Wings of Scotland court case

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Brief context:

Ex Scottish labour Kezia Dugdale said (in print) that Wings was a homophobe because of a tweet he made.

The reason I think this case may be of interest is because so far:

Chelsea Manning is mentioned. @WingsScotland says Manning is ‘brave’ & a ‘hero’ but has repeatedly been accused of transphobia for his language towards the whistleblower. ‘An empirical biological fact that he is still a man,’ Campbell tells the court.

.@WingsScotland adds that he doesn’t know Manning’s sexuality & says it has no bearing on accusations of homophobia. Various comments by Wings referring to Manning as ‘he’. Being a transphobe does not make you a homophobe, Wings adds.

LassofFyvieas KD has now herself stated in that quote you posted that she was indeed contacted twice by lawyers on behalf of SCpriorto SC involving the courts, we can put your claim to bed now that he never even tried to settle this out of court. He did. Twice.

He tried to settle it out of court by demanding money with the sums increasing. Settling out of court in that way meant a win for him. The point was whether an apology would have been sufficient and it clearly never was.

I have a vague recollection from law lectures on defamation that there was a requirement that does the defamation make the ordinary person think less of the person being defamed. In this case so far as I'm concerned nothing KD said had that effect. I thought less of SC because of what he said. KD merely brought it to my attention.

Oh come off it, you detested him before that.

Oh come off it, you detested him before that

Come off what ? I never said otherwise than I detested him. It is possible to think someone is despicable and that person can continue to behave in ways which make them even more despicable. Corbyn for example manages it on a weekly basis.

LassOfFyvie you have used this thread as your personal soapbox for Wings bashing throughout to the point of total derailment almost and totally ignored or berated any post that doesn't comply with your incredibly blinkered opinion. You seem to be taking any discussion of this case extremely personally which unfortunately makes it very difficult to consider anything you say seriously. Consider a different approach for a different outcome.

That Scotsman article is strange, it's a tenuous link to the proposed law change (which is interesting) front lined by an irrelevant lawyer statement. Not sure what the aim is there, is it simply because there have been so few defamation cases? It is bizarre that there is such a huge cultural difference between the Scottish and English system, perhaps that will change as the new Hate Crime nonsense becomes a regular sight in the Scottish Courts and people feel pushed to defend themselves against thought crime and protect free speech?

I'm sure his fan girls on here more than made up for anything I said. I found the defences of him on here very hard to take seriously. As for lecturing me on what I should say, could you be any more pompous?

What do you find "so bizarre" about Scotland and England having different legal systems?

Scotland has always had a robust attitude to defamation with the requirement that the defamation should involve actual harm- that any right thinking person would think less of the person being defamed. Your final point is irrelevant in relation to defamation.

There is not a soul in a bar in Scotland wouldn't read that as the joke it is, nothing homophobic about it.

Well said, Speak Up

Fan girls

Young females equipped with hand held devices for cooling down