Seil Chat

On a recent visit to Tesco, as is my wont, I had a perusal of the newspaper headlines (it gives you an instant idea of what is going on in the big world outside of Seil island.)
One of the headlines (and I cannot remember which tabloid was responsible) proclaimed "Nicola is going to clamp down on cybernats".
My immediate reaction to this was - Who, is she referring to? - no problems about who might qualify locally, and secondly it's about time that something was done about this negative publicity about the opposition that emanates from SNP activists, which Nicola apparently realises is doing their cause more harm than good.
Site Admin (NB) will not be privy to this posting under his self imposed curfew, but it will be interesting to see whether the readership which presently stands at around 100 is influenced in the next few days, or whether free speech still prevails.

The Daily Record and the Mail both ran this. ( just 'Googled' it, didn't buy one, in case you were wondering ) Both renowned for unbiased reporting and balanced coverage. You should have bought a copy for a giggle.

So Bill, are you on Nicola's list of the party faithful, getting a notice to keep off slating the opposition ?
And will you pay any attention to it?

Jim

Sadly .... But dealt with I understand ?


http://www.whfp.com/2015/06/11/brian-wi ... o-account/

.

I don't think Nicola is suggesting all criticism of the opposition is to cease - there is a difference between robust criticism and abuse, though some seem to struggle with this concept.

Oh the inuendos !
This suggests that what has been emanating on this site has been "robust criticism" and that I have been misinterpreting it as abuse.
Looking back over the past entries, we have had character assasination of "Eggs" Murphy, Alistair Carmichael, Willie Rennie, Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, David Cameron, Ming Campbell, Margaret Thatcher (she is still getting it) - and those are only the ones that spring to mind - in fact anyone of note who might be a thorn in the flesh of the SNP.
Well, I must admit that I class it as abusive - Dictionary "use to bad effect for a bad purpose", and there we will have to differ.
As an aside - while I have had some input into these pages over the years which I will admit is critical, it really didn't qualify as "Robust", and our admin has taken exception to it - yet is quite happy to dish it out to others, like confetti.

jimcee wrote:Well, I must admit that I class it as abusive - Dictionary "use to bad effect for a bad purpose",

It's not abuse Jim.
To achieve a political goal like independence (or any other goal) people need to disagree.
Are you really suggesting that the rough and tumble of courtroom lawyers is actually abuse? and that the often scathing exchanges that take place in court are for 'a bad purpose'?
Or that the often raucous row that pretends to be debate in a parliament or council chamber is actually abuse?
Am I abusing you by disagreeing with the point you were making in your post? no of course not.
Folk really need to debate and disagree at all levels, it's called free speech, it's a principal that we should treasure because it seems to be a bit under threat these days.
What's not nice is an anonymous individual making threats and accusations (usually online but occasionally on the street) that cause fear and intimidation resulting in the target perceiving themselves as being vulnerable.
In the interests of balance, have a read below. This type of individual unfortunately exists in all organisations, SNP, Labour, Tory. Church, Boy Scouts. They are cowardly 'nutjobs' to a man (unfortunately they usually are blokes) and should be treated as such.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3814855

Perhaps 'Oor First Lady ' is now accepting there might be a problem ?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3814855

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3813460

In highlighting this issue I have tried to use some articles which I believe present an unbiased viewpoint

I hope that the SNP hierarchy will respond to this call !! - if they do it will be proof 'to Westminster' that they are involved in serious politics ( no more selfies and whatever else they have been trying to do to make a statement )

Gavin Rae wrote:In highlighting this issue I have tried to use some articles which I believe present an unbiased viewpoint

I don't think you read the previous post Gavin.

Well there are still a few people reading this thread, so I will take up the cudgel.
Both Gavin and Bill spend their time trawling the press to read all this political stuff.
And then offloading it on to these pages, for our gratification.
And some of it makes quite interesting reading when it is not highly biased.
To Gavin - I would say - keep up the good work, you have your head screwed on the right way. Mind you that might tend to show a bit of bias.
To Bill - I think we are going to have to disagree on a number of things, although I do detect a respect you have for another's viewpoint.
This idea that the courtroom altercations and parliamentary exchanges are excusable in the normal thrust of human intercourse, do not reflect with any great credit on the human race. For instance the parliamentary exchanges in "Prime Minister's Question Time" are more akin to the YAHOO antics of adolescent schoolboys in the playground than to the actions of grown up adults who should know better.
I may hold the view that porridge is the greatest food on earth, while you can't abide the stuff (actually the reverse is the case) but this would not be grounds for me to try to blacken your character.
So it is this cult of attacking the person rather than the policy which is getting up my nose, with recent postings on this website.
There was a posting by Steve Jarron on these pages on the subject of Trident which didnt involve political personalities, and I thought that this was the kind of thing which these pages could be better off discussing, rather than this continual harping on about the deficiencies in others who might not toe the line with SNP policies.
Abuse of policies - OK, but abuse of personalities ( which I still think this site indulged in) - NO

.
The SNP have suspended party members in the past and rebuked others for comments on social media.

It is a shame the other parties aren't as scrupulous.

Whiter than snow? - pull the other one NB.

jimcee wrote:Whiter than snow? - pull the other one NB.

I didn't say 'whiter than snow'

Why don't you try replying to what I say rather than putting words into my mouth?

You seem to be incapable of rational discussion.

OK - I admit I never attributed the words "whiter than white" to our admin.
This was a bit of a "one liner" inference in reply to his posting which contained a huge dose of inference So, as it has to be rational, here is my take on the last NB posting.
The first statement suggests that the SNP is exemplary in dealing with mavericks within it's ranks - every one dusted down and put in their place or expelled, all tickety -boo.
The second statement suggests that all the other parties are completely lax in their reigning in their mavericks, and that they are allowed to get away with everything short of murder.
Both these inferences ( absolutely unprovable) are nothing but twaddle , and if NB subscribes to this view in order to hoodwink us into believing that the only reputable party are his beloved SNP, and all the rest should be consigned to the dustbin, then he will not be surprised if I have a different view, and take a few moments off to record it.

.
Both inferences were made by yourself Jim, and as usual bear no relation to what I said.

You are quite correct, they are twaddle.

Ah well. The readership of these pages will have to make up their own minds about the relative merits of the points expressed, and draw their own conclusions.

jimcee wrote:Ah well. The readership of these pages will have to make up their own minds about the relative merits of the points expressed, and draw their own conclusions.

Indeed.

That is by far your most pertinent observation to date on this subject.

I'm happy with that - so peace, until the next appearance of blatant SNP propoganda.

jimcee wrote:I'm happy with that - so peace, until the next appearance of blatant SNP propoganda.

You mean anything that indicates the SNP may perhaps not be the spawn of Satan?

Actually - No.
I mean that anything that suggests that the SNP can do no wrong, will automatically have alarm bells ringing.
Also, character assasinations with the inference that "Our lot would not do that".
So, if you think it is in your interests to continue with the present regime, please do not be surprised, if I make an interjection,now and again, until such time as there can be found grounds for banning me.