Monday, September 28, 2009

SNP Fashion Guru, Alison Thewliss asks for 'sackgate' link

Dear All

I have been asked by SNP Councillor, Alison Thewliss to post a link to original article in which she commented on regarding the dress wore by Sarah Brown, wife of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

In the interests of fairness and transparency here is the link.

And it is always good to keep in with Councillors just incase the roof leaks again.

For those of a nervous disposition, it is a bit catty and the rest of the Fashion Police are there too, analysing the evidence!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Paedophile Roman Polanski finally captured by the Swiss

Dear All

Roman Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland on a 1978 warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Polanski is a paedophile and rapist.

The Swiss now find themselves in an unusual position as Polanski’s powerful friends such as French President’s family and famous actors want him released.

So, should the Swiss deport Polanski to the United States on the warrant he was arrested under?

I would say yes they should.

Polanski has already admitted his guilty.

Los Angeles County District Attorney office learned last week Polanski would be in Zurich and sent a provisional arrest warrant to the Swiss.

Now that he is caught, he should stand trial.

Polanski was 44 years old when he raped a 13 year old little girl.

Emmanuelle Seigner, his wife is said to be ‘outraged' over the 76-year-old’s director’s arrest.

So, child rape is okay for hubby as long as he is rich, poor woman must be fearful of losing her meal ticket.

As a mark of how corrupt the wealthy and famous are the Zurich Film Festival organisers said they planned to hold a special ceremony 'to allow everyone to express their solidarity for Roman Polanski and their admiration for his work'.

These people are scumbags, no matter how good a film maker Polanski is that doesn’t excuse rape.

Bad things have happened to Polanski in his life such as the murder of his pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, by followers of Charles Manson.

His mother died in the gas chamber at Auschwitz.

He was lucky to escape from Jewish ghetto in Krakow in 1940, when the Germans sealed of the ghetto.

And in the end he turned out to be as rotten as the people who had harmed him and his family.

He should stand trial.

If one good thing has come out of this mess, it is that we now know publicly those rich and famous people who will support a paedophile.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Time To Say Goodbye Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman

Dear All

A bit of culture to brighten up the day. Sarah Brightman and Andrea Borcelli, it is a great duet.

SNP Fashion Guru, Alison Thewliss gives verdict on Sarah Brown's fashion sense.

Dear All

I am shocked!

And I am a Glaswegian!

I was bobbing about and found this comment by Alison Thewliss, SNP Councillor for Glasgow.

“I do usually hate when a woman is judged by the clothes she wears - but that dress is pretty nasty. It looks like a sack and clings in the wrong places. It also appears she's wearing no tights. Ick”.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh bitchy!

Savage stuff from the SNP fashion guru on Sarah Brown, wife of Gordon Brown!

The crime as I understand it was a badly fitting dress, which does Sarah Brown no favours in the yummy mummy department.

I now wonder what the SNP policy on female clothes is.

I hope that Alison will in future consider that plane travel can be uncomfortable at times and if an old sack is the way to go then not to be too hard on the ‘sack wearing’ community.

After all, there but for the grace of God goes us all!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Jim Murphy tries to prop up loser, Iain Gray at Labour Party Conference

Dear All

When things go badly for a political party, there is usually a call to rally the troops.

In any political party, the activists play a significant party of providing a link between the community and the Party.

This all feeds into how local policies are shaped by various candidates to make them electable in their area come election time.

The Labour Party is doing really badly because they have abandoned the people and they have no intention of providing help, they are nothing more than a party of big business, bought and sold.

The Party now is having a conference were various people will stand up and say they are firmly for the people and they need to get on with the job, standard rhetoric.

Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy, not the most inspirational leader in Labour has said Labour needs to stop feeling sorry for itself.

It is a bit hard when activists have to spin lies to the people about non existent help, the words must dry up in their mouths.

Murphy has thrown his support behind Gordon Brown.

This shows he is a team player and a rather poor judge of character.

Brown is yesterday’s man and on the way out but Murphy has reason to be loyal, it’s called a Ministerial salary and it looks very nice too!

Labour supporters are gathering for the party's annual conference in Brighton which will be more like a wake behind the scenes.

Murphy is quoted as saying the event will be a "curtain raiser" for the next UK election.

Actually, it is the other way round, the curtain is falling, it’s the last act!

Mr Murphy to lend support to Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray's will share a platform with him at the Brighton conference.

Safety in numbers!

Murphy even goes so far to say;

"Iain is a brilliant leader of the MSPs in the Scottish Parliament".

Another misjudgement on his part, Iain Gray is a lame duck; he is Mr. Invisible of fantastic bore.

He isn’t even a good opportunist, weak, ineffective and like a man totally out of his depth. He likes the title but can’t produce the goods; no one knows what he stands for!

Another concern for Jim Murphy was the result of the European election which say Labour pushed into third place behind the Tories and the SNP.

Mr Murphy said he was looking forward to the challenge of defending his seat in East Renfrewshire.

Who looks forward to the chance that they could be made unemployed?

The Scottish secretary likes to paint himself as the Rocky figure;

"I've always been the underdog in my constituency, I quite enjoy being the underdog - I've confounded the critics and the pundits three times and I look forward to having the chance to do it again."

When you win three times in a row, you are hardly the ‘underdog’ more like the racing certainty.

To give Murphy his due, I understand that he has been a quite effective local MP for the people in his area.

If he gets the bullet then it will be down to the fact that political tide has turned against his party but that is the nature of politics.

I wouldn’t say I would be sad if he was defeated at the ballot box but I am sure that he would be missed by those who watch the Scottish political scene.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Baroness Scotland accused of being a liar?

Dear All

Get set for a ‘Rumble in the Jungle’!

It’s the big fight 2.

In the red corner, Baroness Scotland, Attorney General, in the blue corner Loloahi Tapui, illegal immigrant.

After being arrest by the Police, Loloahi Tapui struck back by claiming that Baroness Scotland is a liar.

The former housekeeper has claimed the peer never asked to see her passport before giving her a job in contradiction to a statement that the Baroness had done so.

So who is the liar?

Someone can’t be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In an interview exclusively to the Mail on Sunday, Loloahi Tapui, claimed she was given employment after a short 10-minute interview between the two.

Last week Baroness Scotland was playing the role of the duped victim, simple but dim approach, a tactic often used by New Labour.

After being fined last week £5,000, she was effectively declared by Gordon Brown to be ‘without sin’ and allowed to keep her job instead of being bulleted out the door as she should have been.

Gordon Brown had declared long and loud that she had acted in "good faith".

Unfortunately Baroness Scotland had no evidence to back up that claim.

The Tories, always looking for a straw to break the Government’s back said the row has rendered her position "completely untenable".

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said;

"The Home Office rushed through an investigation without listening to all the evidence, and the prime minister exonerated Lady Scotland before the housekeeper had even been questioned.

Good points by the Tory but the reality was that Baroness Scotland was to be cleared at all costs, she wasn’t going to see the inside of a court room.

Grayling added;

"This is increasingly looking like an attempted whitewash that has gone badly wrong."

Now the row is back on the front page of the tabloids and looks really bad with Loloahi saying she is prepared to take a lie detector test to prove she is speaking the truth.

I wonder if the noble Baroness will submit to the same test of veracity!

In a statement, the Attorney General said;

"I was shown all relevant documents a P45, National Insurance details, a marriage certificate, a letter from the Home Office, references and a passport by Ms Tapui during her job interviews."

It all adds more weight to the premise that this Government is so corrupt that they will do and say anything to avoid acting responsibility.

I wonder if Baroness Scotland will sue Tapui and the newspaper in court for libel?

If not, doesn’t that look extremely odd?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Friday, September 25, 2009

Tommy Sheridan sacks Donald Findlay and replaces him with Lockerbie Bomber appeal lawyer, Maggie Scott

Dear All

The Tommy Sheridan story rolls on from one piece of high drama to another.

Sheridan has sacked top QC Donald Findlay; this might not be a bad idea as having watched and read some of Donald’s cases, in a large number the client ends up in the clink.

If found guilty; then I would expect that Tommy Sheridan would be put in prison possibly for between 18 months to three years.

Former Rangers vice-chairman Findlay was given the chop over the phone while on holiday in the Far East but in reality; I don’t think he will be too bothered because he is always busy.

This is not the first time that Sheridan has ‘sacked’ his lawyers as he did so in the previous case against him. In that trial he went on to represent himself.

And won!

He has replaced Findlay with Maggie Scott, who until recently was handling the appeal for Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

So the Sheridan legal ‘dream team’ is Maggie Scott for him and Paul McBride for Sheridan’s wife Gail.

Recently Paul McBride was critical of the release of Al Megrahi, so that should make for some interesting conversations with Maggie Smith between breaks in the court proceedings.

The perjury trial is expected to start in January and as it is a News Intentional sponsored event it should attract a rather large press following.

As well as working on his trial; Tommy Sheridan is a candidate in the Glasgow North East by-election so he will be a busy man.

I think he can safety expect to be followed about by the News of the World just in case he puts his foot in his mouth or in a crack.

After all his trial will be one of the greatest mudsling events in years on the Scottish Court Circuit.

If you want to get a seat to view then get up early as it will be the hot ticket in Edinburgh in January.

David attempting to slew Goliath again and walk off with £200,000 plus interest, got me interested!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

John Smeaton throws his hat into the ring at Glasgow North East

Dear All

The Glasgow North East by-election has taken an unexpected turn as another candidate steps forward to throw his hat into the ring.

John Smeaton of the Glasgow Airport Terrorist fame has decided to stand under the Jury Team banner in a futile attempt to win the seat.

Sorry, John, you are just not up to it.

John Smeaton has little chance of winning because he is so politically unaware, it is embarrassing.

This contest is serious.

John Smeaton said;

"vote for change or stop complaining".

Smeaton isn’t the man to bring about that “change” which is sorely needed, it is only by electing David Kerr, the SNP Candidate that the people of Glasgow North East will see a real difference in the community.

David Kerr is the only candidate to guarantee that he will open an office open to the public in the community, not just to address their problems but to be pro active in directing people to opportunities they have for so long missed out on.

David Kerr represents the future.

At his first election press conference, John Smeaton pledged to "badger" MPs.

I wonder if he realises that his job in part is to “badger” Ministers, Ministers of the Crown? If he can't understand the difference, what does that say about how effective he will be?

He was correct however in stating;

"The Labour Party have had 30 years to bring investment and jobs into Glasgow North East," he said. I haven't noticed much difference and I know from strolling round the constituency that folk living there haven't noticed many changes either”.

However I think we all know that point so it doesn’t exactly move the debate forward.

As I have said, I think that John Smeaton is politically unaware as he thinks he can “knock down doors and badger them until they listen. No messing."

That doesn’t work; you have to build a properly formatted case if you expect to be taken seriously and benefit the people of Glasgow north East.

If he can’t understand that principle then what hope can he bring to the people he wants to represent?

I don’t think that John Smeaton will win on the basis that he would be in effect the ‘Jade Goody’ of Scottish Politics and the people need somewhat more help than that.

This contest in Glasgow North East is much more than just personality politics, it is about taking on so much more.

I think that John Smeaton will get a good reception based on being a very well known personality but the people know that the future is David Kerr, the SNP Candidate.

The future is the Scottish National Party.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Steven Ashenford struck off the medical register for good

Dear All

Everyone will at some point go along to see the doctor with some illness, sickness or bug.

Because of the nature of their job; we expect the highest standards of ethics from them and others in the medical profession.

Dr Steven Ashenford has rightly been struck off the medical register for abuse his position of trust by having a teenage patient perform a sex act on him. The teenager who has learning difficulties was used for his own personal gratification.

The disciplinary panel found that AshenFord had acted in the ‘most reprehensible way' and this is highly educated man less we forget.

Dr Ashenford used his position to strike up a friendship with the girl during appointments at the Sutton Hill Medical Practice in Telford, Shropshire. She was attending his surgery to get treatment for acne and back problems.

During one consultation in March 2007 he touched her breasts, a week later he told her to remove her top and perform oral sex on him, the General Medical Council hearing was told.

He was arrested in October 2007 when his activities came to light on suspicion that he had raped the girl.

No charges were brought by police.

Dr Ashenford denied any sexual relationship with the girl, known as Patient E, but admitted at his hearing he had sex with two other patients while working at Oakengates Medical Practice in Telford in 2006 and at Sutton Hill a year later.

It seems like Anthony Barton; he thought his position was one in which he could do as he pleased.

Another odd incident was his friendship with an 11-year-old girl when he worked at the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford. He would send her text messages each day and made social arrangements with her mother.

It seems that Ashenford was involved in an unhappy marriage to an older Russian woman coupled with a daughter who herself was unwell having suffered brain damage at birth.

A shrink who examined Dr Ashenford in February this year concluded he had a 'narcissistic' and 'fundamentally flawed' personality.

This begs the question how he managed to pass the interview at Aberdeen University to get into medical school?

Panel chairman Ralph Bergmann in Manchester said the doctor's overall conduct was;

“so grave as to be fundamentally incompatible with continued registration”.

Another case of a guy who had the potential for a very good life and threw it all away!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Emilio Estefan- Pennies in My Pocket (Miami Vice Soundtrack)

Emilio Estefan- Pennies in My Pocket (Miami Vice Soundtrack). Music can add to the cinematic experience, Michael Mann's choice in this movie was spot on the money.

Swine flu vaccination programme takes a sinister turn in the US

Dear All

Massachusetts are to impose martial law for swine flu vaccinations. This is a sinister development in the USA. There are grave concerns by others that the swine flu vaccine isn't safe; I have that doubt myself.

It seems that prisons or hospitals will be over flowing if the masses reject the call to be injected.

To show how much Pharmaceutical companies stand by their products they even aren't prepared to go to court if something goes wrong; they have immunity.

Swine flu injection, no thanks, book me a cell.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Labour MP, Stephen Hesford can't stomach New Labour's lack of honour any longer and resigns from Government

Dear All

An interesting development in the Baroness Scotland scandal and it is a scandal.

Labour MP Stephen Hesford has quite rightly resigned as a parliamentary aide after attorney general Baroness Scotland was fined £5,000; he was previously an aide to Vera Baird.

Despite the fact she was caught bang to rights under legislation she drew up, Gordon Brown said she had acted "in good faith".

So, there is now a clause of “good faith” that allows Labour Ministers to operate above the law.

Gordon Brown further said;

"I take this very seriously indeed, but when you look at the facts of the case, she has been misled by an employee who has given her wrong information”.

Why did he miss out the fact that she failed to obey the law?

Brown added;

"If Baroness Scotland had wilfully or knowingly employed any illegal worker, then obviously she wouldn't be in her post."

I think people who know Gordon Brown will take that comment with a large pinch of salt.

In his resignation letter Gordon Brown, Mr Hesford said;

"My decision comes about because as an aide to the Law Officers, whilst I have great personal regard for the Attorney General, I cannot support the decision which allows her to remain in office”.

In other words, he is saying that Brown’s inept leadership cannot be stomach any longer.

Mr. Hesford hits the nail squarely on the head when he says;

"In my view the facts of the case do not matter. It is the principle which counts, particularly at a time when the public's trust of Whitehall is uncertain to say the least. We have to be seen to be accountable."

Now, Mr. Hesford knows just how deep the level of corruption is at the top of government.

Baroness Scotland was processed so that she would never have to appear in court.

The UK Border Agency says Baroness Scotland had taken steps to check Tongan Loloahi Tapui's right to work.

Are they going to publish the evidence of that claim?

As much as Baroness Scotland tries to dodge the issue by saying it was a "technical breach", the fact is she broke the law.

And every breach of the law is technical by trying to use language like this she tries to paint it as a less serious matter.

She has to go; the fact that Brown is so spineless in not sacking her shows he is unfit to govern this country any longer.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Allegedly sex mad dentist, Anthony Barton faces being struck off!

Dear All

Sometimes you have to ask some people what is the matter with them?

Anthony Barton is a dentist who has effectively destroyed his professional career which he worked hard to achieve.

How did he manage this task?

Acting like a complete arse while at work

This allegedly included pranced around in a leopard-print thong shouting;

“get a load of that”!

Well he is certainly getting a load of trouble now.

Anthony Barton, 36, who is married seemingly when off the rails towards four dental nurses at the dental practice where he worked in Wigan over a period of eight years.He regularly groped their bottoms and asked them inappropriate questions.

Being funny at work is okay being pervy is not on.

Barton faces 17 charges in relation to his conduct towards the nurses from 2000 to 2008, which tends to suggest he is pretty well up the creek without a paddle.

One Dental nurse claims Mr Barton would pull at her knickers as she bent over and try to undo her bra through her tunic.

He then began a consensual affair with another dental nurse; which I assume he hide from his wife.

While engaged in the throws of love on day, another nurse walked in on him and a colleague in a ‘compromising position’.

The allegations finally came to light when one of the nurses had had enough and complained about his behaviour.

So, Barton is now up before the General Dental Council who will decide if he can continue practicing.

After the story broke Barton resigned from the practice but that didn’t stop his partners reporting him to the GDC.

If found guilty; he faces being struck off the Dental Register for life.

Some people don’t know how lucky they are to have a career which opens up so many opportunities.


Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

US calms row with Scotland over release of Lockerbie Bomber

Dear All

It seems that the US government has seen sense and taken the pragmatic view that a continual argument over the release of Abdelbasset al-Megrahi does not serve the interests of either country.

After a series of harsh statements by US Officials, they seem to have clicked on to how the Scottish system of justice works.

This is a sensible step forward.

The US state department told the BBC's Newsnight Scotland it was "looking to move on" from the row.

After all, a continual row over a terminally ill man who was released on compassionate grounds looks incredibly bad from a US stand point.

Megrahi, who is terminally ill, was released from a Scottish prison last month and has flown home to Libya to die with his family.

To show how serious the row had become US secretary of state Hillary Clinton had said it would be "absolutely wrong" to allow Megrahi to go home to Libya.

State department spokesman Ian Kelly described America and Scotland as "very close allies".

Since the US acknowledges the close relationship with Scotland, it would be a good gesture on the part of the US administration to cancel the extradition of Gary McKinnon.

A lot of incredible damage has been done by George W Bush when President of United States of America, it is good that America is seeking to rebuild alliances and mutual trust.

I am sure that First Minister Alex Salmond will welcome this change of heart in American thinking and be pleased that things can get back to normal. It is a pity that such a small matter was blown out of proportion because of politics.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Baroness Scotland will not be prosecuted as expected in corrupt New Labour Britain

Dear All

Yesterday, I said that I believed the process against Baroness Scotland would be rigged.

Events have moved swiftly in order to attempt to kill the story and make sure that she never sees the inside of a criminal court.

Attorney General Baroness Scotland has been fined £5,000 after being found to have employed a housekeeper who was not legally allowed to work in the UK.

She said;

“I have been given an administrative penalty”.

Did anyone believe she was going to court in such a corrupt country as Britain?

Another interesting point is the speed that the penalty was issued.

She further added;

“This is not a case of a criminal act, this is the case of failing to photocopy a document which I absolutely accept was wrong and I have apologised for that wholeheartedly”.

Is the fact that Tongan Loloahi Tapui was working illegally not criminal?

Will Baroness Scotland be turning up at her trial to give evidence?

What would happen if Tapui stated that Baroness Scotland knew?

I think for this reason, a deal will be done to keep her out of court as well.

But both the Tories and the Lib Dems said her position looked "untenable".

This pretty much sums up the entire position!

In a statement issued by her she said;

“she fully accepted that she had made a "technical breach of the rules" and apologised for "this inadvertent error".

The old New Labour tactic of “technical breach of the rules”, this was used in the Wendy Alexander case, another New Labour Politician and she also escaped appearing in court.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Tory MP, Chris Grayling said;

“the law was very clear- that employers could not be "inadvertently innocent".

And Baroness Scotland knows that fully.

So; my prediction that there will be no trial has proven to be correct. You can re read my post on this here.

This is New Labour “justice”!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Monday, September 21, 2009

I've Got The World On A String From Michael Bublé Meets Madison Square Garden

Dear All

Class performance from Michael Buble

London Labour man, William Bain clearly rattled by SNP Candidate David Kerr

Dear All

William Bain, the London Labour man standing in the Glasgow North East by-election is ‘outraged’ again.


Because the SNP Government has had to shelve the Glasgow Airport Rail link!

Obviously the fact that the Labour Government cut the Scottish budget doesn’t register with him.

So in order to vent his ‘protest’ he has challenged the SNP candidate, David Kerr to say whether or not he supports the SNP decision.

I would venture a guess and say yes!

I base this on the fact that David Kerr is smart enough to know that you can’t buy something if you can’t pay for it.

William Bain, take note, it is simple macro economics!

Willie Bain said;

"I am furious by this decision. It is another example of Glasgow being ripped off by the SNP”.

This is a favourite tactic by New Labour in the west of Scotland claim to be angry.

But does William Bain’s anger stretch to writing a letter of complaint to Gordon Brown about the money Scotland has lost?

No; not a bit of it.

He added;

"They have given extra money to Edinburgh and Aberdeen but ignored Glasgow”.

Didn’t Glasgow win the Commonwealth Games which will generate hundreds of millions of pounds for the city?

He then got carried away with himself by saying;

"People here are furious that the SNP are taking them for granted. The rail link is vital for the Commonwealth Games. This is a major blow for our city”.

The link isn’t vital, perhaps if Mr. Bain actually spent more time in Glasgow; he would realise that!

He finally said;

"I challenge my SNP opponent in the by-election to join me in speaking up for Glasgow and opposing this decision”.

As William Bain knows David Kerr will be speaking up for Glasgow and very effectively to. As Michael Martin’s election agent he knows full well the lack of representation that his ‘boss’ delivered to the people of that area.

That will be change when David Kerr opens his office to the public so people get the help and advice that Martin was unable and unwilling to provide.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Carstairs State Hospital want to transfer murderer who cut off man's head and used it as football.

Dear All

Sometimes you wonder how some people got their jobs.

Gregor McGurk is a murderer who cut off his dad's head and kicked it around a car park in broad daylight.

Now, this guy is taking his first steps towards freedom.

Since the murder he has been in the maximum security State Hospital at Carstairs which houses some of the most violent and worst people in Scotland.

This is the best place for him and the community.

Now because of cost cutting, a source at the State Hospital said;

"There is a policy of moving people out of Carstairs at the moment and the number of beds is being reduced”.

This is one area that the SNP Government needs to address as a matter of concern before a serious problem develops.

Carstairs bosses have now recommended McGurk's transfer to the Rowanbank Clinic in the grounds of Stobhill Hospital in Glasgow's Springburn area.

It is understood the full extent of what McGurk done to his dad, he;

bludgeoned him with a cricket bat

sawed through his throat with a serrated knife, possibly while he was still alive

then booted the severed head around like a football.

And the bosses of Carstairs want him transferred to a place he can effectively walk out the gate?

I don’t think the people of Springburn will be overjoyed will that prospect.

Sticking a guy like that with a history of extreme violence in a high violent crime and drugs area!

And the move follows concerns that, under the European Convention on Human Rights, patients kept in an "excessive" level of security could sue the Government.

That is bullshit, under the convention there is an opt out in Article 8.2

“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

This is another abuse of the Human Rights legislation by well paid idiots who cannot or will not read the law properly.

This guy is locked up because he represents a serious threat to public safety.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Will Baroness Scotland be 'cleared' because there will be no trial?

Dear All

Baroness Scotland is the Attorney-General for England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

But she has a problem.

She employed an illegal worker for six months at her £2 million pound Chiswick home.

Now the scandal has broken into the open even a Labour Party MP in the shape of Graham Stringer is calling for her to resign with immediate effect.

Graham Stringer has also launched an outspoken attack on Gordon Brown’s extraordinary failure in not sacking her.

The row centres round a woman called Tongan Loloahi Tapui who Baroness Scotland illegal employed; Tapui has over stayed on her student visa by five years so clearly had no intention of going home.

Lady Scotland now faces prospect of a £10,000 fine for breaking immigration rules she helped to draw up.

But since she is in the Labour Party and a Government minister, as usual, it will be swept under the carpet and she will be 'cleared'.

If the Tories take up the matter then possibly she could be forced to resign, after all, if she is found to be above the law then how can justice function properly?

It will also highlight my theme of a corrupt Britain if she walks.

The immigration service has already smashed in the door of Tongan Loloahi Tapui but as yet they haven’t dealt out the same treatment at Baroness Scotland’s residence, which technically is the ‘scene of the crime’.

Why not?

Could it be that her status precludes such treatment?

I would say yes!

In a country like Britain, the authorities only go after the little fish, people like Baroness Scotland operate above the law and are untouchable.

As for her resigning I think we can safely say that will not happen.

In other words, I suspect something to done to rig the process so that there will be no trial.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Lib Dem MEP, Chris Davies pulls no punches about the expenses scandal

Dear All

Political Party Conferences are usually dull affairs.

Lib Dem MEP, Chris Davis has broken with convention to liven his conference up by his speech.

I think he has a valid point about the activities of some of elected Westminister MPs.

For those who don’t like swearing, this is unsuitable.

Well done the Lib Dem for putting the strength of feeling of the people across in a rather unusual matter.


Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Saturday, September 19, 2009

SNP Justice Minister announces joint taskforce to investigate taxi trade

Dear All

We have seen Star Wars, seen Bra Wars and now we see Taxi wars hit the press.

And not before time either.

The Scottish Government is to have a crackdown on gangsters muscling in on the taxi trade.

This problem has been on-going for a considerable time as gangsters look for ways to launder money from drugs and prostitution.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has announced that Holyrood would be setting up a taskforce with police and councils to tackle this issue.

The Taskforce should have forensic accountants on board to provide advice on how to trace money.

However the Justice Sectretary has pledged that he would not allow "hard-working cabbies" to be "driven off the road by crooks and gangsters".

New legislation in the pipeline will see taxi booking offices having to obtain licences for the first time, so that these companies can be properly monitored for the benefit of the public.

By putting in place these new measures it should send the message that the taxi and private hire trade is off limits.

Slowly but surely the SNP Government is putting in place the legislation that has sorely been needed for a long time.

And that can only be seen as a positive step forward.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Elish Angiolini, a national embarrassment

Dear All

On the 8th of September; I wrote a post about Elish Angiolini.

My premise is that she is a joke that the Scottish Government can do without.

10 days later, she helped me out by proving my point about her unsuitability to remain head of the Procurator Fiscal Service.

So what has she done now?

Opened her mouth in a built up area!

Elish Angiolini has condemned a fresh move by the Lockerbie bomber to protest his innocence.

So what is her role in this?

Absolutely nothing!

Megrahi has set up a website and upload documents to support his contention that he is innocent.

Hundreds of pages of documents relating to an appeal by Abdelbaset al-Megrahi against his conviction for the 1988 bombing have been put on a new website.

If the facts speak for themselves then surely she should have no problem with that.

Elish Angiolini highlights that Megrahi had abandoned his appeal before his release on compassionate grounds, which is true but let us remember he did so because he is dying.

Angiolini deplores Megrahi's actions and said a court was the only appropriate forum for determining guilt or innocence.

Perhaps she forgot about the House of Lords session cases.

She is also critical of Megrahi publishing his view of the evidence in the media to expose the flaws in the prosecution case.

In case it escape Angiolini attention; he has the legal right to do so under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Megrahi said;

"I will do everything in my power to persuade the public, and in particular the Scottish public, of my innocence."

So why should that upset Angiolini, well I would say that all roads lead to Rome or in this case back to her band of happy campers down the Fiscal Service.

She goes further by saying;

"Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously by three senior judges following trial and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges, in an Appeal Court presided over by the Lord Justice General, Scotland's most senior judge”.

All true but there are numerous cases in Scottish legal history of innocent people getting locked up for crimes they didn’t commit.

I think the time is right for the SNP Scottish Government to put Ms. Angiolini out of her misery and show her the door.

That way she can continue her stand up comedy somewhere else.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Friday, September 18, 2009

Letter of support for the Madeleine Foundation

Dear Tony and Debbie

I would write back and say that you are seeking Legal Aid.

I would then remind Carter Ruck of the McLibel case; you are entitled to legal representation in a court of law.

I would also demand clarification of what specific statements the McCann’s object to.

If the McCann’s are going to go ahead then anything you do won’t have the slightest effect.

I think the McCann’s think they can bully people into silence.

I have had on my website, repeated visits from an IP address in Leicester, since I have been writing about McCann case.

If the McCann’s continue with this action, then perhaps you should file a complaint with the Leicester Police under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate McCann.

Then supply copies of your written complaint to the Press.

In my campaign to expose injustice at Glasgow University, I was sent threatening letters to my home by University Lawyers, Wilson and Dundas.

I wrote back in detail to every single point and where the third party evidence to back up my story was.

I also said I looked forward to seeing them in court as I had everything, documents, and the proof was irrefutable.

No court case.

I fully support your legal right under the Human Rights Act 1998 that you continue to exercise your right to free speech.

My advice to people who threaten me is ‘do it, don’t tell me about it, do it’.

You have my full support.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Nigerian 419 scammers, waste their time by sending them emails asking questions

Dear All

Are you poor?

If you would like to be poorer then try and donate some money to crime.

This little gem popped into my email from 419 scammers, who are looking to live a better life with your cash.419 is a number in the Nigerian penal code relating to internet fraud and there is tons of it coming from Nigeria.

Dear friend,

How are you today ?

I'm writing to inform you that I have Paid the fee for your Draft Cheque. Yesterday, I went to the bank to confirm if the Cheque has expired or getting near to expire and Mr.Allen Thomas the Director of HSBC BANK told me that before the cheque will get to your hand that it will expire. So I told him to cash the $1.950,000.00, to cash payment to avoid losing this funds under expiration as I will be out of the country for a 3 Months Course and I will not come back till end of December 2009.

What you have to do now is to contact the DHL Express Courier as soon as possible to know when they will deliver your package to you immediatey. For your information, I have paid for the yellow tag fee and delivery Charge.

The only money you will send to the DHLCourier to deliver your Consignment Package direct to your postal Address in your country is US$106 One Hundred & Six United States Dollars only being Security Keeping Fee for the DHL Service so far.

I would have paid that but they said no because they don't know when you will contact them and in case of dumourrage on your Package with them.

Please write a letter of application to the given address below:

Manager.Nelson kessier Febian
Contact Tel: +229-93-80-66-48

Finally, make sure that you reconfirm your Postal address, nearest local and international airport, Direct telephone number contact address and picture or id to avoid wrong delivery, they will issue you a delivery code, to enable you track your consignment box and know when it will get to your address.

Let me repeat again, try to contact them as soon as you receive this mail to avoid any further delay and remember to pay them their Security Keeping fee of $106.00 for their immediate action to deliver urgently.

Note this. The DHL Courier don't know the contents of the Box Package. I registered it as a BOX of Africa cloths. They did not know the contents was money. this is to avoid them delaying with the BOX. Don't let them know that box contains money ok.

Thanks and More Blesssing.


Ms Anita Hall
United Nations
Financial office

So, if you want to be $106 poorer then get in touch immediately, bank details from the simple minded are warmly welcomed by them.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi continues to fight to clear his name

Dear All

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial; this is one of the tenets of Human Rights right across the civilised world.

Article 6, The Right to a fair trial

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi contends that he has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
He has said;

“I have returned to Tripoli with my unjust conviction still in place. As a result of the abandonment of my appeal I have been deprived of the opportunity to clear my name through the formal appeal process. I have vowed to continue my attempts to clear my name. I will do everything in my power to persuade the public, and in particular the Scottish public, of my innocence.

Here is the summary of his grounds for appeal against his conviction.


The following documents were lodged with the Court and are attached:

Grounds of Appeal 1 and 2 (“The Grounds”)
Appellant’s Written Submissions (“WS”) in support of Grounds 1 and 2


Grounds of Appeal 1 and 2 were argued before the Court in full at a public hearingwhich took place between 28 April and 19 May 2009. This document summarisesthose grounds and the arguments made on the appellant’s behalf at that hearing.

On 7th July 2009 the Court indicated that one of its number, Lord Wheatley, hadbeen hospitalised. It continued consideration of the grounds of appeal.

On 18th August 2009 the appellant, with leave of the court, abandoned his appeal. No judgement or opinion has therefore been handed down by the Court upon these submissions
The note of appeal contained a number of other grounds of appeal that are notcovered by this summary. These other grounds can be grouped as follows:

(a) Grounds 3.1- 3.3 included some of the reasons why the SCCRC referred thecase back to the Appeal Court, along with additional arguments. These grounds had been finalised and were due to be argued in a two-part hearing,beginning in November 2009. These grounds set out various ways in whichthe appellant argues that he was denied a fair trial. These include the way inwhich the identification evidence given by the witness Tony Gauci wasobtained, and significant failures by the Crown to disclose material informationabout the identification evidence and about Tony Gauci.

(b) Ground of appeal 3.6 related to undisclosed information in respect of whichthe UK Government had claimed Public Interest Immunity, preventingdisclosure. The SCCRC considered that failure to disclose this information, ofitself, may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice and this was one of thereasons for referring the case back to the Appeal Court. The appellant hadbeen seeking disclosure of that information since October 2007 (shortly afterthe SCCRC referral) but the issue had not been resolved by the Court by theconclusion of the appeal in August 2009. It was argued – some might say selfevidently – that to advance this ground of appeal the appellant required toview the document. Without that information, the appellant argues that hecould not advance his right of appeal and was denied a fair hearing of hisappeal in breach of statute and article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

(c) The remaining grounds of appeal were not finalised and/or were not part ofthe reasons for the SCCRC reference. In brief, the remaining grounds dealtwith concerns about the forensic evidence and defective representation. It isnot intended to publish these grounds at this juncture.


In Grounds 1 and 2, the appellant challenged the basis of his conviction as set out by the Trial Court in its Judgment (or Opinion).The basis of the conviction issummarised in the Written Submission at sections 1.3 (WS pp.41-54) and 4.1.1 (WSpp.136-145).
The appellant was charged with taking part along with others in a common criminal plan to commit the crime. The only named “other” was the co-accused who wasacquitted. The evidence against the appellant was wholly circumstantial. In order toprove guilt, the Crown had to satisfy the Court that the appellant was an activeparticipant in the common criminal plan to commit the crime.

The Trial Court concluded that a “real and convincing pattern” of the appellant’sinvolvement in the crime was formed by the following circumstances:

Purchase of clothing in Malta;

Presence of that clothing in the suitcase with the Improvised Explosive Device(“IED”);

Transmission of an unaccompanied item of baggage from Malta to London;

Identification of the appellant “albeit not absolute” as the purchaser of the clothing;
The appellant’s movements in Malta under a false name at or around the time the IED must have been placed on a plane at Luqa Airport;

“other background circumstances” such as the appellant’s association with Bollier and members of the JSO or Libyan military who purchased MST-13timers of the type used in the bombing.

See Trial Court Opinion (“TCO”) [87]-[89].

The Trial Court did not convict the appellant as the principal perpetrator – there was no finding that he was responsible for introducing the IED into the airline baggagesystem and thus onto Pan Am 103. He was convicted as an accessory on the basisthat he assisted in carrying out part of the common criminal plan to commit the crime. The only act found to have been carried out by the appellant which could amount to participation in the crime was the purchase of clothing which was found tohave been in the same suitcase as the IED.


The appellant’s challenge was essentially that there was insufficient evidence to entitle the court to convict, and that, having regard both to the evidence and to thereasoning of the Trial Court, the verdict was one which no reasonable jury could have returned.

The appellant argued first of all that the circumstantial case as a whole wasinherently weak. He went on to examine the inferences which had to be drawn by the Court on the way to determining the ultimate question of his guilt. He challenged a number of these crucial intermediate inferences on the basis that either they werenot properly supported by the evidence, or they were arrived at by a process ofdefective reasoning.

The details of this challenge can be found within the Written Submission.

General Weakness of the Overall Picture:

Overall the case against the appellant was inherently weak. The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Court to convict was made up of various strands which did not fit together sufficiently coherently and were not substantial enough to carry the weight of a guilty verdict.
The Trial Court rejected much of the Crown evidence against him. As a result there were yawning gaps in the picture painted by the Trial Court. These gaps included:

No evidence to entitle a finding as to who shared the common criminal purpose;

No evidence to entitle a finding, in particular, that the purchasers of MST-13timers shared the common criminal purpose;

No evidence to entitle finding as to when the common criminal purpose was formed;

No evidence of any specific act carried out in furtherance of the commoncriminal purpose, except for the appellant’s purchase of the clothing;

No evidence of the intention and motive on the part of the appellant or generally regarding the purposes of the Libyan Intelligence Services (JSO);

No evidence of any connection at any time between the appellant and explosives or terrorist activity;
No evidence to entitle the finding that anyone who shared the common criminal purpose had the necessary skills to construct this IED;

No evidence as to when or where the IED was constructed;

No evidence as to how the IED was introduced to Malta, or whether itoriginated in Malta;

No evidence of what happened to the MST-13 timers supplied to Libya in1985-1986;
No evidence of any connection between the appellant and the timers;
No evidence as to the source of the Samsonite suitcase which housed the IED.

The only conduct by the appellant which could be characterised as an act of assistance in the commission of the crime was the purchase of the clothing foundwithin the IED suitcase. This depended upon him being identified as the purchaser.

Neither his general association with the JSO and with the purchasers of MST-13timers, nor the circumstances of his visit to Malta on 20-21 December 1988, providedevidence of the appellant carrying out any other act which helped in the commissionof the crime.

Inferences Upon Inferences

Part of the overall weakness of the case resulted from the fact that the verdict reliedupon inferences drawn from other inferences. The case did not simply rely on acombination of circumstances which when taken together pointed to guilt, but ratherit depended on a series of inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence fromwhich further inferences were then drawn. The inference of guilt was ultimatelydrawn from a second or third layer of inferences. Often different inferences reliedupon the same circumstances. The case was not so much wholly circumstantial but wholly inferential. The Trial Court’s conclusion rested upon a complex and erroneousprocess of inferential reasoning. This can be found in detail in WS pp.154 -156.

There was no direct connection between the basic facts proved and the conclusion of guilt. The nature of the case was that the facts proved were too remote from proof that the appellant was a participant in the crime. In a circumstantial case, the law requires that the individual circumstances relied upon are sufficiently related – inlegal terms, they must have ‘aptitude and coherence’ – in order to compel the Court to conclude that the accused is guilty. This aptitude and coherence was missing. The circumstances relied upon did not come together to form a coherent pattern.

In addition in a circumstantial case, the inference of guilt must be the onlyreasonable inference which can be drawn from the combined circumstances. If theevidence does not support that inference, it cannot be a reasonable one. Equally, ifanother reasonable inference is available on the evidence which is not consistent with guilt, then there is insufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.This applies not only to the ultimate inference of guilt. All crucial inferences on whichthe ultimate conclusion of guilt is based must be tested in this way. The appellant argued that a number of these crucial inferences, when tested in this way, fell far short of what was required.

The Challenge to Specific Inferences:

The crucial inferences relied upon to convict - such as the identification of the appellant as the purchaser - were not supported by the actual evidence and as such were not reasonable inferences.

The crucial inferences which the Court had to make in order ultimately to convict the appellant were scrutinised in two ways. First and foremost, the reasonableness of those inferences was examined having regard to the evidence underpinning them and the reasoning process of the Trial Court. Second, because these inferences were crucial steps to reaching the verdict, the appellant challenged whether it could properly be said that they were the only reasonable inference which could be drawn from the facts found.

The crucial inferences which appellant challenged included:

1. that the appellant was the purchaser of the clothing;

2. that the date of purchase was 7 December 1988;

3. that the suitcase containing the IED was ingested into the airline baggage system at Malta.

1. The Identification of the Appellant as the Purchaser:

[SCCRC Ground of Referral]

Grounds 2.1.1 at p.11; 2.2.1 at p.31

WS pp.165-192; 227-232

It was not disputed that the inference that the appellant was the purchaser was pivotal to the conviction – without this conclusion the circumstantial case unravelled and he would have to be acquitted.

Background to the identification evidence:

The Crown relied on evidence from the witness Tony Gauci (the Maltese shopkeeper who sold clothing found to have been in the suitcase with the IED). In its judgement,the Trial Court relied on three identification procedures involving Gauci and the appellant:

(1) On 15th February 1991 the appellant’s photograph was included in a spread of 12 photos shown to Tony Gauci. Initially Gauci rejected all the photographs because they showed men who were younger than the purchaser. He was then asked to discount age and to look again. Then he selected the photograph of the appellant saying it was “similar” but “younger”.

(2) An identification Parade on 13th April 1999 was held at Kamp Zeist in theNetherlands. The defence made a number of objections that the parade was unfair. These were noted. The parade went ahead. Mr Gauci selected the appellant and said “Not exactly the man I saw in the shop. Ten years ago I saw him, but the man who looked a little bit like exactly is the number 5”.

(3) In court at the trial, having been shown a press photograph of the appellant which identified him as the bomber, the witness was then asked if he saw the purchaser in court and he pointed to the appellant and stated “He is the man in this side. He resembles him a lot....That is the man I see resembles theman who came.”

The Trial Court’s view was that the identification of the appellant as the purchaser was reliable and a highly important element in the case (TCO para.69].

1(a) The Appellant’s Challenge to the Trial Court’s conclusion It was strongly argued on the part of the appellant that the evidence relied upon was insufficient to entitle any reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the appellant wasthe purchaser, for the following reasons:

1. There was no positive identification of the appellant;

2. The selection of the appellant made by the witness Tony Gauci at the variousidentification procedures was on the basis only of a resemblance and was soqualified as to be meaningless. This was not evidence that the appellant resembled the purchaser for specific reasons but rather that he resembled thepurchaser in some specific respects but not in others. At best this was evidence that certain features of the appellant matched the purchaser but others did not. There was nothing about Gauci’s evidence which pointed tothe appellant as the purchaser as against countless possible others;

3. In any event the evidence was so poor that no reasonable jury could rely on it.There were significant factors present which were liable to produce a wrong identification and which undermined the reliability of that evidence. These included that:

the amount of time which had passed between the purchase and the identification procedures was wholly exceptional (27 months to the photoshow;12 years to trial);
the purchaser was a stranger to Gauci;

the initial description given by Gauci was wholly inconsistent with thea ppellant and the Trial Court said it constituted a ‘substantial discrepancy;

there was extensive prejudicial publicity prior to the identification parade andthe trial - such that the witness knew who the suspect was and whom he was expected to identify;

the 15th February 1991 photo-show, the ID parade and the dock identification were conducted irregularly and those irregularities were liable to undermine the reliability of any selections made. By way of example, at the 15th February photoshow, the appellant’s photograph stood out from all the others; following Gauci’s response that these photographs were all ‘too young’, he was prompted by the senior investigating officer to disregard age and ‘look again’at the photos. At the identification parade, the composition of the line-up wasunfair; police officers involved in the investigation were present, contrary tothe guidelines. And at trial, when Gauci was in the witness box, he was shown a photograph of the appellant before being asked to point the purchaser out in court.

See WS section 4.2.6.

It was argued that both individually and taken together, these factors renderedreliance upon the so-called identification unreasonable.

4. Finally, there were no other facts or circumstances which could enhance orsupport the purported identification. In particular the fact that the appellantwas staying in a hotel near to the Gauci’s shop on the date of the purchasemay have made it possible, but did not make it any more likely that he was thepurchaser and could not support the purported identification evidence.

SeeWS p214-219.

On this basis, it was argued the inference drawn that the appellant was the purchaser was unreasonable.

1b. Defects in Reasoning Regarding the Identification Evidence Ground 2.1.1 (2) at p11

WS p219-227

In addition to arguing that it was unreasonable to infer that the appellant was the purchaser of the clothing, the appellant argued that there were defects in the approach taken by the Trial Court in their assessment of the purported identification evidence. See TCO [69].
These include:

(a) The judges relied on their view that the witness was ‘careful’. This view was predicated on the fact that the witness had expressed reservations and at the numerous identification procedures and that he ‘would not commit himself toan absolutely positive identification’. But this may not be an indicator of a careful witness - it could equally indicate an uncertain witness who could not make an identification. He was as likely to be uncertain or hesitant as circumspect. Indeed, his failure to make positive identifications at the parade and in court, where he knew who the suspect was, is arguably more indicative of a hesitant and uncertain witness.
(b) Having decided that Gauci was a careful witness, the judges viewed his expressed reservations about his selection as indicating more than they do.They viewed Gauci’s evidence as a positive identification made by a circumspect witness. Whereas, at best, the evidence is and can only be takenas a qualified resemblance.

(c) A significant factor relied on by the judges was their conclusion that the witness himself ‘felt’ or believed that he was correct. It is common sense and indeed well established in relation to identification evidence that the self-beliefor confidence of a witness, expressed long after the event, is not a reliable indicator of the accuracy of his evidence.

(d) No apparent consideration was given by the Trial Court to significant factors relevant to any assessment of identification evidence. These are the kind of factors which a jury would be directed to consider. They include here, the circumstances of the purchase including the fact that the purchaser was a stranger; the extraordinary passage of time during which the witness was exposed to prejudicial publicity; and the suggestive and irregular conduct of the identification procedures.

2. The Date of Purchase

[SCCRC Ground of Referral ]

Grounds 2.1.2 at p.13; 2.2.2 at p.32

WS pp.193-213

The inference drawn by the Trial Court that the purchase took place on 7th December 1988 was an indispensable step towards the conclusion that the appellant was the purchaser because the presence of the appellant on Malta on that date was later relied upon to support Gauci’s purported identification. As such the date of purchase was an inference that was crucial to conviction and if that was unreasonable, then the verdict is materially undermined.
It was clear on the evidence that the purchase had to have taken place after the 18th November and before 21 December 1988. Gauci consistently said that he could not give the date of purchase. The Trial Court decided that his evidence pointed towardthe purchase as being midweek or on a Wednesday.

Various and unrelated pieces of evidence and circumstances were looked at in order to conclude that the date of purchase was Wednesday 7th December 1988 – this included evidence about football matches, Christmas lights and the weather. The Trial Court relied on dates of football matches watched by Tony Gauci’s brother,Paul, at the time - but it was not properly established that he was in fact watching football at the time. Paul Gauci did not give evidence. The evidence about whether the Christmas lights were up or on at the time was hopelessly confused and no reasonable jury could draw conclusions from this evidence. Finally, evidence about the weather did not support the date as 7th December - indeed if anything it undermined that date.
Essentially the appellant argued that none of these circumstances - even when taken together - justified the choice of 7th December above other competing dates (for which there was no evidence that the appellant was in Malta, and thus no support for Gauci’s purported identification). Overall the evidence here was so vague and confused it was unreasonable to rely upon it and there was no clear independentsupport for this date over others.

The Trial Court unreasonably selected 7th December from other competing possibilities available on the evidence. In so doing they misunderstood the evidenceand ignored the burden of proof which ought to have meant that the Crown had to establish that there were no other dates which could reasonably be the date of purchase.

4. Ingestion at Malta

Grounds 2.1.3 at p.14; 2.2.3 at p.33 and 2.2.6 at p.39

WS pp. 239-271

The appellant challenged the inference that ingestion of the suitcase containing theIED was at Luqa - on the basis of both the evidence and defects in reasoning by the trial court.

There were significant problems with the evidence. First, there were opportunities for a bag to be ingested at Frankfurt and Heathrow and there were otherunaccompanied bags travelling on PA103A between Frankfurt and Heathrow.

Secondly, there was an absence of evidence of infiltration at Luqa and an absence even of evidence as to how infiltration might be possible in light of the elaborate security and baggage reconciliation system which existed at Luqa Airport (see WSpp.244-250). Finally, there was an inconsistency in the evidence about whether there was an unaccompanied bag on the flight from Luqa to Frankfurt. While there were computer records from Frankfurt which could be interpreted as suggesting that an unaccompanied bag was loaded at Luqa, there was unchallenged evidence from records and witnesses from Luqa which suggested that this did not happen. Both cannot be correct.

It is not at all clear how the Trial Court reached its conclusion – how they reconciled the evidence or overcame the inconsistency or the basis upon which they consideredand rejected the other possible sites of ingestion. Where there are clear inconsistent facts which require to be addressed before an important inference can reasonably be drawn, this ought to be addressed in the judgement. This was not done.

In order to overcome the inconsistency presented by the evidence from Luqa –which suggested that there were no unaccompanied bags on the flight to Frankfurt –there would have to have been evidence, accepted by the Court, which made it reasonable to conclude that the bag went into the system at Luqa, in spite of what the records and witnesses from Luqa said. It was acknowledged by the Crown that the evidence of the Frankfurt records was not itself sufficient and the Crown relied for support on the evidence that the clothing came from Malta and that there were links between Luqa Airport, Libya and the JSO. On any view, such ‘connections’ are not sufficient. For example, there is a gap in time between the purchase of the clothing and ingestion and there was no evidence about how or where the clothing came to be united with the IED; and there are links between the JSO and many other airports, including Frankfurt. There was no evidence which would properly allow the conclusion that ingestion was or must have been made at Luqa.

Even looking at this on a superficial level, there does seem to be compelling reasons for an investigation as outlined by Al Megrahi’s lawyers.

For more information this click on the link below, the guilty don’t tend to fight hard to prove their innocence after they get released.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Steven 'bin laden' Purcell accuses Scottish Government of anti Glasgow bias

Dear All

You cannot buy something if you don’t have the money to pay for it.

This is simple enough for most people to understand, unless you happen to be in the Labour Party.

Finance Secretary John Swinney scrapped the Glasgow Airport Rail Link in his budget announcement.

The reason; we cannot afford to pay for it.

When Westminister cuts the Scottish budget, there is no choice but to cut capital projects.

Labour however in the shape of Steven ‘bin laden’ Purcell, leader of Glasgow City Council, said that scrapping GARL was a “dagger in the heart of Glasgow”.

It is a train link Purcell, get a grip on yourself!

The GARL project was part of the bid document that won the 2014 Commonwealth Games for Glasgow, it would be nice to have it but in the long run this will not impact on the Games.

Anyway, here is what Glasgow MSPs say about the issue.

Bill Aitken (Tory);

"I will continue to push for a recognition of Glasgow's metropolitan status. The city has been the poor relation for many years and I intend to highlight this in the course of the Budget debates.

Robert Brown (LibDem);

"Glasgow is hit by the outrageous decision to cancel the long-awaited Glasgow Airport Rail Link. This would have provided a high-quality transport link to visitors arriving in the city, not least for the Commonwealth Games.

Bill Butler (Lab);

"This Government has already shunted Glasgow Crossrail into the sidings and now has completely derailed the Glasgow Airport Rail Link."

Margaret Curran (Lab);

"I am shocked at the decision to cancel the GARL project and I know that serious questions are being asked about the figures used because there are suggestions that the project was robust."

Bob Doris (SNP);

"The cost of the GARL project had spiralled too far from the original costing to represent value for money at a time when Downing Street is slashing the Scottish Budget."

Patricia Ferguson (Lab);

"Glasgow deserves special recognition in light of its health and employment statistics but there is nothing in this Budget for Glasgow. Instead we're being robbed of £120million investment threatening 1300 jobs."

Charlie Gordon (Lab);

"This cancellation is a major blow to Glasgow and Scotland; the fight over the issue has just begun."

Patrick Harvie (Green);

"Fastlink is not a substitute for the true public transport improvements that the GARL project would have brought, especially for Paisley residents and others commuting into Glasgow."

James Kelly (Lab);

"I am furious that the GARL has been cancelled. This penalises those who stay in the central belt and will cost 1300 jobs directly and many more indirectly."

Bill Kidd (SNP);

"The full project couldn't be completed because Labour and the rest have insisted that Edinburgh will have an expensive tram system which has taken £500m away from Glasgow and the rest of Scotland."

Johann Lamont (Lab);

"It is a cruel and irrational decision to cancel GARL. That project was not just about creating a faster link to our airport but critically about providing real investment and real opportunities for families across the West of Scotland."

Paul Martin (Lab);

"I will take every opportunity to call for a Metropolitan Supplement for Glasgow. The current economic climate makes it more urgent.

Frank McAveety (Lab);

"The last Labour Government provided a cities growth fund which was fairer than the SNP's Capital City Supplement only for Edinburgh."

Anne McLaughlin (SNP);

"Despite the savage Westminster cuts imposed on Scotland by London Labour, the SNP government is increasing spending on Glasgow's NHS by nearly £50m."

Their comments as you would expect follow along political lines.

However the SNP Government would be wise to set up a sub group to look into the claims of an ‘Anti Glasgow’ bias as this statement has been continually said throughout the last Labour/Lib Dem administration at Holyrood as well.

If proven then the SNP can take action, if there isn’t it will show up those involved making these claims once and for all.

One thing certain about this budget there is still a long way to go before it reaches the Holyrood Chamber for a vote.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Thursday, September 17, 2009

British soldiers dying as Gordon Brown tries to lie his way out of trouble.

Dear All

The Afghanistan war has been lost but like Adolf Hitler, Gordon Brown still thinks he is winning the war.

Occupation armies are doomed to failure because that is not their primary role.

It is therefore not surprising that the death and injury rate of British soldiers continues to climb.

To show how useless the situation is here is the letter of Stephen Minter to the inept part time war leader; Herr Gordon Brown.

The strategy in Afghanistan is like a kid pushing mushy peas round his plate to look like he is eating when it is just a delaying tactic.

The full letter from Stephen Minter to Gordon Brown:

Ref: The Killing of Sjt Paul McAleese, 20/08/09


Serjeant Paul McAleese was serving with 2 Rifles and went to Afghanistan in April just two weeks after the birth of his first son. In June, following the death of a platoon commander and injuries caused to the platoon serjeant by an IED when on a foot patrol, he was transferred to a forward operating base called Wishtan, in Sangin.

Operating from this FOB on July 10, five soldiers were killed by two IEDs again while on foot patrol. I later learned from Paul that the death toll could have been higher as there were several IEDs around then which were thankfully not detonated.

Paul came home for a week’s R and R in July and I learned more about the situation in his base.

1. There are no armoured vehicles there

2. Helicopters are not widely available

3. Foot patrols are still being carried out

4. The insurgents have the same metal detectors that our troops have and use them when planting their IEDs, making them virtually undetectable to our troops.

5. Any ground cleared by our troops is left unprotected when they return to base and the insurgents just place more IEDs in the same area.

6. The IEDs are planted within metres of the base and there is no equipment available to monitor the area and not enough troops available to maintain observation posts on the ground.

Considering the number of soldiers killed from FOB Wishtan, it must be the most dangerous place in the whole of Afghanistan. I was already aware of the debacle concerning the purchase of Chinook helicopters that have been unavailable for over two years as vital equipment to operate them was not purchased.

The claims that our troops are provided with the best equipment and that we have enough helicopters is clearly untrue and support of these claims by MPs or senior officers concerned for their careers does not stand up to the facts.

On August 20, Paul and another soldier called John were killed by IEDs while on foot patrol from FOB Wishtan.

It took nearly three hours for a helicopter to become available to fly Paul to Camp Bastion and this was then provided by the US as there were no British craft available.They died because they were not provided with the right equipment or a safe system of work.They did not have dogs or suitable equipment to detect the IEDs that killed them. There were no armoured vehicles for them to travel in which may have enabled them to survive the explosions. If they were not sent out on foot they would still is alive.

I believe that Paul and John were not killed by the Taliban or the insurgents; they were killed by whoever sent them out there knowing that they did not have the equipment necessary to do it with any degree of safety. The six soldiers already killed in the same area clearly being proof that they were ill-equipped to deal with the threat.

Any killing of our troops should be because of the actions of our enemies and not by the inactions of our MPs.

Because of you, I now have a 26-year-old daughter with no husband and a five-month-old grandson with no father.Their lives and those of family and friends around them will never be the same. The fact that Paul’s death was needless and avoidable makes us extremely angry.

As the Prime Minister, you must accept responsibility for the deployment of your troops. You have a duty to ensure that they are provided with the best equipment available and the operational tactics that are used are sound and sensible. Failing to ensure this will be seen as an act of neglect and should not be allowed to go unanswered.

I plead with you to stand up to the mark, protect our troops and stop the needless killing of our sons, husbands and fathers by IEDs.

So, this letter makes it clear that “our” inept war leader who didn’t properly fund the army as Chancellor is still causing the deaths of British soldiers as PM.

He must be so proud of himself in his Whitehall bunker!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

John Swinney needs to adopt tough choices to steady the ship then rebuild

Dear All

It is nearly that time of the year when the Scottish Government has a budget to divvy up the cash for next year.

One small problem, there isn’t a lot to go round as the Labour Government in Westminister took an axe to the SNP Government’s block grant.

This is real New Labour in action.

What is certain is that there may be cuts but it is up to John Swinney to juggle the books so the impact isn’t as hard.

Finance Secretary John Swinney obviously wants to protect public services and boost the economy, but he has to ask is it worth extending the council tax freeze into a third year.

I think it may be not; sometimes hard choices have to be made and explained.

Rival parties keen to be popular have said the SNP must protect jobs.

That is a no brainer but they cite spending money on an independence referendum as a waste of money. If Scotland had better financial levers things won’t be as bad but under the current system, they are hamstrung.

Labour finance spokesman Andy Kerr insisted the level of cash allocated to Scotland by the Treasury would actually rise by about £600m.

Perhaps Mr. Kerr isn’t suited to the role as a Finance Minister as he obviously isn’t keeping up with current events.

The Labour Party; his party in Westminster is cutting the Scottish budget.

With unemployment rising Mr Kerr called for a "budget on jobs".

This shows how out of touch he is, there is no point employing someone just for the sake of it; they had to provide value to the economy.

He added;

"Scottish Labour will judge the SNP's budget on the number of jobs it supports or creates, how it allows us to come through the recession in a stronger position and how it protects front line services."

As if anyone cared what they think; these are the people who failed to regulate the banks causing the misery in the first place.

New Labour helped the greedy bankers destroy the system because they are greed orientated.

The Conservatives' in Derek Brownlee said the SNP had to spend taxpayers' cash wisely.


Some tout Brownlee as a future leader of the Tories, God knows why?

What the Scottish Government needs to do is to strip out the quangos as a matter of urgency and a starter for ten.

Another idea is that co-ordination is needed to easy the burden on the NHS by better management for such issues as the growing obesity problem.

Public buildings such as schools etc should used by other organisations at night to generate cash, Colleges and Universities should follow suit as well.

Tough choices for John Swinney and the SNP Government but they can expect nothing from the other parties except criticism for doing the right thing.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University