Wings of Scotland court case

Because he’s such a narcissist that he thinks everyone in Scotland hangs off his every word?

SC posted back in 2017, before he started the court case that he contacted KD and asked for a retraction after the article but that she blanked him

Not according to the actual judgement. See para 29.

I recall one of his fan boys or girls saying on Twitter that he had put something on his website. If that is what the contact amounted to why would KD even be looking at his website?

Blimey, what a pompous self righteous arse you are

I'd sooner be that an apologist for the sort of anti- homosexuality "jokes" which were starting to look lame even back in the 1970s. Does being "gender critical" mean suspending all critical faculties?

nauticant true. I'm torn, I like KD, and she is one of the first MSPs to ask a GC question in parliament. I also like SC's media analysis and that he's not an SNP fanboy. His stance, that purity politics will never win independence and that something so fundamental neds broadbased support, across all ages, classes and political leanings is one I agree with.

I disliked what KD did in attacking him in parliament intensely. In my considered opinion it was a cheap shot abusing parliamentary privilege and I expect better from my politicians. But I don't want to see her ruined either.

Furthermore, I am also a freespeecher and will accept a heck of a lot of offensive stuff to protect freedom of expression.

Nonetheless, judging from the comments I've seen from legal professionals this is a concerning verdict. The judge did not place a limit on just how sincerely one has to believe what one says about another person before it does become defamatory. Does it open the floodgates to real abuse?

On a slightly more positive note, where does a guy with past anger management issues stand who wishes to pursue for misgendering or for bringing up past misdeeds? If I sincerely believe no one can change sex and that a male's violent and otherwise criminal history are important data points when women debate their rights in light of the ever present danger of male violence, have I now an easier defense than just my article rights under the EHRC?

When it comes to figuring out what went on with someone as divisive as Campbell the problem is that people will tend to apply an interpretation of what must have happened according to their like/dislike. The more intense their like/dislike, the more firm the interpretation becomes.

The timeline AFAIK was

SC: Makes Twitter joke
KD: Writes article implying SC is homophobic
SC: Demands retraction

Two months of silence on the issue

KD: Attacks SC on camera in Scottish Parliament
SC: Sues for defamation

Sorry that should read

He did not sue at that point.

SC posted back in 2017, before he started the court case that he contacted KD and asked for a retraction after the article but that she blanked him. He did sue at that point. Two months later, she smeared him in parliament to score points against the SNP, strangely calling him a colleague of the First Minister and demanding that they condemn him. I am not aware of him asking for another retraction after that performance.

Blimey, what a pompous self righteous arse you are.

Do give us the list of subjects about which humour is not permitted.

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, why can't we make jokes that have references to homosexuality

Oh yeah right. Welcome back Jim Davidson whilst you are at it. I recall he made lots of jokes about it.

What a load of apologist nonsense. And a rather nasty twisting of what I said to suit your own agenda.

lassofivie. Those of you who were defending him do you regularly make jokes the punchline of which depend on a person being homosexual?

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, why can't we make jokes that have references to homosexuality. Do you think it's something that has to be avoided mentioning in normal life, i.e. joking. My gay friends make jokes involving homosexuality and they don't get uppity if I do too. Plus the joke was about someone not being born if a perfectly normal occurance like coming out had happened instead of another perfectly normal event like having a child with a woman. You seem to think one of those things must be ring fenced from humour for all time. Why is that?

That is remarkably foolish ItsAllGoingToBeFine. Assuming his legal advisors aren't incompetent, that would mean Campbell disregarding their advice to seek a retraction before starting proceedings.

Well, as someone who's no fan of Campbell I'll not be losing sleep over this judgement.

The Sheriff was giving a strong hint that each party should bear their own costs. I assume The Daily Record is covering Kezia's cost and as you say I guess his fans will crowdfund his.

It will probably cost him a fortune but his devotees will no doubt crowdfund the lot.

Those of you who were defending him do you regularly make jokes the punchline of which depend on a person being homosexual?

iI recall correctly, although this was asserted in court by Dugdale at the time, this caused considerable surprise and was said not to be true

If I recall correctly nothing was produced whether an email from him or a letter from him or his solicitors asking for an apology.

I think I recall seeing on Twitter thread it had been mentioned that he had asked on his website but why would or should she have been looking there?

However he went straight to court for an overstated sum and didn't ask for an apology or a retraction so she had no option but to defend the case.

If I recall correctly, although this was asserted in court by Dugdale at the time, this caused considerable surprise and was said not to be true.

How much has this cost them both in legal fees?

It is very kind of them to pay up for a judicial opinion on what is homophobic/transphobic/defamatory for the rest of us. Public service at its finest.

A lot they both had QCs. He lost- she can ask for expenses. She won't get all (as you never do, even when successful)but I hope she does ask and I hope she gets them.

He might claim the court action was necessary as technically it was defamatory but he lost as it was protected as fair comment. However he went straight to court for an overstated sum and didn't ask for an apology or a retraction so she had no option but to defend the case.

How much has this cost them both in legal fees?

Sorry I meant to be clear I was quoting myself.

I found some of the support for Campbell on this thread surprising. I don't really understand why anyone would want to make a very weak joke on that basis and why it didn't seem to bother posters.

she genuinely believed that the comment was homophobic

Do you (general you) make jokes where the punchline depends on someone being homosexual? The likes of Jim Davidson did- wouldn't you wonder why that was the focus?

He does himself no credit by continuing to call her stupid.

In case anyone really can't be bothered reading the whole thing.

The issue of transgender rights is a different issue from homosexual rights. Sexuality has no bearing on gender. … The pursuer’s views on transgender issues are seperable from his views on homosexual rights, and no inference to the effect that he is homophobic can be derived from his views on transgender issues.