Attention all idiot Wings Over Scotland fans – Hillsborough

Justice will soon be achieved for the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster. It’s now only a matter of time. AhDinnaeKen investigates one sadly deluded individual who doesn’t even know what justice or compassion means:

‘Civic’ debate Nationalist Front style. Weel din inhumanity sark!

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

YET AGAIN the individual responsible for Wings Over Scotland has demonstrated a complete and utter lack of humanity or ability to judge facts regarding the Hillsborough disaster.

Last night’s train wreck of a Twitter feed in which Stuart Campbell, editor of Wings Over Scotland, argued black is white with the sister of a Hillsborough victim is one of the most breathtakingly shocking exchanges AhDinnaeKen has ever read in relation to Wings Over Scotland.

Some idiots actually believe that Stuart Campbell’s blog entitled “No Justice for the 96” is ‘forensic’ in detail over the causes and effects of the fatal crushing of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

That they believe so isn’t out and out stupidity, it’s merely an example of being duped by style over substance – Campbell, for all his faults, sometimes writes stylishly.

That his No Justice for the 96 piece has convinced undiscerning people of its alleged truth isn’t therefore totally surprising.

Most of Campbell’s piece is correct in its summary of the events leading up to the fateful tragedy. But the whole argument is underpinned by some basic schoolboy errors and lack of understanding of physics – it’s the Embassies and Consulates syndrome all over again.

Campbell’s pathology is such that, once he goes out on a limb over a subject, nothing can or will change his mind. It’s the psychology of the frothing bigot who doesn’t let facts get in the way of his own prejudice.

FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS
Consider the fundamental premise upon which the whole piece is predicated:

“The pressure that caused that crush didn’t come out of nowhere. It wasn’t an act of God, it wasn’t a freak gravity storm. It came from behind them, and every ounce of it came from human beings.”

This is fundamentally and mostly untrue. The pressure came from all around them and from themselves – they were simultaneously part of the crushing forces while also being part of the crushed. The pressure coming from behind via the tunnel only helped sustain the unrelenting pressure which resulted in the tragic deaths.

Crowd crush fatalities and injuries occur when you reach critical, well documented, crowd densities. In this instance the densities are measured in bodies per square foot.

According to John J Fruin, a world expert in crowd dynamics:

“In waiting areas, 20 square feet per patron will allow relatively free movement; 10 square feet, movement on an “excuse me” basis; and 5 square feet, standing without touching others-but with little ability to move freely. This is about the occupancy level that you see in most normal waiting situations, such as approaches to a busy escalator or stair. At approximately 3 square feet per person, involuntary touching and brushing against others will occur, a psychological threshold that should generally be avoided in most public situations. Below 2 square feet per person, potentially dangerous crowd forces and psychological stresses may begin to develop.”

That is what occurred at Hillsborough. Once you go over the 2 square feet per person threshhold people will die. Campbell, however, insists in repeating the assertion that it was pressure from the back that caused the fatalities:

“Neither the FA, Sheffield Wednesday, the police commanders, the officers on duty, the players on the pitch or the ambulance crews exerted the fatal pressure on the back of the crowd, which built and built until crash barriers gave way and the mass of bodies in the central pen forced the air from the lungs of the unfortunate people at the front.”

The pressure from the back merely ensured that there was no outlet or release for the fatal 2 square foot per person threshhold. It’s worth repeating that this density was already in place, the pressure from the back merely maintained that pressure.

And it wasn’t just at the front where people died, they died in the tunnel also.

POLICE COMPETENCE VERSUS POLICE INCOMPETECE
As was amply demonstrated in the 1981 FA cup semi-final at Hillsborough between Tottenham Hotspur and Wolverhampton Wanderers, competent policing could have prevented fatalities.

In that incident the pressure built up in the Leppings Lane pens in the same manner as happened later with Liverpool fans in 1989.

Only this time, according to Tottenham fans and contemporary records, fatalities did not occur because:

“Unlike their counterparts in 1989 the police commanders in charge in 1981 were not in charge of their first match, were not ignorant and incompetent, and were seemingly not predisposed to assume all problems were the result of violent scum on the terraces who deserved everything they got.

“Instead those in charge acted sensibly on the feedback of officers on the frontline. As a result they ordered the closure of the gates leading to the most crowded pens, and then directed incoming fans to safer areas. They acted somewhat late, but they did act. And many fans were helped out of the crowded spaces by fellow fans and police alike. They then sat along the edge of the pitch to watch the game unfold.”

The police, on that day, also opened the gate at the front of the pens, further releasing the pressure and relieving the crowd of the dangerous 2 square feet per person density threshhold.

There were still some serious injuries; breathing problems, crushed ribs, broken bones, but nothing like the carnage which ensued at Hillsborough. Thankfully, there were no fatalities.

Campbell further indulges in some trite about Barrowlands crowds and implies that people as sensible as him could have somehow have escaped the crush, if only they had “jabbed” their “elbows and heels” behind them.

AHEM, ‘PROFESSIONAL’ JOURNALISM ALERT
The most telling example, however, of Campbell’s prejudice against Liverpool fans is the following statement:

“At Hillsborough, EVERYONE pushing their way into the tunnel KNEW perfectly well that it opened into an enclosed area with no exits, hemmed in by overhanging steel fences, which minutes before kick-off was likely to already be crammed with people, and which took the inherently-hazardous form of a stairway.”

[Our* Emphasis]

The scandalously false assertion that “everyone knew” betrays Campbell’s lack of journalistic skills and credibility. He is saying that everyone contributing to the crowd crush density did so knowing what they were doing ie killing people at the front, but persisted anyway.

Notably absent is one quote, one eye witness account, or any form of  third party evidence to back the hateful assertion up. It’s this statement, singled out from all the others, which betrays the source of Campbell’s bigoted prejudice.

This pic brought from archive world. Since last night Mr Campbell’s old forum boards are no longer available. Hurrah for freedom of expression and not covering anything up.

According to Campbell, who refers to the ‘knowing’ crowd as “murderous” and “lethally stupid“, the crowd must take responsibility for their actions on an individual and collective basis.

Such assertions demonstrate a willful ignorance bordering on pathological stupidity of crowd dynamics and psychology.

Crowd dynamic expert John J Fruin views crowd behaviour somewhat differently.

He said: “Psychologists have likened a crowd to a series of intermeshing behavioral cells. Each cell is comprised of a small group of surrounding people, with limited communication between them. Cell members do not have a broad view of what is occurring in the crowd.”

It is why front to back management of crowds is so important. The people at the back and in the Leppings Lane tunnel had no idea what was happening up ahead in the pens. How could they?

Yet according to Campbell “everyone knew” what they were doing and persisted anyway.

The pitch side police who were watching the tragedy unfold in front of their very own eyes didn’t know what was happening. They lined up in the middle of the pitch thinking they were facing a hostile crowd and a potential pitch invasion. Some policemen even threw people climbing over the fences back into the killing pens.

What chance of knowing what was happening did the people at the back trying to get into the tunnel to the Leppings Lane pen have?

The answer, of course, is they had no chance of knowing? They didn’t have X-ray eyes and they most certainly weren’t trained in the recognition of of hazardous crowd dynamics.

If Campbell’s piece is ‘forensic’ then I’m CSI Ayrshire. All the No Justice for the 96 piece proves is that Campbell is as much of an embarrassment to journalism as he is to the Independence campaign.

He needs to come clean. He started with the bombastically pretentious premise that he was somehow telling a truth that needed to be told. He ended up exposing himself as a nasty wee bigot with an unpleasant obsession with Liverpool fans because of the Heysel disaster.

He said: “Hillsborough could have happened at almost any ground in the country in the late 1980s, but Liverpool’s fans must shoulder a disproportionate share of the blame for the existence of the fateful fences, which in part arose from their murderous actions at Heysel Stadium four years earlier.”

One wee bigoted man and one huge bigoted ego combined to create one of the most shockingly evidence free and inaccurate hate polemics disguised as ahem, ‘professional journalism’ since the original smears against Liverpool fans were published by the Sun.

REAL EVIDENCE ANALYSED BY PROFESSIONALS
The Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP) painstakingly adjudicated on the amassed evidence of the Hillsborough tragedy and concluded:

“…the SYP Police Federation, supported informally by the SYP chief constable, sought to develop and publicise a version of events that focused on several police officers’ allegations of drunkenness, ticketlessness and violence among a large number of Liverpool fans. This extended beyond the media to Parliament.

“Yet, from the mass of documents, television and CCTV coverage disclosed to the panel there is NO EVIDENCE to support these allegations other than a few isolated examples of aggressive or verbally abusive behaviour clearly reflecting frustration and desperation.”

Did Campbell produce one piece of evidence other than self opinionated NO EVIDENCE to back up his conclusions?

Aside from his deluded Wings Nuts, we all know the answer to that.

New evidence. Liverpool fans rammed wall of human beings. I wonder why the HIP never mentioned it? Perhaps some corroboration for the assertion from Mr Campbell?

Moan McVulpine: Skintland is a great wee country in more ways than just Indyref

Moan reckons the Commonweal Games will set a valuable lesson for any Skints unwilling to toe the Nationalist line.

By Moan McVulpine – Making her bed and lying in it

THE TICKETS have gone on sale, the correction camps are in place and everything is pointing towards 2014 Glasgone being the most successful Commonweal games in the history of  world history ever.

We can look forward to rooting out non-patriots and those who would talk their country down using the saltire test. Anyone not keeping a saltire in their mum/wife’s bag will be assumed guilty as charged.

Because, in the Commonweal Games, unlike the Scolympics, we get the chance to villify the basturt English.

The Commonweal Games isn’t just a political inspiration. It’s a great example of how to brutally accuse people of being anti-Scots. What other excuse could there possibly be for not wrapping yourself in a saltire during the Commonweal games?

Many kids these days don’t know much about the origins of the Commonweal of 54 member blogs. These games will give us the excuse to shove Skintishness doon their throats.

It will have a lasting legacy for future generations. It will teach them that if they don’t appear patriotic enough they can expect to be ‘corrected’ – their parents too, for not being good enough in the ‘civic’ parenthood stakes.

This will present some really useful lessons for future generations. The main one being that Skintish soldiers were used as the shock troop ‘devils in skirts’ to militarily dominate, subjugate, oppress and occupy those bloody foreigners lands stupid enough to resist our English masters imperial aims. And, lest we forget, it made us rich beyond our dreams.

Despite blood origins, many in this country cling to the belief that the empire wiz nuthin’ tae dae wi’ us. They couldnae be mare wrang.

Skintish shock troops imposed more brutality and profited from others stolen resources proportionally more than the English.

An easy legacy to forget and ignore given our junior partner status.

From the conquered peoples vantage point, they blamed it all on London. And that’s what we Nationalist Front types do also. We will try and kid on it wiz nuthin tae dae wi’ us and align ourselves with an anti-London bias.

Nationalism works best with a common enemy and grievance to monotonously bang on about at every opportunity. It attracts the weak of mind, the dispossessed, the impotently frustrated and the out and out loonies – look at Joan McArthyalpine and some of her Nationalist Front friends.

Once, jingoistic types could get away with calling the English ‘poofs’ and any other insulting name they cared to conjure up.

Those days are passed now and in the past they must remain.

But we can still blame now and be the Nation again, that whinges against them, Westminster’s barmy and send them homeward, tae whinge again.

But the world moves on and, having gained independence, the Commonweal nations will probably say tae us, “Ha ha, that’s whit ye get for siding wi’ a big bully. Ye’s made yer bed – lie in it.

Glasgone 2014 will be proof of that.

We’ll still sleep in the same bed – according tae Eck – we just want mare o’ the covers.

COMEDY RELIEF

Nationalist Front misogynist exposed as rape apologist

Misogyny is often subtler and less violent than a grown man assaulting a seventeen year old female with a saucepan. Often, it manifests itself in tone, motivation, intent and delivery. It especially manifests itself when it comes from the type of misogynist who lives in a bubble Bath of denial concerning their own, ahem, ‘sexuality’ and hatred of women. AhDinnaeKen investigates a horrific case of denial, victim blaming, misogyny and rape apologism:

Tone, motivation, intent and delivery. It doesn’t take much for women to home in on Rev Campbell’s particular brand of misogyny.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

AHDINNAEKEN RECENTLY discovered that a Nationalist Front hate preacher was accused of being an “abusive, misogynistic, rape apologist” by a female rape victim five years ago.

Reverend Stuart Campbell, editor of Wings Over Scotland subjected Cara Kulwicki – editor of The Curvature, an American blog dedicated to feminism – to a sustained and deeply unpleasant personal attack for speaking out against rape apologism.

Ms Kulwicki, who had been traumatised by a serious sexual assault in her past, was told by Rev Campbell: “It’s unfortunate when the people brave enough to speak out against unacceptable behaviour are also so pathologically stupid that it serves only to completely undermine their cause.”

The accusation was aimed directly at Ms Kulwicki by Mr Campbell.

However, Ms Kulwicki proved to be no supine victim willing to be denigrated, bullied or dismissed by such a misogynistic accusation.

She countered by banning Rev Campbell from commenting on her site and issued the following statement: “Campbell wants to make it about me. He thinks that I only give a shit because I’m psychologically damaged — and says that he doesn’t want to minimize what was done to me, right after calling me crazy, and right before calling me a hysterical exaggerator. (It doesn’t take very long to go from “angry woman” to “hysterical,” does it? Oh, I forgot . . . same thing.)”

Misogyny and Apologism
Rev Campbell appears to have a disturbing clearly telegraphed slant against women which forms a fairly predictable pattern.

He was recently challenged by Una Purdie, a (female) magazine editor and political tweeter, over the following statement written by him four years ago in relation to a videogame review: “Beginner is for girls and homosexuals, but forgiveable for a reviewer with limited time who needs to see as much of the game as possible.”

He’s done a lot of “growing up” in the last four years. Apparently.

He defended himself unconvincingly against Una’s charge of sexism and homophobia.

He said: “Yes, one flippant four-year-old joke on a videogames website definitely proves I hate women and gay people. Do grow up.”

Humour is often in the eye of the beholder, but can such alleged humour be so casually explained away as a flippant joke in the face of other more compelling evidence?

Can it be dismissed by attempting to ignore it, by arguing that it was all in the past and, by implication, doesn’t count now?

You the reader should decide.

Victim Blaming

Another recent exchange, this time, between Rev Campbell and Green campaigner Adam Ramsay on Twitter is even more telling regarding Rev Campbell’s outlook toward women and victims of male abuse.

Victims to blame for being battered, abused and not telling the police.

The following tête-à-tête took place in relation to the recent Bill Walker case, where the ex-SNP MSP was found guilty on 23 charges of domestic abuse and violence against three separate women.

A kindred spirit for Rev Campbell to identify with perhaps?

Rev Campbell stated the following: “As the Herald goes into full-on “GET THE NATS!” Mode, am I alone in wondering why an abuse victim went to a political party, not the police?”

Mr Ramsay quite rightly asks: “Are you seriously going to start criticising the victim?”

Without going into the full he said she said (which can be accessed by clicking on this link), the crux of the matter can be distilled into the two following statements:

Rev Campbell: “If I suffer a crime I call the police, not the Liberal Democrats. (And I can ask whatever I like, thanks.)”

Ramsay: “you have a right to ask victims of domestic abuse why they don’t report their partners to the police. But it is obnoxious.”

Victims of domestic abuse are not just victims of violence. In most cases they have been subjected to sustained periods of psychological undermining, domineering control, systematic humiliation, had their self esteem destroyed, been told consistently that they won’t be believed, threatened with social and financial ruin and made to feel that there is no alternative other than remaining with their abuser etc etc.

Mr Ramsay is absolutely correct to state that Rev Campbell is being obnoxious. This level of obnoxiousness is symptomatic of a bona fide misogynist without a shred of empathy or sympathy or understanding of the psychological state of the victims of Bill Walker.

In effect, Rev Campbell is siding with Walker in order to undermine the victims in order to further undermine the wider point being made that the SNP should never have selected a man like Walker to represent a constituency in Scotland in the first place.

Misogynist Spotting
Misogyny was defined by feminist blogger Ashan thus: “it can manifest itself in a variety of ways ranging from chauvinism or sexism to physical abuse and rape.”

She lists several traits and characteristic of a misogynist:

• Denies women’s feelings and makes them wrong for feeling them.

• Makes jokes or derogatory comments about women and then ridicules any woman who gets offended or upset.

• Has no remorse or guilt for the pain he causes women.

• Has grandiose behavior; cocky and self centered.

• Must ALWAYS win in a discussion with or about women – all encounters with or about women are seen as a battle to be won.

There are several more indicators listed but each of the above can be directly related to Rev Campbell and his online behaviour. Ask virtually any woman who has disagreed with him online.

And therein lies the crux of the argument of this feature.

Rev Campbell freely admits to being a misanthrope According to him, in the absence of other evidence it would be irrational for a human being not to be one.

AhDinnaeKen wonders how long Rev Campbell’s deeply pocketed donaters will keep funding someone whose outlook on life is so fundamentally skewed by hatred of the opposite sex and his fellow human beings. The Wings donaters willingness to keep donating whenever he wishes to raise funds tars them with the same brush.

AhDinnaeKen is still deeply undecided regarding the independence debate. It’s clear however that it is beginning to take a turn for the worse. That turn could soom be replicated in the country at large. Hate preachers like Rev Campbell revel in that type of environment. He’s on record elsewhere saying that he actively wants people to “hate” him and that there should be firm dividing lines so that he and his followers know who to hate.

Hopefully more brave campaigners like Cara Kulwicki will resist the likes of Reverend Stuart Campbell by further exposing his vile twisted brand of misogyny fuelled hatred.

AhDinnaeKen certainly hopes so.

As Cara said on her blog in reply to one of Mr Campbell’s followers: “yes, Stuart is insensitive. He does not care about victims of rape — most rape victims do not want men sitting around judging and ranking their experiences with sexual violence. If he cared about victims of sexual violence, he wouldn’t run around calling them pathologically stupid, hysterical exaggerators, or any of the other insults he has thrown my way.”

AhDinnaeKen tips the hat and tugs the forelock to the strong women of the net such as Cara, women who have stood up to and exposed Rev Stuart Campbell for the misogynistic homophobic rape apologist he clearly appears to be: strong women such as Kate Higgins, Kayleigh Quinn, Una Purdie, Louise Morton, Daftquine, Juliet Swann and Rebelgirl59.

Women for Independence campaigner Natalie McGarry needs to open her eyes. Being seen to condone a nasty libellous smearing fantasist such as the Reverend Stuart Campbell is unseemly in extremis. AhDinnaeKen believes she is much better than that because she is much better than that.

In the eyes of the law, Rev Stuart Campbell is of course innocent of any crime. In the Court of public opinion however, when it comes to the accusation of being a victim blaming misogynistic rape apologist there is only one naturally just verdict: GUILTY as charged!

The Rev Stuart Campbell is an abusive, homophobic, misogynistic, rape apologist.

Who would dare defend him now?

A manly man being manly in a manly way playing manly games with other manly men. No room for women in the manly world of manly Rev Stu. Natch!

Yes Scotland and a matter of trust

AhDinnaeKen first brought TonyBlair Jenkin’s reputation into the spotlight last week when he appeared to endorse a Nationalist Front website’s attempts to set an agenda for debate in Scotland. Is this latest scandal on paid for advertorial’s about to bring him down.  AhDinnaeKen indulges in a bit of shameless speculation.

If this piece had ‘advertorial’ on behalf of Yes Scotland above it, then it would have been sound. The fact it doesn’t…

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

ONCE AGAIN TonyBlairJenkins, leader of the Yes campaign’s, judgement is in the spotlight for the wrong reasons.

Firstly his organisation has been linked with payments to and endorsements of sham group Labour For Indy.

Secondly he openly endorsed the idea of a Yes Scotland debate suggested by hate preaching Nationalist Front website Wings Over Scotland.

Thirdly, he appears to have paid for academic advertorials to be placed in the Herald newspaper.

For someone with an alleged vested interest in the integrity and ethics of news delivery this is somewhat curious.

Consider the following quote from his worthy document ‘Better Journalism in the Digital Age‘:

“There has been a significant loss of public trust in news organisations, which is why a new culture of integrity and transparency within the media and a restoration of that trust are so important.”

There is something ironic that Mr Jenkins should have such high falutin’ values and then appear, so publicly, to undermine the ideals and vision suggested in the document.

This scandal, for scandal it is, damages not only the integrity of the Yes campaign, it damages the perceived integrity of the Herald newspaper.

Everyone knows that the majority of stories in the newspapers are press release and PR led. It’s a matter of economics, numbers and time.

But press release led news reporting can still provide useful insight to what’s going on.

Politically paid for advertorials are a different matter altogether.

That this information should come out following an alleged hacking attack, only illustrates the complete lack of transparency surrounding Mr Bulmer’s piece in the Herald.

Looks like the SNP doubters of Jenkins strategy have finally got their way. It seems only a matter of time till Mr Jenkins has to resign.

[This piece was paid for by BritNatSNPfortheUnionPsychoStalker.org ]

Skintland needs less MSPs and more action to protect us from freeloading SNP hypocrites

MOAN says that the brutal truth of the matter is that she would do and say anything to elevate her political career. Ask the Firstminster’s wife.

By Moan McVulpine – 67% of Scots think cheesey adulterers lack moral authority

WHOLLYRUDE’S indifference to its devolved powers is the political equivalent of treating the sovereign people with contempt.

Perhaps that is why no one from the SNP is prepared to speak openly for the Skintish government to actively do something about the impact of the bedroom tax.

Last time one of them tried they were threatened with a night time visit from Joan McArthyalpine and her motley ‘porridge testing’ crew.

The Scottish government’s own devolved powers shows housing is firmly in the list of competencies able to be interfered with by the parliament.

Yet still, nothing is done by the SNP majority administration to alleviate the problems imposed in Skintland by the bedroom tax. Why not?

The Skints should demand to know why the government they voted for in 2011 is standing idly by while the suffering are being systematically brutalised and impoverished by coalition legislation.

Could it be that it suits the SNP’s purposes for the poor and disadvantaged to be publicly seen suffering?

Could it be that this kind of cynical politicking with people’s misery would produce more Yes votes than the separatist manifesto would normally be expected to deliver?

Who knows?

It’s clear though that it suits the SNP’s empty rhetoric and cynical agenda to blame such uncaring indifference on Westminster and the Tories while doing nothing about it themselves.

As prime ‘plum duff’ Henry McPeish said in the Hootsman today, “a Tory government devoid of decency, compassion and beyond any notion of the common good”, is the SNP’s best friend.

It let’s them grandstand with moral authority backed up by full on Barnum statements about ‘Skintish values’ in the knowledge that it can only help their cause.

And of course, all of this posturing is aided and abetted by the next to useless Skintish Labouring Party who should be screaming about how devolved powers could be used to alleviate the suffering of those affected by the unfairness of the hated tax.

But that doesn’t excuse the SNP. They have it in their hands to do something about it now.

That they choose not to speaks volumes about their real commitment to Skintland and its people.

Nationalism is about the taking and holding of power for its own sake – a vehicle to get the people on board for the purposes of gaining power.

The ‘civic’ and ‘positive’ brand so frequently exhorted by the Skintish variety of Nationalism is nothing, if not, blatantly obvious for all to see.

It’s time the Skintish people woke up to this callous cynicism and demanded action.

That’s why we voted for them in 2011 after all.

COMEDY RELIEF

The Wings Panelbase Poll Verdict: Naive, biased, leading, lacking credibility.

Nationalist Front website editor, Stuart Cambpell, demonstrates a decades long talent for wasting others money. AhDinnaeKen investigates:

“Any writer, I suppose, feels that the world into which he was born is nothing less than a conspiracy against the cultivation of his talent.” – James A. Baldwin

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

A PARTISAN independence website’s polling questions were “leading”, “naive”, “biased”, self “undermined” and lacked “credibility” according to an eminent constitutional expert.

Speaking to BBC Radio Scotland, Professor John Curtice analysed recent Panelbase polling questions – believed to have been written on the back of a space monster fag packet by Nationalist Front website Wings Over Scotland – and concluded that they were undeserving of publicity.

The constitutional expert’s conclusions are being hailed by the sane and impartial as a vindication of the “evil” mainstream media.

Newspapers, radio and television outlets stand accused of suppressing the results by the hysterical editor of the site, Stuart Campbell, and his cohorts of self-righteously indignant half-witted MobNats (Wangers).

But, according to the struggling to keep a straight face professor, the mainstream media have no case to answer.

He said: “There was the occasional MISTAKE, which therefore, as a result, meant the poll did not get the kind of publicity they were hoping to get.

“I’ll give you a couple of examples, I mean, Stuart said they put in the space monsters in order to introduce a bit of satire. I think in truth, that for many journalists, when they looked at it, went, hang on, are these guys really serious?

“That question above all undermined the credibility of the opinion poll to journalists because they were saying, oh hang on, look, what they’re really trying to do here is to lead people into saying that the idea that nuclear weapons can actually protect Scotland against anything is such a stupid idea that surely you’re not going to say yes to this.

“I think, probably, journalists felt it biased the question and, given that the source of the opinion poll is indeed from a pro-independence website, they couldn’t frankly afford to make that mistake.”

Author of the questions, Stuart Campbell, threw a hissy fit when his officially judged rank amateur poll was virtually ignored by professional media outlets.

Exhibiting behaviour which reminded impartial observers of weans, prams and dummies, he proceeded to claim he’s under the scrutiny of a sinister cabal.

The frothing fantasist further fulminated that he was the victim of a Unionist plot by unnamed sources and drew upon the forces of conspiracy theory and internentnutcaseism to indulge in unprovable assertions, fantasy and smears.

Impartial observer and satirical commenter, Longshanker said: “Professor Curtice was too nice. Reading between the lines, though not much is needed, the professor effectively called the Wings poll a rank amateur partisan effort, bereft of credibility or balance.

“Mr Campbell’s leading questions undermined what could have been an interesting poll. Instead, his ego and self serving idiocy got in the way of a phenomenon which could have contributed positively to the debate.

“Anyone familiar with Mr Campbell’s Future Publishing court case will not be surprised by this news – a fool and his ego are seldom parted after all.

“In this instance, Mr Campbell took his Mobnats for fools and squandered their money on what turned out to be an inconsequential poll which damages the credibility, not only of PanelBase, but of those trying to build a case for independence.

“I salute the Mobnats and their seemingly bottomless pockets of money. Well done!”

Stuart Campbell, 45, is a self proclaimed ahem, ‘professional’ journalist who personifies the proverb, pride comes before a fall.

 

That’s right Blair. “Leading”, “biased”, lacking “credibility” and “naive”. Sounds like the Yes campaign so far. Ho hum! Just waiting for someone to claim that there’s a Unionist under their bed next.

The Impersonal Touch

Notorious website Wings Over Scotland indulges in the type of behaviour which it continually claims the mainstream media is guilty of.  AhDinnaeKen investigates:

What has this picture got to do with anything? Bloody biased hysteria-funded media!

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

A NATIONALIST FRONT website blogger has claimed he is the victim of a Unionist conspiracy and stalking campaign.

Stuart Campbell of Nationalist supremacist website Wings Over Scotland claims that an alleged “virulent Unionist” and “Rangers supporter” Murray Brady is stalking him in order to discredit his site in the eyes of the Yes campaign and the mainstream media.

He further claims that a “dossier” is circulating around the offices of the evil and wicked MSM in order to taint him in a “grim personal smear attack”.

Mr Campbell, 45, is a self appointed defender of truth, righteousness and probity in the independence campaign and he is famed for single handedly holding the “evil” Unionist MSM to account for its wickedness.

Impartial observers have noted that there is virtually no substantial factual content or evidence evident anywhere in Mr Campbell’s story, entitled “The Personal Touch”, which could possibly corroborate or substantiate one iota of a smidgeon of the claims raised.

Some went further, stating that it’s merely a pathetically obvious and evasive ruse to deflect from being exposed for his extreme views and relentlessly tireless hate tirades from his mob-funded website and Twitter feed.

One impartially wry observer noted that there appears to be no verifiable facts, sources or independent citations within the whole story for any of the claims to be taken seriously.

Longshanker, associate editor of ‘satirical’ website AhDinnaeKen said:

“Mr Campbell spins a story and provides background information about an alleged ‘stalker’ which doesn’t stack up. The only ‘evidence’ proffered, which allegedly connects this named individual, Murray Brady, to the AhDinnaeKen website, is the non-specified timing of comments left on Mr Campbell’s site and the writing style of the non-specified commenter. Other than that laughably meagre fare, which depends on Campbell’s “opinion” there is nothing of substance which can be verified by an independent observer.

“In the real world of ‘professional’ journalism, such minimalist conjecture doesn’t stand up as a legally tight credible story and leaves both the ahem, ‘journalist’ and the publication exposed to potentially expensive challenge or embarrassing take down.

“Mr Brady, if he actually exists, would have a right of claim of harrassment, if not defamation, against Wings Over Scotland and its curious brand of alleged ‘professional’ journalism.”

The Campbell story centres upon an unidentified commenter appearing on the Wings Over Scotland website at around the same time – which is only implied – as he alleges Murray Brady had charges for a non-specified alleged crime dropped by the Procurator Fiscal in Glasgow.

Despite providing no tangible evidence whatsoever, Mr Campbell gravely concluded:

“While we have, as noted, no conclusive proof, our opinion, for numerous reasons, is that there is no doubt whatsoever the author of the blog responsible for the “dossier” is Murray Brady, or someone acting as a front for him.”

Curiously, Mr Campbell edited his site, without reference or note or reason, to add the following line:

“Murray Brady used to consistently deny being in any way responsible for his hate campaign, right up to the point where the police forced his internet service provider to reveal his identity.”

Translated into the real world, this probably means the police used Google or some other form of internet search tool.

AhDinnaeKen invites readers to question why Mr Campbell’s piece is so coy about providing any hard facts to prove a case against his alleged assailant, Murray Brady.

What AhDinnaeKen would like to ask, on behalf of reason and sanity, is the following:

1) Just what were the charges raised against Murray Brady, if indeed there were any, and when and why were they dropped by the Procurator Fiscal?

2) Why is there no third party independent corroboration, other than an unnamed Scottish journalist, of anything that is claimed in the whole story?

3) Why did Mr Campbell use a picture of Norwegian right wing supremacist Anders Behring Breivik, one of the most dangerous and repugnantly evil mass murderers currently alive in Western Europe, to illustrate his piece? Surely the use of such a picture is the same type of underhandedly deceptive device used by the “evil” MSM to discredit and smear by association and juxtaposition?

4) Why was there no attribution or reason offered for the editing of the paragraph in which Mr Campbell asserts that Murray Brady is responsible for a “chilling” dossier doing the rounds of the “evil” MSM.

5) Why were the vast majority of half witted commenters on Mr Campbell’s site so ready and willing to believe such a half baked concoction of a story? The only thing that carries any credibility in the whole piece is the notion that a press release using material sourced from this very site is doing the rounds of the “evil” MSM.

Meanwhile, if Mr Brady exists, AhDinnaeKen invites him to contact the relevant authorities or the press and insist on a takedown of what is a quite clearly non-attributed, repugnant and libellous post – an affront to professional journalism and journalists.

Discerning readers can, once again, make up their own minds.

The text as it appeared originally.

Unattributed edit no. 2. Curiouser and curiouser.

McVulpine plays the who’s got the biggest wang card

MOAN says that the SNP are so desperate for good news that they’re even willing to cuddle up to Nationalist Front extremists with big wangs and large polls. Ooer missus!

By Moan McVulpine – in praise of universally cheesy wangs and big polls

IT’S BEEN used to kick-start everything from near lynchings of paediatricians to nasty wee Nationalist supremacist sites with polarising militant agendas.

It’s called hysteria-raising and it’s a way of inciting outrage, grievance and collective victimhood.

In hysteria-raising, like minded individuals with communal hatreds and frustrations chip in a few bob in order to arm themselves with righteous indignation so they can demand respectability from all and sundry – particularly their perceived enemies.

If 10,000 folk cared enough about Nationalist Front site Wangs Over Skintland that would be a political phenomenon.

Unfortunately the Wangs Over Skintland donation figure was nearer 1,000 and screeds of those were repeat donors – so well done to Joan McArthyalpine in the Daily Ranger for not so subtlely implying that 10,000 had anything to do with the Wangs Over Skintland site.

She even goes so far as to equate the Wangs site with worthy causes such as start up companies and disaster relief charities.

Moanie tips her hat to Joanie’s brazenness. You’re nothing if not shameless, as news stories have recently exposed. Weel din Fucky Sark!

Readers of the Wangs Over Skintland site were fed up with their new political landscape visions and delusions being constantly thwarted by reality.

So they mob-funded their own ahem ‘professional journalist’ based opinion poll.

These are expensive undertakings. But a fool and his money are often parted, so it certainly seems there’s enough money going around in Skintland to fund such vanity projects. Ask the Firstminster, eh?

The wangsoverskintland.com blog hysteria-raising poll was carried out by Flannelbase – an internet based polling company which rewards those who answer questions.

The poll showed that, unlike any other polls anywhere, the gap between Yes and No to an independent Skintland was narrower than previously thought – with 36 per cent No, 34 per cent Yes and 30 per cent undecided.

But running with those numbers as a given is a deception considering the complexity of the question which raised the figure.

Consider what Professor John Poultice of Scratchcard Uninveristy said:

“Apart from the potential for confusion in such a complex question, given this limitation we simply cannot be sure that those who felt able to say Yes or No are representative of the views of all Scots.”

In other words, that figure is all front and no substance when seriously analysed – much like the editor and the editorial of the Wangs Over Skintland site. Ask him the difference between a Consulate and an Embassy for example.

One of the stupidest questions however, turned the credibility of the poll on its head.

Respondents were asked to imagine Skintland was currently an independent country. How many would vote for a union with Westmonster? Only 18 per cent said they would vote to give up our ffrreeddoomm™, with 55 per cent against and 28 per cent undecided.

But should we be surprised? It is just an imagining after all, just like some of the boldest and most seriously mauled and discredited assertions stated by the SNP over the course of the alleged debate.

Worth considering that Joanie made an unfounded accusation/assertion against one of the editors of this very site some time ago.

Unsurprisingly, the editor of Wangs Over Skintland made a much more serious accusation.

Given that neither have presented evidence to prove their unfounded and vindictive accusations, you have to question the credibility of any of their claims.

Both act like nasty wee busted flushes. The phrase “yer damn right” springs to mind.

 

COMEDY RELIEF:

McVulpine plays the who’s got the biggest wang card

An open letter to a professional troll

A heartfelt and sincere letter to ‘professional’ troll Rev Stuart Campbell.

By Longshanker aka @Ergasiophobe

Dear Mr Campbell of ‘media monitoring’ site Wings Over Scotland

RE: VEXATIOUS UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS

I’ve been thinking about writing this letter for some time now. I would have written it much earlier but I had to be sure that any residual disgust and anger I felt toward you – concerning the subject matter of this letter – had dissipated.

You see, it’s not every day you find out that someone has accused you of being a would be gang rapist and murderer with a quantifiable arrest record –  like you have done with me.

I don’t know how many people you have been peddling this poisonous falsehood to, but I reckon you’ve calculated there’s not a great deal I can do about it. I operate anonymously after all and, invariably, anonymous operators have something to hide.

I hide my identity because I poke fun at politicians, predominantly, though not exclusively, of the Nationalist persuasion. Such ‘satirical mischief’ could potentially result in the loss of my current employment and severely curtail future employment in my field.

That’s why, sometimes, though admittedly rarely, the language used in AhDinnaeKen is intemperate. It’s written for cheap laughs more than anything else. I like to flatter myself that I occasionally land a belly laugh . If AhDinnaeKen makes one reader laugh it’s job done as far as I’m concerned.

So, if anyone out there calls me a coward or gutless or snivelling or whatever for operating anonymously, go ahead. You’re wrong. Plain and simple.

However, I consider your “stalker”, murderer and gang rapist accusation to be much more seriously cowardly and vexatious than anything concocted in the whole 400+ AhDinnaeKen blog posts combined. You see, I think I know why you made the unfounded accusation.

Like any extremist or narcissist or sociopath or misanthrope or misogynist or whatever aggressive pathology with controlling tendencies it is you suffer from, you can’t abide those willing to stand up to and expose you. If you can’t control them, they must be bullied, belittled, diminished, denigrated, destroyed and dismissed. (Please excuse the over the top alliteration there, sometimes I can’t help myself.)

You’ve referred to AhDinnaeKen as your “stalker blog” yet, if you look at the posts filed under the “Wangs Watch” category and do the math, you’ll find that it forms less than 8 per cent of the whole blog.

How self important and self serving you must be to think that AhDinnaeKen is about you. Only a categorical malicious idiot or an unhinged narcissist could possibly think that.

I know which option I’m hedging my bets on – both.

After you banned me from your site for stating that the word “Unionist” could be replaced with “English” and it wouldn’t change the flavour or intention of your site one bit, you showed your true evasive and pettily vindictive colours.

Not content with bannning me, which you’re perfectly at liberty to do – despite it flying in the face of your professed anti-censorship stance – you acted in a manner which can only be described, at best, as ‘curious’.

You reported me as a spammer to the WordPress admin system Akismet resulting in an inability to post on several sites such as Better Nation, Burdzeye View and Bella Caledonia.

Quite why you did that is curious. I have my suspicions.

THE PETTY VINDICTIVE ACCUSATION
What goes beyond curiousity though is your behaviour of the 6th June 2012 after I posted the AhDinnaeKen piece entitled “Notorious “anti-Censor” Censors comments in Censorious act of Censorship.”

You sent me a little note on the blog stating: “How intriguing that you’ve omitted the post you were actually finally banned for.”, to which I replied: “I hadn’t actually realised that you had deleted it at the time, hence no record. Feel free to post it here though.”

Curiously, you neglected to send the post. What is really “intriguing” though is the timing of your note (12:48pm 6 Jun 2012) and the timing  of your banning notice (Wed,  6 Jun 2012 12:39:26 +0000 (UTC) ) on what is now your ‘quarantine’ page. The proclamation is still there for all to see.

The really curious issue is that the post in your quarantine page which, at the time, was called “Discussions of Rev. Stu’s personality”, shows a time stamp of “4 June, 2012 at 1:39 pm“.

That’s one hour forward and two days back from the time shown on the email – which was automatically received by me upon the comment being posted by you. I had subscribed to the page and was notified every time anyone posted a comment on the page. Very curious – the two day difference – don’t you think?

For your information, I checked with an IT professional friend of mine to see if, perhaps, the anomaly of that one hour forward and two days back time stamp could have been explained by a delay in the email delivery system.

To cut a long story short, there was no delay. The delivery of your comment to my email box was virtually instantaneous. This is quantifiably, electronically and empirically provable. And I have the evidence to prove it.

Therefore, there is only one conclusion which can be reached. You deliberately doctored the time stamp in order to undermine the point being made in the Notorious anti-censor blog. In effect, you tried to make it look as if I had fabricated all of the screenshots at the bottom of the piece.

Any explanation as to why you would do that would be appreciated. From where I’m standing it looks, at best, mean spirited and deceptive – in terms of the debate. At worst, it exposes you as a cheap grubby wee cheat who doesn’t even have the brains to cover his own tracks when he’s not playing fair.

I’ll leave the inevitable conclusions on your actions up to any interested parties. They can decide for themselves.

This legitimate query was not answered by the ahem, ‘professional’ journalist.

They may also be mildly interested to know that I Tweeted to your @RevStu account the following day, 7th June 2012, to ask why you had changed the time stamp. Unsurprisingly, reply there came none, apart from a blocking. Natch!

THE SERIOUSLY VINDICTIVE ACCUSATION
Still, doctored timestamps, deletion of posts and manufacture of enemies appears to be de rigueur petty spitefulness as far as you’re concerned (scroll to bottom of this linked to page for an interesting chinnyhill10 comment).

Much more concerning however is the accusation you raised against me behind my back.

Here’s what you wrote to a third party:

“Your new best friend that you’re so keen to cite in order to smear me is a delightful chap who was arrested by Glasgow police a couple of years ago for, among many other things, posting a long and detailed plan to gang-rape and murder me. Happy to provide you with police case numbers etc in order to verify.”

So here’s the rub Mr Campbell. You’ve made this very serious accusation against @Ergasiophobe (me). If you have any decency, you must name and shame.

For the record, unlike yourself, I have never been arrested in my life.

You’re a poker player and a self professed ‘professional’ journalist. You’re being called on your alleged professionalism, integrity and ethics.

You’re being called to reveal this alleged identity of @Ergasiophobe and you’re being called to cite the facts and sources for this outrageously vindictive and malicious accusation.

I assume you consider me an enemy of independence – having previously accused me of being a Labour Unionist – again without one shred of evidence. So here’s a reminder of something you wrote recently:

“Wings Over Scotland will continue to present the case for independence – not impartially but truthfully, with facts sourced and cited – and we will fight all of its enemies, be they in the opposition camp or our own.”

What I want to know is this: Where are the facts? Where are the sources? Where are the citations? And most important of all, where is the truth?

Without any of these, your accusation is subjective spurious supposition dreamed up in your vindictive and paranoid imagination. I presumed you dreamed this one up in order to deflect from your being exposed on the 3rd April 2013 for making a misogynistic homophobic statement – a claim for which there is indeed citable evidence.

There may or may not have been an individual arrested in Glasgow. All I know is that whether or not this individual actually exists, which I suspect he does, I have never been arrested in my life.

SCENARIOS
As I see it, there are three possible scenarios:

1) You retract the accusation and apologise due to the accusation being a malicious fabrication.

2) You prove the claim and provide irrefutable citable evidence that I, the person who uses the @Ergasiophobe account, am lieing and am playing a game of bluff about my identity.

3) You play a game of bluff by either ignoring this post, or counter claim that I am lieing about the source of your accusation.

OUTCOMES
Of the above three scenarios the potential outcomes will probably be as follows:

1) No chance. You lack the courage, integrity, honesty and ethics to admit you have been exposed for making false accusations.

2) An impossibility. There is no evidence of any kind whatsoever to link me to this alleged individual. If you do name anyone I’ll prove to credible independent third parties that I am not the named would be gang rapist/murderer.

3) Most likely. It’s a stupidly dangerous game for you to play. All the citable evidence and proof is in my hands: I can prove you did change the date/time stamp. I can prove I have never been arrested in my life. I can also prove that you made the maliciously vexatious accusation. You know that you made it also.

It’s a straight and sincere demand Mr Campbell. Prove your mettle. Prove you possess some semblance of integrity and honesty. Prove that you’re not just a nasty wee misogynistic smear merchant with a point scoring agenda driving your alleged ‘professional’ journalism.

By conning Blair Jenkins into legitimising your indy debate idea recently, you have injured the Yes campaign by damaging its leader’s reputation. Better Together will be able to use Mr Jenkins apparent trust in you to queston his judgement.

My demand is as follows. Admit your mistake was motivated by malice and apologise.

Sometimes when someone angers you, you can react in ways you end up regretting. The exposure of your misogynistic homophobic comment may not be irrefutable proof that you are a misogynistic homophobe. But when you couple the exposure of the statement to your actions thereafter i.e. vexatiously emailing people to accuse me of having planned to gang rape and murder you, then you’ve taken it way beyond standard trolling. Surely even you can see that?

Without an apology and a retraction however you leave me no alternative but to pursue the matter.

Even your followers – at least the sensible ones – will see the wisdom in my demand. At this moment you’re holding a busted flush and I’m ‘calling’ you on it.

I’m exposing you as a liar and a sham who is prepared to exploit underhanded means in order to silence dissent. In your words, “man up” and do the decent thing. Apologise.

Yours sincerely

Longshanker aka @Ergasiophobe

The more discerning may want to revise the sentiment on this banner.