Oh Kez!!!

[Scary Bear]

Campbell isn't stupid. He would have known this was the most likely outcome and he will still probably turn a profit on the whole farce. The judge most likely added on the 50% as fine for wasting the court's time with self promotion.
The Indy Culture War he is cooking up will be his next money spinner. 
 

If it was just some Twitter-spat I would agree that it was wasting the court’s time, but when Dugdale decided the Twitter-spat was worthy of First Ministers Questions and a newspaper article I expect Campbell thought ‘naw, she’s gone too far there’.

As for the court asking Campbell to pay 100% costs plus a 50% uplift, that’s just taking the piss. That doesn’t seem fair at all. It’s the offline version of trolling.

The Scottish Court System appears to be just another public body that doesn’t work very well.

[ayrmad]

Just now, Savage Henry said:

 

Aw, bless.

 

Good reply when you know you're talking pish.

[Ira Gaines]

He hasn't. I have a real dislike for the guy but you're going down the wrong road here.

[Savage Henry]

Good reply when you know you're talking pish.

Aw bless. The cult of Wings is strong here.

And again, if you think I’m being serious I really worry about your levels of basic comprehension. Wings is an ethically dubious scoundrel, but a criminal, probably not.

[Ira Gaines]

Oh goody. The old "I'm trolling lol" when idiocy has been called out. Haven't seen that in a while.

[ayrmad]

20 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

 

Aw bless. The cult of Wings is strong here.

And again, if you think I’m being serious I really worry about your levels of basic comprehension. Wings is an ethically dubious scoundrel, but a criminal, probably not.

 

You're the one that loosely implied it, ftr I think he's a c**t and can't understand how he gets the sums he does, I also know that he doesn't hoodwink anyone for the cash, I think the Kez case was put out to vote to decide if he should take her to court, he also never states how much he needs for individual outgoings in his annual crowdfunds.

Edited July 11, 2019 by ayrmad

[Scary Bear]

 
He clearly has, if the numbers being thrown about here are accurate. If one person donated five pounds to his spurious defamation case, then they’ve been hoodwinked.
 
But as it seems to have gone flying over your head, my post wasn’t entirely serious.
 
 

Explain how it was spurious?

He’s a homosexual man who has been accused of homophobia. He’s been accused of this in Parliament. If you’re going to get bothered enough to take someone to court, this would seem to be the kind of the thing which would prompt you to do that. If some chancer of an MSP was telling Parliament that I spout hatred and homophobia I wouldn’t like it very much.

[Ira Gaines]

Just now, Scary Bear said:

 

Explain how it was spurious?

He’s a homosexual man who has been accused of homophobia. He’s been accused of this in Parliament. If you’re going to get bothered enough to take someone to court, this would seem to be the kind of the thing which would prompt you to do that. If some chancer of an MSP was telling Parliament that I spout hatred and homophobia I wouldn’t like it very much.

 

Only thing I'd take issue with is the uplift. Seems odd given the ruling. 

[ICTChris]

If you raise money through a crowdfunder, is there anything legally to stop you just spending it on whatever you want?  I'm sure that WoS hasn't done that, just a general question.

[Ira Gaines]

Just now, ICTChris said:

If you raise money through a crowdfunder, is there anything legally to stop you just spending it on whatever you want?  I'm sure that WoS hasn't done that, just a general question.

Well he has no choice but to spend most of it on that. The rest of the money is fair game. And so it should be. People know he's reached the target and still contribute. I have no problem with him simply enjoying the extra. 

[ayrmad]

3 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

If you raise money through a crowdfunder, is there anything legally to stop you just spending it on whatever you want?  I'm sure that WoS hasn't done that, just a general question.

I would think that would depend on what wording you used, if you said it was for medical treatment and there was nowt wrong with you you will be getting a free holiday from her Maj.

[Detournement]

4 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

If you raise money through a crowdfunder, is there anything legally to stop you just spending it on whatever you want?  I'm sure that WoS hasn't done that, just a general question.

The money goes to his company. He can do whatever he wants with it but obviously has to pay tax like anyone else working through a limited company (and can benefit from all the same accountancy tricks). 

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

 

Explain how it was spurious?

He’s a homosexual man who has been accused of homophobia. He’s been accused of this in Parliament. If you’re going to get bothered enough to take someone to court, this would seem to be the kind of the thing which would prompt you to do that. If some chancer of an MSP was telling Parliament that I spout hatred and homophobia I wouldn’t like it very much.

 

He's homosexual? Hope you have that right or know a good lawyer, he can be a bit sensitive. Say what you want in parliament though, it's privileged. 

[ICTChris]

3 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Didn't Euan McColm (another damaged man lashing out in Scottish public life who should quietly f**k off) once say his choice of crowdfunding platform let him donate his own donations pseudonymously? Like he might actually make 20 grand but make it look like 150 this way

Why would someone do that?  To make themselves look like a bigger deal than they are?  

[ayrmad]

4 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Didn't Euan McColm (another damaged man lashing out in Scottish public life who should quietly f**k off) once say his choice of crowdfunding platform let him donate his own donations pseudonymously? Like he might actually make 20 grand but make it look like 150 this way

That might be possible but his case against Kez is going to require everything he said he raised for that particular case.

[Scary Bear]

He's homosexual? Hope you have that right or know a good lawyer, he can be a bit sensitive. Say what you want in parliament though, it's privileged. 

I thought he said/wrote he was gay? Either way, I should be okay, he’s skint now.

[ICTChris]

8 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

 

I thought he said/wrote he was gay? Either way, I should be okay, he’s skint now.
 

 

I'll donate to your crowdfunder mate.

[welshbairn]

11 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

 

I thought he said/wrote he was gay? Either way, I should be okay, he’s skint now.
 

 

Just make a funny tweet taking the pish out of him for it, nobody will think badly of you.

[Scary Bear]

I'll donate to your crowdfunder mate.

Cheers mate.

Just make a funny tweet taking the pish out of him for it, nobody will think badly of you.

That is a good example of why I don’t post on Twitter. I have an account and was banned for 24 hours for tweeting Scotrail ‘f**k off and die’ while I was pished and they have cancelled the last train home from Edinburgh. Hate speech, apparently.

Turns out he is just a big supporter of gay rights. So...ahem...here goes...”I would like to publicly apologise to Stuart Campbell and retract my assertion that he is a homosexual. I sincerely regret any distress caused.”

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Scary Bear said:

 

Cheers mate.



That is a good example of why I don’t post on Twitter. I have an account and was banned for 24 hours for tweeting Scotrail ‘f**k off and die’ while I was pished and they have cancelled the last train home from Edinburgh. Hate speech, apparently.

Turns out he is just a big supporter of gay rights. So...ahem...here goes...”I would like to publicly apologise to Stuart Campbell and retract my assertion that he is a homosexual. I sincerely regret any distress caused.”
 

 

You're just making things worse for yourself, claiming he'd be offended at being labeled as homosexual, making him a raging homophobe. Shame on you!