The Alex Salmond trial

Rolfe said:
Well, I do happen to know him personally and in my opinion you're entirely wrong in your uncharitable assessment. If you happen to believe that letting men enter and occupy all women's spaces is the most important reason for becoming an independent country then we're never going to agree of course.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to turn this into a debate about Wings. I've said my piece on it. Someone asked if there was a reason not to believe what he and Murray claimed and I stated that I don't trust what either says anymore because I've personally made the judgement that they are both untrustworthy sources.

Your point here about women's spaces is a ridiculous non-sequitur. Nobody said it was the most important reason but equally the opposite is not true and I'm not going to throw my lot in with transphobes just because they support independence. If anything it's the transphobes who appear to be putting their transphobia ahead of the goal of independence.

Wings singlehandedly did more for the independence cause in 2014 than any other individual. If he had been supported to get his material out to a larger proportion of the population, and a bit earlier, it could actually have swung it. The Wings site is far and away the most valuable resource in fact-checking and debunking unionist myths and talking-points that there is, and I hope it can be preserved in an accessible form for the future.
Click to expand...

I don't know about singlehandedly did more for the cause than anyone else but I agree it was a good resource. Which is why it's doubly disappointing that he seemed to give up on doing that to pursue his transphobic nonsense and all manner of other distractions. As I think I said in 2014 he put independence ahead of being a dick in recent years he changed the order of those things.

It's just sad to see that those opposed to women's rights take this as their all-encompassing criterion and damn the best resource the independence movement had simply because he stands up for women.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty shockingly inaccurate representation of the matter but I know you have the blinkers on for this one.

Just for the record this proud defender of women is on record as saying

'Feminism is the most intolerant ideology currently operating in the UK leaving ultra-radical Islam trailing in a distant second'

He was also soundly against shouting 'misogynist' at people who disagree with you. I take it you don't agree with that bit since that's pretty much what your last paragraph amounts to? In any case there are a multitude of accusations of misogyny against him so I wouldn't be trying to paint him as a great defender of women.

His record is patchy to say the least. many of his hot takes are utter nonsense. He's not someone I would believe on anything of this sort without double-checking.
 
The only double-checking you need to do on the Wings site is to click on the links, which link to the primary sources.

You're entitled to your judgement of a man you've never met, and to cherry-pick things he's said out of context, and to revile everyone who dares to stand up against the current assault on women's rights, but we see you.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Which 'assault on women's rights' is this?
Click to expand...

For god's sake don't start another Trans rights thread!

Apparently for some people the correct approach to feminism these days is to deny transwomen their rights and assume that women who claim to have been sexually assaulted are lying and to decry the whole idea of feminism as an intolerant ideology that brands people misogynist to quash debate.
 
Rolfe said:
The only double-checking you need to do on the Wings site is to click on the links, which link to the primary sources.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at the site for sometime. Let's have a gander and see what he is up to these days..

May 11: Calling the leader of the Scottish Green a 'misogynist racist midget'? Where do I click for the primary source on that?

Or the transphobic cartoon posted on May 9th in response to the election results?

May 6: Telling people not to vote for the SNP in certain constituency seats so Alba can get more list MSPs. Contrary to what was supposed to be Alba strategy.

May 5: Anti Trans BS

May 4: More anti trans crap

May 2: Some weird personal vendetta crap against someone called 'Bonnie Prince Bob'

April 29: another weird anti trans personal attack on the leader of the Scottish Greens where he again brands him a racist.

Yep, pretty comfortable with my 'headcase' categorisation. Actually moreso now that I have confirmed it.

My concern was that Alba was an attempt to create some kind of Scottish version of UKIP hoovering up the nutcase lobby if this is the kind of output we get from their supporters then it certainly seems to be the case that there is cause for concern.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
For god's sake don't start another Trans rights thread!

Apparently for some people the correct approach to feminism these days is to deny transwomen their rights and assume that women who claim to have been sexually assaulted are lying and to decry the whole idea of feminism as an intolerant ideology that brands people misogynist to quash debate.
Click to expand...

I see.

I suppose it's a case of ignoring differences to make common cause.

Politics can make some strange bedfellows.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
For god's sake don't start another Trans rights thread!

Apparently for some people the correct approach to feminism these days is to deny transwomen their rights and assume that women who claim to have been sexually assaulted are lying and to decry the whole idea of feminism as an intolerant ideology that brands people misogynist to quash debate.
Click to expand...

It is fashionable to subscribe to intolerant ideologies which brand people as something to quash debate. One doesn't need to go far to find examples.

Re the highlighted: nobody in this case is 'assuming' without evidence that the women are lying. There is evidence related to this claim that can be examined.
 
Elaedith said:
nobody in this case is 'assuming' without evidence that the women are lying. .
Click to expand...

I'm feeling like you got the wrong end of the stick here. I was going to write a response but thought better of it.

My only observation was that there are some very strange choices of people being held up as fighting the good fight for women simply because they agree on one issue. And by the same token who gets thrown under the bus because they don't.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I really don't want to turn this into a debate about Wings. I've said my piece on it. Someone asked if there was a reason not to believe what he and Murray claimed and I stated that I don't trust what either says anymore because I've personally made the judgement that they are both untrustworthy sources..
Click to expand...

Well, I knew hardly anything about both of them until a few months ago. My impression since then has been quite the opposite, though. I found Wings over Scotland very informative, quite impressively full of data and logical argumentation. Lately it has been too melodramatic with the trans issues, to my taste, even if I agree at its core message that self-id is problematic, etc., I think a more levelheaded response would have been better for his "cause". As for Craig Murray, I´ve also liked what I´ve read. He seems to be a man of principles. Do you doubt his claims in "murder in Samarkand"? His questions about the Skripal poisoning are quite reasonable too. It looks like there is more to that story than what it´s been published in the newspapers. Not your usual conspiracy nut, it´s all well argumented. Of course if you believe in the ineffability of the British government and media, you won´t go near it.

One of the most important things, was he really the only one reporting on the defence arguments of Alex Salmond? Was there a media campaing to discredit an innocent Salmond? It really looks like it, and it stinks. He was declared innocent and still, all media reports are shamefully biased, implying guilt. The contrast with these blatant media biases and fallacies makes Campbell and Murray appear even more believable ...
 
I meant: "if you believe in the infallibility of the British government"
 
Some of Craig Murray's conspiracy theorising is a bit wild, but some of the time he's bang on the nail. I've never liked him, but I did chip in a bit to his defence fund.

He was indeed the only outlet which reported the defence case in the Salmond trial, he was in court and said the hacks put their pens down as soon as the defence case started. I noticed myself that on the days when the defence case was heard, the mainstream media simply ran articles going back over the prosecution case. The evidence that woman H made the whole thing up was very strong indeed, but none of it was reported. The TV overviews put out after the trial seemed to have been mostly made in advance on the assumption that Salmond would be found guilty, and not tweaked so you'd notice.

Stuart has his style of reporting. He writes very well and nobody has ever caught him in an error. (I challenged him that he was wrong that Theresa May wouldn't call an early election, and he said, well I said she'd be mad to do it, was I wrong?) There are some topics he feels very strongly about, and people who don't feel so strongly will see it as over-egging the cake.

If you want to see what Stuart is like as a person (if you somehow can't see that coming through from his writing), this interview from 2019 gives a flashback to somewhat happier times.

 
Last edited:
Abooga said:
Well, I knew hardly anything about both of them until a few months ago. My impression since then has been quite the opposite, though. I found Wings over Scotland very informative, quite impressively full of data and logical argumentation. Lately it has been too melodramatic with the trans issues, to my taste, even if I agree at its core message that self-id is problematic, etc., I think a more levelheaded response would have been better for his "cause". As for Craig Murray, I´ve also liked what I´ve read. He seems to be a man of principles. Do you doubt his claims in "murder in Samarkand"? His questions about the Skripal poisoning are quite reasonable too. It looks like there is more to that story than what it´s been published in the newspapers. Not your usual conspiracy nut, it´s all well argumented. Of course if you believe in the ineffability of the British government and media, you won´t go near it.

One of the most important things, was he really the only one reporting on the defence arguments of Alex Salmond? Was there a media campaing to discredit an innocent Salmond? It really looks like it, and it stinks. He was declared innocent and still, all media reports are shamefully biased, implying guilt. The contrast with these blatant media biases and fallacies makes Campbell and Murray appear even more believable ...
Click to expand...

Ah OK it appears your weren't asking a question but making a statement that you find both men credible. I'm not personally interested enough to dig into either's detailed arguments to attempt to rebut them for you so I guess you can return to today's normal programming. :)
 
I'm not sure if the cash prize for identifying a factual inaccuracy on Wings is still on offer or not. I think it was £1,000 or something like that. Nobody ever tried to claim it as far as I know. All we ever get is people saying "I don't trust a word Wings says" then sloping off when asked to identify an error.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm not sure if the cash prize for identifying a factual inaccuracy on Wings is still on offer or not. I think it was £1,000 or something like that. Nobody ever tried to claim it as far as I know. All we ever get is people saying "I don't trust a word Wings says" then sloping off when asked to identify an error.
Click to expand...

That's kind of what happens when you come across as a raving nutcase on social media.

It would seem fairly easy to claim the £1000 - Patrick Harvie is not a racist, misogynist, midget. Where do I claim?

Or why am I getting the feeling that that's not going to count?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom