Sunday, January 31, 2016

On the plus side, everyone who has ever worked for the Daily Express now knows who I am

Just spotted that I got a glowing mention a few hours ago on the Twitter account of J K Rowling's abusive and misogynistic friend (but by God she's sticking by him!) "Brian Spanner", who somehow contrives to be followed by almost every single right-wing journalist in Britain, in spite of having a relatively modest overall total of 4,828 followers.


You won't be surprised to hear that the word I've partially censored is the C-word so beloved of both Spanner and (coincidentally) popular journalist Euan McColm.  

Answers on a postcard if anyone can decipher the point Spanner thinks he's proved by quoting a two-year-old exchange between myself and James Mackenzie.  My best guess is he reckons that if James Mackenzie once called me a woman-hater, it must be true, and therefore I'm no better than Spanner himself when he says delightful things like "Is [Margaret Curran] a victim of FGM? She is a torn faced c**t".

Unfortunately for Spanner, however, thousands of us can testify that James Mackenzie's personal definition of a misogynist is "person who doesn't instantly sever all contact with Wings Over Scotland upon my demand".

Feel free to have another go, Eu...I mean Brian.

38 comments:

  1. Wouldn't exactly describe Eu...Brian as 'popular!' or a 'journalist' really.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We know who runs the media. But who is going to expose them. They have bought the media. Truth cannot escape the vice of the billionaires.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems he's been frantically searching everyone's old tweets for anything as vile as his. I believe it's called "Whataboutery". A sign of a list argument if I ever saw one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the yoon subculture has regrouped quite successfully - they've gone from pearl-clutching at vile cybernats to building a nice wee clique where they can support each other on social media. Now, they're having much more success with ridiculing the cybernats. I'm amazed at how much success they're having at making nats dance to their tune. As a nat, it's quite cringe-making to watch. It's like watching a zookeeper prod some chimps into an enraged state, for the visitors to laugh at.

    Somebody I trust to tell the truth said to me the blindingly obvious, that this Spanner arsepiece isn't a journalist or public figure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know what, I'm getting a bit sick of this. I'm a 'loony', a 'truthist', a 'Cybernat zoomer', and now apparently I'm an 'enraged chimp'. All of this from a person who claims to dislike 'internet drama' - well, you're on your way to creating a fair bit of drama with that kind of provocative language.

      If you have any hard evidence that Spanner isn't even a public figure (which seems incredibly unlikely, given what we know), by all means share it. The obvious question that forms in my mind is this : if he isn't a public figure, why do so many people apparently secretly know his identity? He must be a very sociable non-public figure.

      Delete
    2. To commentor: Typical empty head YOON pretending to be a "nat". Maybe it's McColmSpanner with ANOTHER alias. Are you people so ashamed that you are afraid to print your real name to the shit you write?

      What a plonker. What a dickhead. "Now, they're having much more success with ridiculing the cybernats. I'm amazed at how much success they're having at making nats dance to their tune." Yeah! So much success that McColmSpanner has spent the last two days in pants shitting mode deleting tweets (useless, we all have copies)or searching well known Nats timelines looking for the filth which is common in YOONIES' tweets. Go back to the Express gutter whence you came, brainless morons are unwelcome here.

      Delete
    3. A the SNARK variation of the smug provocateur TROLL (see the GROUSEBEATER's latest post) essays a slinking debut on to this forum spouting variations on the Spannerism with a "knowing" wink and a zoological poke with a deflecting stick analogy - to paraphrase - the "cybernat" chimps and accuse them of being enraged.

      Straight out of the BritNat GCHQ black propaganda playbook, you naughty orangutan, you.

      A wee twist on the Pongo pygmaeus jive with a superficially sympathetic but pseudo-sophisticated "insight" for a con in trying to thieve the discourse? Help ma Boab, you long-armed anthropoid, and gie's a break for we moved on long ago from these type of circus act tricks and sleights of paw.

      Delete
    4. James and David : I know Commentor of old (he's known as NaebD on Twitter) and he's a genuine SNP supporter. But he does tend to take the view that other SNP supporters should never speak or act for fear of something going horribly wrong. I don't think that's any way to live, and it doesn't actually work anyway.

      Delete
    5. Ah! A wet Nat. One who's willing to bend over and wait till WM pats its head and says you can go now: after Scotland has no oil left, and has been stripped blind.

      Thanks for the tip. I know it from old and he's little better than a YOON in disguise.

      Delete
  5. I'd say that JK Rowley proves that money can't buy you happiness.

    Hell, she could be lying on a beach in the Bahamas every day supping gold powder laced cocktails from a diamond glass and it wouldn't dent the huge hoard of kids pocket money she's built up. Yet instead she's sitting alone at a PC falling out with people on twitter.

    If that's what being uber rich does to you, I'm happy as I am thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Id say the same for quite a lot of you. Get off twitter if you want peace of mind and direction. It a vessel for poisonous empty drivel. The clue is in the name.

      Delete
    2. "It a vessel for poisonous empty drivel"

      So why do you use it?

      Delete
    3. I don't! Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole

      Delete
    4. I don't! Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole

      Delete
  6. Correct SS, Jk is a lonely person crying for attention. Truth be known she was probably like that before wealth came along. An empty lonely woman with no moral compass or compassion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An empty lonely woman with no moral compass or compassion.

      That explains her $160m of charitable donations in 2012 then. No compassion at all, that woman.

      Delete
    2. That point has been somewhat tarnished over the last couple of days, as we've seen how she has no compunction about using charity as a tool to intimidate and bully those less wealthy than herself.

      Delete
    3. Super rich racist imperialist and friend of War Criminals gives a tiny fraction of her immense wealth to charity in order to ease her conscience and help pave her way into Heaven more like.

      BTW. JIMMY SAVILLE! He raised lots of money for charity too. What a lovely cuddly man he must have been.

      What was your point about the slavering hound-faced witch again?

      Delete
    4. People often give to charity not because they are charitable, but for self promotion. It's usually very wealthy people that do this.

      Delete
    5. Some people give to charity to mitigate their enormous tax bill. If you're going to lose the money anyway, it might as well be directed towards something of your choice.

      Delete
    6. Actually,I think Ms Rowling has her opinions on independence and is happy enough to make them public.Fair enough.She uses her fame to promote the union.Thats her choice.I don't have a problem with any of that.

      What I do find disappointing and distasteful is her association with the Brian Spanner ring,who seem to have gone off the rails where decency is concerned.

      Delete
  7. JK Rowling reminds me more of Donald Trump each day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmmm, when I think about it, I've never seen them in the same room at the same time. The plot thickens...

      Delete
  8. Rich people who give to charity and make sure the world knows. Are fulfilling two personal objectives. Firstly self promotion and public image. Secondly salving a guilty conscience. In Jks case I think number one is the only reason she gives. But by God she makes sure her pals in the press let us know about it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rich people who give to charity and make sure the world knows. Are fulfilling two personal objectives. Firstly self promotion and public image. Secondly salving a guilty conscience. In Jks case I think number one is the only reason she gives. But by God she makes sure her pals in the press let us know about it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting to see that McKenna's latest epistle on the Guardian (Observer really) has had comments disabled. Probably because naughty people couldn't stop using the S word. SPANNER, SPANNER, SPANNER, SPANNER!

    What a naughty boy I am.

    SPANNER!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Has that shrinking flower Caron Lindsay made any comment on JK Plagiarist and Brian Spanner? Or that other famous LibDem champion of women, Jo Swinson?

    Funny how quiet they've been. Almost as if they all know who he/she/it/they is/are and don't want to bring down the whole sordid pile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 31, 2016 at 8:11 PM

      Going by the aforementioned comments thank fook we voted NAW. Whit the fook are you Nat sis aboot. Try suicide bombing in an open field and spare the human race.

      Delete
    2. Cheers for that. You're a real touch of class, much like your hero Spanner. Now get back to work delivering Tank Commander's leaflets, there's a good chap.

      Delete
  12. So GWC you approve of misogynist filthy comments - why am I not surprised in the slightest. It seems like this unionist disease robs people of their morals as well as their common sense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill Mclean
      Accusing unionists of being immoral and doolaly isn't going to encourage them to flock to the independence side.

      Delete
    2. But revealing the deeply misogynistic opinions of morons playing the gender game is a crime against humanity, is it?

      Jimmy, we need to persuade around half the population that independence would be a good thing for those that have inward facing genitals rather than outward facing ones. Part of the reasons we lost was that women trusted the likes of Gordon Brown and David Cameron to be honest pricks - when in fact they were lying dicks.

      It is an absolute truism that deeply immoral and doolaly unionists are never going to flock to our cause, the likes of them are always lost to the independence arguement, be they men or women.

      But they are not the folk we have to convince.

      It is my opinion that the more the Unionist side is seen to be deeply condescending in an 'eat your cereal' and dismissive about what is between a woman's legs the less persuasive their arguements become to half the Scottish electorate.

      Of course, I could be wrong. Having your sex denigrated - and the 'c' word is undoubtedly in that category - by the likes of Brian Spanner is aimed at whom exactly?

      No women I know are likely to be persuaded by being called that.

      So, Spanner, closet Spammer, just wrenched a few more women's votes away from the Unionist cause.

      There are very few things I care about more than Scottish independence but seeing misogynistic men, whether unionist numpties or otherwise called to account for their deeply appalling love affair with their hatred for women is one of them. These people are below contempt.

      Your mileage may vary.

      Delete
    3. I'd agree with all of that. And yet, look at the nasty comment at 12.20pm above. Greeted with total silence.

      Delete
  13. The point of "Spanners" archaeological interests is that he/they feels the need to undermine.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ha! 19 Jan. on "Spanners". M https://twitter.com/FraserWhyte81/status/689426626208133121

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McColm and Deering "double-shifting" at Spanner???

      LOL!

      Who would have thunk it.

      Delete
  15. Might have cracked it...

    ReplyDelete