UPDATED: The resemblance was coincidental: Woman who switched to Labour during debate is not woman in Labour photo.

Ok, so I got this one wrong. Late last night the resemblance seemed clear and the question seemed worth asking. When I received evidence from a credible Labour source, that the woman in the photo was not the woman on the debate, I put it up straight away.

 Now there is a shedload of abuse flying all over the internet, to the young woman concerned, to me and to various other people, mostly women,  who commented about it and it’s time for that to stop. 

If this article has in any way added to the hassle the woman concerned has had, then I’m very sorry and pretty mortified. I would not want to inflict that on anybody.  I had no idea at the time of publication that people even knew who she was. 

 

UPDATE: Apparently this young woman had been receiving hassle on Twitter from cybernats. That is always unacceptable. Having spent about 4 years on the receiving end of such abuse, I would never wish to mete it out to anyone else.

I’ve had a lot of criticism from Labour people for this, including one piece of abuse that would rival any cybernat, but none of them actually said outright that it wasn’t the same person – until this morning. I know and trust Talat so that’s good enough for me.

This all does beg the question, though, that if Labour knew that the woman was getting hassle, why did they not put an end to the story immediately by stating very clearly that they were two different people?

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Read more by .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

84 Comments

  • Looks like the same person to me. Well spotted!

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 8th Apr '15 - 11:35pm

    All down to Peter’s eagle eyes:-).

  • What are the sources of the photographs? As presented, they are too small to make any conclusive identification.

  • Neil MacLennan 9th Apr '15 - 12:25am

    She’s 20 years old and in the course of having spent the day on Twitter defending herself from Cybernats who have been stalking her she claims she has no party affiliation. Whether that’s true or not hardly matters. Her “crime” was to say “I’m an undecided swaying towards Jim”. And now you Caron, somebody who I’ve heard speaking about the importance of getting more women involved in politics, you’re joining the queue to have a pop? Well done.

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 9th Apr '15 - 12:31am

    Is she the same woman as in the photo-op, Neil? That doesn’t mean that she should be personally insulted by cybernats. However it would cast a different complexion on her comments.

  • Steve Comer 9th Apr '15 - 12:32am

    Surely the suspicion that Caron is pointing out is that she is most likley not “….an undecided swaying towards Jim” at all, but a Labour activist. Or was it just a coincidence that she was both at the ‘photo op and the debate?

    I think Neil MacLennan doth protest too much!

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 9th Apr '15 - 12:34am

    Steve, cybernats can be pretty vicious in situations like this and I would never endorse their tactics. But I do think it is relevant to ask the question. It may not be the same person, but there is a resemblance and we should be aware of it.

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 9th Apr '15 - 12:38am

    I should also point out that you are, I think, Neil, a Labour member? Is that the case?

  • Neil MacLennan 9th Apr '15 - 12:44am

    No, I’m not a member of the Labour party!! How many assumptions are you going to bandy about tonight?!

  • Neil MacLennan 9th Apr '15 - 12:46am

    From her Twitter feed she does not come across as politically active. What is clear, though, is that she voted YES. Not that this would rule her out from being in the Labour party, but I thought the prevailing view was that Labour supporters who voted YES have by and large deserted the party. It’s not the same girl – one has a fake tan and the other is pale for a start.

  • Neil MacLennan 9th Apr '15 - 1:05am

    Caron, there was a time when I could have introduced myself to you as a Boy Scout but that’s no longer the case either. If your point is that I’m putting standing up for one of the comrades before trashing a 20-year old girl who might have been a bit loose with her language on tv then you’re wrong on both counts – not only am I not a member of the Labour Party, as a YES voter who claims to “agree with a lot of the SNP arguments” I doubt she is.

  • Maggie Smith 9th Apr '15 - 1:11am

    Are you absolutely sure it’s the same girl? Forehead and mouth shape look different to me.

    Just to be clear I’m not a member of the Labour party, Just to get in before the admins here try to “out” me or something.

    Can we do what was done to Neil to everyone?

    “I should also point out that you are, I think, , a Labour/Green/Conservative/UKIP/Gremloids member? Is that the case?”

    Seemed a little aggressive if you don’t mind me saying.

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 9th Apr '15 - 1:33am

    Maggie, that is quite aggressive. I have no idea who you are, so I would make no presumptions. However, I had good reason to ask that of Neil given my knowledge of him in real life.

  • Jane Ann Liston 9th Apr '15 - 1:45am

    ‘It’s not the same girl – one has a fake tan and the other is pale for a start.’

    What? I’ll let you all into a secret; sometimes I wear fake tan and at other times I look naturally peel-wally. So just because the girl in one photo is wearing fake tan (and how, Neil, do you know it’s fake rather than her real skin colour?) does not mean she cannot also be the paleskin in the other.

    Caron is right; while there is absolutely nothing wrong in the woman expressing her political preferences, if she is actually a Labour activist, that puts a rather different slant upon her statement than if she is politically uncommitted.

  • Neil MacLennan 9th Apr '15 - 2:03am

    Aye, a good reason. Push the idea that it’s just some Labour Party apparatchik covering up for his deceitful leader and then there’s no need to consider what you are doing to the poor girl!

  • I’ve wasted a lot of time looking for the actual footage that these screen grabs were taken from because I am astonished that anyone could look at those two images and consider there to be enough of a likeness to make such confident assertions as those you have made. When viewed in motion there is almost no resemblance at all between the two girls shown. So Caron you appear to have besmirched the character of a young woman who has shown the gumption to try and have an informed choice. Nice work.

  • As I said, going just by what is presented here, there is absolutely no way to say if they are the same or different. (Note that skin tone can look very different depending on lighting, so that is not diagnostic.) I see two young women with similar hairstyles. There seem to be to be differences in their facial structure and features, but that could be a matter of the angle. If Peter (or anybody else) can provide the images at their original resolution, it might be possible to say something, but I find this far too inconclusive to make a judgement about.

  • certainly is a striking similarity

  • I was going to post a comment in this thread along the lines of —
    “Oh for goodness sake — who cares?”
    The Labour Party in Scotland has as much chance of success as the dodo has of catching bird-flu.

    But then I thought better of it.

  • I don’t feel comfortable with this one jot.

    This is not proof. LDV is calling out a young woman on the internet and proclaiming she is a liar without knowing any of the details of the case – and without clear and tangible proof. And even if it turns out what is alleged is true, there is no proof here for such an accusation. Aren’t we supposed to support some kind of due process? Rather than turn to a partisan kangaroo court to trash someone online.

  • Well Caron (and eagle eyed Peter) I hope I never have to face either of you in a police ‘line-up’…..If it looks like; then it must be…..
    Wouldn’t it have been correct procedure to give her the benefit of the doubt before convicting her?

  • What an absolutely abysmal “story” to run.

    True or not I just don’t care.

  • A striking resemblance? I don’t see it and if you look at the footage in motion there’s not even a passing resemblance. If those of you with such conviction that it is her are wrong what effect do you think this gossip will have? This has all of the human compassion of Brown calling an old lady a bigot. Even if you are right then so what? Do you think this has never happened before? And do you think that this would be enough information to pass judgment on?

  • Maybe she is a Labour activist, but there is nothing that you can disprove in her comment that Jim Murphy changed her mind about voting Labour, she didn’t say it occurred during the debate, did she?

    Maybe she isn’t, which which case you’ve slurred a member of the public for daring to express their political views.

    Either way, picking on 20 year olds, who, as I’m sure all of us were at that age, are probably very undecided about political parties and politics in general is below the belt. Attack the professionals Caron, not young people daring to express an opinion.

  • Thing is, outside party political circles, no-one cares.

  • ”Caron Lindsay 9th Apr ’15 – 12:49am
    Neil, if you are the same person as I actually know in real life, which I think you are given your email address – just gone and searched my personal email – you introduced yourself to me as a member of the Labour party.”

    That seems somewhat inappriate in my view, using your role as LDV to try and out people, something that ordinary posters cannot do.

  • Sorry, I was feeling so cross at Ms Lindsay’s stance here, that my spelling was even worse than usual.

  • Eddie Sammon 9th Apr '15 - 9:18am

    I don’t think there is much wrong with the article. It’s only asking questions. People are getting a bit outraged over nothing.

  • & meant to add, party supporters get up to all sorts of tricks , and I mean supporters of every party, Lib Dems included.

  • @eddie

    Trying to out people…very Liberal ?

    Also in a week when there has been suspicion about alleged dirty tricks emanating from party people involved with Scotland and yesterday, in west Wales, maybe a noble silence, rather than outrage and outing may have been best.

  • This is a pretty disgusting thing to do to someone with the evidence of a blurry photo.

    If you want to be an.investigative.journalist ask one how to handle this kind of thing before publishing.

  • Eddie Sammon 9th Apr '15 - 9:28am

    So now we know it isn’t the same woman, but we wouldn’t have done if people didn’t ask questions.

    The initial wording wasn’t perfect, but I can’t help feel that people are looking to get outraged, probably for political purposes.

  • Having just noticed your update I am compelled to ask how you manage to convince yourself that anything you have said can be blamed on the Labour Party? The “begged” question is not begged at all. The only begged question is that of how you have convinced yourself that some labour connection would have made this fair game. Is that not the justification of the cybernat? Once again it becomes clear that tribal hatred of the Labour Party is sufficient for a Liberal Democrat to justify any behaviour, and override any sense.

  • Am forced to agree with JRC re: your update – it doesn’t beg any question of the Labour party at all. This is not the Labour party’s fault: you posted the piece very late last night, and have got an update from one of them first thing this morning, clarifying that your post was wrong. If someone is to blame here, I don’t think it’s the Labour party. They didn’t jump to conclusions without proof.

  • Eddie Sammon 9th Apr ’15 – 9:18am………I don’t think there is much wrong with the article. It’s only asking questions. People are getting a bit outraged over nothing…….

    The article is based on LDV getting outraged over nothing.

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 9th Apr '15 - 9:53am

    The point about Labour is that if I had been them, I would not have let the woman take a day of hassle on social media. I’d have killed the story there and then to take the heat off her. It was remiss of them not to do so.

    This article has not identified her, nor would it and I certainly wasn’t aware of her having been so identified and getting hassle when I wrote it.

    Asking the question was legitimate, though.

  • Tsar Nicholas 9th Apr '15 - 9:57am

    “Neil Maclennan

    “From her Twitter feed she does not come across as politically active.”

    This is exactly what you would expect of a political sleeper.

  • Jonathan Webber 9th Apr '15 - 10:14am

    Another reason I cannot be bothered with LDV. This reaches the heights of puerile; not only a non-story but a tasteless, slightly creepy one, too. I’m not impressed with Caron Lindsay.

  • Caron,
    That is a bizarre statement. You chastise the Labour Party for not stopping you behaving in a way that you consider to be wrong without a hint of contrition for not having stopped yourself. Without any knowledge of what they knew you criticise them for not doing anything whilst using your own ignorance as an excuse. Unless you don’t consider a persons face to be the main feature by which we identify each other then you did identify her with exactly the same information that those who have targeted her have used, her face.

    Asking the question inside your own head and then either dismissing it as petty (the most rational) or researching it to find out if it is true for your own satisfaction (less rational) are both legitimate. Pondering it out loud on the Internet is only going to result in abuse for the person you target and no fact renders that legitimate.

  • Neil MacLennan 9th Apr '15 - 10:34am

    Caron, I hope you’ve dug out the word “sorry” from your lexicon and sent it to the girl – I can tell you for a fact that she’s quite easy to find on Twitter. The political arena can be a brutally unpleasant place and I am sure that this puts a lot of people off from participating. Who, after all, wants to see themselves coming out top of a Google Search labelled as a player in some machiavellian plot just because they had the temerity to express an opinion? It doesn’t have to be like this and I hope you will reflect, consistent with views that I know you hold in relation to engaging more young people and women, about how you might use your influence to support rather than deter these groups. Otherwise, and from my apolitical standpoint, I look forward to our next full-on (but constructive!) debate. 😉

  • To be clear, there has been ONE ‘cybernat’ abusing this young woman. That ‘cybernat’ has received an absolute roasting from myself & others as to her allegations.

    Now, this whole page is something else entirely. How is this not abuse? Why is it that you find what you’re doing somehow different? It took minutes to find the young woman in question and to voice your concerns. Her answers are frank & to the point.

    Frankly, I might have thought you’d have more important things to be getting on with.

  • Caron, Why not replace your biased headline (“Fancy that” is not a neutral statement) with a large “Sorry”?

    For LDV to behave like this, especially after the umpteen demands for an apology from ’38 Degrees’, is wrong…

  • SNP supporter here, online abuse totally unacceptable but not seen any examples of “cybernat abuse” on this. Care to post any examples for a change? Thought not. What about separate recent twitter posts asking that Sturgeon be hung or crucified? I was called a w**ker by some charming Unionist chap on twitter fairly recently for daring to ask for fact based evidence to support a specific argument he had. Eejits are everywhere on twitter, not just restricted to one side so I take offense to your inference that cybernats are the worst. (I see that Solrighal has seen abuse from a so-called cybernat who has quite rightly been rightly vilified).

    The real demons of the piece here are Labour however, taking advantage of people in this way is just what they do because they cannot find any undecided voters that are moving to them. This might not be the case here though, if there is evidence that this young woman is an innocent victim in all this then see no reason why her image still appears on your site and I also see no reason why you have not apologised for the error.

  • Seriously, this is the kind of stunt Wings over Scotland pulls. I expected better. Remember the poor model who resembled the nurse on the Labour party leaflet. I recall you having something to say about that.

    And if she was a “Labour plant,” are you seriously trying to say that it’s not the kind of stunt any political party would pull? Does that make her any more of a plant than Clare Lally, because this is the dangerous road down which you are heading.

    I don’t think asking the question is legitimate. We’re democrats. You support who you like and you vote for who you like and you should be able to say it on TV without hassle.

  • @ E Taylor

    “Seriously, this is the kind of stunt Wings over Scotland pulls. I expected better. Remember the poor model who resembled the nurse on the Labour party leaflet”. The difference being of course that she WAS in fact the same person. Wings told the truth. Some didn’t like it. The truth can be like that sometimes. It’s still the truth.

  • Jane Ann Liston 9th Apr '15 - 11:38am

    ‘Another reason I cannot be bothered with LDV.’

    Which is why you have posted on it!!

    There is nothing wrong with asking questions, surely. I know I’ve seen in local newspapers (yes I know, very ‘vieux chapeau’) correspondents who have not admitted their allegiances, being ‘outed’ by other correspondents, eager to ensure readers have the full context of the comments.

    I don’t understand people hiding their allegiances under a bushel. That’s why I go canvassing in bright yellow!

  • You said,
    “This all does beg the question, though, that if Labour knew that the woman was getting hassle, why did they not put an end to the story immediately by stating very clearly that they were two different people?”

    If you are uncertain yourself what not cut the poor girl some slack instead of attacking her. A wee case of double standards I think. At least on the wings site they link to sources and provide examples, I suppose that doesn’t appeal to your preachy narrative.

  • “You chastise the Labour Party for not stopping you behaving in a way that you consider to be wrong without a hint of contrition for not having stopped yourself.”

    If you’re wrong, say sorry.

    Caron, you were wrong, you now know you were wrong, and refusing to apologise is only going to prolong the embarrassment, and hamstring any future posts where you try to extract apologies from others who are also wrong.

  • I can’t believe Caron Lindsay is now basically blaming the Labour party. She put a young woman in the spotlight for no other reason than to make another political party – and the young woman – look bad. If a man had done such a shameful thing she would have exploded with rage. She needs to apologise in a proper manner.

  • E Taylor, funny you should say that, but Wangs has indeed picked-up on this to claim the girl in question didn’t know her own mind but was dragooned into lying for Labour.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-sequence-of-events/

    What’s the point? That a supporter of Party A might say something in its favour at a hustings or debate? Well, knock me down with a feather. Parties routinely get stock tickets to such an event.

    The plant accusation would have merit if the organizers had chosen her with the intention of her backing Murphy. As it happens, from her subsequently Twitter comments, the camera came back to her by chance and, being a teenage girl who no matter how adroit she might be had a blank-mind moment: many a lot older would have experienced similar.

    This is chuneralism with an undertone as distasteful as on Wangs.

  • I also wonder how Caron’s informant ‘hit’ upon this. One of the following:

    a) the source image was to hand by chance;

    b) the informant has an eidetic memory of all Labourish pics (although even that can fail);

    c) the informant did a reverse engine search on the captured still or other Googles.

  • For the avoidance of doubt, as some have claimed many voices opposing this post are members of other parties – I’m a Lib Dem member. I’m just saddened that this was posted in ldv.

  • @ Alec

    Seriously? Your reference to ‘Wangs’ tells me all I need to know about your level of maturity but you might at least have pointed out what the actual point of the post you highlighted actually is. Namely, that Labour will do & say anything to twist an argument their way.

    I’m sure many people’s radar’s blipped when the young woman in question made the remarks she did, but a few moments on the internet would have been enough to dispel any such notion.

    Wings have went no further with this non-story, nor should this place. Further, LDV owes the woman an apology.

  • Solrighal,
    What this demonstrates is that everyone involved except Labour have said anything and done anything to spin this their way. Glasshouses an’ all that.

  • Caron:
    “This all does beg the question, though, that if Labour knew that the woman was getting hassle, why did they not put an end to the story immediately by stating very clearly that they were two different people?”

    Two things here. First the pedantic one: “begs the question” does not mean “raises the question.” To “beg to question” means “to assume, as part of a proof, the conclusion that one is trying to prove.”

    Which brings us to the second thing: you are assuming Labour’s negligence as part of your proof of Labour’s negligence (and so, presumably, their incompetence, their unfitness for office, and so on and so forth). But you don’t seem to have any good reason to believe that “Labour” (meaning Mr Yaqoob, I take it) should have (a) paid close attention to every post on LDV or (b) have had a much easier time identifying the two young women than you did. How do you know that Mr Yaqoob didn’t respond as soon as he was aware of the situation?

    This is the worse line of argument for being (1) about a story that you and your friend Peter created out of thin air, (2) trying to push off part of the responsibility elsewhere, (3) trying to get some favourable political spin out of it despite it all. It doesn’t look good, and I know you’re a much better person than this. An admission of responsibility and a sincere apology (which I know is what you are trying to do) is the last place to be making sarcastic asides.

  • Thomas Robinson 9th Apr '15 - 3:50pm

    Wings is the subject of abuse not the provider off it.

    I know that’s tough to believe when mentally it can feel so good to demonise one’s opponents, but that does not make my comment here remotely untrue.

  • Maggie Smith 9th Apr '15 - 5:26pm

    I don’t think that the initial article and the subsequent “apology” or correction have done this site and this party any favors whatsoever.

    I don’t think that the responses made to people here, especially the sinister “I know who you are” type replies have done this site or this party any favors whatsoever.

    I don’t think that the arguments here of the type “We needed to ask questions so it’s OK” used as some kind of justification for leaping to a conclusion that was completely wrong, more to the point could have been additionally damaging to an individual have done this site and this party no favors.

    Some of the arguments touted here would not seem out of place as justification in a less liberal state where someone was being turned in by their neighbors for having a questionable attitude, not standing when the president is on the TV or just because they look like someone else. I suppose it’s a good job that this is only the internet right? And that someone didn’t just vanish in the night to some cell some-place on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence.

    As someone who has spent a lifetime fighting for (and marching for) the rights of the elderly, LGBT, civil liberties, Racial equality, anti-apartheid and pacifism in general I think there are people here who should reexamine where they stood in this article and replies, they should have a good hard thing. Because from where I’m sitting people should be ashamed.

    Why this passionate response? Because I’m sick of seeing ANYONE thrown to the lions to make a point or in this case to get the opportunity to say “Look how clever we were to spot that this woman was the same woman”.
    Let me assure you, It looks anything but clever.

  • John Roffey 9th Apr '15 - 6:13pm

    This general Election has seen some new lows with regard to electioneering.

    I don’t know if it is as the result of engaging Lynton Crosby & Ryan Coetzee as strategists – but Ed Miliband and Labour generally are beginning to look extremely principled in contrast to the Tories & the Lib/Dems.

    Some points may be scored – but the majority do understand what decent behaviour is – and are very likely to demonstrate what they think of these baseless attacks when they arrive at the ballot box.

  • Sorighal, Thomas Robinson, Wangs is a crank site. Deal with it.

    I wasn’t aware that we lived in a theocracy in which it was not permitted to call the Vicar of Bath silly names. What are you going to do? Dribble on my keyboard? Get him to issue me with a formal notice?

    https://ahdinnaeken.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/wings-over-clipeland-and-the-new-twitter-landscape/

    This is a fubar situation for Caron, there’s no doubt, but I’m not taking a single word of approach from any of Wangs’ parishioners. As with the monstering of Claire Lally or Suzanne Duncan, in addition to Wangs’ above the line comments, his parishioners flocked to join in with the two-minute hate.

    Were you one of them?

    In contrast, this thread is filled with people in fierce disapproval of Caron’s actions. Therein lies the difference… we have principles.

    Furthermore, note that Wangs and Gillian Martin didn’t initially say that the girl was misrepresented. They said she lied albeit on behalf of someone else… basically, she didn’t know her own mind. You have no defence.

    So, I have considered your demand for a retraction, and refer you to Arkell v. Pressdam.

    ~alec

  • And it’s interesting to note that he’s citing a Women for Indy’ activist approvingly. Anything to do with this potentially highly defamatory piece (now taken down) about Kate Higgins’ being made Grand Vizier at Bute House?

    https://archive.today/oEu9F

    ~alec

  • This was a bit below the belt I’m afraid and I would hope Caron has suitably apologised to the poor girl who received the abuse…

    P.S.
    I once saw a man holding a signed student union pledge that looked just like Nick Clegg….. If we’re going down the personal integrity route..

  • I see Caron and LDV are getting famous – the bbc no less:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32241974

  • Philip Thomas 9th Apr '15 - 7:46pm

    I couldn’t understand the relevance of this article when I saw it this morning and the sequel shows how unwise it was to run it. I really hope LDV thinks hard before deciding to publish any more articles of this type.
    I also hope more “Yes” voters switch to non-nationalist parties for the Election.

  • Whoopsie, Malc.

    ==> Among the Twitter users who retweeted the photograph were SNP MSP Christina McKelvie and Angus MacNeil, the party’s candidate for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Both have since deleted their tweets.

    Nasty creatures that they are. At least this catches the SNP – and po-faced commenters here, as well as the Vicar of Bath – with some of the flack, so I suspect they’ll want to forget this as well. The seriously stupid McKelvie blocked me on Twitter within minutes of my tweeting this:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBROC-sWAAAkEZo.jpg

    (I didn’t @ tag her, but merely mentioned her name. She must routinely search Twitter for mentions of it.)

    Here she is praising Wangs:

    https://ahdinnaeken.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/wings-lies-and-christina-mckelvie-msp/

    Does anyone have a screengrab of Three in a Bed Macneil’s tweet?

    ~alec

  • Eddie Sammon 9th Apr '15 - 7:59pm

    The BBC might have picked this up and I think Caron’s wording could have been better, but people were still wrong to hound Caron and getting all outraged for asking questions.

    I hope the woman in the picture is well. We should try to protect both the author and the woman from abuse.

    We don’t live in a risk free world and sometimes people make mistakes.

  • @ Alec

    Are you a real liberal Democrat? That’s quite a rant you have there, lol. Something got you rattled?

    For the record, I demand nothing of you. I merely pointed out how you’re language made you look childish. My opinion hasn’t changed. Total zoomed.

  • Eddie, there were no pertinent questions here. It’s perfectly acceptable for members of a party to get a seat in a political debate, and ask questions if the camera comes to them. Or even file a question for consideration.

    Ah, gotcha, Solrighal! “Zoomed”! Classic Stewpitism! I hate to break it to you, but you’re amongst adults here… not men-children who peaked as really intelligent 14 year olds and haven’t developed emotionally since. And that includes gamer attitudes to women where the CGI sort like Lara Croft in tank tops and totting machine-guns are the bees’ knees but the real thing is to be demolished.

    I’m perfectly calm. Disagreeing with you is not “going off on one”. I view you and the rest of the Vicar of Bath’s flock in the same way I do flat-earthists or Creationists who attempt to take the high ground on matters scientific: people who do not merit the compliment of a rational opposition.

    ~alec

    PS Why the downer on LibDems? It is, after all, how the Good Reverend voted up to and including 2010 when the failure of the whole country to Agree With Nick resulted in this expression of disappointment. Now this is a rant! http://tinyurl.com/ol7oq44

  • I was bad enough putting something like this out there about a member of the public without being 100% of the facts, but to blame Labour for the hassle you caused an innocent woman just for expressing her opinions in an open debate was really low. Caron, at least be brave enough to admit your mistakes without trying to blame someone else. I started voting Lib Dem under Charles Kennedy when I thought the whole party was like him, and had the level of respect and dignity to be above this sort of cheap trick. I stopped when I realised you didn’t.

  • Solrighal, you must have misunderstood me. The nurse in the Labour party leaflet may have been the nurse in the Better Together leaflet (well what a surprise, a Labour supporter was voting no in the referendum. Next you’ll be telling me Nicola Sturgeon voted yes). The nurse, however was not the MODEL that Wangs (used only to annoy you) over Scotland claimed that she was. The girl is in fact, a nurse. Thus he got the information wrong. Not the first time either.

    Caron, fair play to you. We all make mistakes and you’ve said sorry. I gave you a hard time in my last post but I’m not one for standing in a glass house lobbing bricks. Interestingly I saw one of the conversations on Twitter of the people who went hunting for the girl in question. It was pretty horrific. I can’t help thinking they would have done that with or without that photo. But that’s just my opinion. No doubt Solrighal will be along soon to set me right.

  • E (if I can call you that), we [1] have ascertained that Caron got this mis-info from a contact on social media called Peter who holds an elected position. We [1] still maintain she was badly wrong to run with it regardless, but others bear responsibility

    We [1] see the merit in group loyalty, but if we [yes, yes, yes, okay] had made a blooper like this we [okay, stop it now] would try to drag as many as possible down with us [what did I say?].

    As for Solrighal’s claim that said nurse was what the wannabe Baby Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells said she was, the closest we [stop. Now, Just stop] can find is a suggestion that Suzanne Duncan also did modeling. So what? The Church no longer rules us [okay, now this is an acceptable use of the plural] so we jolly well can have second jobs and outside interests or hobbies. She remains a nurse.

    ~alec

    [1] You know why.

  • Its rather ironic that this happened at the same time as two pieces on victim shaming.

  • I’m sorry, Caron, but you’ve adopted the same approach in reporting this as you have criticised Wings Over Scotland for using.

    If you play the same game, don’t be surprised to get the same results.

    (And to suggest that some kind of responsibilty lies with Labour to have cleared this up earlier is no more than an attempt at diversion).

  • Former LibDem 10th Apr '15 - 12:10pm

    I really hope Caron Lindsay has learnt something from this. I’d expect better of her, I really would. Disappointing. Very disappointing.

  • Caron Lindsay Caron Lindsay 10th Apr '15 - 3:59pm

    I know I made a mistake here which I regret very much. It’s not my usual style and certainly not a mistake I will ever be repeating. You can all be assured that lessons which shouldn’t have needed to be learned have been.

    Allan, I wasn’t trying to blame Labour for my failings, just pointing out that if Labour people knew that she’d been having hassle on it earlier in the day, they might have acted to take some of the heat off her. I had no idea of any of that going on when I wrote the piece. I take full responsibility for what I did and I feel awful that it seems to have sent more abuse her way. I know how it feels to be on the receiving end of that. It was never my intention for that to happen. You might think I could have seen that coming. You might well be right.

  • Caron

    Can I assume that having made your mistake — all your future comments in LDV will be subject to automatic moderation in line with the rule that is applied to the rest of us? 🙂

  • Caron we all make mistakes, all we can do is apologise, learn and get on with life. I’m sure the young lady concerned knows you didn’t mean her any harm.

  • Caron, just to be clear… is your apology for failure at basic fact checking, or the actual principle of the thing? Because both were dire.

    That said, as I said above, at least there was an all-round condemnation BtL and an eventual expression of contrition from yow… none of would have and has been seen at Wangs.

    ~alec

  • Wouldn’t it be fairer to publish an apology as a new article on the site, as many people may not bother to scroll down to previous articles ?

    I only heard that Caron had been forced to back track after reading an article about alleged SNP abuse against the young woman Caron had also written about.

    Not LDV’s finest hour, but no doubt the impending election results are weighing heavy upon her.

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Steve Trevethan
    Thank you for your thoughtful piece. Attached are some questions Mr. Davey might help our society by asking Mr. Starmer before coming to a possible coalition...
  • Peter Davies
    "In 2019 we aimed at increasing our national appeal and look where that got us!" We targeted reasonably well going into 2019. The problem was not that we aimed...
  • Marco
    In 2005 as I recall we didn't really talk about Iraq until the last week or two of the campaign so hopefully something similar might happen with Brexit this tim...
  • Mary ReidMary Reid
    @Graham Jeffs - yes, I am fortunate to be living in a target seat, although I was campaigning for about 20 years before we won it. It's a long game. My point...
  • Alex Macfie
    The mistake made by Clegg & co wasn't going into coalition, it was the way they did it, going in too quickly and conducting it as a "love-in" rather than a ...