Labour MP Eric Joyce, who is PPS to the Defence Secretary, has disagreed with the Ministry of Defence over compensation payments for injured servicemen, reports today’s Scotland on Sunday.
The cybernats appear unable to consider the possibility that Joyce’s departure from the party line is a brave stance based on his reading of underlying principles. He is called “self-serving” and his comments are ascribed to “political opportunism”. One generalises: “If it's Labour - It's a lie”.
My agreement with Joyce is characterised as “slobbering, slavering and sickening sycophancy”.
Joyce, they say, is a “monster”, a “cretin” a “chancer”, a “nutter”, a “ratbast*rd”, a “fiddler”, a “greedy pig”, a “fraudster”, a “creap” [sic], a “low life”, a “slimeball trougher” and is “bonkers”.
There is even a veiled reference to him being a “murderer”. Labour are “scum”. An unflattering Nazi comparison is drawn. Joyce’s re-election as Falkirk MP would, it is said, be a “crime”.
It’s 11:30am. Some of the comments have been live since midnight. For how much longer will the Scotsman permit the perversion of decency that its cybernat-monopolised forums have become?
Halftime in America
37 minutes ago
The ''bonkers'' link leads to me. I am commenting on the fact that the UK Govt *might* be right about the compansation issue, and I am using Joyce's own words when he calls the Govt's action ''politically bonkers''. So a ''cybernat'' as you dub me agrees that the UK Govt might be right and you still have an issue with me commenting ?
Why have you waited until Joyce broke ranks on this topic to post anything about Afghanistan or MoD treatment of British Soldiers and now that you have, why have you chosen to focus on anonymous Scotsman posters rather than the story itself?
Your rather edited take on the thread is also very misleading, I really do wish you'd put these things in more context, not that it would make the comments in more palatable but you'd at least avoid the usual charge of extreme spinning and sour grapes.
".....how much longer will the Scotsman permit the perversion of decency that its cybernat-monopolised forums have become?"
AM2
"SNP dogs of war.... they are doing it on purpose."
George Foulkes
I'm becoming quite concerned that calls for censorship seems to be a prevailing siren call from certain unionist commentators. yet it never extends to the likes of the Telegraph's comments pages....
Observer:
Anyone reading this can follow the link and read your complete comment, in particular the last sentence.
Wardog:
Three things. Firstly, this is a blog about unionism and nationalism in Scotland. It’s a side interest and I don’t have time to expand its scope. So if you want discussion of defence issues, Mahler’s symphonies or the price of fish you’ll need to go elsewhere.
Secondly, my ‘edited take’ is by no means misleading. If that was my game, would I link to each post? Kindly stop impugning the motives and maligning the characters of your political opponents. We disagree; that’s all.
And thirdly, this isn’t about censorship. It’s about the nature of the ‘cybernat’ attack: wave upon wave of vicious personalised abuse and little or no toleration of opposing views. Nowhere is that more apparent than on the Scotsman.
LOL so it's OK for Eric Joyce to use the words profoundly wrong and politically bonkers about the Government he serves in, but it's not OK for me to use the same words about him.
Tut tut methinks you do protest too much.
SU
Don't really know what you want out of this one. Censorship? I don't know. I believe 4 posts have already been removed under the regular rules. Politically motivated censorship is a bit dangerous, and the term "cybernat-dominated" you use, leads me to that conclusion.
For what it's worth, I don't know the MP, and on this occasion, would applaud him for sticking to his principles. I really don't know what's gone before in relation to this issue.
Observer:
You’re not comparing like-with-like. Eric Joyce used the words “wrong” and “bonkers” of the MoD’s decision to appeal. He didn’t direct those words at any individual. You did, and therein lies the essential difference. You personalised it.
Andrew:
I’ll say it again: this isn’t about censorship. It’s about the rather disturbing state of public political discourse in Scotland at the moment.
Link me up to a forum where hordes of unionist posters describe nationalists using words like “cretin”, “slimeball”, “fraudster” and “creep” and I’ll concede your point. But you won’t find any, because the traffic is nearly all one-way.
"hordes of unionist posters"
You dream sir.
"because the traffic is nearly all one-way."
Yes, they are doing it on purpose
What exactly are you aiming to achieve then AM2?
Surely your complaint would be better directed at the Scotsman moderators, you do indeed seem to be asking them to enforce greater censorship of comments based on the language used and views expressed.
What a lame reply. I won’t accuse you of defending the indefensible, but by challenging me rather than those who launch such attacks, some might say you’re condoning it.
And you decry me for a lame reply.?
C'mon AM2, I've clearly not condoned anything, I'm simply asking what you think should be done .
You've made a complaint that anonymous posters on the Scotsman have made comments you find disagreeable. You've assumed that they are 'cybernats' and went on to ask the question
"For how much longer will the Scotsman permit the perversion of decency that its cybernat-monopolised forums have become?"
So I'm asking you what you'd suggest the Scotsman does.
It's unfortunate that seem predisposed to attack anonymous posters who you assume are all 'cyber Nats' but don't see fit to comment on the story of british Soldier's and how the MoD is treating them, a story I would have thought far more pertinent to your cause of examining unionism.
The nationalist are organized and collude in any given cyberattack in support of the snp.
They are in email contact with each other and will bombard any opposition ruthlessly (as you well know).
And have been so for many years ....EVEN THE DOGS IN THE STREET KNOW.......
They are in a word......Extremists.......
Wardog, I think the Telegraph's comments are pre-moderated, thus can't really be compared to the Scotsman's approach - the more extreme comments won't appear, therefore the paper's approach is less open to criticism, unless anyone wants to characterise it as censorship.
Something has to give at the Scotsman, it's just a question of when.
That's fair enough Stuart, would you propose the same for the Scotsman?
That's the way the Herald went and lost the vast majority of those that were commenting online.
Pre-moderated censorship seems to kill debate, reducing comments to singular events and stifling real time discussion but equally non-moderated sites are subject to abuse.
I'm not sure what the answer is.
The Scotsman can identify IP Addresses, it should be simple enough to ban an IP address of persistent abusers.
What AM2 seems to be calling for though is way above that, he has picked on specific words and accusations directed at Eric Joyce.
Is it really unreasonable for posters to call public figures "cretin”, “slimeball”, “fraudster” and “creep”?
That seems to be censorship based on taste and political view.
If AM2's prospectus were fair, he'd have flagged this up ages ago whenever a 'salmond' article appears on the Scotsman.
He didn't, which seems to suggests a partisan approach which he all but alludes to above.
I could go on to dissect the original question posed but quite frankly can't be bothered, instead I'll simply highlight some areas which seem to me atleast to be problematic.
"perversion of decency"
"cybernat-monopolised forums"
Is that really the basis for censorship?
Mr Mxyzptlk
"The nationalist are organized"
Don't tell 'em pike!
"Extremists......."
The irony of you calling anyone an extremist won't be lost on anyone who's visited your wonderfully florid blog.
Mr. Mxyzptlk:
For a group of people to be motivated, organised and to seek to dominate forums and overpower their opponents by weight of argument doesn’t strike me as ‘extremist’.
However, for them to ‘gang up’ using intimidatory techniques including personal abuse and even defamation so that it becomes all but impossible for their opponents to even take part in the ‘debate’ is indeed what I would call extremist behaviour.
Mr Mxyzptlk what makes you say that ? As a featured ''cybernat'' on this thread I can assure you I am not in e mail contact with anyone about posts on a newspaper website.
Why would I bother ?
I still think it's stretching credibility to argue that it's OK for Joyce to use the words profoundly wrong and politically bonkers about his own Government, but is is somehow extremist to use them about him.
Wardog: "C'mon AM2, I've clearly not condoned anything"
Wardog: "Is it really unreasonable for posters to call public figures "cretin”, “slimeball”, “fraudster” and “creep”?"
You’re inconsistent. But to answer your question: publishing a comment calling a named individual a “fraudster”, unless they have been convicted of fraud, is defamation and is a criminal offence.
I’m not even going to reply to your partisanship allegation. I have been perfectly clear that it is the abusive and defamatory behaviour to which I object. So does the Scotsman moderator; most of the offending comments have now been removed.
No AM2, I'm not inconsistent, I'm simply asking the question.
Are you suggesting that anonymous comments on newspaper websites should be subject to defamation laws.
Is that really the kind of comments board you want to see?
WARDOG
I plow my own furough you lot are working to orders from your party and follow them out scrupulously.
I have seen you lot up close and personal and what you do and it aint a pretty sight.
Simply asking the question. Of course.
Now, why would I suggest that such comments should be subject to defamation law? They already are, and have been for some time. Here’s a basic primer.
More information is here.
Mr Mxyzptlk, aye, that's right, big eck sends out his 'dogs of war' to hound the helpless 'unionistas'..... and I'm really a green mouse eating lizard.
AM2, can you point me towards a case where an anonymous blogger or indeed a blooger who's identitiy is known has been charged with defamation, indeed, can you cite a single case where anyone has been charged for calling someone a 'fraudster'....
Take your time.
You replied only eight minutes after I posted the links. But if you read through the material (it’s long but not particularly technical) you will see that such posts very clearly constitute defamation under Scots law.
The only instance involving an online forum in Scotland of which I am aware is this one, which was actually settled out of court.
You seem to have a very vivid imagination Mr Mxyzptlk. According to you nationalist posters are in e mail contact with each other and are acting on the orders of the SNP. Do you have a shred of proof that is the case, or have you just made it up on the spot ?
I don't think that the Scotsman site will be with us for much longer anyway. The threads descend into madness , they are all at it now on the Salmond thread, just totally nuts. It's gone the same way as the Herald, which is a pity.
Indeed, and aside from the abuse I see that a Renfrewshire councillor is actually being impersonated. He would also have grounds for prosecution.
Yes, I recall the George Robertson case but that was a very specific accusation and the Sunday Herald was happy to defned itself but had offered a tender to avoid legal costs.
Lord Robertson (he of 'devolution will kill nationalism stone dead fame) had accepted the offer of £25,000.
The suit, if it had gone to trial, would have been the first time that the question of a web site owner's liability for defamatory statements posted anonymously on its web site had been heard in Scotland.
As it was, it didn't go to court.
I've skimmed through the document you linked to before and again, the definition of defamation is way beyond anonymous 'name calling' where in this case, Joyce is a public figure and is subject to public scrutiny.
“monster”, a “cretin” a “chancer”, a “nutter”, a “ratbast*rd”, a “fiddler”, a “greedy pig”, a “fraudster”, a “creap” [sic], a “low life”, a “slimeball trougher” and is “bonkers” all come under 'fair comment' and at the very worst 'rixa'
It's hardly something to regulate an anonymous comments page with.
That a moderator responds to your complaints is hardly vindication, they will by default react to any complaint to avoid court action if that is what is threatened or alluded to.
Your question still stands...
"For how much longer will the Scotsman permit the perversion of decency that its cybernat-monopolised forums have become?"
Is it rhetorical?
Are you actually complaining about the standard of comments on the Scotsman again?
I have to say though, if there was any one thing to make me think that we weren't actually grown up enough to be a country capable of self-rule it would be if I thought the Scotsman comments section was indicative of how we are as a nation...
Then again, after a few beers I'd probably blame the poverty of thought there on the Union dividend and it would be all your fault anyway ;-)
Muttley
"Are you suggesting that anonymous comments on newspaper websites should be subject to defamation laws."
As SU has told you, they already are.
And it's the newspapers owning the sites who can be prosecuted, along with the anonymous commenters.
That's why the Weegie has neutered its comments pages.
It's why the Hootsmon goes in for moderation which is apparently random / mentalist.
You know all about it, since you're now having to post as "cu ceallach" or something equally incomprehensible.
They're terrified of being sued, or worse than that arrested for a criminal offence. If they let anti-semitic stuff stay up on their website, for example, they could be potentially at risk of being visited by the German or Austrian police and physically bundled off to stand trial there, for breaking their hate laws.
All possible under EU law.
It might be possible Smee but it's hardly likely is it ?
It's quite clear to me that the Scotsman has no control of it's moderation policy. It can delete certain posters such as Rufus at will, but it is allowing some clown to clearly defame whoever Councillor Terry Kelly is.
But I take SU's point and I promise to be nicer in the future.
Wardog:
I don’t think you’re taking this on board.
The word “fraudster” means a person who has committed fraud, a criminal offence. So to describe someone as a “fraudster” without fear of prosecution, they would have to have been convicted of fraud. Eric Joyce would, therefore, have an actionable case, should he have any interest in pursuing it.
There is more information on “name-calling” here, with specific reference to Scots law. The rixa defence is weaker for the written word, even a relatively instant one such as an internet forum.
Jim: LOL. You wag!
Observer: “But I take SU's point and I promise to be nicer in the future.”
Wow, that’s got to be a first! Mind you, Wardog made a similar promise a while back... ;-)
observer
the snp are welcome to sue me if it is untrue.........they wont its not worth someone trawling through the snp email accounts
See here (unverified) and here (rock solid).
Wardog:
"...can you point me towards a case where an anonymous blogger or indeed a blooger who's identitiy is known has been charged with defamation, indeed, can you cite a single case where anyone has been charged for calling someone a 'fraudster'...."
Defamation is a civil matter, thus the word "charged" isn't appropriate and alludes to a criminal offence.
While that may seem a tad pedantic, on the other hand it's perhaps instructive as regards how the internet is 'policed' - the Times, Telegraph et al pre-moderate and the Scotsman post-moderates, and to that extent are applying the law of defamation.
No doubt some posts are removed after more formal complaints, and in exceptional cases lawyers will get involved, but the chances of a particular instance going to court are remote, but this hardly means that the law isn't relevant to what's going on.
And I'm surprised at how blase you seem to be about defamation - if I said that B**** N******* was a fraudster or professionally incompetent then would you just ignore that and consider any complaint by yourself to amount to censorship?
And anonymity is irrelvant to defamation as well - it's the reputation of the defamed person that's at issue, not the source - and indeed the anonymous nature of most of the comments is an aggravating factor in my opinion.
I agree with some of your other comments about the Scotsman and how more robus moderation would spoil some aspects of the debate - such as spontaneity - but unfortunately compromises have to be made of the rule of law is to be maintained, it that doesn't sound too overdramatic.
The Scotsman will change its policy, it's just a question of time.
And, Wardog, irrespective of whether some of the contributions represent fair comment and would thus not be actionable in defamation, I'm surprised that you would consider some of the language at issue to be acceptable.
Observer
By the same token, I'm surprised that you can't/won't differentiate between calling a government "poltically bonkers" and calling an individual simply "bonkers" - it seems a bit more than a fine nuance.
Jim
Unfortunately the Scotsman comments section is more indicative of real life rather than the sanatised version presented in the MSM, but clearly that isn't peculiar to Scotland.
I mean, would any of those people stand in front of a TV camera and say these things?
On second thoughts...
Observer
"It's quite clear to me that the Scotsman has no control of it's moderation policy. It can delete certain posters such as Rufus at will, but it is allowing some clown to clearly defame whoever Councillor Terry Kelly is."
Not quite.
RTF and I have actually been running a little experiment over the last couple of days.
It is becoming clear that the Hootsie's moderation policy is, mostly, complaint-driven.
If you post something entirely factual and inoffensive, it will still be deleted if enough people hit the "complain" button.
OTOH, scatological garbage will stay up, probably because people don't bother complaining about it as they think (wrongly) that it will get moderated.
There are obvious exceptions, such as to do with ongoing court cases.
As you know, a mere mention of the word "Sheridan" is enough to get wiped.
But thank God it's only a game, eh?
A game? Are you serious?! These kinds of comments just keep coming...
“This man is dangerous.” (cu ceallach)
“What a disgusting little swine Joyce is.” (connaughtboy)
“Maj.Joyce after St.Peter shakes your hand prepare to burn in hell!” (glassbenmhor)
I can't see such comments as part of any kind of game. This isn't just SNP supporters disagreeing with politicians from other parties. It goes way beyond that. They actually seem to hate their opponents. Why?
SU
"This isn't just SNP supporters disagreeing with politicians from other parties. It goes way beyond that. They actually seem to hate their opponents. Why?"
Three things.
1. Are you tarring all "SNP supporters" with the same brush? Just those who post on The Scotsman threads? ("Hordes" as you put it?) Or just some of those who post on those same threads some of the time? Some clarity is required.
2. I've generally stopped posting on these threads because of the partisan jibes, the immature name-calling, and the ever-decreasing level of substantive posts. Sounds snobbish, I know, but this kind of stuff is just not interesting. Many are nationalist, but some are most definitely unionist. In fact on some of the foreign news stories, some posters from other countries can be mighty vicious.
3. At the heart of this debate is effective comment moderation by The Scotsman. They are a commercial organisation with targets, and I'm positive one target will be posts per thread. Strict comment moderation would reduce the amount of posts. Why else would there be 12 adverts on the webpage, including Sky TV?
Andrew: No, I'm not. I don't think any of us know how widespread these kinds of views are.
Andrew Bod "many are nationalists. But many are most definitely unionists"
Interesting that some people think if you're not a nationalist, then you have to be a "unionist".
I'm neither btw.
As are the majority of people.
I've appropriated the word 'unionist' because 'non-nationalist' doesn't feel right. What would you suggest?
I agree with Braveheart, surprise surprise.
The majority of voters do not have an attachment either to independence or the union. They would not be bothered if Scotland left the UK as they have no attachment to the UK or 'Britishness' (whatever that is) but equally have no burning sense of being oppressed or desire to be independent either.
They will do what they think is in the best interests of their family and wider community. That's why the never-ending debate about Scottish/British identity which seems to be this blog's raison d'etre (as well as the Scotsman bloggers main obsession) is a gigantic red herring.
That is not why people vote.
Indy
"The majority of voters do not have an attachment either to independence or the union".
The majority of people have no attachment to nationalism in any form, Scottish, unionist, whatever... they don't care for it. They seldom think about it. They have other things to worry about.
"They would not be bothered if Scotland left the UK as they have no attachment to the UK or 'Britishness' (whatever that is) but equally have no burning sense of being oppressed or desire to be independent either."
They do not even think about Scottish "independence". If forced to think about voting for it, 80% of voters chose not to.
"That's why the never-ending debate about Scottish/British identity which seems to be this blog's raison d'etre (as well as the Scotsman bloggers main obsession) is a gigantic red herring."
There is no debate about Scottish/British identity. The red herring is the debate about "independence".
"That is not why people vote".
Correct. People vote for schools, houses, hospitals, internal security, external security, roads, the economy, infrastructure...
Nationalism is not on the radar of most people. "Independence" is not on the radar of most people. The debate keeps going because nationalists refuse to give up shouting and sloganising. Unfortunately, the more they shout, the more the rest of us have to, groaning and reluctant, tell them to stop wasting our time.
That's the essence of the debate. If the nationalists would stop claiming that all of our problems would be solved by "independence", the rest of us could get on with actually solving the problems of providing schools, houses, hospitals, internal security, external security, roads, the economy, infrastructure...i.e. the things we really need and the things we really want.
SU
I sympathise. But I think that describing those who don't want independence as "unionist" is buying the SNP myth that if you are not a Scottish nationalist, you must be a British nationalist. That's not true. It's a trick of language and logic.
Most people do not buy the proposition that you have to be a nationalist of one or other descriptions.
Personally, I think that worshiping flags, whatever the colour, is slightly nuts. But if we have to have a flag, and we have a flag, why change it for another?
And I sympathise with you Braveheart.
Your post reveals all the bewilderment and unhappiness of the average Labour activist.
You just want to get on with solving all the problems (that you never noticed when you were in power) but this pesky SNP lot - who somehow sneaked into government - are force feeding everyone nationalism, refusing to stop their shouting and sloganising, and callously preventing Labour exercising their God given right to govern Scotland.
It's like a bad dream, isn't it?
Except it's real. Are these tears of laughter or pity on my face? Who can tell.
That was a petty, vindictive post. Tell us: is your dismissive, sneering attitude towards those who disagree with the SNP's political raison d'être typical of their activists?
"God given right to govern", Indy?
So who are the "non-believers and heathens" who are running the country, according to Cllr Gunn? ;0)
SU is right Indy, your post is a bit aggressive. I must have upset you in some way, such as pointing out that, when given the choice, 80% of Scots voters don't vote for independence.
Was it that?
Or something else?
Do tell.
SU yes - it absolutely is typical and I will tell you why.
During most of my years in politics the SNP lost election after election after election and Labour won election after election after election.
That hurt but never did we seek to question the right of Labour govern Scotland.
They were in power because more people voted for them than voted for us. That simple. Therefore the fault was ours and we had to work harder at winning the trust of the Scottish people.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. Ever since May 2007 Labour has done nothing but girn and moan. Braveheart is absolutely typical of this. He has nothing to say other than continuously moaning about the SNP. Labour has only made one single constructive contribution since they lost the election in the Calman Commission and they were forced into that by the Lib Dems.
There is no recognition among Labour MSPs or activists that the SNP is in power because more people voted for us than voted for them. There is absolutely no respect for the will of the electorate, instead a continual harping on the theme that the SNP somehow cheated their way into power. That is something that deserves to be treated with contempt.
Believe it or not I do feel sad that the Labour Party has come to this state because the Labour movement has played a crucial role in Scotland's history and in bringing us to this point. I know many decent people in the Labour Party who have now given up campaigning and that is most telling of all. It is all to the good for us of course.
Girn and moan?!
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
And by the way, your appeal to “the will of the electorate” really is the most incredible tripe. The electorate isn’t some kind of homogeneous blob. 16.8% of the electorate voted SNP in 2007. 83.2% didn’t.
So you think it is tripe to recognise that the SNP are in power because the majority of those who voted chose to vote SNP.
OK, that is about as I figured it.
You (and Braveheart) remind me of Jim Sillars. He couldn't take losing either.
More hubris. Or is it innumeracy?
Only 32.9% of those who voted chose to vote SNP. That isn't a majority.
Been out all afternoon. Just in. Going out in a minute.
Indy. Just saw what you wrote: I have no problem in agreeing that the SNP was elected as the biggest party and is well within its rights to form the administration. I never said anything different, and if you can point to where I did, I will apologise.
If you cannot, will you...off now..