Tag Archives: apologism

Joan McAlpine: In the grey 70s David Bowie was just a paedophile

MOAN reflects on Joan McAlpine’s reflection on music legend and not so secret paedophile David Bowie. His predilection for groupie children should make everyone think again – particularly mothers with teenage daughters – Joan McAlpine excepted. Obviously:

"...thrilling splash of colour and danger." or predatory paedophile abusing his fame, position and power? Joan decides.

“…thrilling splash of colour and danger?” or predatory paedophile abusing his fame, position and power? Joan McAlpine MSP decides.

By Moan McVulpine Ground control to Major Joan

“Evil will triumph when good men do nothing” sermonised Joan McAlpine in her Daily Record column of 16th July 2014.

It was a roaster of a piece, full of hellfire and brimstone aimed straight at British establishment “corruption at its most base and evil form”.

Her withering contempt was aimed at the systemic covering up of child abuse by those in the higher echelons of power in Britain.

As diatribes go, it generated enough passion and heat to set fire to a soggy chip poke full of yesterday’s news.

Whether Joan actually believed it, or was just using it as a big Nationalist stick of moral indignation and self righteousness to beat Indy unbelievers over the head with, is a moot point. The subtext of her polemic was as transparently crude as the presentation of the subject matter – vote No and you’re voting for paedophiles.

Moan suspects Joan didn’t care – that it was written for effect – like most of her columns.

How else could you explain her eulogising of David Bowie as some kind of god of sexual emancipation for gay men when other, more threatening, skeletons were lurking in his closet?

Describing the moment when Bowie draped himself over Mick Ronson on Top of the Pops, Joan drooled: “I know lots of gay people whose lives were changed at that moment. A decade before, they would have got married and stayed in the closet. Now they had options.”


It may or may not have been true. For Joan it certainly was.

Moan wonders if Joan knows lots of paedophiles. Surely, by the same logic, Bowie provided “options” for them too when he deflowered 13 year old virgin groupie Lori Maddox and then proceeded to engage in a threesome with Lori and her 13 year old best friend Sable Starr in his Beverly Hilton Hotel suite.

Both girls were children. Bowie was a grown man abusing his fame, position and power. These antics were no secret in pop fan circles. Why didn’t Joan say anything – anything at all – about that “moment”?

After all, she admitted that with Bowie’s gay emancipation routine, “Bowie knew exactly what he was doing.”

Columnist Julie Burchill summed it up poignantly in the Spectator when she pondered: “under some circumstances, would you excuse, worship, deify a man who has knowingly had sex with children, if he had created music which you passionately believe made the world a better place? Or not?”

Joan appeared to answer that: “He was David Bowie. He was untouchable.”


“Evil will triumph when good men do nothing” right enough.




Filed under Moan McVulpine, Morality

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.



Filed under Media, Opinion, Wangs Watch

Wings Over Scotland: The fallacy files #1 Dicto simpliciter – Hillsborough

IT WOULD appear that Nationalist Front blackshirt, Stuart Campbell, of Wings Over Scotland is ‘splitting’ the navel gazing online Yes campaign. One of the most frequently heard defenses of the Wings blog is that it “is accurate and cites sources” – a logical fallacy known as argumentum ab auctoritate. Forgive AhDinnaeKen’s laughter as we use this mini-series of features to demonstrate why the cabal of ever increasing Wings supporters are being sold a pup. In this post, we* take a look at a common fallacy exploited mercilessly by Campbell when ‘proving’ his alleged analysis – Dicto simpliciter:

Paranoia, grievance and conspiracy all rolled into one Tweet. Well done Jeff. We salute you McIndefatigability.

Paranoia, grievance and conspiracy all rolled into one Tweet. Well done Jeff. We salute your MacIndefatigability.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

JOAN MCALPINE MSP’s, Twitter feed, alerted us to this little Twitter spat.

It’s worth reading through the whole thread. Several relatively prominent online Yes Tweeters engaged in a wee stooshie about the merits or demerits of Wings Over Scotland.

AhDinnaeKen became interested because 1) The Firstminster of Scotland’s speechwriter and ‘special’ aide took the time out of her busy parliamentary day in the run up to Sep 18, to ReTweet it and 2) one of the comments by Jeff ‘Nelson Salmondella’ Breslin, regarding Hillsborough, needed further analysis.

Jeff attempted to defend Wings by stating that he saw “nothing particularly offensive” in Stuart Campbell’s post on Hillsborough.

You don't need to read them forensically. All you have to do is take on board what you're actually reading. Logical fallacy a-go-go.

You don’t need to monitor them forensically. All you have to do is take on board what you’re actually reading. Logical fallacy a-go-go.

AhDinnaeKen has covered Campbell’s Hillsborough treatise twice: here and here (warning – they’re a bit long). The second one is worth looking at in terms of relevance to the above Twitter thread.

The Hillsborough piece by Campbell, ironically entitled, ‘No Justice for the 96‘ is typical of posts in Wings Over Scotland in terms of its narrative style and structure: it’s well written, fairly comprehensive in its selective facts and conclusions – and it’s completely fallacious. So fallacious, in fact, that it undermines itself and is offensive in that it feigns authority in order to falsely legitimise Campbell’s tribal, bigoted hatred against Liverpool fans.

The crux of the piece and the ‘trenchant’ insight into Campbell’s pathology of hate is encapsulated in the following statement written within the piece:

“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 phrase “everyone” combined with “knew” is a lie. It commits the logical fallacy of Dicto simpliciter, or sweeping generalisation as it is commonly known.

Dicto simpliciter is frequently used to fit people into stereotypical moulds e.g. Frenchman are great lovers or short men have an aggressive chip on their shoulder or the average Scot is a drunk – everyone knows that.

In Campbell’s case, he appeals to the stereotype of the time – which was also the prevailing Thatcherite belief – that Liverpool fans were mindless, murderous, thugs. The implication being, despite the reams and reams of contradictory evidence, that the Liverpool fans knew they were killing fellow fans. Such a belief isn’t just stupid, it’s pathologically mind numbingly stupid.

Campbell went further in his hate piece. Having built a case predicated on a lie, he then further blamed Liverpool fans for the enclosed fences at Hillsborough being there in the first place:

“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.”

Another lie appealing to incomplete knowledge and relying, instead, on bigoted uninformed sentiment to fill in the cracks.

The Dicto simpliciter logical fallacy is routinely relied upon in order to appeal to generally accepted truisms. It’s a godsend fallacy for those harbouring grievances against other groups. Put into crude terms, the majority of Wings Over Scotland’s posts tediously and relentlessly build upon the following stereotypes: media bias is bad, Tories are heartless and bad, Labour are sellouts and bad, Better Together are “anti-Scottish” and bad – you get the tedious stereotypical idea.

Garve 01 Cites Sources

A good example of argumentum ab auctoritate – the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority. Wings cites sources and is accurate therefore it is true and authoritative. Forgive the smirk Garve, do you still believe that the earth is flat? There are some accurate and well cited sources out there to reinforce that long discredited belief.

AhDinnaeKen has covered Campbell’s Hillsborough lies before. We’re going to cover more of his lies and falsehoods, and the logical fallacies used to deliver them to his credulous readership. We*’re tired of intelligent apologists such as Garve Scott-Lodge or Jeff Breslin or Joan McAlpine attempting to excuse Campbell’s belligerent blackshirted bigotry.

It’s a stereotype associated with Nationalism that advocates of its creed – such as Campbell and his ‘alert readers’ – are prepared to turn a blind eye to its potential atrocities.

Campbell’s writings are mostly atrocious. They rely on buying into Nationalist stereotypes and cliches for them to be believed. It’s all a part of the groupthink mindset relying on ‘othering’ which has paved the way for Campbell’s, so far, limited success in gaining publicity and financial reward for himself.

In the Twitter spat linked to above, Garve Scott-Lodge also claimed that quotes used against Campbell are taken out of context in order to impugn Campbell. We* invite him to correct AhDinnaeKen on quotes taken out of context in this piece.

In future posts, AhDinnaeKen is going to highlight some of Campbell’s more cliched fallacies, selectively, without sentiment and as temperately as possible, given the tedious nature of the material being dealt with.

Be there!

[ * tired overly used joke based on pluralis majestatis which is as relentlessly tiresome as any Wings post ]


Filed under Opinion, Wangs Watch

Wings Over Scotland: The wife beater apologist website of choice

Nationalist supremacist website Wings Over Scotland has been remarkably quiet recently over the headline dominating Bill Walker affair. AhDinnaeKen indulges in some shameless speculation over the possible reasons why.

Victims to blame for getting in way of  Walker's fists and inciting his temper.

Victims to blame for getting in way of Walker’s fists and inciting his temper.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

JUST WHY has Wings Over Scotland’s Rev Stu been so silent over the recent Bill Walker story?

He’s normally very quick with counter accusation styled soothers for his Nationalist Front cabal at Wings Over Scotland.

In this case, not a dicky bird.

AhDinnaeKen thinks we* may have the answer.

Consider the following technically correct, if somewhat repulsive, pre-conviction defense by Wings of the soon to be convicted wife beater:

“Bill Walker is innocent. Fact.

“If Bill Walker is guilty of either domestic abuse or rape, let him be brought to court, let him be convicted and let him be locked up and the key thrown away. Until then, he’s entitled to keep doing his job the same as anyone else, and anyone joining the lynch mob is who we ought to despise.”

Written on 12 April 2012 by the not very Reverend Campbell, the above quote casts yet more unpleasant dark shadows on the self appointed ‘media monitor’s’ victim blaming misogynistic tendencies.

The above was written four days after an exclusive follow up story had appeared in the Herald revealing some deeply unpleasant facts about Walker’s previous marriages:

Here’s what real professional journalists Paul Hutcheon and Tom Gordon reported on Bill Walker’s first marriage:

“In their divorce documents, Walker admitted striking the woman, but only after she had become “hysterical”…”

And on the second marriage: “Walker confirmed he had hit the girl with a saucepan”.

Now, you can call us* one of the despicable “lynch mob” if you like, but after reading the story entitled “SNP kick out ‘wife-beating’ MSP” we* were convinced that Bill Walker was a nasty violent piece of work fully deserving of the shameful label “wife beater”.

Yet, here’s how Reverend Campbell described Kenny Farquharson, deputy editor of Scotland on Sunday for calling Walker such:

“Kenny Farquharson of Scotland On Sunday waited until Walker no longer had the protection of a political party before indulging in cowardly “bully libel”, calling Walker a “wifebeater” in the knowledge that no individual can afford to sue for libel/defamation.”

So, although everyone who read the story knew the type of man Bill Walker clearly is – and it’s also worth remembering that the SNP allegedly knew all this information in 2008 – the Reverend Campbell persisted in a self righteous sanctimonious defense of the indefensible.

In fact, according to Campbell, it is Farquharson who is the “bully” not Walker.

Campbell further said: “Without a trial or admission of guilt, the demands for Walker’s resignation are inappropriate, unseemly, hypocritical and wrong, and all those making them – whether for party political or kneejerk ideological reasons – should be ashamed of themselves.”

Call us* shameful, but after reading the Herald story, we* were happy enough to refer to Bill Walker as a ‘wife beating MSP’ with or without a secured conviction.

Even if he hadn’t eventually been convicted of violent abuse on 23 separate counts, everyone would still have known he was a wife beater.

His son penned a heartfelt and deeply moving piece in the Sun newspaper cataloguing a shameful list of unsavoury violent incidents throughout his young impressionable life.

You don’t write that kind of story through shamelessness or hypocrisy or for “kneejerk ideological reasons”.

Guilt in the eyes of the law isn’t always concurrent with actual guilt. The law isn’t perfect and virtually everyone knows that.

Reverend Campbell knows that from first hand experience. Ask Future Publishing’s legal representatives over their short, dismissively easy and triumphant court dealings with him some time ago.

What piques AhDinnaeKen’s curiousity though is this. Given that Rev Campbell was prepared to take the sanctimonious high ground – and it’s worth remembering he was technically correct – in defense of a serial wife beater, why has he subsequently made such a shameless, hypocritical smear attack on Murray Brady, an individual whom he has called a “psychotic stalker” and accused of being a “would be gang rapist murderer”.

Surely he’s indulging in cowardly “bully libel”?

Brady, if he exists, has been routinely smeared and libelled by Campbell and subjected by him to a carefully orchestrated character assassination through a series of Tweets, emails and consistent references to the fluidly edited story “The Personal Touch”.

We*’re not going to rake over the coals of Campbell’s ludicrous allegations, but we* will, for the sake of clarity, reiterate the following paragraph written by Campbell in relation to Brady’s alleged arrest:

“It eventually resulted in an arrest, and a report by Glasgow police to the Procurator Fiscal recommending prosecution, which to everyone’s surprise was declined, after a very long delay and for unclear reasons.”

What we allegedly know from this statement is:

1) There was an alleged arrest intended to investigate an alleged crime – in this case rape/murder threats, harrassment, stalking etc.

2) The police allegedly submitted a report to the Procurator Fiscal recommending prosecution.

3) The Procurator Fiscal allegedly dropped the alleged report for alleged “unclear reasons”.

Call us* cynical or sceptical, but that’s a heck of a lot of allegations without any evidence, substance or facts to back them up.

As we* have stated before, complainers have the right to an explanation from the Procurator Fiscal if the Fiscal decides not to prosecute.
It’s strange, to say the least, that Campbell offers no explanation for the non-pursuit by the Fiscal of the alleged case. He’s not usually known for being shy or coy when it comes to shooting his mouth off using the vehicle of his mobnat funded website.

It leads to the following conclusion however:

Murray Brady, if he exists, is innocent. Fact.

Presuming he exists, if Murray Brady is guilty of either stalking or rape/murder threats, let him be brought to court, let him be convicted and let him be locked up and the key thrown away. Until then, he’s entitled to keep going about his business the same as anyone else, and anyone joining the lynch mob is who we* ought to despise.

Campbell was ‘called’ out by this site recently over his stalker/gang rape/murderer  accusation. As it was aimed at this site, we* demanded he apologise for his vexatious “bully accusation”. He raised the stakes by naming a name, Murray Brady. This naming was a despicable “bully libel” for which he has no excuse.
Campbell is a disgrace to the term ‘professional journalism’ and a disgrace to the Indy cause. The sooner he is exposed for his unfounded “bully libel” the better. He is indeed acting like the bona fide Scottish heidbanger out of control – drunk on his own sense of self importance – he appears driven by the unquestioning support of his baying mobnat followers.

AhDinnaeKen invites Murray Brady, if he exists, to contact the police or the Scottish press with his side of this unsavoury and tawdry story.

If he doesn’t, Campbell will continue to vexatiously abuse his name in order to claim victimhood for his self. Nationalist types like Campbell thrive on grievance and common enemies and victimhood. It’s the lifeblood of his site. It’s the lifeblood of his type. You only need to read the orchestrated comments therein.

The “evil” mainstream media, if it can spare a half hour, should have a wee delve. Campbell has vexatiously accused an innocent party of a heinous crime. An alleged crime which didn’t even have the merit of substance or enough evidence to reach court. And that’s admitted by Campbell himself.

We* invite Campbell to come clean. He’s still playing with a busted flush, despite the artificially raised stakes, and it’s time he realised that. As can be seen from his defense of fragrant Bill Walker, he’s well aware of the basic technical issues surrounding guilt, innocence, allegations, libel and the law. Campbell’s accusation against Brady doesn’t even appear to have the luxury of hearsay.

We* invite readers to make up their own minds why Campbell still persists with the evidenceless “bully libel”.

[* apologies for the majestic we* throughout, sometimes we* just can’t help our*selves ]


Filed under Morality, Wangs Watch