Herald journalist and SNP cheerleader Iain Macwhirter said the following in his column about party donations on 14/01/08.
"They, (Labour) are also morally uneasy because they know that business-men aren't stupid. They haven't become rich by throwing money around. Donating to politicians is all about influence, about buying into the inner circles of decision making"
I wrote with this simple question to the Herald, does Iain Macwhirter include Tom Farmer and Brian Souter or is he referring to Labour donors only ?
I wrote on the 16/01/08 and nothing has been printed. I think it's a pretty valid question but the mighty Herald seems to be afraid of it, is it any wonder that many people consider this paper a busted flush, what should we make of it ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Two questions:
1. On a related theme, would you care to explain your Comment Moderation Policy again?
2. If you'd written to a paper that hadn't accused you of sexism, would you be so willing to attack them for not publishing the letter?
(Will) 19:47 - 1/
“Comment Moderation Policy”
If you mean how do I decide what to publish, I try to publish everything but it’s not always possible some comments are just not suitable.
I think anyone who reads my blog would know by now how it works.
I would inform them to resubmit their comment and it’s then up to them.
2/ The Herald wrote what it did to try to damage Wendy Alexander they knew like everyone else that it was a joke, I don’t think they accused me of sexism anyway.
OK I know what you are doing so, Yes I would write and have written and been published by them in the past.
You can believe me when I say that if the Herald or any paper said I was the finest councillor in Scotland, I would still not miss this opportunity to get Farmer and wee holy Souter in my sights, and of course Alex (the spiv’s) personal propagandist Macwhirter.
Come on Will do something honest, Macwhirter slipped up and my letter exposed him, I thought in my own modest way that it was a cracker, do you think they will print it ?
Well, I think we all know how your policy works by now... I just wanted a summary of it in your own words. 'Suitable' is such a lovely word, isn't it?
And I'll be more than happy to challenge anyone who accuses you of not meaning that line as a joke. Of course you did. But 'joke' doesn't necessarily mean 'funny' (see Davidson, Jim, life of), and a joke can still be offensive (see Manning, Bernard, life of).
Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose Brian Souter makes of the SNP Government's support for Patrick Harvie's hate crimes proposals?
For what it's worth, the letter won't get published now. But the Herald does publish letters challenging what's been printed in it - I can confirm that from experience. Sometimes letters get in, and sometimes they don't - I can confirm that from experience too. Keep trying... "tomorrow you may be a winner".
Are you, not even a minor politician , really so deluded that you think the Herald should print every word you write to them, and if they don't it's because they are running away from you? The Herald, where I work, doesn't give two hoots what you think or write to them, and as such couldn't care less what your question was.
You are not even seen there as worth responding to. Be careful they do not print and refute the letter, and also include the little ego and vanity trip where you think they should print your letter just because you wrote it.
(Will) 20/01/08
“'Suitable' is such a lovely word, isn't it“?
A word which we all use you included.
“Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose Brian Souter makes of the SNP Government's support for Patrick Harvie's hate crimes proposals“?
Souter like all zealots would say that he loves everyone, Gays included, he would like to ‘cure’ them though.
“But the Herald does publish letters challenging what's been printed in it”
Correct, but not this one, I think the SNP biased journalist blundered here and that might be the reason behind this.
It was a monumental blunder, don’t you think ? all that time trying to exploit donations to damage Labour and then he says this, he shot his foot off.
(Anonymous) 20/01/08 - “ really so deluded that you think the Herald should print every word you write to them“
No I don’t and that’s a silly accusation, I’m suspicious because I think the SNP biased journalist has made a stupid mistake and lost some credibility.
I will contact the journalist in some other way and ask him the question, I think it’s worth pursuing. The rest of your stupid rant is wrong, I’ve had letters printed by them before, their standards have slipped badly, you can tell that by some of the people they employ.
Well, the SNP used to get a torrid time in most of the papers. But even if, for the sake of argument, the Herald and Macwhirter have warmed to the SNP since May, all I can suggest is that the owners see which way the wind is blowing, and are switching sides to keep selling their titles. Newspaper owners are very good at that.
By the way, if you want to pres the issue with the man himself, Iain Macwhirter has posted a copy of his article on his own blog, here. You might consider leaving a comment there: he allows them and as far as I can tell, he does not use Comment Moderation.
I wrote with this simple question to the Herald, does Iain Macwhirter include Tom Farmer and Brian Souter or is he referring to Labour donors only ?
He was of course referring to Labour's anonymous donors who deliberately keep their illegal donations below the threshold for declaration.
The article in particular was aimed at Labours attempts in hiding the source of the donations and how distasteful and, in Wendy Alexander's case, illegal this practice is.
The open nature of the donations from Tom Farmer and Brian Souter are irrelevant in this context.
(Will) 21/01/08 -
The stance of the Herald and Macwhirter is now so blatantly partisan that it is completely predictable and worthless.
(The Incorrigible Plagiarist) 09:17 -
What selfless fantastic people Farmer and Souter are.
£100,000 and £500,000 respectively don’t buy influence with the SNP while £950 does buy influence with Labour.
How lucky are the SNP to have simpletons like you in their corner.
Have a pop at the Herald for not singing from the Kelly hymn sheet by all means, but only when you again start to publish those you've banned from your own blog.
You're a right wee hypocrite Kelly.
(Rabbie) 14:29 -
You’re getting tired - if I wrote to the Herald the way they have written to me I wouldn’t be published.
It’s called standards, rabbie ‘the racist scab’ you wouldn’t understand.
It's ironic, Terry.. we used to say exactly the same thing about the Herald before May. Maybe it's like the Civil Service in "Yes, Minister"... when Hacker asks Bernard whose side the Civil Service is really on, Bernard answers: "The winning side!"
Clearly they side with whoever's got the most political capital at a given moment - that's rare for a broadsheet so we probably have Gannett to thank for that - but even so, it's telling how they've switched.
(Cllr 5.22)
'If I wrote to the Herald the way they (rfs,Clairwil,Byeck,Henry Crun etc) wrote to me, I wouldn't be published.'
Terry, get a grip on reality dear boy, the Herald DIDN'T publish you anyhow.
You must have been dreadfully rude about that nice Mr Macwhirter.
(Will) 18:00 -
“ It's ironic, Terry.. we used to say exactly the same thing about the Herald before May”
Read the comments on the Herald web page - you are still saying it.
The Herald was campaigning against Labour long before May 07 you were simply their best bet.
Macwhirter said politicians give money for influence, does this include Farmer and your pal ‘holy’ Souter, the gay community’s new friend ?
Does £950 buy influence with Labour while £500,000 doesn’t buy influence with the SNP ? That’s what he’s saying. Come on do you agree with him ?
(Rabbie) 18:05 -
I got rid of some people because of their language and their lies, the Herald can’t say that because I can prove otherwise, are you following this ?
I wasn’t rude about Mr. Macwhirter I merely exposed his double standards and paper thin attack on Labour about funding.
"I got rid of people" Your terminology exposes your totalitarianism, if you don't like it you get rid of it until you end up with everything you like.
Didn't stalin, adolf and ceausecue employ the same tactic?
i can hear helicopters landing on the roof at Greenhill road as we speak
(jamsiecotter) 18:56 - “Your terminology exposes your totalitarianism” -
Not only did I ’get rid of them’ from my blog but I had them shot by my secret police.
Well, with the SNP's LGBT wing, Out for Independence, hosting a Holocaust Memorial Day event at the Glasgow LGBT Centre, and with an SNP Government supporting proposals to toughen the punishment for hate crimes (by the way, Souter would never support this in a million years - why would he want us not to exist but at the same time support tougher sentences for people who kick the living daylights out of us?), I think we can see just what influence Souter has had on the SNP.
Though I agree with you about Labour: £1,000,000 was always the going rate for a policy change, wasn't it?
"I wrote with this simple question to the Herald, does Iain Macwhirter include Tom Farmer and Brian Souter or is he referring to Labour donors only?"
The article concerned anonymous donations therefore the donations from the two individuals named above are not relevant. If you have evidence that parties other than Labour are accepting donations under the £1000 threshold to conceal the source then say so and we can all stick the boot into them as well.
In any case pointing out the shortcomings of the SNP donations policy only makes you look like you're trying to take the heat off Labour.
Instead of trying to distract us why not come up with a defence of Labour's actions?
(Will) 22/01/08 -
LGBT ? -
Your analysis of Souter is way off the mark, he’s a zealot and just like the Mormons who pray for a cure for this ‘condition’
You should be exposing him not fighting his corner, whatever happened to dignity.
How much humiliation are you prepared to put up with.
I’m asking if you are saying, £950 buys influence with Labour while £500,000 can’t buy influence with the SNP.
A multi millionaire bus magnate gives £500,000 to a political party, that party’s proposals to regulate buses which would harm the profits of said millionaire then vanish. Is this what you mean by Souter’s influence. Any chance of you finding some courage ?
(Tel) 22/01/08
“ If you have evidence that parties other than Labour are accepting donations under the £1000 threshold to conceal the source then say so and we can all stick the boot into them as well “
The reason for staying under £1,000 is to protect anonymity, which is not illegal so, your question is rather silly isn’t it.
My point to you and the Herald and Macwhirter which I can’t seem to get an answer to is, are you saying that £950 buys influence with Labour but £500,000 can’t buy influence with the SNP ?
Terry, I'm not going to do your work for you... if you don't know what LGBT stands for then you've once again proven that one of your old refrains is a big, big lie.
And don't you dare tell me whose corner to fight, especially when I'm not fighting Souter's - I told you already.. he won't want to see that hate crime legislation passed - how is that fighting his corner?
Plus which, plenty of policies that the SNP have established at Conference didn't make it into the 2007 manifesto - there's only four years to implement it after all. And besides, that manifesto would have been written long before Souter got his chequebook out.
And I've already said that £950 doesn't buy influence - your argument is with Macwhirter, not with me - simply because Bernie Ecclestone's million bought an exemption for Formula 1 from tobacco advertising - until Labour got caught taking the money. After Blair selling out for a million, why would Wendy Alexander's rate be so cheap?
(Cllr Kelly 12.19)
Giving donations under £1000 to preserve anonymity might be legal, but for Ms Alexander to solicit donations below that figure to avoid having to declare them, stinks.
'My point to you and the Herald and Macwhirter which I can’t seem to get an answer to is, are you saying that £950 buys influence with Labour but £500,000 can’t buy influence with the SNP ?'
Look we all know how business works, of course influence is being sought. However when the donation is a matter of public record then we can can all see for ourselves which politicians and parties can be bought. When the source of the donation is concealed we are denied the chance to do so.
No one is saying it's illeagal to conceal the source of donations under £1000.
It is illegal to accept offshore donations. When these are so close to the maximum amount that can be donated anonymously it looks dodgy.
On a different topic,
You claim to be in favour of Gay rights but don't know what LGBT stands for?!? Are you serious?
(Tel) 23/01/08
“It is illegal to accept offshore donations. When these are so close to the maximum amount that can be donated anonymously it looks dodgy”
Donations under £1,00 protect anonymity. The idea that a donation of £950 buys influence is just risible - I don’t think you are being truthful here.
‘Gay rights’ absolutely I think most people outside the Gay community would have been stumped like me. But if you want to try to use that go ahead.
Terry I've got to admire yer cheek.
You V MacWhirter.....hahahahaha.
You better hope he ignores you. Talk about outclassed.
What selfless fantastic people Farmer and Souter are.
Yes, true philanthropists.
£100,000 and £500,000 respectively don’t buy influence with the SNP
Noone has ever suggested that, but the donations were made openly and are above board - which is the key issue.
OF course, if Labour weren't so deepin their own mire they might be able to actually score points with the bus de-regulation issue - if, you actually believe that everyone voted SNP for stricter bus routing... (You don't really believe that do you???)
while £950 does buy influence with Labour.
Of course it does. How many cheeky wee under the counter numbers have Labour been soliciting?
Is this honestly the new Labour defence? "come on it's just £950. How much can that be worth?"
Beyond satire as usual!
How lucky are the SNP to have simpletons like you in their corner.
We're a growing band. I think I did warn you in previous threads though that if the Labour party continued to treat the electorate with the contempt that it has done, then you would become the party of opposition. Clearly Labour had better get it's head around that one before they become a minor party of opposition too - although the way the Lib-Dems are performing, you won't have to raise your game too much.
Getting a leader not embroiled in illegal donations scandal might be a good start too. I know it all sounds so simple, but that's the way us naive member of the public, who don't "understand politics", tend to be.
"‘Gay rights’ absolutely I think most people outside the Gay community would have been stumped like me. "
IT is a fairly commonly used term by groups concerned with gay rights. I am not quite outside the gay community but I have been aware of this for quite some time. It used to be LGB before transgender became a big thing and groups started to be interested in that.
The fact that this is mainstream indicates that you don't really know much about these issues beyond how to use them to attack your opponents. It would be like someone claiming to be "Old Labour" and not knowing who Keir Hardy was or what Clause 4 was.
(Paddy) 25/01/08 - Paddy, where did you get such a high opinion of this guy.
You are not getting out enough, maybe it’s that old Scottish thing eh ?
Macwhirter a big hitter, do you read the Broons as well.
(Anonymous) 16:12 -
I have only ever thought of it as gay. I think you are being disingenuous for other reasons because this is not really an issue.
Post a Comment