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.
