Tuesday, January 5, 2021

A small, cowardly man pursuing a bitter personal vendetta: Stuart Campbell's late night legal threats against me

As I pointed out a few hours ago, it's fairly likely that Stuart Campbell broke some law or other yesterday by sending me an unsolicited, highly abusive email, calling me a "wretched little c**t" and a "pathetic, snivelling coward".  

This was not part of some ongoing correspondence - it was a bolt from the blue, and the first email I had received from him for nine years.  However, I made clear that I did not intend to pursue the matter.  Since then, I have had to wade through a sea of drivel from his apologists: "Grow up, James!  You must have led a sheltered life, James!  You're so bitter and twisted, James!  You could have just sworn back at him, James!  Be a man, James!"

Well, I now expect to hear no more of that nonsense ever again, because I have just received a lengthy email dripping with menace from his legal representative (a man who I had previously assumed to be a friend) implying that action may be taken by Campbell against me.  Why?  Because he doesn't like a comment that was posted on this blog by Douglas Clark, and rather than do what normal people would do and just post a response (it's not as if the guy doesn't have a platform) he wants to censor it out of existence, and if I refuse to censor it out of existence he wants to get revenge.  Not against the person who actually expressed the views, but against me, who did not.  Don't anyone ever tell me that this isn't a small, cowardly man pursuing a nasty, bitter personal vendetta.  Until I get some sleep, the only action I intend to take is to post the entire correspondence so far and allow people to make their own minds up.  The only part I'll leave out is the quote of Douglas Clark's comment - ironically if I include that Campbell will probably claim it as "defamation".

To be abundantly clear, Campbell and his friends have been peddling a number of falsehoods today to prepare the groundwork for this stunt.  They have suggested that my statement that I had turned on pre-moderation of comments amounted to an "admission" that I had "actively passed" Douglas Clark's comment.  That is categorically untrue.  It was auto-published *before* I turned pre-moderation on.  They have claimed that Campbell asked me to delete the comment.  As far as I can see, he did not - he sent me an abusive email, but he didn't bother to explain what he was actually angry about or ask me to take any specific action.  Pretty much the only thing he did was call me a "c**t".  Therefore the claim that I "refused" to censor Douglas Clark's comment is also patently untrue.

David Halliday:

Hi James. I wanted to let you know that I am just about to send an email to you from my work account and to explain that the reason for sending it so late in the day is the urgency to things. I didn't want to send it without prior comment or letting you know it's on its way - you'll understand when you see it, I hope and I hope too that we'll be able to get the issue raised resolved.

Me:

OK, no problem, I'll look out for it.

David Halliday: 

Dear James, 

I think you know that I act for Stuart Campbell. Stuart has asked me for advice about the btl comment posted on your site by “douglas clark” on 4 January at 6.28 am. I attach a screenshot. The concern is particularly about the following section:

“***” 

This section repeats more or less exactly a false allegation made some time ago by Ewan McColm (sic) in a Scotsman article. It is entirely untrue that Stuart has ever said, or believes, that the victims at Hillsborough were to blame for their deaths. That would clearly be an absurd proposition. Claiming that someone believes it is equally absurd. It is also defamatory. What Stuart believes is that other Liverpool fans were among those responsible for the tragedy. When the McColm article was written, I raised defamation proceedings on behalf of Stuart against the Scotsman and we were, fairly swiftly, able to negotiate a five figure settlement with them. Having been forced to go to that trouble Stuart is not going to let others repeat the absurd, defamatory falsehood with impunity. The following is an extract from the letter I wrote to Johnston Press at the time and I’m hoping it’s a useful summary:

“We have been consulted by Stuart Campbell in relation to material published by you at page 6 of today’s issue of “The Scotsman” newspaper and at the url http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-s-mixed-messages-on-beleaguered-campbell-gunn-1-3442129. 

There, you say of our client: 

“The claim about Ms Lally first appeared on the Wings Over Scotland website, run by former journalist Stuart Campbell, who has built a following among nationalist campaigners but caused outrage for his views, which include blaming the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster for the crush that killed them. … 

The civil wrong of defamation is committed by the communication of a false statement or idea which is defamatory of a person. A statement will be defamatory if, amongst other things, it makes harmful imputations against that person’s character or reputation, or exposes that person to public ridicule, hatred or contempt. Imputations against a person’s moral character or an allegation of behaviour or conduct generally or usually regarded as dishonourable will be defamatory. 

The Hillsborough disaster of 1989 was one of the world’s greatest ever sporting catastrophes. 96 people died and hundreds were injured. At the time, the disaster prompted expressions of horror at what had befallen its victims, and of sympathy for their families and the survivors, from people throughout the world. Decades on, the anniversary of the disaster is still commemorated throughout the country. Public inquiries have been held into the cause of the disaster and the plight of the families of the victims is regularly and sympathetically reported by the media. In short, the Hillsborough disaster was and remains an event of national and international significance and the victims and their families are the object of immense public sympathy and support. 

Against that background, it is difficult to imagine of a more egregiously defamatory imputation against a person than to say that he holds or has held the view that the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster were to blame for their own deaths. No right-thinking, ordinary, reasonable, decent person could conceivably hold such a preposterously inaccurate and ridiculously offensive view. Your own words confirm that you accept as much: you say that the views which you claim our client held “caused outrage”. Such views would undoubtedly cause outrage. By claiming that our client holds them, you have exposed him to just such outrage. 

What you say of our client is, however, simply and entirely untrue. He has never held or expressed the view ascribed to him. There can simply have been no possible grounds on which to assert, in any kind of good faith attempt at accurate reporting, that he has because in fact he has repeatedly and in very trenchant terms expressed the clearly and unequivocally opposite view: the victims were entirely blameless for the crush which killed them because that crush was caused by other people. Your conflation of the dead victims with these other people may or may not have been wilful. At the very least it was recklessly and irresponsibly inaccurate. To suggest that our client believes the contrary is not simply to suggest that he holds views which would be incalculably offensive to overwhelming public sentiment and mood. It is to ignore and deny the reality of the views that he has actually expressed and, moreover, expressed in a form which rendered them readily accessible to, and retrievable by, anyone interested in accurate and honest reporting as opposed to, say, advancing a political cause by smear.” 

I understand that you are able to delete the comment and that Stuart has asked you to do so but that you have refused. I am hoping that this message will let you understand that, and why, Stuart feels so strongly about the allegation and that you will decide to delete the comment forthwith. You’ll probably be aware of this already but my view would be that once the defamatory nature of a btl comment is brought to the attention of a blog publisher then that publisher risks himself being liable to the person defamed if he or she refuses to remove it. As I say, the purpose of this message is very much to explain things to you in the hope that you will decide to delete the comment and I’d be grateful if you would let me know once you’ve done that. 

Thanks. 

Yours sincerely, 

David Halliday

Me:

I am absolutely astonished at the email you've just sent me, David. Before I do anything else I'm going to let my readers know what is happening - in the context that your client sent me an email calling me a "c**t" only yesterday, this is frankly outrageous. No, I had absolutely no idea that you act for that man - how and why would I have known that? You've always been friendly towards me in the past, so the last thing I expected was a threatening email from you.

David Halliday:

Me acting for Stuart in the action against Kezia Dugdale is a matter of public record. The email really wasn't intended as threatening (and I don't think it reads a such). It was intended as an effort to getting an easy and quick resolution to things. I'll leave you to deal with things as you see fit though of course. 

Me: 

Whether it was a matter of public record or not, it was something I was totally unaware of, and I've no idea why you'd expect me to know that. There is an implied assumption at the end of your email that I will take a certain action - that seems to me to contain an air of menace. If that's not the case, I can therefore assume that no action will be taken if I uphold free speech and do not delete Douglas Clark's reply? I look forward to your confirmation. 

David Halliday: 

OK - I just thought you might know and didn't want to presume you didn't. The assumption behind the message was that, once you knew the comment is false and defamatory, and what the background to things is, you'd delete it. I didn't - and to be fair still don't - see why you wouldn't. I just asked you to confirm once you'd done so so that I didn't need to keep checking to see if you had. If you don't then you'll understand that Stuart will decide what he wants to do, not me. I'm acting for Stuart so can't claim to be an honest broker but I did genuinely hope that my message might diffuse things. I'm sorry if it's not had that effect but, as I say, the background and history of this specific allegation is such that Stuart feels very strongly about it and I'd hoped that my message would explain why, in a useful way that might take the heat out of things. 

Me: 

There are two inaccuracies in your email that I think should be addressed - your client has not at any point (as far as I can see) directly asked me to censor the comment, and I therefore did not "refuse" to do so. Would you acknowledge that, please? Would you also acknowledge that he has been falsely claiming today that I "actively passed" the comment through moderation, and indeed falsely claiming that I "admitted" doing so? Thanks in advance. 

David Halliday: 

I will certainly pass that on, yes, see what Stuart says and get back to you. I should maybe say that I have not been following the exchanges between you so don't know what either of you have said about the other beyond what's said in your post to which the comment was appended. In return, can I ask that you think about whether you'd be prepared to delete the post now you know of its falsity and you can maybe let me know what you've decided to do if you've reached a conclusion when I get back to you (probably tomorrow now, I'd imagine). I can't see that anyone is morally obliged to advance the cause of free speech by providing others with a platform to spread defamatory untruths. I quite appreciate it was on a much smaller scale than your site, and that you're entitled to take a different tack, but during the referendum I single-handedly ran a Facebook page and an associated blog and I was forever telling people (friend and foe) that I owed them no obligation to them to provide them with a forum to defame others. 

Me: 

"Now I know of its falsity"? What? I have no idea whether it's false or not - all I know is your personal opinion of it. For now, my main priority is making people aware of what is going on. This is a man who sent me an unsolicited email yesterday calling me a "wretched little c**t" - if there should be legal threats flying around, I think you and I both know they're flying in the wrong direction. Why don't you take this up with Douglas Clark, given that he actually expressed the views that Campbell simply can't bear? Rather than me, who did not express those views? Well, we both know that too. This is a nasty, bitter personal vendetta.

*  *  *

UPDATE: I'm grateful to Douglas Clark for emailing to let me know that he's deleted the comment himself, so the above threats are now academic.  Make no mistake, this was never about protecting Campbell's reputation (to the extent that he had any reputation left to protect) - the idea that a single sentence in a reader's comment on a blogpost was in any way equivalent to an article in the Scotsman newspaper is risible.  It was never any threat to him, and if it really bothered him that much, he had a highly privileged platform with which he could have countered Mr Clark's claims.  Indeed, he could have done so in a comment here if he had wished - but, predictably, he blew that chance by launching foul-mouthed personal abuse at Mr Clark in the reply he attempted to submit.

Nope, this wasn't about Hillsborough, or about defamation - this was purely and simply a stunt to attempt to humiliate me by getting me to dance to his tune.  That stunt failed, as it thoroughly deserved to.  I have taken no action at all.  Please note for future reference, Stuart - the moderation policy on this blog is a matter for me and not for you.  Rather than getting solicitors to send me threats late at night, a better channel for your energies will be addressing the frequently grotesque state of the comments section at Wings Over Scotland.

35 comments:

  1. I may not be the sharpest of pencils, but if the same comment was posted on the wings site, would he not have to take action against himself?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, although presumably he'd get David to send him an email first. You know, just to try to sort it out quietly.

      Delete
    2. He’s clearly flinging s**t about.... unfortunately for him it’s s**t shaped like a boomerang.

      Delete
  2. It's thoroughly loathsome what's being hurled at you at present, James. I personally would want to crawl into a hole in the same situation. More power to your elbow!

    ReplyDelete
  3. He restricts the comments on his site, he doesn't let anything get posted he doesn't agree with

    He's absolutely a narcissist and a misogynist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well that's not true, there are frequent comments he disagrees with. Not sure how he's a misogynist with his defending women's hard won rights against the entitled trans lobby. I think his e-mail yesterday was awful and on this I definitely stand with James. One comment btl, it's definitely not about that as James says. Very disappointing.

      Delete
    2. He's not defending Scottish women's rights as he choses not to live in Scotland and vote in Scottish elections. Ergo if a party attacking women's rights is elected here, it's because 'Scots' like Michael Gove and Wings stood back and let it happen, carping from the sidelines. He's abandoned Scottish women, including Yes voters, because they're 'gutless' and he prefers the 'brave' brexit voting English (I understand he didn't vote against brexit, so the current shitstorm is down to people like him too).

      'C**t' is the most vulgar, misogynistic insult going. How could comparing someone you detest / are calling stupid / nasty to a woman's genitalia not be?

      https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cunt

      Would you call your mum or other female family members that? Would you invite Stuart Campbell home to talk to them in that way over dinner?

      I'm not adverse to swearing where it's useful, but if you need to constantly abuse people with language like that you have serious personality problems and no strength in your arguments.

      And his blog is not a clever, witty intellectual debate on the trans issue. Is brietbart / daily mail style dog whistle sensationalism.

      I've a lot of time for e.g. my SNP list MSP Joan McAlpine on the issue. Joanna Cherry too. They are in Scotland and championing Scottish women's rights.

      Delete
  4. Why has Halliday not asked to see the supposed "request for removal" before issuing this premature threat? Ah.. because it's non existent and simply abuse. Sceptical to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I wondered that too. It's a schoolboy error to take Campbell's claims as read - he's made at least three false allegations today.

      Delete
  5. James - I have the highest respect for your work, and have posted several comments to that effect on your blog in the past. Personally, I do not like to see hostile language in any public communication between individuals. At a private level, we all sometimes need to express hurt and anger in whatever language is available to us, but hostile language (swear words and phrases that denigrate) undermine the open space of public discourse. Putting that to one side, I would like to hear your views about one aspect of your argument with Stuart Campbell and David Halliday. Do you accept that you have some, or any, responsibility in respect of defamatory statements that are published on your website? If you do, then how would you define the limits or parameters of that responsibility (e.g., does it only refer to false statements that are legally actionable, or do you take a broader view and include personal abuse)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I think the first principle has to be realism: when auto-publish is on, as it is most of the time (albeit not at the moment), 100% of comments will be published before being read by me, and probably most comments will *never* be read by me. I've deleted objectionable comments when I've happened to see them (for example there have been a few making wild allegations of sexual offences against named politicians) but in general it's reasonable to say that the responsibility for comments ought to lie with the people who wrote them, and not with me.

      As for what happens when someone complains about a comment I may not have read or spotted any problem with, it just depends on circumstances. I recall a few years ago deleting a couple of comments at the request of Duncan Hothersall, who is not someone I've ever got on well with, but he did ask me in a reasonable and civilised way - in contrast to Mr Campbell, who did not actually make any request for the comment to be deleted, and yet bizarrely proceeded to escalate matters as outlined above. That strongly suggests to me that this was about the theatrics, rather than about any genuine concern over the comment itself.

      Delete
  6. I would appreciate hearing the views of readers, and other bloggers, on the issue of responsibilt for comments. Since posting my own contribution earlier this morning, I have had two further thoughts. The first was a realisation that all of us - all readers of a blog and blog comments - have a responsibility to speak out if we think that what we are reading is defamatory. Then, even if the blog owner themself does not delete the offending blogpost or comment (e.g., because they do not have the resource to constantly monitor comments threads), other readers can readily see that something that has been written is questionale. My second reflection was that perhaps owners of large-circulation blogs have a higher degree responsibility, compared to blog authors with few visitors/followers. For example, I would suggest that Ginger Dug, Scot Goes Pop, Bella and Commonweal have (whether they want it or not) reached the point of being seen as trustworthy sources of information and debate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I’ve been a Wongs reader since 2014. I thought his recent commentary on the SNP conference was good but over the years he’s become more shrill and paranoid - somewhere in between his arrest and losing the Dugdale case. Good on you standing up to him, James.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Quite a shockingly petty way to behave. He’s really gone off the deep end recently. He seems to be someone who just gets consumed by his anger and personal grudges and can’t move past them. It’s a real shame, as he clearly has talent as a commentator, but is patently his own worst enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Given how the dugdale case went for wings and his legal team, I'm not sure there's must to be concerned about James.

    ReplyDelete
  10. the idea that a single sentence in a reader's comment on a blogpost was in any way equivalent to an article in the Scotsman newspaper is risible.

    I guess Campbell just sees SGP and it's commenters as highly influential in the indy debate, much more so than is own blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The commenters on SGP, WGD, Talking up Scotland etc etc. once posted on Wings. The site is now populated by blind disciples and Unionist trolls. He clings to the belief that visitors are a sign of support...I look at the Telegraph, visit Guido Fawkes etc. I look for information anywhere I can get it.
      He attacks the SNP without offering any alternative path to Independence...I often wonder what happened to the man who produced the WBB.

      Delete
    2. Julia says - " He attacks the SNP without offering any alternative path to independence."

      Julia, I am afraid you are letting your personal hatred for Campbell affect your ability to read properly. Campbell like James Kelly, and indeed myself, advocate using the May election as the means to win a mandate for independence.

      Delete
    3. What happens if Yes parties get less than 50% of the vote like they've done in every Scottish election to date?

      I guess no independence and no referendum even if Yes is say 60% in polls?

      Sounds appealing if you you are a right-winger from the south of England that thinks brexit voting English are 'brave' and Scots
      Yes voters 'gutless'.

      Delete
    4. Skier - you are the gutless one. You do not have the guts to challenge James Kelly when he states the same as me.

      There is no logic to that post. If a referendum gets less than 50% then yes loses.

      You are the one who wants another 5 years of Tory rule just to make sure yes wins. As if you can guaratee a win. Just like Wishart - a pathetic Westminster appeasing do nothing agenda. How do you get independence by advocating doing nothing.

      I disagree with your opinions - get used to it.

      Delete
    5. "like James Kelly, and indeed myself, advocate using the May election as the means to win a mandate for independence."

      I don't - where are you getting that from? I support the principle of using an election to double as a referendum - I've never said it's particularly realistic to do it in May.

      Delete
    6. James, thanks for clarifying your position. Apologises for the unintended misrepresentation. Can I take it your argument is similar to The WGD argument that proposes an election plebiscite only after a majority mandate for a referendum in May is subsequently refused by Johnson?

      Delete
  11. Well it confirms what many have thought for months. If you do not worship blindly then you are the enemy.
    ...I wonder if I'll get a letter?

    "Minions, I will shape Scotland and your future"

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'Global financial hub'.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/eu-share-trading-flees-london-on-first-day-after-full-brexit-1.4450561

    EU share trading flees London on first day after full Brexit

    Nearly €6bn of dealing rerouted to newly created European hubs and primary exchanges

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was once watching a BBC News show, during the day and they had a guy on from Brussels discussing London's financial markets, and he began to say that Brexit would have a profound impact on these markets as London enjoyed free trading through the Brussels 'clearing houses' (I,m not sure what clearing houses are but the people on the show did), but this guy began to suggest that all trading from London through these clearing houses would be subject to taxation after Brexit at which point he was abruptly cut off, and the BBC newscaster said we are sorry to cut you off but we must go to Westminster for an announcement, at which point an empty Westminster was on the screen and nothing was happening!
      It then cut back to the studio and they moved on to other discussions, but made no attempt to return to the financial man and let him elaborate on his comments.

      Delete
    2. It's the sort of thing a good pro-indy blog site would discuss, rather than fixating on transwomen, genitals and calling people 'c**ts'.

      Delete
  13. Stu said "I have said, and stand by the view that OTHER Liverpool fans were partly culpable for the deaths of the 96. I have always made abundantly and repeatedly plain that the VICTIMS themselves were completely innocent."

    MY interpretation of that OUTRAGEOUS slur on the Liverpool fans, is that if any of the VICTIMS had been a few rows back from where they were on that terrible day, they would have survived, but would have been "partly culpable for the deaths of the 96".

    Campbell likes to be "controversial" but, just like the journalists he hates, he is smart enough to use language, which creates the effect he wants to achieve, but which enable him to have deniability.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi James if it were me I'd have blocked him long ago I gave up reading what he was going to do years ago. I gave up just after 2014 referendum, perhaps with hindsight I should never have even logged onto that site missing an H I think.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We're with you James. I'm Snr. Admin on a large pro-Indy site on Facebook (9000 + membership). We no longer post Wings blogs and haven't now for quite a while. We're only interested in pro-Indy bloggers that know which way to point their guns. We're not in the slightest bit interested in bloggers with inflated egos that take to Social Media to bang on about their own personal vendettas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown, wasn't that the problem with Labour and Blair. Labour turned a blind eye to the truth of an illegal and unnecessary war that laid waste to the Middle East and created generations of terrorists because they were doing well in the polls and winning elections.

      Delete
  16. Well, what?

    It is easy to assume that Campnell is 'us'.

    I don't think he reprenents, whatever he claims othrerwise,, much of us. Y'know, an actual dsire for independence lest he was the man in charge?

    Though his lovers will see this as a
    disgusting calumny on their hero.

    Well, suck it up.

    Not at all convinced that The Revernd Stuart Canpbell is actually a 'reverend' nor a Campbell.

    YMMMV.


    ReplyDelete
  17. I understand that various enquiries found that fans were not to blame. People are not in control in crowds; even if everyone is polite, careful and well behaved, crowd crushes can develop rapidly without anyone misbehaving. Crowds are a random series of collisions at close quarters, which require careful central control.

    It was concluded that poor stadium design and crowd management strategies were the main factors.

    I recall actual prosecutions primarily related to attempts by some of the police to shift the blame onto fans / cover up poor decisions. Stupid really, as even poor decision making doesn't mean culpability; you can make the wrong decision with the best of intentions. Best to just admit that though, as if you try to cover up, it suggests you were actually being intentional negligent / reckless and knew it.

    Alongside Wings, the right-wing English Sun newspaper infamously said Liverpool fans were culpable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A rarity - a post of Skiers I agree with. Even a blind dog can sniff out a bone now and again.

      " if you try to cover up, ...... " and that applies to people involved in the persecution of Salmond also eg John Swinney.

      Delete
  18. Scottish Skier,

    Thanks for that. I'd agree. Arguing otherwise, well....

    ReplyDelete