doulikefish Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Those cuddly libs campaign leaflets 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 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". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob the tank Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted August 1, 2017 Share Posted August 1, 2017 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTG_03 Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 She didn't get off. She was never charged. No smoke without fire eh? I don't think she was even questioned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 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). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 (edited) 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.