Thoughts on Jo Swinson?

[lord bunberry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is maybe a difference between the headless chicken farm that is Twitter, and an established political party in government publishing official election material though, eh?

Yes, but it will come under scrutiny from both.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have to admit my surprise.

A thread about Jo Swinson. More than 400 posts. Yet radio silence on today’s story.

Today she is a leading news story because Lord Pentland at the Court of Session ordered the Royal Mail to stop delivering a SNP leaflet in her constituency as it was false in substance, materially inaccurate and defamatory. Oh, and ordered the SNP to pay her legal costs.

My favourite bit was the SNP’s QC saying the leaflet contained no ‘substantial mistruth’ or ‘substantial falseness’.

So maybe just normal, everyday ‘mistruth’ and ‘falseness’. Just the common or garden variety.

I suppose it begs the question about the threshold between ‘mistruth’, ‘falseness’ and ‘utter, downright lies’.

What did the SNP leaflet say?

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What did the SNP leaflet say?

I have not seen it. I don’t live in her constituency! I think it was something to do with the claims of fracking donations that a few folk on here were pushing.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have not seen it. I don’t live in her constituency! I think it was something to do with the claims of fracking donations that a few folk on here were pushing.

It claims she received a donation from a ‘fracking company’

When it appears in fact the donation was not made to her personally, was not made by the company but a director of it in a personal capacity, the company is an energy company that actually produces 80% renewables and while having a fracking license does not actually have any active engagement in fracking...

But apart from that no ‘substantial mistruth’ was the argument....

And the best part from the hapless SNP employed QC was his bleating about how they would need to urgently appeal due to the fact that the case had prevented the SNP from distributing their election comms in the constituency. Clearly oblivious to the fact that if they simply removed the ‘false in substance, materially inaccurate and defamatory’ statements they could crack on any time they liked!

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It claims she received a donation from a ‘fracking company’

When it appears in fact the donation was not made to her personally, was not made by the company but a director of it in a personal capacity, the company is an energy company that actually produces 80% renewables and while having a fracking license does not actually have any active engagement in fracking...

But apart from that no ‘substantial mistruth’ was the argument....

And the best part from the hapless SNP employed QC was his bleating about how they would need to urgently appeal due to the fact that the case had prevented the SNP from distributing their election comms in the constituency. Clearly oblivious to the fact that if they simply removed the ‘false in substance, materially inaccurate and defamatory’ statements they could crack on any time they liked!

Well, when you put it like that........

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It claims she received a donation from a ‘fracking company’

When it appears in fact the donation was not made to her personally, was not made by the company but a director of it in a personal capacity, the company is an energy company that actually produces 80% renewables and while having a fracking license does not actually have any active engagement in fracking...

But apart from that no ‘substantial mistruth’ was the argument....

And the best part from the hapless SNP employed QC was his bleating about how they would need to urgently appeal due to the fact that the case had prevented the SNP from distributing their election comms in the constituency. Clearly oblivious to the fact that if they simply removed the ‘false in substance, materially inaccurate and defamatory’ statements they could crack on any time they liked!

Was it Donald Findlay for the SNP?

[Mon Dieu4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If she is, then maybe we should consider whether defamatory and false propaganda plays a part in that?

Her party is sending out election magazines that have the same name as the local paper in certain constituencies, they are just as bad as the rest

[Ozyhibby]

Her constituency party took money from a guy who’s business wants to start fracking if he can get the SNP hold on it stopped.
Word it like that and those leaflets go out.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

while having a fracking license does not actually have any active engagement in fracking...

Can you name any company actively engaged in fracking right now?

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can you name any company actively engaged in fracking right now?

From a UK perspective is that not the point?

Holding exploration licences for certain areas but not actually doing any exploration or drilling is common across the energy industry. Having a license to do something does not mean you are doing it.

Which in this instance clearly shows they are not a ‘fracking company’...they are an energy company that produces the vast majority of their energy from renewables. Which really makes them a renewable energy company. Not such a good headline that tho.

Unless of course you are suggesting they are a fracking company?

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From a UK perspective is that not the point?

Holding exploration licences for certain areas but not actually doing any exploration or drilling is common across the energy industry. Having a license to do something does not mean you are doing it.

Which in this instance clearly shows they are not a ‘fracking company’...they are an energy company that produces the vast majority of their energy from renewables. Which really makes them a renewable energy company. Not such a good headline that tho.

Unless of course you are suggesting they are a fracking company?

They are a company with a license for fracking in a country where fracking has been put on hold. They gave money to an opposition party leaders constituency. I think it’s pretty clear if given the chance they would commence fracking. It’s possible they saw Jo Swinson as the best chance of hurting the governing party in that area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From a UK perspective is that not the point?

Holding exploration licences for certain areas but not actually doing any exploration or drilling is common across the energy industry. Having a license to do something does not mean you are doing it.

Which in this instance clearly shows they are not a ‘fracking company’...they are an energy company that produces the vast majority of their energy from renewables. Which really makes them a renewable energy company. Not such a good headline that tho.

Unless of course you are suggesting they are a fracking company?

I asked you to name a company actively engaged in Fracking, you have failed to do so and gone off on a tangent. I'll answer it for you, none, zero, zilch because fracking has been effectively banned in Scotland and halted in England while the election is ongoing.

FWIW I don't know the name of the company the person who donated to Jo Swinson's office so can't comment on their other activites.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Holding exploration licences for certain areas but not actually doing any exploration or drilling is common across the energy industry. Having a license to do something does not mean you are doing it.

It generally does mean that you intend to do it, or would like to do it, though, doesn't it?

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I asked you to name a company actively engaged in Fracking, you have failed to do so and gone off on a tangent. I'll answer it for you, none, zero, zilch because fracking has been effectively banned in Scotland and halted in England while the election is ongoing.

FWIW I don't know the name of the company the person who donated to Jo Swinson's office so can't comment on their other activites.

Well thanks for telling me what I already knew.

The fact that there is zero fracking going on is the whole crux of the matter though is it not? The point was around the use of the term ‘fracking company’ when that company actually didn’t partake in any fracking.

I’m not sure then what your point actually was barring confirming what was agreed yesterday, the leaflet was factually incorrect and rather misleading to the level that it was deemed defamatory.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It generally does mean that you intend to do it, or would like to do it, though, doesn't it?

No far from it. These licenses can be gained, lapsed, traded, used, farmed in, farmed out and anything in between.

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well thanks for telling me what I already knew.

The fact that there is zero fracking going on is the whole crux of the matter though is it not? The point was around the use of the term ‘fracking company’ when that company actually didn’t partake in any fracking.

I’m not sure then what your point actually was barring confirming what was agreed yesterday, the leaflet was factually incorrect and rather misleading to the level that it was deemed defamatory.

Hibs.Net Fact Check:

Warwick Energy was formed by former directors of a similar named company based in New York which expanded exponentially in a very short space of time before going into liquidation. the company was a fracking company.

Warwick energy in the UK has been involved in fracking at several sites in England and holds licences and planning permissions for several more.

The evidence is on their own website.

http://www.warwickenergy.com/index.p...t-menu-item-29

http://www.warwickenergy.com/index.p...t-menu-item-19

http://www.warwickenergy.com/index.p...t-menu-item-17

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well thanks for telling me what I already knew.

The fact that there is zero fracking going on is the whole crux of the matter though is it not? The point was around the use of the term ‘fracking company’ when that company actually didn’t partake in any fracking.

I’m not sure then what your point actually was barring confirming what was agreed yesterday, the leaflet was factually incorrect and rather misleading to the level that it was deemed defamatory.

The court case has raised the profile of the donations to national level, job done

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hibs.Net Fact Check:

Warwick Energy was formed by former directors of a similar named company based in New York which expanded exponentially in a very short space of time before going into liquidation. the company was a fracking company.

Warwick energy in the UK has been involved in fracking at several sites in England and holds licences and planning permissions for several more.

The evidence is on their own website.

http://www.warwickenergy.com/index.p...t-menu-item-29

http://www.warwickenergy.com/index.p...t-menu-item-19

http://www.warwickenergy.com/index.p...t-menu-item-17

Yeah fair enough they had historically fracked some sites. Same could be said for many wells in the UK since the 70’s.

‘‘Tis a good point tho and maybe you should phone the losing QC yesterday as he might have done with your help ;-)

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The court case has raised the profile of the donations to national level, job done

That’s all that matters here. Everyone now knows that Swinson took that money in return for promoting fracking if she got into a position of power. Just like everyone knew that Labour took Eccleston’s money in return for F1 getting to advertise smoking when everyone else was banned, or the SNP took Souter’s money in return for bus subsidies in the shape of the oap bus pass and the Tories take money from Russian oligarchs in return for turning a blind eye to Putin poisoning people in parks in Britain.
Follow the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Curried]

Probably no surprise that the beak who decided the leaflet distribution case in her favour (Lord Pentland AKA Paul Cullen) was a former conservative candidate for East Renfrewshire

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The court case has raised the profile of the donations to national level, job done

All sorts of court cases have a tendency to raise the profile of serious issues to a national level...

[CloudSquall]

Another dodgy donor for Jo and the Lib Dems,

https://twitter.com/JeanHatchet/stat...01925777346561

Edit: Came out after a bit of a car crash interview on Women's Hour regarding the GRA Reform, 12min 50secs in here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000c2h0