seriously. We have legitimate reasons why we can't bring this evidence to court.But believe us. We would never make things up. Legitimate reasons like "the evidence doesn't disclose a crime or a civil wrong, because merely being a Nazi sympathiser is neither"Aye. And... So there is no inconsistency in the standards of proof adopted in the different scenarios. One is concerned with a question of fact unconnected per se to any rule of law. The other isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I don't like any political party. Liking political parties is a rather weird thing to do. 1. I am not a court. I am me. I believe what I want. 2. I didn't say that it has been proved that Donaldson was a Nazi. I didn't even say I thought he was a Nazi, or that there was evidence he was a Nazi. 3. I didn't say that it has been proved that Donaldson was a Nazi sympathiser. I believe him to have been one, however 4. An unattributed up corroborated statement is evidence in both cases of the claimed truths. 5. The veracity and strength of evidence required to hold a personal opinion as to the existence of a set of facts is completely different from that required by a court of law. Neither necessarily nor exclusively arrives at the truth. You are stating that he IS a nazi sympathiser. But later say it is only in your opinion. Therefore he is not a nazi sympathiser as a matter of fact but only in your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Arthur Donaldson was a Nazi sympathiser and a key figure in the Scottish independence movement. Other key figures like Dewar Gibb and McDiarmid were also sympathetic to the cause of Hitler's regime in what they characterise as an imperial English War. It is quite legitimate to say therefore that there were fascist tendencies within the Scottish nationalist movement around the time of the Second World War. Clearly such views are no longer prominent and organised in the same sense today, but it is clearly incorrect to say that "it's always been that way". Just in case you deny you stated that he was a nazi sympathiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saints1884 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Just another idiot that doesn't have a clue. Considering the no camp have been using kids in their own propaganda on the websites and leaflets! One that no borders Scotland (or whatever they call themselves?) used a kid that wasn't even Scottish and wasn't even related to the person they named! Then again it's no surprise they used it as they have done it before. If you have been on twitter in the last few days,you would have read the idiot tweets of this idiot and her many followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Some here in full denial mode. Aside from Donaldson one only has to look at the musings of the likes of Hugh McDiarmid or Lewis Spence to see that proto-Scottish Nationalism had an unhealthy obsession with ethnicity. But then Labour and the socialist movement have had their own share of ethnic fruitcakes over the years as well. Thankfully things have moved on - I don't think any such accusation could be thrown at today's modern SNP or Labour Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 So in terms of fascist groups in Britain, yes, it has "always been that way" - they have always been noticeably unionist in outlook. Siol nan Gaidheal - branded 'proto-fascists' by then SNP leader Gordon Wilson... http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26924026 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/hstoom.htm McDiarmid ... was attracted to Italian Fascism and set up a Scottish Fascist combat organisation called Clann Albainn which existed in underground format fir many year's I really wish you d do your homework before setting yourself up for such disastrous fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/hstoom.htm McDiarmid ... was attracted to Italian Fascism and set up a Scottish Fascist combat organisation called Clann Albainn which existed in underground format fir many year's I really wish you d do your homework before setting yourself up for such disastrous fail. Was, was, was. Let's discuss NOW shall we? http://wingsoverscotland.com/zero-tolerance/ So, let’s just recap where we’ve got to. - If you hate Jews, vote with the Holocaust denier. - If you hate gay people, vote with BNP splinter group Britannica. - If you hate Catholics, vote with the Orange Order. - If you hate foreigners, vote with Labour and Vote No Borders. And waiting on the subs’ bench: - If you hate Protestants, vote with George Galloway. - If you hate Muslims, vote with the BNP and Britain First. - If you hate immigrants, vote with UKIP. - If you hate pretty much everyone, vote with the SDL. But always remember, readers – it’s “cybernats” who are the bad guys. And don't even try to "but, but, but, Wings over Scotland" this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Actually, we established 'If you hate gay people, vote with the SNP MSP John Mason ' Is he a Unionist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.