Is Fred Flintstone about to crumble ?

[Bill McDicken]

to point out that your attacks are biased, and therefore of less value than a balanced view.

These are simply observations and not attacks, the individuals mentioned have acted in a dishonerable or dishonest manner.
The whole point of living in a democracy is the right of everybody to do this without the fear of being hauled off in the middle of a rainy night by big blokes in leather coats and wide brimmed hats never to be seen again.
It is of concern that some feel we should not have this privilege.
It is also of concern that to provide a 'balanced view' we are required to remain silent UNLESS we can 'observe' the other lot engaging in similar deplorable behaviour.

[jimcee]

Nick, your attacks on sundry politicians are biased because they are one sided.
Anyone in the SNP camp will not have a word said against them.
Anyone who disagrees with them will call down your wrath.
Now I am no authority on the niceties of the English language, but that certainly smacks to me of bias.
And my presence on this site is not to praise or denigrate any politician - but purely to see a bit of fair play.

[NickB]

Nick, your attacks on sundry politicians are biased because they are one sided.
Anyone in the SNP camp will not have a word said against them.
Anyone who disagrees with them will call down your wrath.
Now I am no authority on the niceties of the English language, but that certainly smacks to me of bias.
And my presence on this site is not to praise or denigrate any politician - but purely to see a bit of fair play.

Jim, your purpose on this site appears to be to spout nonsense and attack me.

I brought up the question of one politician's disgraceful behaviour during the recent election campaign. You are unable to defend him, but say that my reporting of the event is biased - apparently because I am not simultaneously having a go at a member of the SNP. Which member of the SNP would you like me to have a go at, and why?

You are making absolutely no sense, but feel free to keep on ranting about my 'bias'. Meanwhile, another 2,000-plus presumably equally outrageously biased people have contributed over £32,000 to see Carmichael made to answer for his behaviour.

Indigogo fundraiser - The People Versus Carmichael

It is now looking as though Mundell may be complicit as well. This was not a robust denial on Politics Scotland earlier today:

[jimcee]

Nick,
If it were the fact that you had singled out the current "bad guy" for your postings there might be some reason for your postings. But he is just one of a long list of people who have offended your mores.
You have continually in the last few postings exhorted me to leap to his defence, possibly in the hope of demolishing any kind word I might offer in his favour. I am, as I said previously, not posting on this website to defend or attack any politician for anything they might have said or done. Mr Carmichael has apparently made a serious error of judgement in his recent actions, and no doubt, in due course he will suffer, or be glossed over for his indiscretion ,as countless others in the past have done but I hardly think it is worth all the attention it is getting hereabouts.
If the purpose of this website is to promote the SNP and trash any opposition, then I think a rethink on the title should be considered - Scottish Politics does not reflect a balanced view of the subject.
Now you may say that it reflects the views of those who are willing to post on this site, in which case it would appear that only zealots hereabouts are willing to stick their head above the parapet. This may well be the case, but it is not a debate, only a propaganda exercise on behalf of your cause.
This will, no doubt , be construed as a personal attack on yourself, but please be assured it is purely a plea for a broader approach to the subject of politics, and not this continual harping on about the failures/indiscretions/and misdemeanours of individuals on the other side of the fence.

[NickB]

.
Jim,

My message to you is quite simple.

You are free to post whatever you want about Scottish politics on here, without fear of censorship or censure (subject to normal t&c of course).

But - if you choose NOT to post on the subject of Scottish politics then stop whinging on about what others choose to post. I am frankly getting a bit sick of it, as I suspect are others - and I would like to refer you to the rule on trolling:

Trolling
A troll is a post usually containing specious arguments designed purely to provoke a response from other targeted members of the board. In short, it is bait for the unwary. The noun also refers to the poster whose utterances serve no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they just want to bait other forum users.

No ban, but posts that are nothing to do with Scottish politics - which applies to at least the last dozen of your posts in this sub-forum - are likely to be quietly moved to a thread entitled Jimcee's whinges or something similar, as they contribute nothing to the discussion and disrupt its flow.

[jimcee]

So I have escaped an outright ban, because I have tried to engender some sort of balance into this site, without resorting to the denigration of the opposition.
Now I don't know what the readership of these entries is, as regards their affiliance but I do hope that there may be one or two who think that maybe I have a point.
So in order not to be a troll (which I dispute) , here is a counter attack on the current situation.
After the recent referendum there was an all party get together to implement the devolved promises made at the time.
It duly met and a course of action was agreed to which satisfied all the participants.
Recently, when these proposals were included in the Queen's speech for implementation, and possibly enhancement, we have our party SNP leader not in Westminster but here in Holyrood, saying on the back of 50+ representatives down there in London . "We want more" on the assumption that 50 in a field of 600+ will have them touching the forelock and doing a bit of bowing and scraping.
N.S. you are pushing your luck.
Now I hope that the reader will agree that is not a character assassination and that it can be legitimately included under Scottish Politics, and not consigned to outer darkness somewhere on our administrator's website. We shall see.

[Gavin Rae]

An observation Nick and (the few others in my opinion ) who still read these posts !!

Have a look back at the number of contributors over the past two months

Have a look at the number of 'readers'

If you ban Jim there's only one point of view being delivered by the same 2/3 posters

It makes me wonder if this might 'put the final nail in the coffin' of what was a very popular and well read community forum

Surely that's not what you want ?

[NickB]

An observation Nick and (the few others in my opinion ) who still read these posts !!

Have a look back at the number of contributors over the past two months

Have a look at the number of 'readers'

If you ban Jim there's only one point of view being delivered by the same 2/3 posters

It makes me wonder if this might 'put the final nail in the coffin' of what was a very popular and well read community forum

Surely that's not what you want ?

Snoman, I don't really care. I provide this forum as a service, and I am not sure how exactly you imagine I benefit from it.

Whether or not people want to use it is a matter of considerable indifference to me these days.

I might have cared in the past, but once I had to shut down anonymous posting to prevent personal attacks I lost interest somewhat.

Particularly when it became apparent that most of the previous users were too chicken to continue to post under their real names.

Has it also occurred to you that Jim's endless attacks on other posters (me and Bill) and his apparent complete inability to post on-topic may actually be putting others off contributing ?

Just a thought . . .

[NickB]

.
And one more thought on the above . . .

This political forum is a sub-forum . . . the main Seil Chat forum is for the discussion of everything else affecting our community. However, no-one is posting on the main forum either, so to blame the lack of posting on the informal chats that Bill and I enjoy on one sub-forum is rather missing the point.

I would suggest that there is simply a general lack of interest from the majority combined with a profound cowardice about posting under ones' own name among those who used to 'enjoy' the forum.

This was a popular community forum because it allowed people to post under cover of anonymity. Sadly a small handful chose to abuse that privilege and gradually destroyed the forum for others. I also had a lot of people say to me that they would never post because of the anonymity, the implication being that they would do so if posting was under real names. Both groups have let themselves - and the forum - down rather badly IMO. To attempt to make me feel guilty about it or to suggest that it is my fault is just daft. To imagine that I am worried about it is equally fanciful.

Tell you what Snoman, or anyone else, why don't you start your own Seil forum? I'll set it up for you and provide initial technical support completely free of charge, you just pay for the hosting and the domain name.

[Bill McDicken]

The storm that threatens to sweep Fred MacFlintstone away is gathering momentum. Can he survive or is another LibDem Logo going to be stamped on the side of the First Ministers chair?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-32930488

[jimcee]

To Bill - You are evidently going to trawl the papers in pursuance of Mr. Carmichael until the matter is resolved.
I know it is off topic somewhat, but why not divert your attention to Mr Blatter who seems to be a bigger fish?, and more worthy of your attention.
To Nick - you keep harping on about posters and non posters who have let you down, and aver to have lost interest somewhat in this site. This seems a bit at odds with using the platform on every available opportunity to post any anti SNP findings, that must take up a fair amount of your time.
Steve J. - this is somewhat of a similar observation - personally, I have said my piece on Trident, and will not enter any further comments on the subject, so by all means continue to produce your stuff, but, from this quarter at least, please do not expect a debate. Decisions will be made elsewhere.
These are not personal attacks, I can assure you, but simply a response to postings on this site.
I stand to be corrected on these observations.

[Stevie Jarron]

Don't bring me into this Jim! I've said nothing in this thread.

If you don't want to reply to another thread, don't bring it up in your hissy fit here!

[NickB]

.
Stevie,

Please don't let Jim upset you. It seems he just can't help himself. He appears to have nothing to say on any of the topics posted, except to repeatedly observe that all the other posters are biased raving cybergnatz.

If he persists in this I will begin to do as I have intimated - transfer his off-topic posts to another thread, as they are very disruptive for those of us who are actually trying to use the forum to discuss things.

[NickB]

.
Meanwhile, back on topic - the fundraiser for The People versus Carmichael has reached £45,000 and one of the organisers has released this statement:

The petition is lodged. Hearing will take place. He will have to answer now. You have done it. This is what I said outside the Court of Session today

My name is Tim Morrison. I am a voter from Stromness in Orkney and one of the 4 petitioners asking the court of session to request the results of the general election in our constituency to be examined

Everyone has an opinion on what happened and what Mr Carmichael has done or not done.

We, ordinary voters want to have our say now that we are in full possession of the facts.

Mr Carmichael has apologised to us, his constituents. It is up to us to forgive him, if we choose too, in the ballot box. This should happen as soon as possible and certainly not in 5 years. This is for everyone's good

I am able to be here because we are many people but not a mob. You have given us over 40.000 to start this process in just three days. It is unprecedented. No one has done this before. The money has come in donations of 1, 5, 25 through the indiegogo website from nearly 3000 people. Not from a political party or a campaign group but from you, our friends. The trust put in us is humbling. Thank you. The reality is we will need more, maybe a lot more because litigation costs and we are personally liable.

Today is the start of clearing the air which has become pretty poisonous in our islands. We hope this process redeems the individual and the nature of politics in one go and helps us develop as a commonwealth.

A positive outcome for everyone now could be initiated by our MP allowing us to take place and as a result the money your money can go to food banks where it is really needed. This could happen today if Mr Carmichael does the right thing.

[NickB]

.
Sing along, Jim . . .

[NickB]

.
Well, the petition has been presented, the fundraiser by the presenters has now raised its full amount of £60,000 and Carmichael has said he intends to fight it. We don't yet know whether or not the LibDems are going to pay his legal fees.

From The National:

In his response to the petition Carmichael insisted he had not breached section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 – which says it is a criminal offence to release a “false statement” about the character and conduct of an election candidate.

His submission said that remarks he made in an interview with Channel 4 News were “an error of judgment on a political matter”, and added: “It did not amount to a ‘false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct’ of the First Respondent [Carmichael] himself.

“There is a distinction between statements relating to ‘personal character and conduct’ and ‘public or official character’ ... A statement cannot relate to both.”

Professor James Chalmers, regius professor of law at Glasgow University, said the next stage in the process would be a hearing, or trial.

“It is so rare for us to have election petitions in Scotland – the last one was Grieve v Douglas-Home in 1965,” he said.

“It’s not a criminal trial. It’s not terribly different but the law says that the procedure to be followed should be much the same as normal Court of Session proceedings, the difference being you would have two judges rather than one judge or a judge and jury.”

MORE HERE

[jimcee]

NB - your latest outpouring from the National confirms that you have got it in for the hapless Lib Dem member for Orkney/ Shetland. and that you wish to se him vilified, at whatever cost.
Now I am in no position to judge the motives of others, but I find it hard to believe that anyone should be so obsessed with the transgressions of another that they should go to such lengths to destroy the reputation of another human being.
Wrongdoing from whatever quarter is worthy of reportage, but this particular case is like a godsend to the SNP to milk it to the last drop, and does not reflect well on a compassionate caring party, which they might well aspire to be?
One other point on the general subject of NB replies to postings on these sites - He has stated in the past on various issues that he has lost interest in the whole thing because of intransigence by previous posters under anonymity and that new rules (as instructed by him) have virtually cut off the input - except for a few die-hards
.On this particular site (Politics) it is instructive to note that on the recent original postings the figures are -
Nick Bowles 35
Bill McDicken 13
Jim Cunningham 3
Steve Jarron 3
Gavin Rae 3
Tim Bowles 1
Donny Campbell 1
To me this would suggesr that NB has more axe to grind on this site than any other other contributors, by a long chalk.
It will be interesting to see whether all the above blether will be found to transgress the rules (as dictated by NB) and get me drummed off the site, or whether it will be allowed to appear.
A final plea to both NB and B McD - please - oh please, get off the execution kick and try and focus on something a bit more edifying and positive.

[NickB]

.
So, Jimcee, you think politicians should be unaccountable to the electorate?

You think any lying during an election campaign is acceptable?

Some of us demand higher standards.

[Bill McDicken]

execution kick

And here was me thinking we only wanted to get him sacked !!

On a more serious note, your unwillingness to criticise others is commendable Jim, but if we apply that to politicians we are likely to end up with a regime like that in North Korea,
It is the job of the voters in any democracy to bend the politicians to their will and not the other way round.
Or to quote Nick:-

demand higher standards.

Just a quick comment on the very sad passing of Charles Kennedy, a truly decent Liberal politician, who would never have behaved
( and never did in all his years as an MP ) in the way Carmichael has.

[jimcee]

My ,my, our two professed SNP zealots are very keen on picking out an odd phrase from any of my contributions to this one sided "debate?" and ignoring the main points I have tried to raise.
However, I will not succumb to this cop-out and will reply to NB - No politician should be above the law or chicanery, and I have no brief to defend the actions of Mr Carmichael, or the countless thousands of others of that ilk who have blotted their copybook in the past. What I take exception to, is your and BillMcD's obsession with posting on this website details of any transgression by any party member who does not happen to be of an SNP persuasion - on the apparent supposition that all the others are a crowd of rogues, not to be trusted, but your SNP lot are purer than the driven snow, What a farce - Mr Salmond has made a few utterances which did not stand up to close scrutiny, and the jury is out on the current lot.
In order not to make this too censorious of the B.McD's contribution - he was gracious enough to put in a good word for Charles Kennedy ( which I fully endorse), and in return, I will give an accolade to John Swinney who I consider to be from the same mould.
As an aside to NB-BmcD - You are dominating this site with postings denigrating the actions of anyone who opposes the SNP - is that the purpose of keeping the site up and running ? I do not expect an answer to this question - instead our two SNP apologists will probably pick out one phrase to highlight and lambast me with.