aaid Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 There is speculation that it is Euan McColm, a particular visceral nawbagger journo who seems to be a regular choice to review papers / talk on panels run by BBC Scotland. Most journos in Scotland follow this Brian Spanner, so there seems some mileage it is a journo like McColm. I've heard those rumours as well. Whether or not it's McColm is another matter - and he would fit the profile - but I'd say it's 99% certain that it's a Scottish Journo which explains the whole "nothing to see here" attitude as they won't out one of their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Not quite. She did accuse her of supporting a misogynist Twitter troll (a quite odious character rumoured to be the journalist Ewen McColm). Rowling comes across as a horrible person on Twitter; a bully. But she's teflon as far as the media are concerned. The whole thing was a set up and the fact McGarry couldnae see that highlights why she is unsuitable for the job she is doing. The answer is 'no' not 'not quite'. It is an important point. Rowling has tried to make it look like this is what McGarry did and Eddard has has lazily followed suit which is exactly what Rowling's intention was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Having caught up on Misogynist gate, the SNP will definitely be giving a sigh on relief. On McGarry, she's clearly under a lot of pressure and it's pretty clear she knows that she ####ed up last night, she ####ed up with her accusations, and she ####ed up by bringing the SNP into it when she is an independent... Saying that, there is some abuse being levied at McGarry that has absolutely no place being directed at anyone, never mind a woman who could very well be unwell. You think her accusations were incorrect hmmm interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 The answer is 'no' not 'not quite'. It is an important point. Rowling has tried to make it look like this is what McGarry did and Eddard has has lazily followed suit which is exactly what Rowling's intention was. Have you ever seen Eddard and JK in the same room together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Have you ever seen Eddard and JK in the same room together? Hmmm you might be onto something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I've heard those rumours as well. Whether or not it's McColm is another matter - and he would fit the profile - but I'd say it's 99% certain that it's a Scottish Journo which explains the whole "nothing to see here" attitude as they won't out one of their own. Was just listening to a guy speaking about this on Radio North Britain in the car there. Other 'journalists' tweet this Spanner guy arranging to meet for coffee, etc., so I'd say it's 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 The speed the journos jumped on it was telling. McGarry never does herself any favours. She gets too drawn in and emotional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Was just listening to a guy speaking about this on Radio North Britain in the car there. Other 'journalists' tweet this Spanner guy arranging to meet for coffee, etc., so I'd say it's 100%. If you've got a bit of spare time could you not just nip along sometime and see who it is. Over to you agent Flora. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Was just listening to a guy speaking about this on Radio North Britain in the car there. Other 'journalists' tweet this Spanner guy arranging to meet for coffee, etc., so I'd say it's 100%. Either a journo or someone who moves in those circles and someone who if it became public would be embarrassing for a lot of people on the Unionist side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You think her accusations were incorrect hmmm interesting. Not as interesting as you coming to that conclusion . To be clear, I know John Swinney is evil, I also know he eats the souls of children. Gideon has a poster of Swinney above his bed. For me to say this publicly with UK libel laws would be a " up". To be further clear, Spanner is a misogynist who would make Wings and Tommy Sheridan blush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Not as interesting as you coming to that conclusion . To be clear, I know John Swinney is evil, I also know he eats the souls of children. Gideon has a poster of Swinney above his bed. For me to say this publicly with UK libel laws would be a "###### up". To be further clear, Spanner is a misogynist who would make Wings and Tommy Sheridan blush. You think Rowling doesn't know him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You think Rowling doesn't know him? I'm not sure why that's relevant. I know Tommy Sheridan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Ok... I have the sudden feeling that I'm missing something here. The screenshots of misonygate from last night that i've seen are not from source, I can't see McGarrys tweets as she's locked her account. The accusation that I'm aware of is that McGarry accused Rowling of supporting Misogynistic trolls, not that Rowling knows him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You think Rowling doesn't know him? i don't think it matters whether she knows him or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Anyway, I think the thing that can be taken from this episode is just how repressive the UK libel laws are. If I sued someone every time someone said something nasty about me I could afford to vote SNP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Ok... I have the sudden feeling that I'm missing something here. The screenshots of misonygate from last night that i've seen are not from source, I can't see McGarrys tweets as she's locked her account. The accusation that I'm aware of is that McGarry accused Rowling of supporting Misogynistic trolls, not that Rowling knows him? As I understand it, it goes like this. Simply following someone on twitter, occasionally retweeting inoffensive tweets does not mean that you condone all tweets by that account, including any offensive ones - unless of course you're Nicola Sturgeon and the Daily Mail are doing a piece, but we'll put that to one side. The argument is that Rowling is clearly very chummy with the Brian Spanner account and so can't really claim to be unaware of the offensive tweets yet does nothing to condemn them and by indulging in twitter banter with him consciously or unconsciously is condoning them and this is hypocritical given her otherwise feminist stance. That's certainly the argument that is used whenever Wings is brought up and as you say, Wings is nowhere near as bad as this Spanner account. What Natalie McGarry accused JK Rowling of was this: @jk_rowling He *is* a misogynist and abuser and you have tweeted very positive things about him. Up to you. Up to me to call out. Which JK Rowling has done on a number of occasions. McGarry tweeted a screenshot of some examples. The contentious one being a response to a charitable donation which is the one that's been picked up as McGarry trying to twist things. Rowling then set the dogs on to McGarry and threatening to sue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Anyway, I think the thing that can be taken from this episode is just how repressive the UK libel laws are. If I sued someone every time someone said something nasty about me I could afford to vote SNP A big part of the reason that Jimmy Saville was allowed to get away with it for so long is that he was very aggressive in threatening litigation whenever someone was looking to expose him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Cheers aaid. For what it's worth. I'm very pally with Cove Sheep, to an extent that on viewing our interactions from the outside you could be forgiven for thinking that we're lovers, I don't in agree with Mr. Sheeps political views, on that front he's a disgrace. On the other hand, I have a friend who I'm very fond of... But on viewing our interactions from the outside you'd be forgiven for thinking I hate him... Just a few minutes ago I called him "Dirty commie scum". Spanner could be baw deep in Rowling as we speak... But to say so would be slanderous. My first thoughts with Rowling threatening to sue is not that she's hiding her approval of a minsogynst, but just that she's a bit of an arsehole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Cheers aaid. For what it's worth. I'm very pally with Cove Sheep, to an extent that on viewing our interactions from the outside you could be forgiven for thinking that we're lovers, I don't in agree with Mr. Sheeps political views, on that front he's a disgrace. On the other hand, I have a friend who I'm very fond of... But on viewing our interactions from the outside you'd be forgiven for thinking I hate him... Just a few minutes ago I called him "Dirty commie scum". Spanner could be baw deep in Rowling as we speak... But to say so would be slanderous. My first thoughts with Rowling threatening to sue is not that she's hiding her approval of a minsogynst, but just that she's a bit of an arsehole. Obviously, I'm following Natalie McGarry so I can look back at her tweets and another interesting fact is that JK Rowling wasn't copied in on the original tweet that set the whole thing. It was one of those "non public" conversations so only the people included and anyone who follows all of them would see it on their timeline. She's obviously got some sort of bot that goes through looking for any mention of her name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) She's obviously got some sort of bot that goes through looking for any mention of her name. The built in search on Twitter is pretty comprehensive. You can search for almost any term and even filter by positive and negative tweets. I'm a pretty big deal so I vanity search myself often.* It usually ends in sadness. * We actually use it in the office to spot potential leaks. Edited January 29, 2016 by Scunnered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjd1972 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 If JK Trolling did take legal action I'm sure Natalie McGarry could rely on a crowd funding of her legal costs. I'd quite happily contribute, obviously the money should go direct to the lawyers rather than through Natalie to save any confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocky Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 http://wingsoverscotland.com/ whole story and tweets here. Rowling 'loves' the spanner guy, the Spanner guy is a khunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 The built in search on Twitter is pretty comprehensive. You can search for almost any term and even filter by positive and negative tweets. I'm a pretty big deal so I vanity search myself often.* It usually ends in sadness. * We actually use it in the office to spot potential leaks. Rowling jumped on it pretty quickly so it looks more like something automated than just doing a random search. You have to ask yourself though, why would someone who is worth £500 million and is by any stretch of the imagination successful, want to search through Twitter to see if people are talking about them? Tends to suggest some sort of insecurity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You have to ask yourself though, why would someone who is worth £500 million and is by any stretch of the imagination successful, want to search through Twitter to see if people are talking about them? Tends to suggest some sort of insecurity. I do ask myself that... Every single day In my case, narcissism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 If JK Trolling did take legal action I'm sure Natalie McGarry could rely on a crowd funding of her legal costs. I'd quite happily contribute, obviously the money should go direct to the lawyers rather than through Natalie to save any confusion. She won't sue though, it's just a threat to shut down dissent. I doubt this is dirty linen she'd want washed in public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.