Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Human rights abusing Glasgow University wants Graduate Tax, this will shut the poorest in Scotland out of higher education, debt during and after uni















Dear All

Last night viewers to BBC Newsnight Scotland saw an interview with corrupt foreigner Anton Muscatelli of the human rights abusing Glasgow University talking about higher education funding.

Wasn’t he really pathetic?

I see the subtext of his version of funding as making it as extremely difficult for the poorest in society to advance escaping the poverty trap.

What is clear is that Muscatelli and Glasgow University are taking the unionist view against the current Scottish Government.

Glasgow University is anti Scottish and anti working class in my opinion and here is my story.

Muscatelli wants to maintain his expense unjustifiable salary and lifestyle through the taxes of the ordinary Scottish people.

A part solution to the higher education funding problem is to charge English students the same commercial rate as foreign students.

It is said that Muscatelli allegedly favours payments based on the cost of courses rather than a blanket tax and wants this introduced within a year to ensure falling public funding did not damage Scottish higher education.

This isn’t a solution as people will simply leave the UK and is more about propping up his failing university, short term greed replaces visionary thinking.

The corrupt foreigner recently gave a speech as an education conference organised by the Scottish Conservatives, who are a dead party politically to the Scottish people.

Coverage of the event flagged up the feeling of emptiness, it was much like a wake at a funeral.

However, Glasgow University staff like to suck up to people in power to try and make themselves relevant so they trot along.

Student leaders say they were prepared to discuss a graduate tax in Scotland.

There is no such thing as ‘student leaders’ in Scotland and most people join the NUS Scotland to get access to student facilities.

They have no power and no real influence and are generally vote into their positions on very low turn outs.

And most ‘students leaders’ are in fact student members of political parties.

The carrot in the Graduate Tax is that some of the revenue will be targeted towards financial support for poorer students.

That is a sick joke and nonsense.

Labour MSP Claire Baker, higher and further education spokeswoman said a consensus was forming within higher education regarding funding.
She said:

“The case for an independent review is now unanswerable. We need to find a long- lasting solution to the future challenges facing universities and the student support system in Scotland. Solutions cannot be drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by political parties. We need to take the debate out of the hands of politicians and give it back to the people who live and breathe the sector.”

Clown!

Is she really advocating that hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer’s money should be placed in the hands of unaccountable people with no political oversight?

Did she really say this?

What is clear in my mind is that Glasgow University has very firmly come out as an anti Scottish institution.

This probably explains why they are ranked 128th in the world.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

5 comments:

Surreptitious Evil said...

Well, as you've disabled comments on your "complaint" post (2 Aug 2009) ...

Just to address some of your points (and I make no comment as to whether or not you have been poorly treated) ...

HRA Article 6 - right to a Fair Trial. Sorry, the Uni are correct, this does not apply to them - they are withdrawing services from you - which are not a "civil right or obligation". In fact, as a student rather than an employee, you are not even covered by the various employment law provisions. Is this "fair" - probably not - but it is correct law. Now, if you took them to court for fraud or whatever, then the judge would have to interpret the GU rules and statutes iaw Article 6 - and may declare them incompatible.

DPA s55 Offence. Who was the "data controller"? I strongly suspect it was GU. In which case, you fail at the stage of "without the consent of the data controller." There may also be other exceptions - I would guess that both SI2000/417 and DPAs31(2) and 35 may apply.

Also, I suspect you are forgetting the import of the Durant case in circumscribing the expansiveness of Data Subject Access Requests. I'd note that the Article 29 Working Party is not convinced that UK law, post Durant, is compliant with the European Directive, but that is a different matter.

Basically, it isn't as clear cut, legally, as you seem to think. Happy to discuss any points in more detail.

George Laird said...

Dear GU Lecturer

Universities operate under various acts of Parliament.

So, I am covered and also by the Human Rights Acts 1998.

So, please act stupid elsewhere there's a good chap.

"Just to address some of your points (and I make no comment as to whether or not you have been poorly treated)".

Since when does criminal fraud count as poor treatment?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Surreptitious Evil said...

One of the problems you seem to have is getting your various complaints to be treated seriously? In which case, you might just want to listen to people? Of course, free advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

A surprising number of organisations operate under Acts of Parliament - HBOS, carrying on from Bank of Scotland - has the very recent "HBOS Group Reorganisation Act 2006", for example. It doesn't automatically mean that their internal disciplinary procedures need to meet ECHR standards.

And, although the powers and privileges of University "Courts" are established in the various Universities (Scotland) Acts, the Court of the University of Glasgow was not the deciding panel in your case (as far as I can tell - and they shouldn't have been) and they, generally, are not courts in the meaning of ECHR Art 6.

"Since when does criminal fraud count as poor treatment?"

I doubt you are suggesting it is "good treatment"? It was a term to cover your various allegations of bullying, fraud, DPA offences, HRA breaches etc and to denote that I was commenting on the law rather the substance of your allegations.

You have alleged "criminal fraud" - you may be correct, you may even have sufficient proof for a criminal conviction. However, apart from snarky query about the strange possibility of "non-criminal fraud" and what that might look like - I made no comment. Why? You have not published enough evidence for a rational analysis, never mind for it to be "fair comment" under defamation rules.

George Laird said...

Dear Dr. Evil

You don't comment on the substance of my allegations?

So, why waste my time?

Do you think I have the slighest interest in your ramblings?

Do I give the impression I care?

Glasgow University is a human rights abusing organisation and the human rights act does apply to them.

Human rights apply to everyone all of the time and not some people some of the time as you suggest.

I am going to out Anton Muscatelli to all 129 MSP's at Holyrood, no one has ever done that before, it may help in the funding debate and will reset his reputation as a man who covered up criminal fraud in a privately funded charity.

Maybe you should email him and ask him to return my stolen money but I suspect your email would fall on deaf ears, he is a corrupt foreigner.

Remember this:

http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.com/2009/08/glasgow-university-senior-management.html

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Surreptitious Evil said...

You don't comment on the substance of my allegations?

Because you haven't posted any evidence - I presume it is in the many appendices to your letter of 2 Aug 09? So there is no substance available (not existing - just accessible) to comment on.

So, why waste my time?

Because you have posted the basis of (some of) your legal claims.

Human rights apply to everyone all of the time and not some people some of the time as you suggest.

But only State signatories can breach them. To quote the ECHR guidance: "Cases can only be brought against one or more States that have ratified the Convention." Glasgow University just isn't such a body. To quote my earlier answer 'Is this "fair" - probably not - but it is correct law.'

Crack on and write to all the MSPs - though you'd probably get a better response writing to your local MSP or your regional list.

"Maybe you should email him and ask him to return my stolen money "

You allege theft and fraud - but you haven't shown any evidence, never mind enough to prove either a civil or a criminal case. I would note, not that you seem to be at all interested in anything other than unquestioning support - but fees retained are likely to be a matter of contract law or delict under Scots law, rather than criminal law.