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

“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.

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.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under CyberNats, Referendum, Wangs Watch

2 responses to “The Wings Panelbase Poll Verdict: Naive, biased, leading, lacking credibility.

  1. allanwils

    The only argument I got from them, when questioning ‘Panelbases methods’ was well the Times used them, It really is amusing if you check back on which Polls the YES camp quote, both are Panelbase ones, and both are so far from the Norm, they would be dropped from any poll of polls , result

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s