Friday, April 8, 2011

“Unfair by any standards of Natural Justice”, George Laird shows the full extent of corruption at human rights abusing Glasgow University













Dear All

The devil is in the detail so they say, now you can read the full extent of Glasgow University’s bullying and denial of rights and more importantly the names of the senior management people involved who operate in that culture.

Here is a copy of an email sent to the university which highlighted in more depth how deep the corruption runs.

Enjoy, it is all 100% true!

Dear Ms. O'Neil

Thank you for your email dated 25/1/2005, 4:10 pm, I was not at all surprised that you failed to provide me with answers to the questions I raised in my correspondence. From the very outset of this disciplinary process the University has sought to keep pertinent information from me, whilst attempting to create an appearance of fairness. It has singularly failed to achieve this, and the individual senior members of staff acting in this manner have simply brought the University into disrepute. They have broken the University Code and by their inaction have assisted others to continue with their campaign of institutional bullying, discrimination, and harassment.

I cannot allow this to continue any further. As a result I have decided to follow the University Policy and Procedures on Harassment fully. Under the Code if an individual feels he is being harassed all members of staff are to offer their support. I have complained of institutional bullying, discrimination and harassment. To date the University has tried to ignore and block my complaints by refusing information requests. This is simply unacceptable. As a direct result of this treatment I will provide you with a list of questions which I expect a full written reply to each and every question, if I do not receive this within seven days of the date of my correspondence, then I will continuously contact members of staff at the University until I find someone who will supply me with the information. The University of Glasgow staff will then be able to draw their own conclusions, and hopefully there will be at least one person that will follow the Code and protect me from my harassers.

My goal is simple I want an end to the long and sustained campaign of institutional bullying, discrimination and harassment which I have been subjected to. I want to be treated in a fair and impartial manner as is every individual's right. I do not feel that this course of action is inappropriate given that I have asked these questions throughout this disciplinary process and failed to receive a single proper explanation within this 18 month time period.

1/ Can you explain why I was not told I was to face criminal charges under the University's procedures?

2/ Can you explain why the Police were not informed?

3/ Who made the decision not to inform the police?

4/ Can you explain why every procedure in the code and the policies and procedures of Human Resources were ignored regarding me?

5/ Could you explain how I have been dragged through university disciplinary procedures for an offence which no individual has made against me?

6/ I have been accused of harassment and found guilty by the Senate Assessors. Can you explain why I have never been provided with the document from the individual (or their representative) which alleges that I harassed them, states when I harassed them and how they felt harassed?

7/ According to the university procedures on harassment this is the first stage before any action can be taken. Does this document exist, and if it does where is it, and why has it been illegally withheld from me?

8/ If the document does not exist why have the Senate Office and the Assessors decided to proceed when this is a clear breach of university guidelines and my statutory legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998?

9/ Can you explain why I was denied my right to go before my Head of Department as it is clearly stated in the harassment policy document of the Human Resources Department?

10/ Can you explain why Dr. Jack Atiken's Senate Office broke the law by trawling illegally for information against me, as information collected for one purpose cannot be used for another?

11/ Can you explain to me why Dr. Jack Aitken's Senate Office which is meant to be there to protect the student within the disciplinary process helped the Senior Assessor formally draw up the complaint against me?

12/ Can you explain to me how it can be acceptable that individuals who are to sit in judgement of me and the department which is to protect my rights can meet in secret to decide the best manner to fabricate charges against me?

13/ Can you point out where in the code of discipline it states that complaints can be rewritten by Dr. Jack Aitken's Senate Office and the Assessors?

14/ Does this fall within the laws of natural justice which the university code is meant to comply with?

15/ Can you explain when the Head of the Senate Office Dr. Jack Aitken was asked to explain what the specific charges being brought against me were he could not do so?

16/ Could you please explain the Head of the Senate Office Dr. Jack Aitken view that the charges had to be kept vague so that the Assessors could take the complaint in any direction they saw fit?

17/ Could you explain how a person is able to present a detailed and specific defence against a non specific allegation?

18/ How does this comply with the laws of natural justice, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the university code?

19/ Can you explain why I was originally only meant to be given three days to prepare a defence when Dr. Jack Aitken's Senate Office was working on the complaint for six weeks?

20/ Can you explain why when Dr. Jack Aitken was asked specific questions in writing about this process why he failed to answer them?

21/ Dr. Jack Aitken informed me and my representative that if I was unhappy at any stage with how the disciplinary process was being handled I could make an appeal and the process would be halted while the appeal was being dealt with. Yet when my representative made an appeal Dr. Jack Aitken and the Assessors ignored it and proceeded regardless. Can you explain how this is permissible within the code of conduct?

22/ Can you explain why the failure to give an appeal could not be explained in writing by the university, especially since Dr. Jack Aitken's Senate Office was fully aware of my hearing difficulties?

23/ Is this failure to provide me with a written response is this a clear breach of my rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and as a result a clear breach of the code?

24/ Can you explain why the Assessors never interviewed the person who accused me of harassment?

25/ Is this because the person doesn't exist?

26/ Can you explain to me why the Assessors interviewed only me and Julie Ommer before they found me guilty?

27/ Can you explain to me the relevance of interviewing Ms. Ommer when she has never made a personal complaint of harassment against me?

28/ Can you explain to me why after it had been clearly demonstrated to the Assessors that Ms. Ommer had lied repeatedly in her initial written submission, how could they possibly decide that everything she told them would be treated as fact?

29/ When a person is proven in Scottish law to be a liar all their evidence is tainted so why are the Assessors accepting everything she says as fact?

30/ Could you explain to me why I and my representative were told by the Assessors, Professors Gilmore and Phillips, that unless I could provide independent third party verification they would not accept anything I said?

31/ Is this natural justice, does this comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the code of conduct?

32/ Can you explain why I was provided with a letter by Dr. Jack Aitken which was purported to come from Professor Gilmore which was not on headed university paper and was undated and unsigned?

33/ Can you explain why Professor Gilmore lied that the SRS employee John Finnegan wasn't suspended for having a machete in his locker when he was?

34/ Can you explain why Professor Gilmore submitted a document to the Senate Disciplinary Committee stating that I had received all documentation in my Data Subject Access Request when he was specifically told that I had not at the Senate Assessor meetings?

35/ Does Professor Gilmore blindly accept as fact any comments made by an employee without verifying anything for himself?

36/ Can you explain why Dr. Jack Aitken stated in writing on 25th February 2004 that the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to Glasgow University?

37/ The court minutes of the university clearly show that it does and that the senior management are fully aware of this fact including all the vice principals and members of the Court, so how can Dr. Jack Aitken's position on this be tenable?

38/ Can you explain to me why I was not allowed to present my defence at the Assessor stage of the disciplinary process?

39/ Can you explain why I was not allowed to question my accusers and their allies at the Assessor stage?

40/ Can you explain why I was denied the right to show my video evidence, photographic evidence, witness statements and actually university documentation showing that the SRS was running a campaign of harassment against me at the Assessors stage as my defence?

41/ Why when this defence was attempted to be presented Professor Gilmore said they (the assessors) were not competent to look at it and so prevented me from having a defence?

42/ Having prevented me from presenting a defence how can they then find me guilty of the charges if they are not able to look at my defence?

43/ Can you explain why when I provided evidence the complaint was continually altered by the Assessors to exclude my evidence and then ignored it to find me guilty?

44/ Can you explain to me how Professor Gilmore can possibly be allowed to conduct a hearing on harassment when he stated as a matter of fact that a student accused of harassment is guilty until he can prove himself innocent?

45/ Could you please explain to me how a student can possibly prove himself to be innocent of harassment when no one has accused him of it and there are no specific cases or examples of harassment for him to answer?

46/ Can you explain why I was not allowed to speak in mitigation at the Assessors stage after being found guilty?

47/ Can you explain why the Senate Disciplinary Committee accepted the appeal when the notes clearly show that at no time was I allowed to present mitigation at the Assessor stage?

48/ Can you explain how the Assessors of University of Glasgow were able to find me guilty of plagiarism?

49/ Can you explain why Dr. Jack Aitken and the Senate office denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

50/ Can you explain why Professor Gilmore denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

51/ Can you explain why Professor Phillips denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

52/ Can you explain why I had to wait seven months before I got an appeal hearing given that students leave the university after graduation, was this to deny me a fair hearing?

53/ Can you explain why I was refused my right to know who was sitting on the committee before the University sent documents to third parties, namely the SRC, denying me my right to privacy and exclusion under the Code and the Data Protection Act 1998?

54/ Can you explain why the university broke the Data Protection Act 1998 supplying SRC with documents without my expressed written consent?

55/ Can you explain why Professor Malcolm McLeod was insistent that he be allowed to vet my evidence prior to my being allowed to present it to the court, and interfere with the presentation of my defence?

56/ Can you point out the exact rule within the university code that allows him to vet my evidence before I present it?

57/ Why did the Senate Disciplinary Committee allow Professors Gilmore and Phillips to carry out interviews post verdict and take statements from individuals and then include these documents within the case notes to the committee?

58/ Court Minutes clearly state that people involved in a case once they have rendered a verdict cannot have an active part in the process should the verdict be appealed. This being the case why were Professors Gilmore and Phillips allowed to conduct these interviews?

59/ The statements from these individuals formed no part of the original Assessor verdict so how can they be admissible in an appeal?

60/ Given that the committee have allow themselves to be presented with prejudiced and one sided evidence why did they not insist that witnesses statements were taken from the defendants witnesses to ensure balance and fairness?

61/ Given that I had specifically written to the Senate Disciplinary Committee pointing out that I intended to call Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs. E Shearer as witnesses why were allowed to sit in an official capacity as I had used my right of exclusion under the university policies and procedures?

62/ Can you explain why Professor McLeod (Convenor) denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

63/ Can you explain why Professor Barry T. Jones, Psychology denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

64/ Can you explain why Dr. Jocelyn Dow, Biochemistry denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

65/ Can you explain why Mr. Tom Guthrie, School of Law denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

66/ Can you explain why Professor James Hugh McKillop, Medicine denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

67/ Can you explain why Dr. David Miller, Neuroscience denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

68/ Can you explain why Dr. Catherine Schenk, Economic and Social history denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

69/ Can you explain why Mr. John Andrew Murray, SRC President denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

70/ Can you explain why Mr. John Anderson, SRC denied me my legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 were a person has the right to have explained the specific charges against him, who his accusers are, the right to question his accusers and their witnesses and the right to an impartial and fair hearing?

71/ Can you explain why Professor McLeod (Convenor) denied me my legal rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to record my hearing?

72/ Can you explain why Professor Barry T. Jones, Psychology denied me my legal rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to record my hearing?

73/ Can you explain why Dr. Jocelyn Dow, Biochemistry denied me my legal rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to record my hearing?

74/ Can you explain why Mr. Tom Guthrie, School of Law denied me my legal rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to record my hearing?

75/ Can you explain why Professor James Hugh McKillop, Medicine denied me my legal rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to record my hearing?

76/ Can you explain why Dr. David Miller, Neuroscience denied me my legal rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to record my hearing?

77/ Can you explain why Dr. Catherine Schenk, Economic and Social history denied me my legal rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to record my hearing?

78/ Can you explain why Mr. John Andrew Murray, SRC President denied me my legal rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to record my hearing?

79/ Can you explain why Mr. John Anderson, SRC denied me my legal rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to record my hearing?

80/ Can you please explain how Professor McLeod (Convenor) could feel that a secret vote held by the committee was sufficient to deny me my legal rights?

81/ Can you please explain how Professor Barry T. Jones, Psychology could feel that a secret vote held by the committee was sufficient to deny me my legal rights?

82/ Can you please explain how Dr. Jocelyn Dow, Biochemistry could feel that a secret vote held by the committee was sufficient to deny me my legal rights?

83/ Can you please explain how Mr. Tom Guthrie, School of Law could feel that a secret vote held by the committee was sufficient to deny me my legal rights?

84/ Can you please explain how Professor James Hugh McKillop, Medicine could feel that a secret vote held by the committee was sufficient to deny me my legal rights?

85/ Can you please explain how Dr. David Miller, Neuroscience could feel that a secret vote held by the committee was sufficient to deny me my legal rights?

86/ Can you please explain how Dr. Catherine Schenk, Economic and Social history could feel that a secret vote held by the committee was sufficient to deny me my legal rights?

87/ Can you please explain how Mr. John Andrew Murray, SRC President could feel that a secret vote held by the committee was sufficient to deny me my legal rights?

88/ Can you please explain how Mr. John Anderson, SRC could feel that a secret vote held by the committee was sufficient to deny me my legal rights?

89/ Can you explain why the Senate Disciplinary Committee refused to interview my witnesses when I specifically wrote to them asking them to do so?

90/ Can you explain why none of the staff witnesses I cited to be examined attended the hearing of the 17th September 2004?

91/ Can you explain if the University contacted these people and could you supply written evidence of this having been done?

92/ Can you explain why the University would not confirm that they would provide a television to allow me to present all my evidence?

93/ Can you explain why Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer are exempt from the policy and procedures on harassment?

94/ I have complained of institutional bullying by the Senate office and I had disqualified them both by my right of exclusion under the university procedures in writing and verbally at the hearing, why were they allowed to attend in an official capacity?

95/ Can you explain why Professor McLeod (Convenor) didn't obey the procedures and exclude Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer?

96/ Can you explain why Professor Barry T. Jones, Psychology didn't obey the procedures and exclude Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer?

97/ Can you explain why Dr. Jocelyn Dow, Biochemistry didn't obey the procedures and exclude Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer?

98/ Can you explain why Mr. Tom Guthrie, School of Law didn't obey the procedures and exclude Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer?

99/ Can you explain why Professor James Hugh McKillop, Medicine didn't obey the procedures and exclude Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer?

100/ Can you explain why Dr. David Miller, Neuroscience didn't obey the procedures and exclude Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer?

101/ Can you explain why Dr. Catherine Schenk, Economic and Social history didn't obey the procedures and exclude Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer?

102/ Can you explain why Mr. John Andrew Murray, SRC President didn't obey the procedures and exclude Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer?

103/ Can you explain why Mr. John Anderson, SRC didn't obey the procedures and exclude Dr. Jack Aitken and Mrs E. Shearer?

104/ Can you explain why after I had complained in writing about the conduct the Senate Disciplinary Committee, under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod, refusing to follow the Policy and Procedures they were able to continue within process?

105/ Can you explain why there was not an investigation at this juncture?

106/ Can you explain, given that the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod had already broken the University Rules, felt that it could render a decision in this case?

107/ Can you explain how this Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod, arrived at the conclusion that the evidence I submitted was new?

108/ Can you explain why the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod having broken the University Rules were capable of deciding that I was not entitled to receive the notes from the hearing to include with our appeal document on the rules?

109/ Can you explain how the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod could conclude that there had been no breaches of procedure when he refused to take the notes on the rule breaches on 17th September 2004?

110/ Can you explain how the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod could conclude that there had been no breaches of procedure when they refused to wait for the full appeal document to be delivered?

111/ Can you explain how the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod refused to wait for the full appeal document when they had been informed that the delay was a direct result of the Senate Office under the leadership Dr. Jack Aitken providing the hearings in a tardy fashion?

112/ Can you explain how the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod found me guilty without allowing my right under the Code to submit a plea of mitigation before passing sentence?

113/ Can you explain how the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod found that I had harassed the Senate Office without hearing or receiving evidence?

114/ Is this another example of the University simply finding an individual of an offence that they not been accused of and without looking at any evidence?

115/ Does Professor McLeod show himself to be an institutional bully by his finding?

116/ If your answer is no, could you please explain this to me?

117/ Could you have the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod explain to me how asking questions relating to a disciplinary process is harassment?

a/ What right does the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod have to make the assertion that I have harassed the Senate Office?

b) What evidence does the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod have to support this false allegation?

c) When will I be given a copy of this alleged evidence?

d/ Why was the Senate Disciplinary Committee given this and by whom?

e/ Why did the Senate Disciplinary Committee feel that they had the right to find me guilty of harassing the Senate Office without due process?

f/ Why was the Senate Disciplinary Committee looking at material not germane to the appeal case?

118/ Does this mean that by asking you questions I am harassing you, even though you have written to me questioning whether I need assistance?

119/ If asking questions is harassment, could a student asking questions in class be punished for this?

120/ Does this mean that exam questions are a form of harassment?

121/ Could you have the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod please point out the exact part of the Data Protection Act 1998 which prevents me from recording conversations with staff?

122/ Could you have the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod please point out the exact part of the University Code or the Law which prevents me from contacting other members of staff with regard to my disciplinary process?

123/ Could you have the Committee under the leadership of Professor Malcolm D. McLeod exactly what they meant by the veiled threat that they wished "to alert you to the potential difficulties this might cause you should individual members of staff choose to take action out with the confines of the University's codes and procedures".

124/ Given the conduct of certain former staff whilst employed by the University, was this a threat of violence?

125/ Can you explain why the university is refusing to allow me to lodge complaints with the personnel department against staff members that are harassing and institutionally bullying me when procedures clearly state investigations can run concurrently?

126/ Can you explain why after I have put in a formal complaint in writing to the Principal and the senior management against Dr. Jack Aitken and the Senate Office are they still involved in this disciplinary process?

127/ Can you explain why the procedures to make complaints directly to the personnel department have been deliberately withheld from me when I have requested them from the Principal Sir Muir Russell and all the vice principals?

128/ Can you explain to me how these senior members of staff at Glasgow University are allowed to simply ignore their own policies on harassment?

129/ Does this lack of action by Sir Muir Russell and the Vice Principals amount to discrimination?

130/ Would Sir Muir Russell and the Vice Principals have acted swiftly if I was from a different social class, different ethnic background, female, or homosexual?

131/ Is the inaction exhibited by Sir Muir Russell and the Vice Principals discrimination because I am poor middle aged working class and Glaswegian?

132/ Can you explain the procedures to return the money that was taken from me by the removal of services at the SRS which I had paid for in advance?

133/ This service was denied to me as a direct result of the defamatory and malicious lies presented by Julie Ommer in her initial eight page complaint against me. Since as a result of Ms. Ommer's lies the University has gained a pecuniary advantage by deception, does this constitute fraud?

134/ The University is registered as a charity and I would like to make a formal complaint regarding this alleged fraud to the Charities Commission. Can you forward me the name or department of the Charities Commission that I contact to put my formal complaint into?

135/ Glasgow University receives public funds from the Government, I wish to lodge a formal complaint with the Government regarding the institutional bullying I have been subjected to. Can you please forward to me the details of the Government Department that the University is answerable to?

136/ Can you explain what right you had to contact the Special Needs Service without my permission?

137/ You asked for my permission but did not wait for me to reply. How does this show your impartiality when you do not even have the manners to wait for my reply? Would you have treated a senior member of staff in such a dismissive manner?

138/ Given that I have made complaints against Julie Ommer for discrimination, institutional bullying and harassment, could you explain why you contacted the Special Needs Service, when Julie Ommer is head of the Staff and Student Support Group?

139/ Was this to attempt to block my legal right to tape?

140/ Can you explain to me how this complies with the University's policy on harassment?

141/ Can you explain and point out in the code exactly where it is stated I have to subject myself to your medical procedures before I get the legal right to tape?

142/ I am registered as having disabilities with the government, and I have registered with the Department of Adult and Continuing Education that I have disabilities in their application form every year since 1996. Dr. Jack Aitken's Senate Office and the Senate Assessors were informed that I had disabilities. I have incontrovertible proof of this. They simply denied me my rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, by refusing to answer questions in writing and preventing hearings to be either transcribed or openly recorded. The Senate Disciplinary Committee under the leadership of Professor McLeod discriminated against me in a similar fashion. Could you explain why the University under the leadership of Sir Muir Russell appears to be choosing to continue to discriminate against me in this process on the grounds of my disabilities?

143/ Does the University of Glasgow under the leadership of Sir Muir Russell discriminate against all individuals with disabilities, or is this special treatment reserved solely for me?

144/ Can you explain why you state that the Code used throughout was 2002-2003?

145/ Professor Gilmore stated on 17th September 2004 to the Senate Disciplinary Committee, Senate Office Representatives, my representative and I that he had found me guilty under 32.17 of the 2003-2004 Code. This is a conviction of plagiarism. This is a clear breach of your rules which should result in this action against being dropped. When will the proceedings against me be dropped and I found to be innocent?

146/ Can you explain your logic that having students sit on your procedures protects me when the University Senior management has a built in majority?

147/ Why has there never been working class members of staff like janitors, painters, labourers, technicians on your disciplinary committees which would allow it to be representative of the entire University Community?

148/ Is the structure at present designed to give a built in bias to senior members of staff?

149/ Can you explain why anyone would need a safeguard if the staff did their job properly and professionally?

150/ Can you explain how a student who is dependant on the university for their degree will protect my rights?

151/ Can you explain how the SRC who are dependant on the university for their grant and at the present time are in negotiations regarding money are impartial?

152/ In my previous correspondence I requested the following documents which have been maliciously withheld by the University of Glasgow. These documents include:

a) The complaint(s) of harassment from the alleged victim or their representative without which a complaint of harassment cannot be processed.
b) The full appendices to Julie Ommer's original complaint, which have been deliberately withheld.
c) The notes of the meeting between the Senior Assessor Dr Jacqueline M Atkinson (a colleague of Professor Nanette Mutrie an alleged witness for Ms. Ommer) and Dr. Jack Aitken's Senate Office, when Julie Ommer's lie filled document was re-written in an attempt to make it easier to convict me without producing any witnesses or evidence.
d) The personal notes which the Senate Assessors took during the hearings.
e) The notes from the second secret meeting of Senate Disciplinary Committee complete with a full list of the participants, when and where it took place. This meeting is not covered by the Data Protection Act or the Code since I have alleged malpractice.

153/ Can you explain why you refuse to tell me how the university is going to allow me to present my evidence to the Court Committee or is it your intention to try and submit me to the same illegal procedures that I have endured to date?

154/ Can you explain why students are telling me that SRS teaching staff are asking students if they have paid money to go to the gym with me?

154/ Can you explain how Glasgow University allows this type of organised victimisation to take place?

155/ Can you explain how many SRS staff are involved in this and who are they are?
156/ Can you explain why despite the university signing up to the Nolan Principles to uphold transparency in its dealings didn't conduct itself in that manner with regard to me?

157/ How can it be transparency when the people allegedly supposed to help me in Dr. Jack Aitken's Senate Office deliberately wouldn't answer my questions?

158/ Can you explain if it is standard University policy that an accused student is guilty until they prove themselves innocent?

159/ Under the Code of Conduct I have the right to question my accusers and their allies. To date Dr. Jack Aitken's Senate Office, the Senate Assessors and the Senate Disciplinary Committee have denied me this right. I would like you to confirm in writing that the University will ensure the attendance of all members of staff that I previously listed as witnesses?

160/ Finally with regard the Court Proceedings it is clearly stated in the Court Minutes that the Court will not look at any student appeal until all processes of the Faculty/Senate Procedures are exhausted. How can the Court possibly proceed when I have been denied the right to present
either a defence or mitigation prior to sentence at every stage of this process?

This whole flawed disciplinary procedure was instigated by a report from Julie Ommer which was riddled with lies. The University have adopted the view since the document has come from a member of staff that everything within it must be true. The University in adopting this approach have failed to carefully scrutinize her intentions or her evidence. If they had they would have quickly realised that she lied throughout the document. She lied with the intention of having me excluded from all or part of the University. This is simply a continuation of her long running campaign of institutional bullying, intimidation, and harassment which I have received at the hands of the SRS staff. Since this complaint has been submitted most of the senior staff involved have denied me my rights under the law, the University policies and procedures and the laws of natural justice.

161/ I have been defamed by Julie Ommer acting within her role as a Director of the University of Glasgow. I want to be provided with copies of her evidence which she relies on to make these scurrilous remarks. This evidence was not provided in my Data Subject Access Request. So far I can only think of two reasons why this is the case, firstly that the material has been illegally withheld from me. This is a breach of the law. Secondly, the evidence never existed. Could you please tell me which of these options it is?

I will now go through the initial eight page document which she submitted against me. I intend to highlight every lie and discrepancy within it. This thin tissue of lies was then re-written by a colleague of one of Ms Ommer's witnesses (Dr. J. Atkinson Public Health) and the Senate Office (the department which allegedly protects the student within the disciplinary process!) Although the individuals were quite happy to re-write this document, they appear to have been far from diligent in checking the veracity of the content of the initial document and the honesty of Ms. Ommer.

162/ Julie Ommer alleges that my behaviour is having an extremely stressful effect on staff working within the SRS. This is not true; if it were then there would documentary evidence. Notes of complaints from staff, or formal written complaints. These do not exist since they would have appeared within my Data Subject Access Request. This means that either evidence has been withheld, or Julie Ommer is a liar. Could you please inform me which option is correct?

163/ Julie Ommer alleges that it is of concern that my behaviour is being targeted towards SRS customers. This is not true, if it were then there would documentary evidence. Notes of complaints from customers, or formal written complaints. These do not exist since they would have appeared within my Data Subject Access Request. This means that either evidence has been withheld, or Julie Ommer is a liar. Could you please inform me which option is correct?

164/ In the original complaint Julie Ommer lists a large number of appendices which she alleges support her accusations. Despite repeated requests to Mr. David Fildes (Data Protection Officer) and Dr. Jack Aitken (Senate Office) these documents have never been produced in their entirety. In fact both these gentlemen have lead me to believe that the documents do not exist. Do these documents exist? If they exist when will the University provide me with a full copy of them? If they do not exist why has Ms. Ommer's complaint been processed? If they do exist why have both Mr. Fildes and Dr. Aitken deliberately mislead me?

165/ Julie Ommer states in page 4, paragraph 1, Professor Mutrie revoked my membership when she was director in 1989/90. This is false and misleading. My membership ended when I was no longer a staff member, so it was never revoked. The Director of the Department of Physical Education and Sports Science was Professor Peter Radford. Professor Radford far from removing me, authorised a free membership for me in the next academic year. Under Professor Radford's tenure as the Director, a scheme was in operation where a staff member could give a free pass for the sports facilities to designated individual. I was presented with this pass for two consecutive years. I do not believe Professor Radford would have given me this pass if I was a trouble-maker or someone that the Department wanted to exclude, do you?

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment.

166/ Julie Ommer claims I left Queen Margaret Union in 1992, this is a lie. How could Julie Ommer possibly have details of my employment history at the Queen Margaret Union. These are confidential and would be protected by the Data Protection Act. I would like you to provide me with her proof that supports her lie, when can you provide it please?

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment.

167/ Furthermore Julie Ommer lies when she states that as a DACE student I receive my SRS membership at a reduced rate. As a DACE student I actually pay three times more than the normal student rate, which is the same rate as an employee.

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment.

168/ Julie Ommer states that I gained improper access to the SRS during 1992-1996. This is not only a malicious lie, it is also an accusation of fraud, and as you must be aware fraud is a criminal offence. If Ms. Ommer was aware I was committing fraud, by not taking the appropriate action and banning me she would be guilty under the Companies Act of not reporting this fraud, and would therefore be unfit to be a fund holder of the University. Is this not correct? Ms. Ommer has indicated that the SRS were trying to remove me, if this was true, and she knew I had obtained my membership fraudulently why did the SRS not withdraw my membership?

a/ I would like you to provide me with Ms Ommer proof that I committed fraud in 1993, which was withheld from my Data Subject Access Request, when will I receive this?

b/ I would like you to provide me with Ms Ommer proof that I committed fraud in 1994, which was withheld from my Data Subject Access Request, when will I receive this?

c/ I would like you to provide me with Ms Ommer proof that I committed fraud in 1995, which was withheld from my Data Subject Access Request, when will I receive this?

d/ I would like you to provide me with Ms Ommer proof that I committed fraud in 1996, which was withheld from my Data Subject Access Request, when will I receive this?

I was a qualified registered coach of the boxing club and I had a weekend partner card which I paid for. I am not guilty of obtaining improper access. I was subjected to a barrage of harassment while attempting to comply with the rules and obtain my coaching card. I believe I was the only coach subjected to this type of humiliation and harassment. I would add to this my services were offered free of charge and that also I paid to get qualifications at no cost to the student body, GUSA.

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment.

169/ Page 4, paragraph 3, Julie Ommer states that my membership rights were revoked again in 1997, this is a lie. She proceeds to lie by stating that I was openly observed by staff in this activity, and that staff even received telephone calls concerning appointments with me. I would very much like to see the much vaunted documentary evidence to support these malicious and false allegations. The documentation was not contained within my Data Subject Access Request, when will you provide me with it?

170/ Quite simply I was a qualified coach for the Boxing Club, so it is hardly surprising that I carried out my duties in this regard for GUSA. Otherwise I would not have been given a coaching card, is this not correct? At other times I trained with my friends. Is there a single witness statement from any individual alleging that I taught them? If there is could you please provide it since it is not contained within my Data Subject Access Request?

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment.

171/ Page 5/ paragraph 2, Julie Ommer states that It wasn't until 1996 that I became an official member of the boxing club, this is a lie I was a registered coach from 1993 when I became an official of the club.

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment

173/ Page 5/ paragraph 2, Julie Ommer lies when she stated that I held a grudge against the other club coach, Mr Grant. I simply reported that the committee and Mr. Grant held a dinner and decided who would be the next year's committee members. I reported this to GUSA who forced the club to have a fair election. Furthermore my Data Subject Access Request shows my personal correspondence to GUSA which is not part of the University of Glasgow and as such my personal papers were obtained illegally and used illegally in her submission. This is gross misconduct on her part.

It should also be pointed out that I complained that Glasgow University Boxing Club were having individuals represent the Club at a boxing tournament in Ireland, who were neither students nor members of staff, and that GUSA resources were being used to take non students on trips to represent the University. Whilst Ms. Ommer is attempting to portray me in a bad light, I believe I behaved in a manner that is a credit to the University.

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment

174/ Page 5, paragraph 3 Julie Ommer yet again lies that the accident on the power frame was caused by my using the equipment inappropriately. A safety report 211/98 from the Safety Office states that the accident was not caused by my using the machine improperly. Julie Ommer repeats this lie to Dugald Mackie in email correspondence.

I am a qualified weights instructor. To my knowledge there were no qualified weights instructors employed by the SRS at that time. It seems strange that Ms. Ommer can conclude as someone with no weight training qualification, and who was not present at the time of the accident, that I used the equipment inappropriately. Ironically the person that SRS used to apparently demonstrate the correct functions of the machine to University Safety Office was, a non member of the teaching staff, John Finnegan.

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment

175/ Page 6 paragraph 2, Julie Ommer states that, "Mr. Laird was unhappy about some of the changes to the weight training room's layout. This statement proves that the SRS retains correspondence and complaints from members. If indeed there had been complaints made against me, as Ms. Ommer alleges, why have she and the University been unable to produce them? Does this mean the complaints do not exist? An alternative interpretation may be that the SRS have been waging a systematic campaign against me, and anything that they feel may become useful against me is retained. If this were the case and I was being singled out for this 'special' treatment, would this be discrimination?

176/ Page 6, paragraph 3 Julie Ommer claims that John Finnegan, who assaulted me, asked for my complaint to be formally investigated. Is this true? I contacted the university and started proceedings, no document exists within my Data Subject Access Request from him asking for anything of this nature from him or anyone else. If he had made a formal request why was the matter not pursued?

Ms Ommer continues that I did not pursue this matter through the process. This is of course yet another lie. I sent in a substantial report during the Summer recess to Mr. Reynolds who never responded to me. When I returned for the new academic year John Finnegan was no longer an employee. I assumed that Mr. Reynolds had followed the University procedures through to their logical conclusion and that the weapons carrying thug Finnegan had been sacked. I feel that this was a reasonable conclusion to arrive at, wouldn't you if you were in my position? It should also be borne in mind that not only had I written to Mr. Reynolds at this time, but so did my witness Mr. Martin Bradley. It is only through this process that I have discovered that the University did not take disciplinary action against the violent weapon carrying thugs like Finnegan. I do find it quite remarkable that Finnegan physically assaulted me in front of a witness and the University took no action to protect me or my witness from him. I contrast this with how I have been treated in this disciplinary procedure. No actual complaint from any individual citing a single instance of harassment, or how my behaviour made them feel harassed, and I have been hounded by the University from pillar to post. My rights under the Policy and Procedure of the University ignored, my rights under the Code ignored. My legal rights ignored.

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment

177/ Page 7, paragraph 1, Finnegan returns to University immediately after my witness Martin Bradley graduated. I reminded the University of the fact that Finnegan was suspended for having a history of intimidation and was found to have a machete in his locker while an employee of the SRS. The University staff lied when it claimed that Finnegan was not suspended for having a machete in his locker. It is therefore very concerning when an individual like this assaults and conducts a campaign of intimidation against you. When I brought this to the attention of senior of the management at Glasgow University, I was both surprised and disgusted that no measures were taken to protect me, or any other student at the University.

178/ Finnegan was allowed back into the University, he then proceeded to assault me in front of a new witness, Graham Kennedy. The University stonewalled this second complaint. I was left with no alternative but to go to the police. I was informed if I had complained earlier they would have charged Finnegan. Julie Ommer specifically requests Dugald Mackie assign Ian Hawkins to carry out the investigation into the assault. An investigation was carried out by Mr. Ian Hawkins where he failed to interview Finnegan, he spoke to my witness five months after the event, and he never interviewed me. Mr Hawkins did however manage to pass the personal details of my witness onto Finnegan. This seems rather strange to me since the University alleges that I am not allowed to know the names of my accusers or who was present at the secret hearing of the Senate Disciplinary Committee. How can both these instances be correct?

179/ Page 7, paragraph 2 Julie Ommer states as fact that Graeme Massett and Ken Thomson train regularly with me at the university, this is simply another lie. To my knowledge I have never met either Mr. Massett or Mr. Thomson. I have requested that the University provide the sign in sheets to prove Ms. Ommer's allegation. Since these documents would also prove if Ms Ommer was lying. Yet again, not surprisingly these documents have not been retained by the SRS. It does beg the question why does the SRS take this information if it has no intention of retaining and using it?

I cannot understand why Julie Ommer has lied in this instance, other than to demonise me within this report. Perhaps she hoped that this smear campaign would help bias the staff involved in this disciplinary process against me. Encouraging the staff to close ranks and protect one of their own. I am sure you would agree that she has been successful in her attempts to mislead this process with her lies, wouldn't you? What Julie Ommer's document does given credence to is my allegation that I have been subjected to a long running and systematic campaign of bullying, intimidation and harassment

180/ Page 7, paragraph 2, the truth is that Ms. Ommer's brother in-law contacted me to quiz me on the complaint by Dr. Craig Ross against her since I was one of his witnesses. At this point Mr. Carroll made a veiled threat that I should watch my back. Several days later Mr. Finnegan assaulted me. I can substantiate that Mr. Carroll contacted me because I have stored his call on my mobile. If the Assessors and the University choose not to accept my version of events, then that of course is their choice. I would however point out that I have been entirely honest and open throughout this whole procedure. I would contrast this quite starkly with the vast quantity of lies from Ms. Ommer. It is therefore bewildering to me that everything Ms. Ommer says is to be regarded as factually correct, whereas I have been informed that unless I can provide third party corroboration I will not be believed. This is then compounded by the fact that when I have third party corroboration the University Officials will not look at it. Could you explain to me is this professional or unprofessional: is this equality or discrimination; is this even handed treatment or institutional bullying?

181/ Page 9, paragraph 2. Julie Ommer deliberately puts in the complaint document an incident that I never contacted the SRS about. I spoke about a different incident regarding a PhD student Nigel Herold. To avoid deliberate confusion I have taken statements from the person in the Ommer Incident and from Mr. Herold. Julie Ommer attempts to represent that the customer in the first incident would be a witness for the SRS, this is not the case I have his statement from the time and I have tracked him down in Japan, I can get his email for you to question him, his name is Steven McCready, graduate of Film and TV studies. The incident I referred to concerned the SRS staff turning off lights in the gym, plunging it into darkness when people were using the free weights. I can only assume that she has tried to confuse the two events in an attempt to deflect attention from the unsafe practices of her staff deliberately placing trainers in danger. Do you have an alternative explanation?

182/ Ben Stuart lied in his written submission and again in his post verdict meeting with the assessors. In my opinion his 'evidence' was fabricated to support Julie Ommer. His version of events has key points removed. Mr. Stuart approached me on 5th August 2003 but only in the gallery not in the gym. At this point he accused me of filming children, which I noticed has been omitted from his statement. I sent an email detailing these events to Dugald Mackie prior to my being made aware of any complaint from Julie Ommer.

183/ I told Ben Stuart the history of the SRS and people attached to the staff like John Finnegan (weapons convictions), Barry Henry Keenan (who broke a man's arms and legs on campus, 2nd May 2003, approximately between 7.30 am and 8 am), George Finnian (convicted of firearms offences). I told Ben Stuart of the gang culture that operated at night when Finnegan was left in charge of the Stevenson Building which the University chose to ignore. Informed Mr. Stuart about the assault on me by Finnegan which was witnessed in 1999 and that afterwards my witness Martin Bradley was stabbed (his letter was sent to Lawrence Reynolds and ignored, I posted it personally at the main Security myself). I explained that there is a culture within the SRS that complaints are simply ignored. I was not angry or threatening towards Mr. Stuart. I was, however, passionate about the institutional bullying that I had been subjected to. I have a variety of witness statements that support my version of events. Could you explain to me why the Assessors would not look at these witness statements?

184/ I complained to Dugald Mackie regarding Ben Stuart claiming I had committed a criminal offence by littering. I have never been contacted regarding this matter in the twelve months since the incident. I did therefore find it quite surprising that Ben Stuart's version of the incident is contained within the Assessors post verdict justification report. I find it concerning that although I have four witnesses to the events of the Saturday in question, neither the Assessors nor the Disciplinary Committee bothered to interview my witnesses Peter Blackwood, Dr. Craig Ross, Police Constable Manjit Singh and Tony Barrett. Could tell me how this complies with Natural Justice which the University Code is based on, or how it complies with the Human Rights Act 1998?

185/ Do the events detailed above give credence to the University's claim that I do not follow complaint through, or does it support my contention that every complaint I have ever made is stonewalled and disregarded?

186/ Ms. Donnelly, like Ben Stuart alleges she told me to stop filming on the 10th August 2003. This is a lie. When Ms. Donnelly entered the room she did not approach the individual that was actually using the video camera, rather she confronted me. Is this harassment? I have two witnesses Dr. Alan Ramsay and Mr Lu Wei, who have both given statements that she did not ask me to stop filming, nor did she explain any rules regarding filming. I note that she was not interviewed by the Assessors, is this because she has now retracted her statement?

Julie Ommer eight page initial complaint is a fabrication of lies that was altered by university senior management to ensure that these lies remain hidden and ignored, my Data Subject Access Request brought them to light and now everyone will be informed of the bullying that has happened to me and is still continuing to happen at the SRS. I have new evidence from the student body that they have been approached by SRS staff and in one instance I was told that a medical student was asked to lie that he had given me money in the gym.

Ms Ommer's document that I harassed her staff is unbelievable. She has lied and defamed me throughout. I have asked the University to ensure that she provides me with a written apology. This has been ignored. Apparently it is acceptable to defame, harass, discriminate and bully at Glasgow University, as long as the target for this treatment is a mature working class part time student. If I had been more affluent Glasgow University would not have dared treat me in such an outrageous manner. Unlike the University my legal bills are not paid for me by the state or charitable donations. As a result I have to fight the injustices that have been heaped on me in a manner that is economically viable for me. To this end I re-iterate that if I do not receive a response to each and every question contained within this document within seven days I will continually contact members of staff until I find someone that will supply the information requested and follow the University's Policies and Procedures.

Thank you for your time in this matter and I will be sending another email responding to points raised in your correspondence.

yours sincerely

Mr. George Laird

Glasgow University is a human rights abusing organisation and Anton Muscatelli is a corrupt foreigner.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

11 comments:

James said...

Finnegan went to King's Park Secondary in Glasgow - I remember him as a violent young man in a violent school. No surprises in this letter.

George Laird said...

Dear James

A complaint was also filed against Finnegan by Shona Lovell, an SRS attendant who complained she was threatened by him.

The University of Glasgow paid her off and made her sign a gagging order before they gave her money to leave.

Another victim which adds weight to my story of a 'culture of bullying' within the Sport and Recreation Service which ran through the entire department.

Glasgow University is a human rights abusing organisation which protects senior management predators like Julie Ommer, head of the SRS.

And still I fight on for justice and to expose these people.

What you say doesn't surprise me, Finnegan was a small man with a massive chip on his shoulder.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Anonymous said...

You're nuttier than a fruitcake, George.

I've read all of your blogs and I still have no idea what this is about.

James said...

Actually, last I heard of Finnegan, he had matriculated as a student of English literature at Glasgow. I wonder if he ever graduated. Fat faced little nerd.

Anonymous said...

Glasgow Univensity is still living in "TOM BROWNS SCOLDAYS" with a management that has never moved forward with the times.

That is why they inflict kangaroo courts and force through there own agenda regardless of the student body. They have no concept of equality and justice.

Anonymous said...

What student body would this be Anon? Jeez, we have a Senate for a reason - to protect academic standards against nutters like George Laird.

Anonymous said...

Anon @April 9, 2011 6:43 PM

Your support for bullying is noted. I have read George's blog for some considerable time and I don't see any reason to disbelieve his claims. He has constatntly cited university documents to prove his case. There has been a miscarriage of justice and I would say serial bullying. I aslo see he raises the case of a female bullied are we to believe George is making this up? As to othgers not understanding his case, I can only conclude they must be really thick bastards.

Keep going George.

Legal Eagle said...

Why is Glasgow University not taking Mr. Laird to Court?

Could it be every single allegation he makes is true?

SarahH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

James you have a lot to say about John Finnegan. Did you ever meet John?

George Laird said...

Dear Anon

The truth seems to upset you.

I stand by all my allegations that Glasgow University is a human rights abusing organisation.

If Glasgow University had any evidence of me lying they would have me in a Court of Law.

Not wanting to be rude to a Glasgow University drone but you’re simply not worth the effort!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University