Today sees the first threatened legal actions of the independence referendum campaign, with the following notice going up on National Collective’s Facebook page – their main site being down altogether. Update: you can donate to them here.
On the 9th April 2013, Lawyers-Collyer & Bristow acting on behalf of Vitol and multimillionaire and principal donor to ‘Better Together’ – Ian Taylor threatened legal action against the ‘National Collective’ claiming that it was grossly defamatory.
Aamer Anwar, Solicitor acting on our behalf stated:
“National Collective have instructed my firm to act on their behalf, they state that they will not be bullied or silenced and state that their website is offline only as a temporary measure for a few days. A detailed and robust response will be issued early next week along with further questions for the ‘Better Together Campaign’ .”
There will be no further comment until early next week.
If you wish to be advised of any further updates please contact our solicitors Aamer Anwar & Co., on 0141 429 7090 or at office@aameranwar.com www.glasgow-lawyer.co.uk
This follows the breaking by National Collective of the story of Mr Taylor’s previous entanglements, as reported by the Guardian here and the Record here.
This is a major mistake by Mr Taylor, and, if they supported his action, by Better Together. First, all National Collective appear to have done is compiled publicly available information to paint a picture of his interests. I am obviously not a lawyer, but good luck with basing a court case on that.
Second, as one wag put it on Twitter, here’s the McStreisand Effect. However much an airing this dirty laundry has already had, it’s going to get ten times more if this legal action is real (and at least a couple of times more even if they decide not to proceed).
Third, when you’re trying to win hearts and minds, as I assume the Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy still are, then clamping down on free speech is probably not the right way to go about it. It’s like a TV or radio debate – if one side starts shouting, the neutrals will assume they’ve lost the argument as well as their rag. Doubly so with what looks like attempted censorship on this scale. Incidentally, there are rumours of equivalent legal action against both Wings Scotland and “Berthan Pete” – although I believe their shared bullying manner undermines the Yes campaign, that same right of free speech applies to them.
So…
#1 by Angus McLellan on April 10, 2013 - 7:00 pm
Mr Taylor is allegedly 56 and therefore young enough to know better. But he’s been singularly unfortunate in many of his dealings – although not when it comes to making money – as his companies seem to have a remarkable ability to attract controversy. Well, that’s not a crime. And perhaps it says more about the oil business than it does about Mr Taylor.
While I’m here, can I draw the attention of Better Nation’s readership to the deplorable absence of a mug shot on Wikipedia’s potted biography of Mr Taylor – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Taylor_%28British_businessman%29 If anyone owns the rights to a picture of Mr Taylor, or knows some who may do, can I encourage she or he to relicense the image under a CC-BY-SA license in order to fill this gap?
We now return you to your normal scheduled programming.
#2 by Longshanker on April 10, 2013 - 9:05 pm
National Collective have done the right thing and immediately made the site/piece unavailable.
The picture painted and the manner in which it depicts the individual involved is what counts in this kind of case – facts usually don’t.
As for one of the other individuals. I wouldn’t think that publishing the lawyer letter expressly stating “Not For Publication” was the wisest move.
Judging by the tone of the letter and the import of the action taken by National Collective it looks, so far, like a clearly pursuable case – which as we all know can still attract substantial damages on the publisher even if the allegedly libellous material is substantially factually correct.
I hope this isn’t the case for National Collective, but as for the others, it was only a matter of time.
Regards
#3 by Stuart Winton on April 11, 2013 - 5:05 am
Can’t be bothered reading the original MSM source materials, but it may be that they were careful to differentiate Mr Taylor’s actions from those of the company per se, because of course in law they’re different legal personalities. (As in the difference between Brian Souter and Stagecoach being important in a different context.)
The allegations outlined in the letter sent by Mr Taylor’s lawyers were specifically made against Mr Taylor rather than the company per se. The letter is on behalf of Mr Taylor and doesn’t mention the company. Perhaps that’s significant.
I think the National Collective article was a bit more circumspect in that it was more careful to distinguish Mr Taylor from the company, and essentially asked what he knew about the company’s activities.
However, both the articles were perhaps guilty of sexing up the language etc as compared to the original MSM source pieces.
Of course, in such cases there’s very often a bit of sabre-rattling from the lawyers on both sides, so whether either side genuinely thinks they’ve got a strong case is a moot point (see what I did there?).
But I suspect both websites view the scenario as win-win as regards their supporters in the purely political context – they either give Better Together a bloody nose, or they play the truth martyrs stamped on by the jackbooted Unionist machine. Of course, the financial ramifications could be a different matter altogether.
#4 by Alex Grant on April 10, 2013 - 9:59 pm
‘Bullying Manner’ of WoS? What are you talking about. Stu Campbell does the best rebuttal of Bitter Together BS than anyone else in the media! If you could aspire to being half as good you might be useful!!
I hope you have the honesty to publish this!
#5 by James on April 11, 2013 - 11:31 am
He’s homophobic and misogynist. He alienates undecided voters, and I personally think if we lose the referendum, which would be deeply depressing, it’ll be as much to do with his bullying antics as anything else. I’d be delighted if he left Scotland altogether, personally, although I wouldn’t wish him on anyone else.
#6 by Keir Hardly on April 11, 2013 - 12:47 pm
I think it’s a real shame that a once-respected site like Better Nation is participating in cheap smears like this, falling for a nasty divide-and-rule tactic from the No camp. Can you back up a single word of what you’ve just said? You don’t even seem to know where he lives.
#7 by James on April 11, 2013 - 12:53 pm
I don’t know where he lives. Are you telling me he’s not even a Scottish resident?!
#8 by Keir Hardly on April 11, 2013 - 1:14 pm
If only there was a clue somewhere.
http://www.betternation.org/2011/09/why-the-snp-should-run-in-england/
#9 by James on April 11, 2013 - 2:04 pm
In the insulting comments about the Welsh, you mean? I wish we’d never run that.
#10 by Keir Hardly on April 11, 2013 - 2:11 pm
Since it looks like you gave him his first break in blogging, logically that must mean it’ll be YOUR fault if we lose the referendum…
#11 by James on April 11, 2013 - 2:13 pm
Ha! No, as the piece says, he was already blogging as Wings Over Sealand, before he became Wings Over Scotland – or, if Stuart’s right, Wings Over Somerset.
#12 by Stuart Winton on April 11, 2013 - 1:29 pm
He lives in Bath, and as far as I can make out he’s a long-term resident there.
A certain irony in folks moaning about people like Ian Taylor in England sending money to Scotland to fight the good fight, while the same people are sending money down there to Rev Stu to fight the good fight for the other side. Because of course people living in Scotland are best placed to decide what’s best for the country!
At least Ian Taylor and Rev Stu have something in common – neither have a vote in the referendum!
#13 by James on April 11, 2013 - 2:05 pm
Ha! I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised..
#14 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2013 - 1:04 pm
What a deplorable and wholly unjustified attack! I smell a personal agenda here. And more than a whiff of petty jealousy.
#15 by James on April 11, 2013 - 1:05 pm
Thanks Peter! Just telling it how I see it, including sticking up for your free speech. No need to thank me on that half.
#16 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2013 - 1:14 pm
People have already passed judgement on WoS and expressed themselves more than satisfied with the work Stu Campbell does. Similarly, they will come to their own conclusions about you and your scurrilous smears.
But I did enjoy the irony of your pompous cant about free speech – on a site that is notorious for a moderation policy so intrusive and heavy-handed that it frequently amounts to nothing less than censorship.
#17 by James on April 11, 2013 - 2:08 pm
Exactly the sort of language I was talking about, Peter. Although, oddly, I didn’t delete your comment anyway. But yes, when people go ad hominem and use abusive language about individuals, we don’t approve it. Personally, I think if we win this vote it will be remarkable not least because we will have done so despite the likes of you and Wings bullying neutrals on Twitter and spewing bile from your keyboards.
#18 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2013 - 2:49 pm
What abusive language? After you calling someone a homophobe and a misogynist with absolutely no justification it seems we must add “hypocrite” to your list of character flaws.
You’re very bold with the allegations. But not so hot when it comes to providing evidence. Bit like George Foulkes and his ilk.
The referendum will be won on merit. Fools crying “abuse” every time somebody challenges their inanity will be deservedly ignored.
#19 by James on April 11, 2013 - 3:04 pm
I linked to a screengrab to illustrate both those points. If you can’t find it I’m happy to link to it again.
#20 by Keir Hardly on April 11, 2013 - 3:27 pm
I’m not sure one joke line in a website comment from four years ago is the slam-dunk proof you think it is. Wouldn’t a proper misogynist homophobe have said something more recently than that? And what about the evidence of “bullying antics” and “alienating undecided voters”? Got any screenshots for those?
#21 by James on April 11, 2013 - 3:30 pm
You must have a different definition of homophobia and misogyny to me then. And no, I have no intention of trawling back through Twitter feeds looking for evidence, especially given you seem to have made your mind up already.
#22 by Keir Hardly on April 11, 2013 - 3:55 pm
If making extremely nasty personal allegations about someone that you acknowledge you have no interest in trying to support with evidence isn’t an ad-hominem attack, I don’t know what is.
#23 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2013 - 4:06 pm
So you don’t feel the need to back up your smears with evidence of any kind. Are you content that others follow your example?
#24 by Stuart Winton on April 11, 2013 - 1:35 pm
Aye Peter, I mean you, the Rev and his numerous acolytes set a really good example when it comes to the ad hominem stuff.
Of course, I’m being ironic, because there’s a massive iron-y deficiency with a lot of this kind of stuff, which may some day become a recognised medical condition called Rev-emia, or something like that!
#25 by Colin on April 11, 2013 - 2:26 pm
I think everybody needs to have a nice lie down and a cup of tea. The referendum is going to be won/lost on the doorstep. Not through political blogs read only by the most committed activists/the twiterrati.
#26 by Grahamski on April 10, 2013 - 10:04 pm
Should a website be able to publish any claim about a political opponent or indeed anyone regardless of its veracity?
If a person publishes damaging lies is it censorship to take action against that person or publisher?
#27 by Keir Hardly on April 11, 2013 - 1:25 pm
No, absolutely not. What parts of National Collective or Wings Over Scotland’s articles are you saying are lies?
#28 by James on April 11, 2013 - 2:06 pm
Just to be clear, we have no desire to get taken down too, so any comments which take us into legally questionable territory will be rejected or deleted.
#29 by Stuart Winton on April 11, 2013 - 2:46 pm
Keir, well perhaps he should clarify his use of the title ‘Reverend’ for a start. Was having a read of that big thread on his site at the moment, and someone challanged the authenticity of Stu’s ‘Rev’ title, and in response he alludes the questioner is “from an ugly, sectarian Scotland that belongs in the past”, and “I won’t take part in your bigot games.”
Dear oh dear – see what I mean about irony??
Then as regards an accusation that he’s used the title ‘Rev’ to solicit monies he says: “I’ve used the work done by this site to solicit monies from the public. The Indiegogo page identified me only as “Stuart Campbell” and I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned religion (with regard to myself) in the entire history of the site.”
Yet apart from the *one* example he cites, he uses the title Rev or Reverend all the time and it’s all over the internet! So why does he use it as some sort of badge of honour – presumably to convey some sort of image – but yet instead of clarifying the matter accuses others of bigotry for as much as mentioning it?!?
I certainly assumed he was a genuine ‘man of the cloot’ when I first came across him, but was quickly disabused of that notion when he started f-ing and c-ing and alluded I was a liar for as much as questioning an SNP policy! So the title is either misleading or I suspect those bestowing it aren’t too happy at its use.
#30 by RevStu on April 11, 2013 - 4:49 pm
“Yet apart from the *one* example he cites, he uses the title Rev or Reverend all the time and it’s all over the internet! So why does he use it as some sort of badge of honour – presumably to convey some sort of image”
Allow me to answer that one for you, Hermione: I use it (a) because it’s true, but mostly (b) so it’s easy for people to find me on Google, as there are quite a lot of people called Stuart Campbell. Hence it being “all over the internet” – that’s the entire point. Sorry if that’s not sinister enough for you.
Anything else while I’m in this tumbleweed-strewn wasteland?
#31 by James on April 11, 2013 - 5:21 pm
Let me give you the last word and close this whole sorry debate down.
#32 by Iain Menzies on April 10, 2013 - 10:05 pm
it would seem he is of the opinion that he has been defamed. If he thinks that he should sue.
This isnt an issue of free speech. Its about not being lied about….alledgedly
#33 by Aidan on April 10, 2013 - 11:20 pm
Ian Taylor isn’t better together, painting this as the No campaign “clamping down on free speech” is perhaps a touch hyperbolic?
If this was an aggregation of information published elsewhere how is it National Collective breaking the story?
Finally, and this is purely supposition, the over reaction of taking the whole site down and hiring Aamer Anwar to defend a defamation case is a fairly strong signal that they expect to lose and want to make as big a fuss as possible. Which is fine but does suggest this is fairly base performance politics by National Collective.
#34 by Iain Menzies on April 11, 2013 - 1:39 am
Tho its Libel thats mentioned in a certain letter in another place that wasnt ment to be published. And the lawyers are a london firm….is Anwar a lawyer down south too? or is it cos he likes to go on telly….
#35 by MajorBloodnok on April 11, 2013 - 12:25 am
Aiden, you’re rather sanguine about receiving lawyers’ letters accusing one of libel. I know that I’d be tad worried and wanting to go and find a hole to hide in if I ever received one.
Also, being Better Together’s majority funder makes him pretty much Mr BT in my book – he’s not paying for nothing I’m sure.
And if this was “merely an aggregation of information pubished elsewhere”, as you say, what can Taylor possibly hope to achieve by threatening a libel action over the mere collation and repetition of facts demonstrably in the public domain, other than trying to silence pro-independence websites (you do know that WoS got a missive too, and Peter Bell has been kicked off twitter? There may be others).
However, BT may ‘own’ the MSM and the BBC but they don’t control the internet, and never will.
As for disdainful accusations of “base performance politics” by the National Collective, perhaps they are just playing BT at their own game? BT thinks it’s awfully good at coming up with spoiler stunts and other shallow shennanigans when they want to divert attention from something more important (and inconvenient) that opens up the debate and lets the truth seep out.
#36 by Duncan Hothersall on April 11, 2013 - 10:13 am
Speaking as a member of the Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy, this legal action was not done in my name nor indeed in the name of Better Together, and I think the implication in this piece and elsewhere that it was is deeply unfair.
#37 by James on April 11, 2013 - 11:33 am
Well, I’m glad to hear it wasn’t in your name, but the Better Together website was pretty fulsome about this odious man.
#38 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2013 - 3:00 pm
The dubious individual in question and Better Together chose to be associated with one another. Either the people running the anti-independence effort are massively stupid or they must have known how this would play out. They must have been aware of the background of the people from whom they were soliciting donations. they must have known that this would become the story.
Frankly, you’d have to be pathologically naive to imagine the Bitter Together mob are innocent in all of this. I await with amused anticipation your attempts to gloss over the next scandal to hit the Tory/Labour alliance.
#39 by Ken on April 11, 2013 - 11:48 am
Firstly, I have a google cached version of the article open and the donation page open for National Collective. In 24hrs, their donations have gone from £4,332 to £7,065. That’s the effect the legal letter has had. Streisand indeed.
Secondly, regardless of whether the article will have to be removed from National Collective / Wings and an apology issued – the horse has already bolted. Other media have picked up the story and have run with it reigniting attention towards previous unchallenged news articles and reports. That alone should have caused the legal advisers in this matter to pause and think – but I imagine they are just following orders, irrelevant to how intelligent the orders might be. This has backfired on the donor and it has the real potential to stick by association to the Better Together side.
Finally, I may be no legal lawyer type, but publishing a letter addressed to you that says ‘Not For Publication’ breaks what law exactly? Having dealt with letters from solicitors before (though not in Scotland) it would appear that was a request dressed up as an order. The person in receipt now owns that correspondence, and they can do what they like with it. (I may be wrong)
#40 by James on April 11, 2013 - 11:50 am
The last bit – I understand that authors of letters retain copyright in them. In the case of letters of this sort I don’t think that should apply, but there we go.
#41 by Galen10 on April 11, 2013 - 2:40 pm
This move is a huge own goal for Taylor and the Better Together campaign. Of course one would only expect Better Together fan boys to try and obfuscate the central issue, which is one of democracy and freedom of speech.
On a related note, it is rather sad to see Better Nation wander ever further into the long grass of irrelevance; given the carping tenor of this article, the supporters of Better Together who applaud it, and the monomaniacal obsession it has with attacking WoS etc, it’s no wonder your site is a pale shadow of it’s former self!
#42 by James on April 11, 2013 - 3:05 pm
It’s almost like you didn’t read any of the piece. I’m in favour of a Yes vote, I’m against this censorship, and I pointed out exactly why it’s a massive own goal from the No campaign.
#43 by Galen10 on April 11, 2013 - 3:38 pm
Of course I read the piece; the sentiments may be laudable enough, however your atavistic need to take a swipe at WoS and Berthan Pete piece reflects (for me and it seems for others discussing it on twitter) the sad decline of Better Nation as a forum; I’d imagine it goes a long way to explaining why WoS in particular makes this place look like it died on it’s arse some time ago, and is now simply either going thru the motions, or serves as a platform for hyperbolic nonsense like your claim above the failing to win in 2014 will be attributable to the likes of WoS! Way to lose sight of the real issues there James! Perhaps your site will come to it’s senses at some point, until that time, count me out here and on twitter!
Regards, Galen10 (Andy Ellis)
#44 by BaffieBox on April 11, 2013 - 3:30 pm
FWIW (and that’s probably not that much), James definitely has a point regarding WoS and Mr. Bell. In trying to encourage people who are undecided to look beyond the MSM, I often wax lyrical that new media is where it is at and they should look to blogs in order to gain a fresh and vibrant perspective on the debate.
Unfortunately, the tone and language from both noted above are exactly what turns away those in my social group. I did consider contributing to WoS’ financial fund recently but considered it a risky investment that was sadly proven true by some of his recent exchanges on Twitter.
Both play to a very specific audience and it’s mostly the converted. It’s definitely isn’t the demographic we need to convincing and for that reason, both can be hugely damaging.
I don’t really understand the problem – tone the language down, don’t be so aggressive and start respecting people, even those you disagree with. They’d still tick the boxes with their existing audience, without alienating others.
I say this as a general Yes support – I have no affiliation with any party/blog/clique/whatever.
#45 by Keir Hardly on April 11, 2013 - 4:05 pm
If other people’s sites and contributions to the movement aren’t to your liking, do you have one of your own? How often do you post to it?
#46 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2013 - 4:15 pm
You’re right that it’s not worth much. Not without some evidence to back up the allegations. Long experience of this kind of pointless whining tells me that no such evidence will be forthcoming.
All this pathetic bleating about “abuse” is a unionist tactic. An attempt to smear the independence campaign and constrain the terms upon which debate is conducted. The whole point is to have people afraid to speak out lest they are accused of being “abusive”. What is labelled “abuse” is, almost without exception, fair criticism. It is easier for those being criticised to play the victim than to address the points being made.
One can only feel pity for the credulous fools who fall for such an obvious ploy.
#47 by James on April 11, 2013 - 5:21 pm
Your neat conflation of everything you dislike with Yoonyonishm and everything you like with independence leads you down quite some dead ends. In this case, that means accusing me, a passionate independence supporter, of “unionist tactics”. Baffling.
#48 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2013 - 4:52 pm
I think I’m right in saying that, from the very start, RevStu has always said he sees WoS as being a sort of online tabloid. I think a lot of people who criticise the style of the website misunderstand this.
We don’t need every website to conduct itself in the exact same way. In fact, that’s the last thing we want, because then we just end up with a bunch of identi-kit websites saying the same thing in marginally different ways. Does the “robust” style turn some folk off? Undoubtedly. But it appeals to people who would ordinarily be turned off from reading more dryly-written blogs – much as The Sun can reach people that the Herald can’t. His articles during the The Rangers saga were particularly successful in reaching out to a new crowd, and I’ve got to say, when I see people saying a blog or site has changed their mind about independence, more often than not the site they cite is WoS.
I don’t see the problem. Why can’t all pro-indy websites and bloggers just do their own thing and ignore what those they don’t necessarily approve of are doing? Let’s be perfectly honest here, anyone who says “I’m voting No because some guy on the internet is too argumentative” is just looking for an excuse to justify voting No.
If WoS is so damaging to the Yes vote, why are so many unionist bloggers and tweeters obsessed with him? One person is so obsessed, they’ve even dedicated an entire blog to slagging him off…
#49 by Peter A Bell on April 11, 2013 - 3:14 pm
I believe I saw that. Unless you’ve since come up with something that more closely resembles evidence.
Pingback: Don’t wrestle pigs in the mud « Better Nation