Will Kezia really really sob if she is fined £25 000 for telling fibs?


© olivermundell.com

Here’s what Scottish Labour Leader Kezia Dugdale wrote in her Daily Record column:

‘The remark that I am referring to was posted on Twitter by Stuart Campbell, who writes for the website Wings Over Scotland. In the Daily Record, I called out Mr Campbell for his homophobic comments.’

Here’s what blogger Stuart Campbell (Rev?) tweeted:

‘Oliver Mundell is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner.’

Campbell is now pursuing Dugdale at Edinburgh Sheriff Court for defamation and demanding £25 000 in compensation. Oliver’s dad, MP David Mundell ‘came out’ last year. Dugdale is also gay.

I’m definitely not a homophobe; my uncle lives next to people who have a friend who knows a same-sex couple and invites them over. Seriously though, do you think Campbell’s comments were homophobic or just funny. It’s difficult for an old guy to know what’s correct these days.


32 thoughts on “Will Kezia really really sob if she is fined £25 000 for telling fibs?

  1. Bugger (the Panda) August 6, 2017 / 12:41 pm

    Homophobic no, unwise yes.

    I think of Twitter, where the offending passage was published, as being akin to pub banter; part opinionated, part incisive, part humorous and partly offensive to some people.

    I describe my tweets as akin to shouting through letterboxes and running away.

    The self righteous are the enemy of enlightened debate. They declare themselves black affronted in order to stop the exchange and win by default.

    The self righteous version of Godwin’s Law


  2. patziwinter August 6, 2017 / 1:43 pm

    Not in the least homophobic. Funny – yes. Cheeky – yes. Unkind – Yes. Not a breach of any law.


  3. macgilleleabhar August 6, 2017 / 2:17 pm

    As another old guy I would call his comment caustic or acerbic but not homophobic as the reference is to the order of events not to anything else.


  4. johnrobertson834 August 6, 2017 / 2:59 pm

    Thanks, that’s 3 saying not homophobic counting me. The Rev can be a bit rude but hey…


  5. Bryan Weir August 6, 2017 / 4:20 pm

    Rude and even offensive but not homophobic.

    Campbell is very clever and he does some sterling work then he goes and spoils much of it by being a total @rse at times. His output would be much more valuable to the independence movement if he did not provide bullets for the yoons to fire.

    Having said that, I hope he does win the case.


  6. Chid August 6, 2017 / 5:07 pm

    6 nil. I don’t think it’s homophobic either. It’s akin to saying he’d wished Fluffy had used a condom. Would I be homophobic if I said that I wished Kezia’s dad had been gay instead of her? What offends me more is the fact that she wasted time in our parliament with this instead of concentrating on important issues of the day.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Diane Davidson August 6, 2017 / 5:08 pm

    I thought it was funny when I read about it……not on twitter….I have never felt inclined to take part it that medium. I also listened to Oliver Mundell’s speech at the tory conference and agree with the sentiment of Stu’s tweet. I do not think it is in any way homophobic https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/throwing-some-light-on-throwing-shade/ and if it had been said by Frankie Boyle. Kevin Bridges or another comedian no one would have batted an eye-lid! It is high time we stood up to the smears of the unionists and this seems to be as good a place as any to start. Kezia should never have been allowed to use FMQ’s to air this personal grudge on national television….to me that is the real issue.


  8. macgilleleabhar August 6, 2017 / 5:49 pm

    John, I think you could unofficially add “Wee Ginger Dug” to your list as he wrote very warmly about the help he got from Stuart Campbell when his partner was terminally ill.


    • Bugger (the Panda) August 6, 2017 / 6:10 pm

      How can a Panda be homophobic ands cannot spell or understand the word?


    • Bugger (the Panda) August 6, 2017 / 7:06 pm

      7 am in Cape Town and closed it at 12 midnight. as fa as I remember


  9. Kate August 6, 2017 / 7:10 pm

    No. I didn’t see it as the least bit homophobic. So mark me as 8 or 9 or wherever you’ve got to in your list! Perhaps a little cruel – but having said that, I don’t think THAT was the intention either! I believe it was a ‘take’ on a prominent comedian’s joke that has gone the rounds… and that was all it was meant to be.

    Like others here, I think Stu Campbell is excellent at what he does and is a real asset to the Independence movement. I think sometimes his views aren’t always understood inasmuch as people don’t always comprehend what is behind them (ie the Mundell comment being his slant of a comedian’s joke). And thus take them on face value, which can sometimes give them a distinctly rather unfortunate impression.

    Sometimes Campbell can be downright ‘sweary’ which some people find uncomfortable to the point they get upset. But as we all have the right to decide what our ‘style’ of twittering is to be, we can’t criticise others’ style if we want to choose our own. I think if ‘free speech’ is a right for everyone, we have to allow for EVERYONE’S choice of how that speech is communicated. So – I’m not keen on ‘sweary’ – but I accept Stu Campbell has the right to use that kind of ‘flowery’ writing. It DOES put some people off though and they may be potential ‘yes’ voters, and it may be that that style of writing alienates them. That’s unfortunate. Because if they could get past that, they’d see what an asset to the Indy movement he is.

    Sorry – off on a tangent… As I saw and understood it, it WASN’T homophobic.


  10. bedelsten August 6, 2017 / 7:20 pm

    It is the silly season and there is a lot of stuff swirling around, generating friction, which generates heat, but not much light.

    The Secretary of State for Scotland’s son displayed such poor oratory skills at a tory party conference that a snarky comment was made suggesting the father should have come out gay sooner. The leader of the Scottish branch office of the Labour Party wrote in the Daily Record that the author of the snarky comment was homophobic. And there it may have rested had not the she repeated the claim at First Minister’s questions. It was a dead cat bounce, a ‘when did you stop beating your (ex) partner’ distraction, away from her vacuity perhaps, and it should not have happened. However, it did, and the publicity earned her a court case. And there is may have rested – probably via an out-of-court settlement except some people seemed to have nothing better to do than stir the pot and/or seek attention and simultaneously display childish resentment at the success of the instigator and associated web site. Note: the Daily Record has a circulation of 149,000 (and falling), the web site mentioned has a readership of 300,000 (and rising).

    Was the comment homophobic? Well, it is now for the court to decide so my opinion is irrelevant.

    Simultaneously, there are those who, possibly assuming independence is in the bag, are starting to fantasise about what life will be like after independence, forming gatherings on the top of the head of a pin to dissect the minutiae of a future civic Scotland and some, incomprehensibly, voting for a unionist party.

    The unionists must be loving this nonsense. Such a distraction away from what is happening out in the real world where Scotland is in a situation not of its choosing and will, possibly within the next eighteen months, have to decide whether it wants to be dragged over the Brexit cliff, free falling into a very uncertain future, or be a proper grown up country making proper grown up decisions about its future.

    Rant over.


    • Kerly August 6, 2017 / 9:54 pm

      People with no influence like to talk,
      Just like you


      • Bugger (the Panda) August 7, 2017 / 7:18 am

        People like you make posts like that one because they have nothing to say and don’t like others saying thing.

        Cringe personified


  11. Contrary August 7, 2017 / 7:30 pm

    Add me to the not homophobic list. Stu Campbell’s humour seems to upset some people, but if you don’t want to be offended,,, don’t read it?? Anyway, I find it strange how people seem to think that if you support independence, and are outspoken about it, you need to be a certain way (whichever way whatever criticiser has decided it should be) – everyone is an individual and if they want to express themselves in a certain way, then, what? It takes all sorts, and they’ll all still be around after independence. And I’d prefer if we weren’t all turned into homogenous drones.

    When I read the tweet, I didn’t think it homophobic, but, not being within the group that may have been offended, would not like to say – wee ginger dug cleared that issue up, Stu is in no way homophobic (phobic = fearful or hating. Offensive is a different issue entirely). I’ve financially supported his legal fees, because Kezia is such a hypocrite, and wasting our money bringing it up in FMQs! Any valid action is a good thing as a matter of principle.

    Who was it that said something like ‘any publicity is good publicity’? 🙂 ,,, I wonder how many extra people are checking out Wings over Scotland? He’s a brick for putting up with all the slings and arrows thrown at him. (Is brick maybe too old fashioned a term? Doesn’t sound quite right)


  12. Bryan Weir August 7, 2017 / 10:48 pm

    Just a wee point. I often see comments on stuff like this, “If you don’t want to be offended don’t read it” or whatever. How do you know if you are going to be offended until you read it?

    (Not trying to cause an argument. Just making a wee point. ;o)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Contrary August 7, 2017 / 11:42 pm


      By reputation? Obviously you can read things by accident, but if you don’t like someone’s tone, don’t you normally move on? Maybe have a quick rant of outrage. I know what you mean, I’ve actually rolled my eyes at people saying, don’t read it then! But I think if someone’s reputation precedes them, well, you kinda know – and really, there is some pretty awful things out there that people are saying, to accidentally find one fairly mild commentary & jump on that as something to be offended by? It was chosen because it was written by someone well known, with a known reputation, so,,, it was a political move. And perhaps a bit petty? I don’t read any BBC reports after all, it’s great, no outrage – unless someone points something out,,,

      Liked by 1 person

    • Contrary August 8, 2017 / 8:26 am

      What I should have said there, is that I didn’t word my first comment well, I didn’t mean ‘don’t read it then’ in general, I should have made the point that I was only talking about this specific case – Kezia didn’t read it and was outraged, it was pointed out to her and told it was an opportunity to use some outrage to try and crowbar any apparent chink in the SNP armour, using the fact that some SNP politicians communicate, via Twitter, with Rev Stu. Show that he is person non grata, then show how morally reprehensible the SNP is,,,

      As Nicola Sturgeon responded to Kezia in FMQs, you can’t police everything everyone says on your Twitter following/follower, and effectively called out Kezia for hypocrisy for some of the activity of her own labour team. To start down this road is a dodgy one for Kezia, but she can’t seem to see that she might have to rise to her own high moral standards she expects from the SNP.

      The legal action Stu is taking, I believe, is just as important for the SNP as it is for him, more so even. The SNP are held to such high standards, they are being corralled and isolated by trying to live up to them – don’t get me wrong, I want politicians to have integrity and not associated with zoomers, but you need balance and fairness – Kezia is using party politics to attack independence. I say, and this seems to be what Nicola Sturgeon has said, let’s separate party politics from the independence question. From what little history I’ve read, it seems as though the people of Scotland always find something else to disagree on that they can’t see past it to fully back independence – in the past it was religion, now it is political ideology – and we have nearly the exact same agent provocateurs abroad as hundreds of years ago. Their tactics have always worked, so they will keep at it, let’s change ours?

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Robert Andrew August 13, 2017 / 1:12 pm

    From the off, I thought if Stu’s remark had been said by a Tory grandee, or a Sir Humphrey type mandarin it would have been described as a superior kind of observation. Cannot see it as homophobic.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s