Monthly Archives: April 2015

Moan Mcvulpine: Why every SNP member thinks everyone loves oor wee Nicola

Moan McVulpine discusses why Sturgeon has become a symbolic totem for everything we hate about our political system.

Testing

By Moan McVulpinecorrupting language, corrupting thought.

THE STURGEON surge is sweeping everything in its political path. I suspect Nicola cannot quite believe it herself.

No one could ever accuse her of being charismatic. Quite the opposite – she is the equivalent of a punctual political clerk who got the job because no one else was up to it.

And yet here she is, living the boxset Borgen dream and surfing the wave of political disaffection throughout the country with her consumate surfboard.

But behind all the hoopla and, at times, cult like hero worship, is a mostly dull monomaniac whose actions belie her rhetoric – so no change from any career politician on the make then.

Joan McAlpine makes much of Len McCluskey’s adoption of Nicola as some sort of validation, but he’s another one whose rhetoric never quite matches the action.

Ho hum. Next!

Two thirds of ‘high information’ low comprehension Scots trust Nicola according to a poll.

Which is extraordinary given her tolerance, backing and support for serial liars like Alex Salmond and serial fraudsters like Abdul Rauf.

The reasons she compromised her integrity for Salmond were easily explained: not to have done so would have harmed the Yes campaign – and that can be written off and excused as loyalty to the cause.

Quite why she damaged her reputation seeking clemency for a determined and hardened serial fraudster like Rauf is still not known or satisfactorily explained. Moan suspects it was something to do with keeping the tight knit Asian vote – whom she relies on dearly – on board and on message.

Who knows?

But it tainted her, blemished her reputation, and left a bad smell in the nostrils of anyone with any dedication to the ideals of trust and integrity.

She still owes the electorate a comprehensive explanation for that “mistake”.

It leaves open the question: What other mistakes of judgement is she capable of?

Maybe we should ask prospective Westminster candidates Mhairi Black and Neil Hay.

One thing you can be sure of. Like her SNP political buddies, it won’t be Sturgeon who pays the price of her future ‘mistakes’.

It will be Scotland!

COMEDY RELIEF

1 Comment

Filed under Moan McVulpine, Opinion

SNP’s Paisley candidate admits to being a fool

SNP FOOT in mouth candidate for Paisley, Mhairi Black, admitted to being a bit of an eejit today. But she still stuck by the reason for her eejitism. AhDinnaeKen reports:

Mhairi Bluck: Urging voters in Paisley to put the nut in gullible scum celtic supporters. Or something like that.

Mhairi Bluck: Urging voters in Paisley to put the nut in gullible scum Celtic supporters. Or something like that. Yesterday.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiphobe

MHAIRI BLACK, the SNP candidate for Paisley, repeated her claim today that No voters in last year’s independence referendum were “gullible”.

Speaking on Good Morning Scotland, Black repeated her belief that “some” No voters were “gullible” and “there was an element of truth to that”

When asked by the BBC’s Gary Robertson to clarify her remarks as a possible “error”, Black said: “An error? No, I don’t think so. I think there was element of gullibility in terms of the lies that some people were told.”

Probing further, Robertson said: “When you call people gullible that makes it sound as though in some way they’ve been foolish.”

Struggling to find a suitable answer Black failed to retract her claim.

She said: “I understand what you’re saying. And yes, maybe the word wasn’t the wisest.”

Despite the admission of being unwise, Black noticeably refused to retract her “gullibility” claim.

It was the same type of relative apologism witnessed recently when Black was exposed for labeling Celtic fans as “scum”.

Black said her “scum” comment should be put in some sort of “perspective”.

She said: “Tony Blair started a war”, and claimed that by highlighting the “scum” comment her detractors “priorities are a bit skewed”.

Paisley’s voters, like many in Scotland, seem not to care about the gaffe prone candidate’s lack of experience or standards of decency and civility.

After the referendum she infamously said it took all her fibre not to “nut” Labour opponents who were commiserating with her over the result.

Black is currently 11 points ahead in the polls over her nearest rival, Labour’s Douglas Alexander.

The SNP Paisley candidate is understood to have pledged to put every fibre of her being into not ‘nutting’ Douglas Alexander in the unlikely event he hold’s the seat against her.

11 Comments

Filed under Labour, Newspeak

A letter to Iain Macwhirter

AN APPEAL to Iain Macwhirter of the Herald and to the maintenance of ethical journalism:

We* may be wrong, but this looks like Mr Macwhirter is trying to defend Wings.

We* may be wrong, but this looks like Mr Macwhirter is trying to defend Wings.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

Dear Mr Macwhirter

AS A FAN of your work I was dismayed to find that you have chosen to champion a blogger who epitomises many of the negative stereotypes associated with Nationalism.

I confess to being saddened at what appears to be an attempt by you to affiliate yourself, through the medium of Twitter, with Wings Over Scotland and its editor, Stuart Campbell.

Since the moment you took it upon yourself to reply in kind to some of the more outrageous right wing press claims that “Scotland has gone mad” , you seem to have taken it to heart and reacted out of character.

The experience also seems to have skewed, in a limited fashion, your journalistic judgement.

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to achieve with your contrived Twitter name calling of @Wingsscotland. I think your point is that Stuart Campbell is somehow more a victim of online abuse than the abuser.

If that is the case then please desist.

Harm can only come to your reputation by doing so.

I’ll give you a couple of examples why the championing of Campbell is, at best, foolish. Hopefully, it will garner some sympathy with you for the case being made by this letter:

When Campbell of Wings experienced a little online meltdown recently at news of the apparent appointment of Kate Higgins as a SPAD for Nicola Sturgeon, he raised some outlandish and vexatious allegations against her.

You can see the whole self pitying whine using archive.

You can see the whole self pitying crybaby whine using the archive link in the quote below.

He said: “Kate Higgins is the root cause and the heart of the abuse I’ve endured for the past three years from people in the Yes movement…”
A forthright, serious and specific claim made against a specific individual.

The allegation has since been deleted . If Kate Higgins had chosen to action it in court, it would have been an open and shut case. Campbell obviously made a braveheart decision, swallowed his alleged journalistic principles, and chose to delete the whole thread in which the comments were made.

Last night I asked you on Twitter to clarify the point you were trying to make with the somewhat bizarre name calling, initiated by you, aimed at Campbell on your Twitter feed. To date, you have not replied.

I also asked you: “Do you think “a dim-witted honking nobody” was fair comment from #Wingsscotland in relation to Kate Higgins”. This was in reference to an ad hominem attack initiated by Campbell in the same post in which he accused Ms Higgins of being the source of his alleged three year endurance of abuse .

Again, there was no answer.

Of course, you don’t have to reply and I respect that right. But given that the questions asked were respectful enquiries relevant to your current show of solidarity with Campbell, I expected some sort of response.

The other example is in reference to myself and a third party unknown to me.

Campbell made a specific allegation against the anonymous editor of this blog, AhDinnaeKen and the Twitter account I operate – @ergasiophobe.

In this instance, the allegation was as serious an allegation as can be made: Campbell claimed that @ergasiophobe is operated by a “stalker” who was arrested by the police “for threatening to rape and murder” him.

This accusation needs to be proved, not denied, in order to be validated.

This accusation needs to be proved, not denied, in order to be validated.

I , the operator of the AhDinnaeKen and @ergasiophobe accounts, can truthfully and without prejudice state that I have never been arrested in my life. Boring but true.

Campbell specifically named an individual in a post entitled the Personal Touch – which can still be read by almost “3 million Scots” to this day – and also claimed that this blog was operated by said individual or others “acting as a front for him”.

You only have to read the piece to see that Campbell made some very serious and extreme accusations based on his feelings – not on tangible or credible evidence.

The whole piece is a tirade of unethical logical fallacy, vexatious lies, smear and vindictiveness. It besmirches the basic ethical elements of journalism which should underpin the work of all ethical journalists – something which I hold you, Iain, to be a paragon of.

Of course, if Campbell’s allegations were true then Campbell’s alleged “stalker” should quite rightly have been arrested, tried, convicted and jailed. People who conspire to rape and murder anyone should be taken off of the streets to remove the threat they pose to society.

AhDinnaeKen is still here. Funny that.

Campbell, on the other hand, is in the inconvenient position of having made a serious unfounded accusation under which the ‘burden of proof’ lies upon him.

To date, other than Campbell’s post hoc opinion, no credible proof or evidence of Campbell’s vexatious allegation has been forthcoming. And it never will be, because there is none.

It would be easy to write this letter off as the rantings of an #internetnutcase or an ‘obsessive’ or a ‘stalker’. But you have it within your power, Iain, to do something about it now.

Seeing as you currently appear to be making the ironic point that Campbell is somehow the victim of online abuse, I would suggest that you’re morally obliged to clear up Campbell’s abusive accusation.

It isn’t just a vile ad hominem aimed at shutting down and smearing a critic he doesn’t like – similar, in a fashion, to the allegation aimed at Kate Higgins – it is potentially a criminal accusation that Campbell has made. And surely you can see how extreme that it is?

All you need to do is ask Campbell for the indisputable proof which directly links AhDinnaeKen and @ergasiophobe to the alleged arrest of an individual who allegedly threatened to “rape and murder” him.

I understand you’re under no obligation to do so. But there are actions you can take – which I would willingly be party to – which would put to bed, once and for all, Campbell’s vexatious allegations which are an extreme and vindictive lie.

It’s this type of behaviour by Campbell, outlined here, which leaves me convinced that he is an extremist of potentially unsound mind and the epitome of many of the dangers represented by unchecked Nationalism.

Given that you appear to have nailed your colours to the Wings’ mast, so to speak, I would suggest that you’re under a moral and ethical obligation to clear this up.

I look forward to your silence on the matter.

Yours sincerely

 

Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

7 Comments

Filed under Media, Wangs Watch

Iain Macwhirter – putting ire into irony

STUART CAMPBELL of Wings Over Scotland may be many things to many people, but one thing he is not is a victim of abuse.  So just why is  avuncular “well kept” Herald columnist Iain Macwhirter currently attempting to portray him as such? AhDinnaeKen has read Iain Macwhirter’s columns, on and off, for over 15 years now. He’s surprised us*, educated us*, informed us* entertained us* and helped shape our* political opinions but he’s never before deeply disappointed us*. That is, until now. AhDinnaeKen explains:

There are causes to bat for and there are causes to bat for. Wings Over Scotland reaping what it sew is not a cause to bat for.

There are causes to bat for and there are causes to bat for. Wings Over Scotland reaping what it sews is not a cause to bat for. Go homeward and think again Iain.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

THE IMPARTIAL Scottish journalist Iain Macwhirter wrote an article for a Scottish newspaper this week where he took Daily Mail columnist, Chris Deerin, to task for claiming that Scotland as a nation had lost its heid over the politics game.

He claimed Deerin’s piece ‘Scotland has gone mad’ demonstrated “a strand of cultural self-loathing in Scottish writing that goes back to the days of Boswell” and damningly concluded that Deerin’s polemic was an archetypal example of “the Scottish cringe elevated to a fine art”.

Macwhirter may even have had a point. As he further explored the cringe issue, he also raised the spectre, without quite nailing it, that it will be Unionists making these type of claims who will  ultimately be part responsible for the future break-up of the United Kingdom.

Presumably this passes for wacky humour in the "well kept political commentator" household.

Presumably this passes for wacky humour in “well kept political commentator” households.

But it isn’t the purpose of this AhDinnaeKen piece to critique Macwhirter’s column. Rather, it is to take him to task for his related post-column Tweeting which had the barefaced and ludicrous  audacity to present Stuart Campbell of Wings Over  Scotland as a victim of abusive on-line trolling – peppered throughout with some spectacularly lame attempts at humour. (see tweets throughout this blog)

In this instance, Macwhirter’s crass idiocy and bloody minded offensiveness at making such a claim invokes the oldest of ironies:  that man, when preparing for bloody war, will orate loudly and most eloquently in the name of peace.

And, it’s also worth mentioning the cringing embarrassment one feels for Macwhirter in his doing so – his twitter feed defending Campbell is like being forced to watch your dad doing ‘dad dancing’ on the dance floor after one whisky too many while wearing a John Travolta suit and chatting up all the available fourteen year olds. Now that’s what I call cringey vol. 45.

Dear dear. We* suspect that Mcwhirter has taken the contrived wacky humour lead from STV's Stephen Daisley here.

Dear dear. We* suspect that Macwhirter has taken the contrived wacky humour lead from STV’s besotted schmuck, Stephen Daisley. And failed. Spectacularly.

No doubt, Macwhirter had the following lines of Deerin’s  in mind when he decided to commit journalistic credibility suicide:
“If anyone on social media – especially, God forbid, a non-Scot – dares to challenge these ludicrous myths they are descended on by the ‘cybernats’, a swarm of angry oddballs who refuse to read the ‘mainstream media’ and who take their lead from the oddball-in-chief, Stuart Campbell, a self-styled Reverend who lives in Bath and runs a ranting website called Wings Over Scotland.”

Anyone who has challenged the “ludicrous myths” referred to by Deerin, hear more than the resonance of truth in those words – they experience the unpleasant consequences first hand.

Ironically and, inevitably, the victims of the oddball-in-chief’s anger turn out almost exclusively to be young and attractive women. But that hard core misogyny forms the basis of a post for another day.

Reflects the people who address him. Obviously there are no mirrors in Campbell's Bath embassy.

Reflects the people who address him. Obviously there are no mirrors in Campbell’s rat infested Bath embassy. No suprise there then.

Coincidentally, on the same day as Deerin’s polemic, Gerry Hassan, the quintessential warbling prevaricator who never quite commits to anything so that his options always remain open, wrote a piece for the New Statesman entitled ‘Scotland and the clash of two nationalisms’.

Hassan, like Deerin, also referred to Wings Over Scotland. Unsurprisingly, it wasn’t too complimentary of Scotland’s “tribune journalist” either.

Hassan said: “At another event a respected journalist commented that they didn’t find the high profile pro-independence website “Wings over Scotland” problematic or, in any way as some detractors did, “sexist”. They asserted that “people just said that sort of thing”, ignoring the combative way that “men from the games industry talk”.

Notably, Hassan doesn’t name the journalist but curiously, in the following paragraph, he said: “These comments illustrate a certain attitude in soft pro-independence opinion that can be seen amongst some of Scotland’s well-kept political commentators such as Iain Macwhirter, Joyce McMillan, Kevin McKenna and Ruth Wishart. It is a partial view of the world – centred on their generational disappointment with Labour and a new-found embrace of independence.

It looks like a short list of suspects for the ‘respected journalist’ reference. And curiously, Macwhirter, given his recent Twitter timeline, appears to be the prime suspect.

Campbell should just have used the word he really meant here - untermensch. We* know he wanted to.

Campbell should just have used the word he really meant here – unter-mensch. We* know he wanted to. It would have added to his ‘essence’.

So just what motivated Macwhirter, the “well-kept political commentator” to embark on such a credibility endangering journey, bestowing martyrdom status on such a fallacious and deeply unpleasant extremist as Stuart Campbell?

Did the “well kept” label bestowed by Hassan sting the ‘respected’ political commentator into a course of radical and edgy action?

Who knows and who really cares? Maybe it’s a mid-life journalistic crisis. Or something.

Hopefully Iain comes back to his senses before his reputation suffers permanently. Defending the indefensible never looks good. And it’s worth invoking Aesop’s fable of the Scorpion and the Frog.

AhDinnaeKen’s advice to Macwhirter – professional frogs should stick with professional  frogs. Partisan scorpions are never worth carrying on your back. There are inevitable and sadly predictable consequences to such actions.

Take a look at some of the Tweets peppering this piece for illustrative purposes and decide for yourself if Macwhirter’s defense of Campbell is justified.

Of course it's a lie Wingsy. To see yersel as ithers see ye.

Of course it’s a lie Wingsy. To see yersel as ithers see ye.

 

Quite. Never a truer word said. So what does Cambpell's name calling reveal about him Iain? That he's a victim of online abuse?

Quite. Never a truer word said. So what does Cambpell’s name calling reveal about him Iain? That he’s a victim of online abuse? That appears to be the argument you’re making.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Media, Opinion, Wangs Watch

Wings, Lies, and Christina McKelvie MSP

CHRISTINA MCKELVIE SNP MSP nailed her colours to the mast of “oddball-in-chief”, Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland, last night, prompting AhDinnaeKen to ask, is this the calibre of MSP we’re going to have to tolerate from the Nationalist Holyrood parliament for evermore?

There seems to be some factionalising over Wings in the SNP at the moment. Salmondites are wholeheartedly recommending the site. Sturgeonites are much more circumspect. Funny that.

There seems to be some factionalising over Wingsy’s blog in the SNP at the moment. Salmondites are wholeheartedly recommending it. Sturgeonites are much more circumspect. Funny that.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

IT’S A well known maxim of propaganda that propagandists frequently exploit truths useful to their cause and airbrush over or omit those truths which, inconveniently, are not so helpful.

It’s why the best propaganda is mostly true but, due to its nature and purpose, can never quite be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In that spirit of propagandising, it’s easy to conclude that the best you’ll ever get with the Wings Over Scotland blog is: not quite the truth.

Take the subject of a recent Twitter exchange between SNP MSP Christina McKelvie and Labour MSP Neil Findlay. It concerned a comment made by Jim Murphy MP during the BBC’s leader debates first screened on 8th April.

Murphy claimed that the SNP had voted with the Tories in order to stymy some Labour amendments to the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill. The amendments proposed that, where appropriate, Councils should provide eligible claimants with “cash” payments instead of “vouchers” in order to avoid stigma.

In reference to the SNP/Tory vote Murphy said:

“Labour said let’s give them cash payments. The SNP sided with the Tories to give them vouchers.”

Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth from FM Nicola Sturgeon and an attempt to divert away from the specific claim made by Murphy.

She categorically failed to rebut Murphy’s allegation and managed to make his sanctimonious politicking seem all the more poignant – much to the pleasure of the clapping audience.

In the Twitter echo chamber meanwhile, @WingsScotland tweeted a reference to a Wings propaganda blog entitled “This is how you tell a lie”.

It allegedly “debunks” the Murphy claim that the SNP voted with the Tories. Like Sturgeon’s attempt at the rebuttal of Jim’s point, it also categorically failed.

The essential allegation driving Campbell’s self righteous finger wagging is that Labour’s proposed amendments sought to “remove councils’ flexibility to decide in what form to give the help, by having the Scottish Government impose rules forcing councils to give such help in cash only.”

Like most of Campbell’s propaganda, it’s less than half true. And in anyone’s language, a half-truth is a whole lie.

Campbell’s lie cyncially exploits his readers credulousness and propensity to swallow his narrative wholesale and without question. (So no change there then.)

If Labour’s proposed amendments had been added, the relevant sections in the Welfare Funds Bill would have read as follows:

2 Use of welfare funds: assistance for short term need and community care

(1) A local authority may use its welfare fund only in order to provide occasional financial assistance to or in such circumstances as may be prescribed in regulations under subsection (3A), other assistance—

(a) meeting, or helping to meet, an immediate short term need—

(i) arising out of an exceptional event or exceptional circumstances, and

(ii) that requires to be met to avoid a risk to the wellbeing of an individual, or

Subsection 3A referred to above would have completely replaced the original subsection 3 and have read thus:

(3A) The Scottish Ministers may, by regulations, make provision about the circumstances in which a local authority may —

(a) provide goods or services to or in respect of an individual, or

(b) make a payment to a third party with a view to the third party providing, or
arranging the provision of, goods or services to or in respect of an individual.

Scrutiny reveals that Campbell’s false accusation of the amendments allowing the Scottish Government to ‘force councils’ to provide assistance in “cash only” is a plain and simple untruth.

Ken McIntosh, the Labour proposer of the amendments, put it in a simpler manner that even Campbell should have understood.

McIntosh said:

“…local authorities are not restricted in any way in how they decide to support the applicant; they can do so through an award of goods, vouchers or whatever type of in-kind payment they choose, rather than in cash. The effect of the three amendments in the group would not be to change or restrict that range of options, but would simply be to give ministers the authority to produce regulations about the circumstances in which councils can make non-cash awards.”

A plain and simple explanation in anyone’s world, except perhaps Campbell’s, his “alert readers” and his increasing cohort of SNP MPs and MSP backers.

Which brings us back to Christina McKelvie MSP and Neil Findlay MSP.

It’s a bit rich that Christina should be calling anyone a liar given that she campaigned and appeared on the same platform as convicted serial liar and perjurer Tommy Sheridan during the indyref.

McKelvie not only called Murphy and Neil Findlay liars she then compounded her lie by referring to Stuart Campbell’s rant against Labour as the “truth.”

In Chris Deerin’s recent leftfield polemic about Scotland losin’ the heid, he said the following of the cybernats:

“If anyone on social media – especially, God forbid, a non-Scot – dares to challenge these ludicrous myths they are descended on by the ‘cybernats’, a swarm of angry oddballs who refuse to read the ‘mainstream media’ and who take their lead from the oddball-in-chief, Stuart Campbell, a self-styled Reverend who lives in Bath and runs a ranting website called Wings Over Scotland.”

It’s a sad day when an elected representative of the Scottish people like Christina McKelvie MSP, takes the lead of a fallacious “ranting” liar like Campbell and acts like a ranting cybernat herself. Especially when, like Campbell, she got it so spectacularly wrong. It’s almost as if she has no awareness or worse, cares less, about how her error stricken endorsement of a Nationalist Front extremist like Campbell appears to the world.

The SNP did vote with the Tories to defeat the more humanitarian appearing Labour amendments.

Campbell either deliberately ignored the purpose of the amendments or failed to understand them. Otherwise, how could he possibly interpret them as an attempt by Ken McIntosh to have the Scottish Government impose “cash only” rules on councils?

Christina McKelvie needs to clarify what’s “true” about that claim by Cambpell. If she doesn’t then there’s only one conclusion that can be reached – she’s a liar herself.

This is part of the list of the SNP MSPs who voted with their Tory chums against Labour's more humanitarian amendment. Truth hurts.

This is part of the list of the SNP MSPs who voted with their Tory chums against Labour’s more humanitarian amendment. Christina is directly below her Tory ally Jamie McGrigor. Complaints about Christina should be lodged in green crayola crayon to Oddball In Chief, Wings Over Scotlandland.

6 Comments

Filed under MobNats, Wangs Watch

Wings Over Clipeland and the new Twitter landscape

CONTRAST AND compare:

Like the hissy fit over Kate Higgins, this Tweet has gone to hate-preacher heaven.

Like the crybaby hissy fit over Kate Higgins, this Tweet has gone to hate-preacher deletion heaven. Or something.

By Longshanker aka @Ergasiophobe

“Nowadays, if you so much as express a controversial and unpopular opinion about something (a concept more traditionally known as “freedom of speech”), you’re likely to swiftly and suddenly find yourself staring at the inside of a prison cell.”Stuart Campbell – Crybaby Nation, Nov 2012, Wings Over Clipeland.

Take a look at the Tweet above. And its timestamp.

It no longer exists. It’s been deleted. Eradicated. Excised. Erased.

Laughingly, AhDinnaeKen wonders why.

Presumably, it was tweeted in response to this:

Figuratively speaking it's as pleasant as its subject matter. But in any world other than literalist Nationalists, could this comment be considered a threat against Nicola Sturgeon.

Figuratively speaking, it’s as pleasant as its subject matter. But in any world other than literal Nationalism, could this comment be considered a threat against Nicola Sturgeon?

Hardly pleasant, but hardly worth reporting to the police either. The literalism of some Nationalists embarrasses the concept of figurative speech. It’s as if it doesn’t exist in their limited and polarised online world.

Stuart Campbell of the Wings Over Clipeland blog is rapidly gaining another disreputable online reputation: that of a vexatious hypocritical authoritarian clipe.

Indeed, Campbell’s recent Twitter behaviour can only be viewed as that of a creepy “playground” clipe – he referred to Twitter as his “playground” when interviewed by Paul Hutcheon of the Herald. Now he’s spending much of his Twitter playtime threatening to clipe on those he doesn’t like.

The recent suspension of Twitter accounts criticising Wings and the threats by Campbell through the form of ludicrously prissy “Formal” notices would be hilarious if it didn’t also bring Twitter’s newly declared policy on abuse into disrepute.

Twitter’s bosses have openly declared that they want to close the gap on Facebook. The difference in numbers of users between the two social media platforms is phenomenal.

One of the key areas highlighted by the Twitter beaks was that of abuse. They felt it was important that they “put the cost of dealing with harrassment on those doing the harrassing.” and that a crackdown on abuse would encourage more users to the platform.

Which is all very fine and well. There are some disturbingly well documented cases – the most recent being the Twitter “threat” storm raged against Jeremy Clarkson’s ex-producer – where such a policy is more than welcome.

But what happens when those complaining of harrassment are actually using it as a cloak to harras and close down debate?

Then it becomes a completely different issue because it undermines Twitter’s credibility. And it lets Twitter be seen as aiding and abetting the abusers. A counterproductive state of affairs for Twitter.

Campbell’s recent “Formal” notice diktats (dikTweets) is just such a phenomenon. The above deleted Tweet is a sign that the authoritarian hate-preacher wants to take his abuse that wee bit further and, ironically, see Tweeters imprisoned for tasteless comments which he and his cohorts, presumably, do not approve of.

It goes beyond Campbell’s wee man syndrome and drifts into “creepy as f**k” territory.

AhDinnaeKen’s @Ergasiophobe account received one of Campbell’s “formal” threats yesterday. It was mindful of the sort of thing that Rick the anarchist from the BBC’s Young Ones would do – either that or write a letter of protest to Mr Echo of Echo and the Bunnymen.

Our crime? – A tweeted reply to besotted schmuck and Wings promoter, Stephen Daisley of Scottish Television. The @wingsscotland moniker was part of the original tweet by Daisley and we* never realised that not deleting it from our reply would cause such apparent offence to Campbell that he deemed it as harrassment worthy of his “formal” threat/notice.

Thin skinned doesn’t come into it.

Campbell also got Twitter’s guardians to suspend @neiledwardlovat’s account for questioning the dodgy figures referred to in the Salmond endorsed Nationalist bible, the Wee Blue Book (ADK passim) .

@OneTarves suffered suspension too. Several others were threatened with such action by Campbell – including @sjfletcherviews above. Despite Campbell’s false claim he had “no interest in anything you say, ever” he decided to report @sjfletcherviews to the police – with address attached.

Worthy behaviour of alternative media or “creepy as f**k”? You decide.

Ever since Campbell won his ill founded claim of defamation against the Scotsman, his ego has landed. His hubris has expanded exponentially and he’s taken to threatening anyone he sees as a threat to his polarised world view.

If Twitter play into the hands of little Napoleons like Campbell, the gap between it and Facebook will only increase.

And that would be an unnecessary shame.

Every time we* read it we* can't help but laugh, even though, taken to its logical conclusion it's a threat to "freedom of speech" and it undermines Twitter's credibility.

Every time we* read it we* can’t help but laugh, even though, taken to its logical conclusion, it’s a threat against “freedom of speech” and undermines Twitter’s credibility. Welcome to Scotland’s brave new alternative media. Can we have the old biased MSM version back please?

1 Comment

Filed under Newspeak, Wangs Watch

Crybaby Nationalist throws declared principles out of pram

 

HYPOCRISY IS the hallmark of the charlatan, crybaby Nationalist and partisan propagandist. When challenged and found to be wanting, these types inevitably resort to censorship and control and silencing of perceived dissent. The action they take is often in complete opposition to their stated aims and principles. AhDinnaeKen resurrects Laird Wilcox on Extremist Traits and investigates:

More than 500 comments were censored by Campbell. According to his own declared principles that makes him 'weak' and 'dishonest'. There's a thing.

More than 500 comments on this feature weren’t censored by comments moderator Stuart Campbell. An undeclared number were. According to his own declared principles that makes him ‘weak’ and ‘dishonest’. There’s a thing.

 

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

SOME COMMENTS left under an AhDinnaeKen story highlighted an amusing little spat which apparently took place on the Wings Over Scotland blog recently.

If you take a look at the picture above and the figure to the right, the number reads 545. That figure is a tally of the number of comments left on the blog.

Yet, somewhat surprisingly, when counted, there were only – at time of writing – 39 comments!!??

Surely shome mishtake?

AhDinnaeKen was looking for the following posted comment which, according to our source, Major Disaster, was left by Stuart Campbell, editor of the blog and moderator of said comments:

Rev. Stuart Campbell says: 30 March, 2015 at 10:46 am

“but throwing your toys out of the pram and leaving said debate is a little self-defeating”

That’s enough. From now on anyone using the phrase “toys out of the pram” or anything similar gets deleted. Everyone has their own red lines, their own views on which compromises are acceptable and which aren’t. By all means debate the decision to resign, but I’m not having it in such insulting terms any more.

What’s important here is that Major Disaster also printed the timestamp for anyone interested enough to look for themselves.

AhDinnaeKen was amused at the thin skinned hissy fit diktat so we* decided to take a look to see if there were any other such nuggets of hilarity. (Un)surprisingly, the comment wasn’t there – it was censored, deleted, disappeared and spirited away for reasons undeclared.

[ Edit: Ignore the bit about the deletion of comments on Campbell’s post above. Today the April fool was AhDinnaeKen. As Twitter user PSflaps pointed out to us* this morning, the 500 comments on the article above, don’t appear to have been deleted. We*’ll put it down to experience and humbly recognise that it’s one of the dangers of banging something out in less than 80 minutes before going to work. The principle of the rest of the blog stands though. Campbell arbitrarily deletes comments he doesn’t like. As can be seen from the Twitter exchange below. ]

Wings Censor Twitter

We* got it wrong this time regarding 500 deleted comments – April fool! But as this thread shows, Campbell’s at it all the time. The principle point being raised stands.

Big deal, you may be thinking. The moderator of a blog’s comments threads has the absolute right to do what they want – even if it means binning/censoring over 500 comments.

According to an allegedly ‘switched on’ contemporary blogger: “The most telling aspect of any online entity is how it interacts with its users…

“If a site obsessively controls and censors reader comments, you can invariably take it as a sign of weakness. Comments are, at the end of the day, just some words on the internet.”

The blogger who wrote this sage wisdom of liberal principle and democratic philosophy was none other than Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland. Entitled, “Courage and convictions: the state of the Scottish online media and blogosphere.”, the piece was written almost three years ago and was mostly an exercise in moral superiority underscored with the ulterior motive of attacking James Mackenzie of the Better Nation site’s comments moderation policy.

Of the Better Nation site, Campbell also said:

“I’d been searching for a while for a Scottish political blog that wasn’t abysmally written, appallingly designed, intellectually embarrassing or all three, and in 2011 I briefly thought I’d discovered it in an earlier version of Better Nation. That illusion lasted for the few hours it took to be summarily banned, without warning or explanation (and by person or persons still unidentified), from commenting on my own article. It was at this point I reluctantly acknowledged that I couldn’t count on being able to express my uncensored views on Scottish politics anywhere unless I took matters into my own hands.”

So, the birth of Wings Over Scotland was all James Mackenzie’s fault. Apparently. We hope James can live with himself. 🙂

The brazenly laughable hypocrisy of Campbell and his compromised principle is there for all to see. By Campbell’s own admission Wings Over Scotland’s moderation policy demonstrates nothing other than “weakness”.

Campbell also said: “There’s a legitimate case to make for not allowing comments at all, but every time you selectively censor one you simply don’t like you’re admitting that you’re incapable of addressing it honestly.”

And that sums up Campbell quite succinctly. As his behaviour on Twitter recently demonstrated – threatening people with the police, ordering people to delete Tweets and reporting people to the authorities for @-ing him (the bastards) – Campbell is “incapable” of addressing criticism honestly.

Besotted schmuck, Stephen Daisley of allegedly impartial broadcaster, Scottish Television said of Campbell:

Whatever one thinks of his politics or rhetoric, he cannot be charged with inauthenticity.”

Hmm. Quite! A bit of reappraisal required there we* think.

The last word however goes to Laird Wilcox’s excellent 21 point guide to extremist traits. Number 8 observes:

8. ADVOCACY OF SOME DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP OR REPRESSION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND/OR CRITICS.

“This may include a very active campaign to keep opponents from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning or “quarantining” dissident spokespersons. They may actually lobby for legislation against speaking, writing, teaching, or instructing “subversive” or forbidden information or opinions. They may even attempt to keep offending books out of stores or off of library shelves, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, and keep spokespersons for “offensive” views off the airwaves or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each case the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you listen only to them. They feel threatened when someone talks back or challenges their views.”

The last three lines are the most telling.

According to contemporary reports, many of the comments censored by Campbell were posted by Wings donors. We* bet they’re happy about that.

As to be expected with Campbell’s faux, toys oot the pram, authenticity, we’re still laughing.

Brazen double standards. It's the extremist way.

Brazen double standards. It’s the extremist way.

 

 

13 Comments

Filed under Opinion, Wangs Watch