When will indyref2 happen?

[doulikefish]

Those cuddly libs campaign leaflets

[Shades75]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Cultists like to please their hero. But fair do's, he gave them the option. Do they get the money back if he wins?

Seems 60% of the "cultists" didn't get the memo.

I've no idea if the money gets refunded if he wins.

[ayrmad]

The establishment hate WOS, they've been used with doing and saying what they like for far too long.

I think he's quite right to take Dugdale to court, she abused her position of privliege to lie about someone just because the MSM have allowed NO'ers to say as they please for a long while now.

[NotThePars]

Wings isn't going to be shut down when Campbell likely loses this defamation case. He'll make a pissy blog post, start another fundraiser and probably make record amounts from the yer da types that think every one of his critics are "Yoon trolls" or traitors. I'm happy with the current situation where people take the admittedly well researched data and quote it without attribution. The site does a good job of dismantling unionist nonsense but the project is so much an extension of the reactionary fuckwit that runs it that it's unreasonable to expect people to separate the site from the owner.

[welshbairn]

Why is Wings choosing this strictly personal topic to go to court over (which he'll lose) rather than anything remotely to do with Scottish Independence? There must have been loads of SNP people with far better cases that he could have backed on a libel/slander case against Unionists. 

[Shades75]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Why is Wings choosing this strictly personal topic to go to court over (which he'll lose) rather than anything remotely to do with Scottish Independence? There must have been loads of SNP people with far better cases that he could have backed on a libel/slander case against Unionists. 

Well, I suppose that is the crux.

Kezia used his tweet to attack the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon in a quest to get her to distance her and the SNP from Wings/Stuart.  It was calculated and wholly inappropriate for FMQ's imo.

I do think, also, that if someone was calling me a homophobe on TV and I believed that to be untrue then it would be difficult to let it slide.

 

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Why is Wings choosing this strictly personal topic to go to court over (which he'll lose) rather than anything remotely to do with Scottish Independence? There must have been loads of SNP people with far better cases that he could have backed on a libel/slander case against Unionists. 

1) He's chosen a strictly personal topic because the only person who can raise a defamation case is the person who claims to have been defamed. He would need the cooperation of any other individual to raise a case on their behalf, and the case would have to be raised in that person's name, potentially leaving them liable for costs. 

2) He has also 'won' at least one defamation case before. The Scotsman had stated that he had used WoS "to call on nationalist campaigners to photograph their opponents so that they can be publicly identified."

This was absolutely untrue - he had specifically stated "We DON’T want anyone harassed. Any photographs sent in will have the faces of the leafleters blurred out.”

The paper paid up before the case came to court.

2) If he's taken a libel or slander case, you are right - he will lose. However, he believes he was defamed in Scotland, so he has taken a defamation case. You might want to look up the meaning of defamation before you make statements like "which he'll lose".

[bob the tank]

The statement at first ministers questions isn't anything to do with the case, it was the article written in the daily record Kez is being taken to court over. The statement in Holyrood was a feeble attempt to link the first minister to "vile cybernats", which Kez could do under parliamentary privilege. It was totally out of order though, but allowed by the P.O. as he is establishment all the way, as witnessed by him allowing the colonel rapeclause "sit down" comment to go unpunished in any way

[Shades75]

5 minutes ago, bob the tank said:

The statement at first ministers questions isn't anything to do with the case, it was the article written in the daily record Kez is being taken to court over. The statement in Holyrood was a feeble attempt to link the first minister to "vile cybernats", which Kez could do under parliamentary privilege. It was totally out of order though, but allowed by the P.O. as he is establishment all the way, as witnessed by him allowing the colonel rapeclause "sit down" comment to go unpunished in any way

I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification.

I thought, though, that there was no parliamentary privilege in the Scottish parliament?

[GTG_03]

She didn't get off.  She was never charged.
No smoke without fire eh?

I don't think she was even questioned.

[Baxter Parp]

15 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Maybe if Wings didn't spend his time being a piece of shit to women, LGBT activists and anyone else that takes issue with the shite he spouts on a wide variety of topics people wouldn't feel the need to "vilify" him. 

So you're saying he's a shite to everybody?  Equality in action, what a hero.

[Baxter Parp]

11 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I'm amazed she got off being as she was behind every deal her solicitor was charged with, and was in any reasonable mind who's not a radical far right capitalist survival of the stong type fascist, ethically suspect at the very minimum. The SNP are well rid.

No smoke without fire, eh? Smear away, chum.

[Baxter Parp]

10 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Why is Wings choosing this strictly personal topic to go to court over (which he'll lose) rather than anything remotely to do with Scottish Independence? There must have been loads of SNP people with far better cases that he could have backed on a libel/slander case against Unionists. 

Because unionists are using a smear on him as a smear on the independence movement, just like you did with Michelle Thomson and the SNP (see above).

[Baxter Parp]

8 hours ago, Shades75 said:

I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification.

I thought, though, that there was no parliamentary privilege in the Scottish parliament?

No there is. Section 41 of the Scotland Act.

[Baxter Parp]

13 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I'm amazed she got off being as she was behind every deal her solicitor was charged with, and was in any reasonable mind who's not a radical far right capitalist survival of the stong type fascist, ethically suspect at the very minimum. The SNP are well rid.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bad-losers/

One of the reasons why you may be amazed she got off

[welshbairn]

I'm amazed that Craig Whyte got off too. It's mind boggling what you can get away with.

Edited August 2, 2017 by welshbairn

[DeeTillEhDeh]

1) He's chosen a strictly personal topic because the only person who can raise a defamation case is the person who claims to have been defamed. He would need the cooperation of any other individual to raise a case on their behalf, and the case would have to be raised in that person's name, potentially leaving them liable for costs. 
2) He has also 'won' at least one defamation case before. The Scotsman had stated that he had used WoS "to call on nationalist campaigners to photograph their opponents so that they can be publicly identified."
This was absolutely untrue - he had specifically stated "We DON’T want anyone harassed. Any photographs sent in will have the faces of the leafleters blurred out.”
The paper paid up before the case came to court.
2) If he's taken a libel or slander case, you are right - he will lose. However, he believes he was defamed in Scotland, so he has taken a defamation case. You might want to look up the meaning of defamation before you make statements like "which he'll lose".

You are correct on point 2 - he is more likely to win a defamation case than a libel/slander case.

[Baxter Parp]

12 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

You are correct on point 2 - he is more likely to win a defamation case than a libel/slander case.

Indeed, especially since there are no libel/slander cases in Scotland.

[vikingTON]

Why is Wings choosing this strictly personal topic to go to court over (which he'll lose) rather than anything remotely to do with Scottish Independence? There must have been loads of SNP people with far better cases that he could have backed on a libel/slander case against Unionists. 

Literally failing to understand how 'defamation' works there: how dare it be based "on a personal topic"!

How many cases are "SNP people" currently bringing up before the courts anyway? Be extremely specific.

What an absolute, flailing disaster of a post.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

You are correct on point 2 - he is more likely to win a defamation case than a libel/slander case.

I think he'll struggle.

Quote

The rule that the comment should be fair does not mean (as might be thought at first sight) that the comment has to be objectively reasonable; it means only that the defender has to have genuinely and honestly held the opinion reflected in the comment.

http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/5114/5820/6101/Discussion_Paper_on_Defamation_DP_No_161.pdf