Wings Harassment - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The fine art of omission

Posted on August 21, 2017 by Rev. Stuart Campbell

We’ll only be making a very brief comment on the story in Tuesday’s Herald, for hopefully obvious reasons. The piece by Tom Gordon has been written for maximum innuendo to allow the wildest speculations on social media – which are of course duly taking place – but the alleged events relate entirely to some tweets from our Twitter account, none of which have been deleted and all of which are still publicly visible.

Nothing more sinister or serious than some tweets has occurred, or been alleged to have occurred. None of the tweets involved are in ANY way threatening, not even in a joking sense. That’s all we’ll be saying on the subject at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, giblet said:

Looks like its related to a certain crazy journo based in London working for one of the more right wing of papers.  Has previous from about a year ago.

Stephen Daisley ?

Frequently turns up at SNP and independence public events and takes pictures of those in attendance with a telephoto lens. Creep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Stephen Daisley ?

Frequently turns up at SNP and independence public events and takes pictures of those in attendance with a telephoto lens. Creep.

Think he means a female journalist. Cant remember her name but hes ripped the psih out her a few times.

 

Edited: Siobhan McFadyen is her name

Edited by virus-with-shoes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like his online manner in some cases but he's definitely smeared a lot of the time.

He's been character assassinated to the point where you can't really point to him as any kind of source.

Though many will use the info and pretend otherwise.  He is good at what he does.

Some of his comments are ill-advised though and have helped those out to get him along the way.

You've got to question the mentality of someone who is on twitter all day thinking about politics.  Thing is a lot of the maintstream journos are the same.  Loonytoons the lot of them.

Edited by PapofGlencoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I don't like his online manner in some cases but he's definitely smeared a lot of the time.

He's been character assassinated to the point where you can't really point to him as any kind of source.

Though many will use the info and pretend otherwise.  He is good at what he does.

Some of his comments are ill-advised though and have helped those out to get him along the way.

You've got to question the mentality of someone who is on twitter all day thinking about politics.  Thing is a lot of the maintstream journos are the same.  Loonytoons the lot of them.

 

Agree with that. A lot of very good content but also his own worse enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart Campbell is vilified precisely because he tears the lies of the unionists to shreds with well-researched and insightful posts.  He does journalism far better than most journalists.  No wonder the unionist establishment and their media outlets would like to see the back of him.  I'm actually a bit surprised he hasn't gone the way of Willie McRae yet.  He is a major asset to the independence movement (see the Wee Blue Book for starters) although I know there are some who don't much like him or his manner.  However if he wasn't around, the yoons could get away with a lot that they can't with him monitoring them.

I came up with the same name as mentioned above (not sure if a name should actually be posted given the possibility of a legal case).  My recollection was that Stu absolutely destroyed her online, but AFAIK there was no suggestion of threats, just ridicule.  I must go back and search for what was actually said on both sides.  This looks like a smear campaign rather than a genuine criminal charge matter, and no doubt there will be a tiny correction of page 27 of some of the yoon rags in due course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy is a bampot. Undoes a lot of what could be good work by being abusive to folk. He's often also too quick to jump to conclusions on things and a couple of times has been incorrect after jumping in head first and has been shown up (the Lafferty woman one especially jumps to mind). 

Because of this, folk can dismiss the other work he does, which otherwise would be very useful. It's difficult to use WoS as a source in any proper discuss, due to the negativity that surrounds it. Which is entirely the fault of Stewart Campbell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a link to the supposedly threatening tweets ?
I suspect it is nothing more than on-line hand bags and case will be dropped.

FWIW : I like Wings Over Scotland.
Stuart Campbell is controversial character and I don't agree with everything he says.
Certainly he can be unnecessarily abrasive and occasionally his own worst enemy.
However : he is brilliant at calling out media lies, presenting factual arguments and generating publicity for his site.
More people read WoS daily than the Scotsmans / Daily Record.

The independence movement is much wider than just WoS : it is clear he has no connection with the SNP.
No wonder the unionists hate him so much ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ WoS is just one small part of the YES movement.  The fact he is a lone wolf not part of the formal SNP machine allows him a lot of freedom to expose unionist media lies.  For sure - he can be a bampot and occasionally over steps the mark.
However : being so vilified by unionists suggests to me he is doing a good job of monitoring the media?

EDIT : journalists like Siobhan McFadyen clearly need monitored / called out by someone.  See below.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/far-below-the-gutters/

 

Edited by Haggis_trap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Parklife said:

The guy is a bampot. Undoes a lot of what could be good work by being abusive to folk. He's often also too quick to jump to conclusions on things and a couple of times has been incorrect after jumping in head first and has been shown up (the Lafferty woman one especially jumps to mind). 

Because of this, folk can dismiss the other work he does, which otherwise would be very useful. It's difficult to use WoS as a source in any proper discuss, due to the negativity that surrounds it. Which is entirely the fault of Stewart Campbell

I don't think it's entirely his fault though he perhaps opens himself upto attack.  Some of his comments are ill informed but plenty people have smeared him deliberately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Haggis_trap said:

^ WoS is just one small part of the YES movement.  The fact he is a lone wolf not part of the formal SNP machine allows him a lot of freedom to expose unionist media lies.

For sure - he can be a bampot and occasionally over steps the mark.
However : being so vilified by unionists suggests to me he is doing a good job of monitoring the media?

 

Yes, sorry. What I meant was that WoS etc should all feed into something stronger. And important for Yes Scotland 2 not to have as much SNP presence so it's properly seen as a movement and not party specific. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Parklife said:

The guy is a bampot. Undoes a lot of what could be good work by being abusive to folk. He's often also too quick to jump to conclusions on things and a couple of times has been incorrect after jumping in head first and has been shown up (the Lafferty woman one especially jumps to mind). 

Because of this, folk can dismiss the other work he does, which otherwise would be very useful. It's difficult to use WoS as a source in any proper discuss, due to the negativity that surrounds it. Which is entirely the fault of Stewart Campbell. 

I assume that you are talking about "ordinary mother" Clare Lally.  He was actually correct in the substance of what he said, that she was a Labour stooge, put up to look like an ordinary member of the public.  The only thing he got wrong was jumping to that conclusion that she was related to Pat Lally - which is largely irrelevant and of course was what was focussed on by the media, to obviously deflect from the reality that she was a Labour stooge put up to look like a member of the public.

A couple of months after the referendum - hey, guess what.  

http://labourhame.com/author/clare-lally/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I don't think it's entirely his fault though he perhaps opens himself upto attack.  Some of his comments are ill informed but plenty people have smeared him deliberately. 

His propensity to abuse folk on twitter at the drop of a hat makes it easy for folk to dismiss him as a cybernat/ twitter troll.etc. 

29 minutes ago, aaid said:

I assume that you are talking about "ordinary mother" Clare Lally.  He was actually correct in the substance of what he said, that she was a Labour stooge, put up to look like an ordinary member of the public.  The only thing he got wrong was jumping to that conclusion that she was related to Pat Lally - which is largely irrelevant and of course was what was focussed on by the media, to obviously deflect from the reality that she was a Labour stooge put up to look like a member of the public.

A couple of months after the referendum - hey, guess what.  

http://labourhame.com/author/clare-lally/

 

 

That's it, Lally, not Lafferty. Apologies. 

As i said, he could've put a good expose out there but ended up blowing it by putting something wrong out. Meaning the whole article could be dismissed and he could be branded a liar and someone who was just out to smear an "ordinary, working mum" :rolleyes: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

His propensity to abuse folk on twitter at the drop of a hat makes it easy for folk to dismiss him as a cybernat/ twitter troll.etc. 

That's it, Lally, not Lafferty. Apologies. 

As i said, he could've put a good expose out there but ended up blowing it by putting something wrong out. Meaning the whole article could be dismissed and he could be branded a liar and someone who was just out to smear an "ordinary, working mum" :rolleyes: 

 

I think ever since then he's been a lot more careful about jumping to conclusions without proof where that's concerned.   If you remember at the time though there was a whole raft of supposed ordinary NO voters who were being exposed as being close to one of the Unionist parties or having dubious backgrounds.   

FWIW, I think with Wings, that what you see is what you get to an extent.   You're right about his propensity to abuse folk on Twitter being counter-productive.  I suspect that he realises that but either doesn't want to change, is too old to.  I think that his spikiness actually might be part of why the work he does on the website is so incisive.    

To draw a football analogy, it's a bit like a great player who has a nasty side to his game which everyone condemns but also realises that nastiness and anger is part of what makes him a great player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

I think ever since then he's been a lot more careful about jumping to conclusions without proof where that's concerned.   If you remember at the time though there was a whole raft of supposed ordinary NO voters who were being exposed as being close to one of the Unionist parties or having dubious backgrounds.   

FWIW, I think with Wings, that what you see is what you get to an extent.   You're right about his propensity to abuse folk on Twitter being counter-productive.  I suspect that he realises that but either doesn't want to change, is too old to.  I think that his spikiness actually might be part of why the work he does on the website is so incisive.    

To draw a football analogy, it's a bit like a great player who has a nasty side to his game which everyone condemns but also realises that nastiness and anger is part of what makes him a great player.

I accept what you're saying and agree with pretty much all of it. 

I just get frustrated by him as a lot of his work is so good and it's frustrating that he undermines it with all the other bullshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Parklife said:

The guy is a bampot. Undoes a lot of what could be good work by being abusive to folk. He's often also too quick to jump to conclusions on things and a couple of times has been incorrect after jumping in head first and has been shown up (the Lafferty woman one especially jumps to mind). 

Because of this, folk can dismiss the other work he does, which otherwise would be very useful. It's difficult to use WoS as a source in any proper discuss, due to the negativity that surrounds it. Which is entirely the fault of Stewart Campbell. 

Totally agree.

When conversations with friends/colleagues/etc turn to independence, people very quickly ask "you a big fan of that Wings over Scotland ersepiece then?". It's hard enough talking to people about it without morons like Campbell making it incredibly easy for Unionists and Undecideds to pass us all off as loud-mouth, abusive cybernats.

And yes, he's a moron. I can't find any other way to describe someone who's single-handedly built a huge following but undermines almost every part of it by being a right dick about everything. People would pay huge amounts of money to have the readership and manpower at his disposal but he chooses to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the independence campaign. It's actually scary to think what he could have achieved if he was more switched-on and level-headed. He hasn't been a success because he's abusive or rude to people, but rather that he has a brilliantly critical eye for the misdirection, obfuscation and downright bullshit we see in the media. Strip away all the abuse and dickish behaviour and he'd reach far more people in a way that's even more potent than he's been to date. I've never shared or promoted his material because it's far too easy to discredit my opinions by being associated with him and his ilk - people we need to win over are almost instantly dismissive when they see an opportunity to paint you as a cybernat. Says more about them than it does about me, but rightly or wrongly, these are the people we need to win over. Post-2014, he needed to be more diplomatic, not less.

People complain about the SNP not doing more to win independence but IMO, Wings and folk like him, are a far bigger problem than the SNP. Been saying it for 4 years now and had tonnes of grief for it. He's been sitting on an absolute machine and consistently fails to make the most of it. It's tragic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complain about the SNP not doing more to win independence but IMO, Wings and folk like him, are a far bigger problem than the SNP. Been saying it for 4 years now and had tonnes of grief for it. He's been sitting on an absolute machine and consistently fails to make the most of it. It's tragic. 

All fair points - Stuart Campbell is a controversial character.  However : He has more readers than the Daily Record.  He is brilliant at calling out the brass necked lies of the unionist media.  It is that exact abrasive manner that his given him a cult following. 

The YES movement is clearly much wider than one blogger.  Wings Over Scotland has huge marmite effect - but I don't see that as major problem.The kind of people who are genuinely offended by Stuart Campbell are the same ones who hate Alex Salmond / Nicola and pretend all YES voters are chavs.

Scotland will be independent once we grow a pair of balls : not once WoS stops trolling people on twitter.
Anyone unionist who takes the bait and argues with him has fallen into his trap (and is just as guilty).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p.s in 2012 Scottish Independence polled at ~25%.  We have come a long way since then.

There is no doubt that sites like WoS / Wee Ginger Dog / Bella Caledonia / Derek Bateman / Buisness For Scotland <etc> have all played a role and swung opinion via online communities.

They all appeal to very different demographics - but I wouldn't accuse any of them as being bad for independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auld Reekie has to be one of the most horrific posters on here. Every post claiming to be a big SNP fan yet every post shows himself up to to be the exact opposite. Put a sock in it you tedious two faced khunt.

As for Wings... if you are reading. Keep going man. You are spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Auld Reekie has to be one of the most horrific posters on here. Every post claiming to be a big SNP fan yet every post shows himself up to to be the exact opposite. Put a sock in it you tedious two faced khunt.

As for Wings... if you are reading. Keep going man. You are spot on.

"...tedious two faced khunt..."

:lol:

You never disappoint thplinth! Doesn't surprise me Wings is right up your street and you can't tolerate some folk might have a different opinion to yours. 

And what makes you think Im a big SNP fan - I quit the party because of folk like you. I think they're the best we've got but that doesn't mean I need to stick my tongue up their arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...