Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Ex-Tory peer Lord Taylor of Warwick jailed for expenses fraud, working peers should be salaried so the problem of money can be resolved properly

Dear All

Former Conservative peer Lord Taylor of Warwick has been jailed for 12 months for falsely claiming £11,277 in parliamentary expenses.

The 58-year-old said in his ‘defence’ he had made the false claims "in lieu of a salary", and had been acting on colleagues' advice.

Unfortunately, this unusual approach to a defence fell on deaf ears, you can use ‘I’m guilty but I’m innocent.’

So, he got jailed pretty sharpish.

Judge Mr Justice Saunders said the expenses scandal had "left an indelible stain on Parliament".

Lord Taylor was Britain's first black Conservative peer and a former barrister and radio and TV presenter.

His life in public office is now completely ruined.

He listed his main residence as a home in Oxford, which was owned by his nephew, while he actually lived in a flat in Ealing, west London.

His nephew wasn’t aware of this practice.

Lord Taylor pleaded not guilty to the charges saying had been told by senior peers it was normal practice to make false expenses claims.

Perhaps Lord Taylor will now furnish the names of the senior peers that told him this.

His legal team also unsuccessfully argued that he should not face prison because, as a peer, his crimes were less serious than those of MPs found guilty over their expenses.


His barrister said he had committed "a single monumental error of judgment" and a custodial term would "destroy him", adding that: "Every fibre of Taylor is motivated by public service."

Mr Justice Saunders acknowledged that the Lords expenses scheme "lacked clarity" and was treated by some peers as an allowance which they were entitled to claim in full.

This shows that in my opinion that working peers should be put on a salaried position rather like MPs to clean up this problem.

Mr Justice Saunders also said:

"The expenses scheme in the House of Lords was based on trust. Peers certified that their claims were accurate. They were not required to provide proof. It was considered that people who achieved a peerage could be relied on to be honest. Making false claims involved a breach of a high degree of trust."

He added:

"Lord Taylor has now told the probation officer that he fully accepts that he is guilty of the offences and has expressed regret and remorse for what he has done. While it is to his credit that Lord Taylor admits his guilt, it does mean that he accepts that he wasn't telling the truth on oath in the witness box."

Following the sentencing, it was revealed that about 15 of Taylor's fellow peers refused to give evidence to support his defence.

You can take from that what you will but the 15 should be also investigated.

During his trial, Lord Taylor said he had relied on the advice of Lord Colwyn, the long-standing hereditary peer and deputy speaker of the Lords, when submitting his expenses claims.

Something Lord Colwyn has denied.

No way to leave public life.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Former Professor at human rights abusing Glasgow University, now a Labour MSP calls for issuing of search warrants by Skype, F minus Pearson!

Dear All

Some people who get in Holyrood can’t wait to be a clown, Graeme Pearson, formerly of human rights abusing Glasgow University says that Sheriffs should be able to issue search warrants by Skype or video link.

Already in the door and he is making a clown of himself and publicly to boot.

No surprises that he is a Labour MSP.

As well as being a former ‘Professor’ at human rights abusing Glasgow University, Pearson, had a stint as director-general of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.

An agency which should be on the list for merger into the Scottish National Police Force, no more fiefdoms!

As a Labour MSP, Pearson believes such technology could end the row over who lets the police enter homes with Senior officers last week wanting the right to issue search warrants.

Skype is good for video calls but doesn’t overcome the problem that evidence should really be produce to justify the granting of a search warrant.

Or does Pearson think a video call can overcome this fact?

If he reckons technology can solve the problem then why Skype, why not just use the mobile phone?

Although Pearson isn’t on the same track as the Police, he said:

He said:

“If the police deem it necessary to search someone’s home or other premises it is right and proper that an independent authority should test the reasons for the action. In the current arrangement a police officer appears personally before the sheriff (no matter where he or she is at the time) and swears to the contents of the warrant in terms of the details.”

The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (Asps), say investigations are being held up because they are waiting for too long to carry out searches.

That is bullshit.

This is like mission creep because no politician will back Police signing their own search warrants and as to the face on the telly doing so, will that be recorded and archived?

Because if a warrant was granted incorrectly; the evidence obtained at the scene would become void in a Court case.

To tamper with the current system with judges effectively under the Pearson idea becoming a rubber stamp is unacceptable.

Pearson should just keep quiet, by talking Pearson, Scottish Labour should now realise they have gotten a poor MSP.

I am surprised that he hasn’t used the ‘ticking bomb’ argument along with the other tripe he spouts.

Pearson also said:

“We can engage in web-based banking and digital buying using the internet but our justice system continues in the steam age.”

The only steam is out of his ears and I don’t think proper execution of justice should hang on ‘a ten to midnight phone call’.

Or even Skype.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Monday, May 30, 2011

Thunderball - Tom Jones

What's New Pussycat? - Tom Jones

Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government seek a ‘remedy’ to UK Supreme Court, appoint better judges and sit down, this case is a loser!

Dear All

The Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is unhappy that the UK Supreme Court in his opinion has “undermining the independence of Scots law”.

They haven’t.

All they have done is the work that the Appeal Court in Edinburgh should have done in the first place but didn’t concerning human rights.

Kenny MacAskill has spoken out the day before the Scottish cabinet intends to discuss how to "remedy" the situation.

If this is taken to the joint Cabinet meetings between the Westminster and Holyrood Governments, it can be brought up.

And blown out the door!

As a legal case, it is a loser.

A ruling happened last Wednesday that saw Nat Fraser's conviction for murdering his estranged wife Arlene quashed as unsafe.

And also the Supreme Court sparked controversy for a ruling, known as the Cadder judgment, on the rights of suspects to legal representation.

On both these issues the UK Supreme Court was right.

The Cadder ruling on October 26 last year overturned a decision by seven senior Scottish judges.

These people who are supposed to the guardians of fairness and justice singly failed to uphold that task.

It was up to the UK Supreme Court to find suspects to be held and questioned for six hours without access to a lawyer was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr MacAskill said:

"We're in a situation not anticipated when the Scotland Act was developed. It was meant to be a situation that when the Supreme Court was invoked that criminal law would remain in the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. I don't think anybody ever imagined that we would have the routine challenges on human rights cases going directly to the Supreme Court."

The alternative if Scots are banned from the UK Supreme Court is to take the case directly to the European Court in Strasbourg.

And is anyone advocating denying that human right?


So, the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh isn’t the final arbiter as touted by certain people, namely the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

He says the majority of judges at the Supreme Court do not have any knowledge or custom of Scots law.

And you don’t need to; if a case is being tamper with, it is wrong in any jurisdiction.

You don’t even need a law degree to work that out.

For Scottish criminal cases, the court can be used only when the case relates to "devolution matters", a term covering the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in dealing with human rights issues.

Prominent Human rights lawyer John Scott, also speaking on the BBC programme, earlier said First Minister Alex Salmond was wrong to be concerned at the actions of the court.

Mr Scott said:

"I think there's a sense of perspective being lost. There's only a very tiny number of cases ever go to the Supreme Court. It doesn't have jurisdiction over the vast majority of criminal cases; it's only in relation to human rights points."

Will Westminster amend the Scotland Act to prevent human rights cases going before the UK Supreme Court?

I would say no!

Can the Scottish Cabinet ‘remedy’ the situation?

Yes, appoint better judges who understand human rights law.

But as any decent lawyer or law student would tell you, the Scottish Government legally doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Save your money, time and resources, this case is a loser.

And the ‘remedy’ is not to proceed further.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

The Labour Party may opt for a quick election in Inverclyde with Councillor leader Iain McKenzie, Innes Nelson should go head to head against him

Dear All

With the sad passing of Labour MP David Cairns, there will now be a by-election in Inverclyde to replace him.

And contenders are making themselves known or are emerging.

The Labour Party is to select its candidate as early as next week, prompting some to suggest that they make go for a quick election by the end of June.

Seems a reasonable idea enough idea.

Labour is defending a massive 14,416 majority over the SNP in this seat.

Labour insiders say June 30 has been earmarked for the poll, although no writ has yet been moved at Westminster to make it official.

Among Labour contenders are Councillor Iain McKenzie, the leader of Inverclyde Council since February, and Melanie Ward, a former president of NUS Scotland.

For the SNP, the main challenger, they have yet to select a candidate but some names have emerged.

They include Councillor Innes Nelson, head of the SNP group on Inverclyde Council, Anne McLaughlin, the former Glasgow list MSP; and Mags Park, a General Election candidate in Glasgow North West.

So, who to pick?

Looking at this, the obvious choice is Innes Nelson who is well capable of being an MP and has already a good track record as a Councillor.

He is the local candidate, has a history in the community and has fought the seat before, people already know the brand.

The equivalent Holyrood seat of Greenock and Inverclyde saw the cutting of Labour’s majority from 3024 to 511.

That means the by-election contest is a genuine two-horse race.

So, if I was on the selection panel, I would go for Innes Nelson, in my opinion he offers the best possible chance to take the seat from the Labour Party.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

After the political tsunami hit Scotland, Councillors of other political parties defect to the SNP, who will be the first Glasgow Labour Councillor?

Dear All

When the political Tsunami hit Scotland on May 5th, the landscape was changed possibly forever.

As Councillors in political parties popped their heads up to look at the carnage, they thought to themselves, the game’s up!

Now, another two Scottish councillors have defected to the SNP last night, including a former election agent for Labour peer Lord Foulkes.

It seems that stalwarts feel it is better to be with a party that actually works for and on behalf of the people.

And the SNP are now predicting more defections ahead of next year’s local elections.

You might even see Glasgow Labour Councillors of shame trying to switch to the SNP, as the challenge to the Labour fiefdom is credible.

The decision by independent councillors Glynis Sinclair in Highland and Douglas Campbell, in South Ayrshire, to join the SNP makes the number of defects from other political parties rounding off at four.

In the immediate aftermath of the Holyrood result, Mike Dillon and Marie McGurk defected from the Liberal Democrats to the SNP on Renfrewshire Council.

The Lib Dems had a massive kicking at the hands of the voters.

By jumping now, councillors changing sides before next May qualify for SNP candidate selection.

Lib Dem Glynis Sinclair said:

“It is never easy to change to another political party but it became clear long before the Westminster election that the Liberal Democrats were losing touch and I have long seen that the SNP reflected the values of both myself and my constituents more directly.”

And a funny point, Alex Dingwall, formerly of the SNP jumped to the Lib Dems, he must be regretting that decision.

Councillor Douglas Campbell is a strange fish; he is a former leader of the Labour group at South Ayrshire Council and an election agent to Lord George Foulkes when he was an Ayrshire MP.

He says he no longer recognised the Labour Party, which has abandoned the working class in so many ways.

Campbell is currently praising “the dedication of the local SNP group and SNP Government in delivering positive measures for the communities of north Ayr.”

Councillor McGurk added:

“I’ve been thinking about this for some time. There are changes in Westminster and decisions made by the LibDem leadership which have left me unable, in all conscience, to continue my membership of the party.”

Aileen Campbell, the local government minister, said:

“Locally and nationally these four councillors represent many people turning to the SNP as their natural party.”

With an internal war on the cards between Glasgow Labour Councillors of shame over seats next May, who will be the first to jump?

Their minds will be focused on that issue; some current Labour Councillors of shame might be losing their seats.

When that idea takes root, it will be most unpleasant.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Met Police will carry out a review of Madeleine McCann Case but why prior to this were the Portuguese authorities not onboard?

Dear All

Through the Holyrood election and in the English local Council elections the Tories ran with a slogan which simply said ‘commonsense’.

Everything was commonsense this and commonsense that.

When David Cameron said that Met Police were going to review the Madeleine McCann and throw £3.5 million at it, I thought that was strange.

It is strange because for all the talk of a review, no one is using the pertinent word in this case; re-open.

And unless it is re-opened, with the co-operation of the Portuguese Judiciary Police (PJ), it is meaningless.

When Cameron popped up and made the announcement, I would have thought that prior to this, that there was already some kind of agreement in place between the British and Portuguese authorities.

And it turns out there isn’t!

This has lead to the Portuguese stating:

“the English need authorization from the Portuguese authorities to investigate in our country, because they do not have competence to act in Portugal”.

So, out of jurisdiction and no co-operation lined up, this isn’t a serious investigation because right from the start it is flawed.

Some high-ranking officers of the British police have equally criticised this decision, arguing that the money that is to be spent is more necessary for other cases.

Lord Harris, a member of the Metropolitan Police states:

"It again embroils their officers in a high-profile investigation, where the chances of success are unclear, and which will divert limited investigative resources away from other matters."

To pull 30 frontline detectives offline and spend million pounds when the necessary prior work to ensure a proper investigation can be done is a complete farce.

This all came about after Kate and Gerry McCann, sent a letter to David Cameron, in which they asked for a review of the case.

'Dear Prime Minister,

As a devoted father and family man, you know the importance of children. Our beloved eldest child, Madeleine, was abducted from Praia da Luz, Portugal, four years ago. Since then, we have devoted all our energies to ensuring her safe return.

Today we are asking you - and the British and Portuguese governments - to help find Madeleine and bring her back to her loving family.

We live in hope that Madeleine will be found alive and returned to us. One call might be all that is needed to lead to Madeleine and her abductor.

To this end, we are seeking a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance. Thus far, there has been NO formal review of the material held by the police authorities - which is routine practice in most major unsolved crimes.

It is not right that a young vulnerable British citizen has essentially been given up on. This remains an unsolved case of a missing child. Children are our most precious gift.

Please don't give up on Madeleine.

Kate & Gerry McCann'

And with that Cameron was sucked into the McCann Circus along with 30 detectives and £3.5 million pounds.

Such a move makes Cameron a hostage to fortune when the next high profile case comes along and he turns it down.

Contrary to the general feelings within the PJ, Pedro do Carmo, joint national director at the Judiciary Police, cited by “I” newspaper, states that the PJ is available to cooperate in this case, and committed to finding out the “credible, consistent and relevant factors that may contribute to clarify what happened to Madeleine McCann”.

In that case, issues surround her parents as arguidos will come up again.

According to members of the PJ, the review of the Madeleine McCann case questions the professionalism of their officers, who did everything that was possible to solve the child’s disappearance.

Sources recall that, despite them having good criminal investigation labs, a political decision was made to have the tests carried out in English labs.

The source said:

“We let the English do everything that they want.”

Because of various political influences which was due to the missing child’s parents’ social and political status.

That means Gordon Brown and the Labour Government who looking for a feel good factor to boost Brown’s popularity became a problem in the investigation.

The Judiciary Police had already been warned that the Scotland Yard had the intention to analyse the case again.

This does not mean, however, that the criminal process, which is under the Public Ministry’s tutelage, will be reopened.

This process may be picked up again if new evidence that contribute to the investigation’s development are discovered.

Another problem is that some of the officers that are involved in the investigation into the disappearance of Maddie McCann, four years ago in Praia da Luz, are close to retirement or about to present a voluntary leave.

And this will cause the Met Police no end of trouble because the documents are nearly all in Portuguese and it would be better that these people were available.

It is no surprise that the McCann’s four years down the line and with a book to promote have written publicly to David Cameron.

They are quite good at manipulating the media; however at anything during the time when the case was archived they could have asked the Portuguese authorities to re-open it.

They didn’t and still haven’t because they can’t control or direct a re-opened investigation.

And still there is no justice for Madeleine McCann, just considerable number of questions which remain unanswered.

Kate McCann is alleged to have said “the kidnapper” who seized Madeleine may also have drugged her other two children.

If she thought they were drugged, why didn’t she taken them to hospital on the night Madeleine disappeared to get checked?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for human Rights at Glasgow University

Scottish Police chiefs back 'single force' for Scotland, as well as reform we need major expansion of Special Constables roles in force

Dear All

9 months ago I went to the SNP National Assembly in Perth, the reason for the Assembly was to bring forward ideas of how to make Scotland better.

So, I trotted in and sat down at the public service table and as luck would have it I met someone I knew so he asked me:

“What are you doing here?”

I replied I am here to propose that there should be a single national Police Force in Scotland.

Being like minded he was there to do the same thing so I said lets sit down and ram this through.

And that is what we did, we came, we argued and we conquered.

Two months later Labour MSP Iain Gray jumped on the bandwagon and four and a half months on January 12th 2011, the Scottish Government came out in favour as the preferred option.

But in reality the national force is the only serious option.

Now, Chief Superintendent David O'Connor of police signing their own search warrants fame has jumped on the bandwagon as well.

O’Connor says he wants to see an end to "negativity and scaremongering" in the debate on the future of Scottish policing.

The negativity and scaremongering comes from two camps, Labour Councillors who will probably lose money from sitting on Police Boards and Chief Constables of lesser forces who say that local accountability will be lost.

I believe that in the interests of the new force, slight compromises must be made.

So, in order to achieve this certain things must happen.

There should be:

A national board

Local boards for accountability purposes between Police and Public

Local board members eligible to sit on the national board plus externals

And payment for those sitting on the local or national boards

This will smooth out some difficulties.

O'Connor who is president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (Asps) said:

"The election is over, the new Scottish Government is in place, and now is the time to get down to business. I hope we will see an end to the negativity and scaremongering in the debate on the future of Scottish policing."

O`Connor added:

"The majority of Asps members support a single force. Even with significantly enhanced collaboration between the existing eight forces, the service is not sustainable. Similarly, we do not believe that moving to a rationalised regional model would deliver the level of savings and improved outcomes that would be available in a single service. More importantly, if we are going to change we should do it only once. We do not want the cheapest service, we want the best."

O'Connor’s final pitch was:

"A single police service would mean that policing would be directed nationally, but delivered locally. Our members recognise that the boundaries of organised crime are more likely to be national and international and we need to respond accordingly."

By ending fiefdoms there will be a greater pool of knowledge and expertise in the one force, coupled with less duplication, which in turn equals less expenditure and bureaucracy.

Allowing savings to be ploughed back into the front line!

And there is now a need going forward for wider public sector reform which must come, the status quo under Labour Government and Labour Councils has delivered poorly designed organisations which don’t innovate only manage.

And badly at that, I don’t support change for change sake, that would be pointless but reform must happen, the public sector must deliver for their clients and new management brought in to create wealth not just spend it.

Public sector should mean profitable public sector, that way we can deliver our pledges and protect jobs.

Finally, on the national Police force, there needs to be a considerable expansion of the Special Constable arm of the Police which has been woefully neglected in order to make a stronger bond between Police and Communities.

That was the other part of my vision of the Scottish National Police Force, George Laird radical thinking.

Sooner or later, everyone will climb onboard with that idea as well.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Friday, May 27, 2011

Muslim gang batter and slash School teacher because he taught RE: his crime, gang did not approve of a non-Muslim teacher giving lessons on religion

Dear All

We have been told that multiculturalism has failed by various political leaders in Britain and beyond.

David Cameron recently voiced that opinion to much outcry.

Gary Smith was an ‘able, enthusiastic and popular’ religious education teacher who loved his job at an inner-city girls’ school.

However a gang of Islamic extremists decided his lessons for Muslim girls were ‘mocking Islam’ and they unleashed a sickening attack slashing his face and battering him with such force that his own mother didn’t even recognise him.

So, what crime did he commit to be singled out for such an attack?

Akmol Hussain, Sheikh Rashid, Azad Hussein and Simon Alam did not approve of a non-Muslim teacher giving lessons on religion to Hussain’s niece.

So for ten-minutes they carried an attack, smashing him over the head with a concrete block, using an iron rod on him and slashed his face from the corner of his mouth to his right ear with a Stanley knife.

In between they punched and kicked him in the stomach, head and face, before driving away ‘praising Allah.’

Gary Smith was left covered in blood and unconscious with a fractured skull and shattered jaw.

However unknown to them following suspicions of a terrorist plot, the security services had planted a bug in their car that recorded them snarling:

“This is the dog we want to hit, to strike, to kill.”

And from there, they ended up in Court, Snaresbrook Crown Court to be precise were the gang received 19 years behind bars for grievous bodily harm with intent.

Judge John Hand QC told them:

“If you think that people around you in society present an insult or threat to God then you will not hesitate in attacking again.”

MI5 considered the gang such a threat to national security that they asked the Home Secretary for permission to plant a covert recording device in Hussain’s car.

But it wasn’t until detectives listened to the tapes after the assault in July last year that they were arrested.

The bug picked up Hussain plotting the attack outside Central Foundation Girls’ School in Bow, East London.

Hussein said:

“He’s mocking Islam and he’s putting doubts in people’s minds. How can somebody take a job to teach Islam when they’re not even a Muslim themselves?”
Hussain told the others as they donned gloves and black bandanas:

“Does everyone remember the drill? One time, bang, bang, bang, bang”.

After carrying out the act, jumped into their car to flee the scene while boasting about how much damage they had done.

Hussain could be heard saying:

“Praise to Allah. I turned and hit him on the face with the rod and he went flying and fell on his stomach.”

Prosecutor Sarah Whitehouse said:

“He was targeted as the victim of this attack quite simply because of his position as head of religious studies at the school.”

Gary Smith did not regain consciousness for two days.

He underwent emergency surgery to treat bleeding on the brain, leg injuries and nerve damage.

He also had three operations to repair his face.

His mother, Heather, 75, said:

“His injuries were so bad I didn’t recognise him. It was a horrific and evil attack”.

Mr Smith said:

“They were all armed with knives. I tried to defend myself and run away but they all jumped me and that’s the last thing I remember”.

The judge said:

“He enjoyed living in Tower Hamlets where he had lived alone for a number of years, but now is anxious about being alone and has gone back to live with his mother. He lives in constant fear of being attacked again. He forgets about meetings and students’ names, something he never did before the attack.”

The four gang members appeared at court wearing traditional Islamic robes. Their wives and mothers dressed, in full burkas, wept as they were sentenced after pleading guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

The defendants claimed they had heard rumours that the teacher raped a girl at the school, but this was unfounded.

Hussain and Hussein were given an indeterminate sentence but told they would serve a minimum of five years. Alam was told he would remain in a Young Offenders’ Institute for at least five years, before being released on a five-year licence.

Rashid was told he would be eligible for release after four years, when he too would be subjected to a five year licence.

A fifth man, Badruzzuha Uddin, 24, a mechanic who admitted helping the thugs by hiding blood-stained clothing, was jailed for two years.

Alam, who was born in Germany, faces deportation.

They should have 15 years each, the sentences are obviously too light in my opinion and their ‘excuse’ that they had heard rumours that the teacher raped a girl at the school is pathetic.

It is people like this that fuel hatred in this country and give the BNP credibility.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Baby Peter sacking: Sharon Shoesmith wins appeal after Appeal Court rules ex- Labour Minister Ed Balls and Haringey Council’s decision unfair!

Dear All

The Baby P case in England was a tragic case which created a political firestorm, in order to try and shut it down ex-children's services director Sharon Shoesmith was sacked.

Now Shoesmith has won a Court of Appeal battle over the termination of her employment by then education secretary Ed Balls and her employers, Haringey Council.

The Appeal Court has ruled it was "procedurally unfair" when they sacked her three years ago.

Now, the education department and Haringey plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.

And that appeal will fail.

She has won.

Baby Peter Connelly, who had been seen 60 times by social services, was found dead in 2007 with over 50 injuries.

The people responsible Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend, Steven Barker, and Jason Owen (later revealed to be the brother of Barker) were all convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child.

Evil people indeed!

Shoesmith said she first heard of her dismissal when Ed Balls announced she would be removed from her post with immediate effect in a live press conference on television.

A version of guilty until you prove, you are innocent.

Labour MP Ed Balls said he "strongly disagreed" with the judgement and added that his decision had been based on a report from independent inspectors.

After the hearing, she said:

"I'm over the moon. Absolutely thrilled. I am very relieved to have won my appeal and for recognition I was treated unfairly and unlawfully."


She said the sorrow of Peter's death would "stay with me for the rest of my life".

"But as the judges have said, making a 'public sacrifice' of an individual will not prevent further tragedies."

The Appeal Court said:

"In short, she was denied the elementary fairness which the law requires."

The Court also rejected a submission that the situation had been too urgent to allow for a fairer procedure to be adopted.
In the case of Haringey, the judges said:

"We were unanimously of the view that Haringey's procedures were tainted by unfairness."

Lawyers for Ms Shoesmith said the ruling meant she could now launch appeals against Ed Balls and Haringey Council.

We should all remember Baby P because he was the real victim in this case, the State which was supposed to be there to protect him was found to be lacking because people didn’t do their jobs properly.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

There is absolute no point in proceeding with a re-trial in the case of Nat fraser vs H M Advocate because the Crown Office has completely ruined it

Dear All

It seems that the Crown Office has wobbled on the case of Nat Fraser.

Easily understandable, people are looking in their direction because they withheld evidence in a criminal prosecution.

Nat Fraser should waste no time filing a complaint of misconduct in public office against them.

And that is one charge that will stick.

Because it was done deliberately!

So, down at the Crown Office under the new ‘Team Mulholland’ they are trying to figure out if they have a reasonable chance of convincing the public a trial is in the public interest.

Nat Fraser cannot be given a fair trial in Scotland; the Crown Office cleared the pitch for that by their actions.

But they might have a go because politicians are looking at this, and they might feel they have no choice. This case has gone from a simple legal case to a ‘celebrity’ case due to the nature of the UK Supreme Court decision and involvement of politicians.

There are various aspects to this case, leaving aside the trial and conviction; the main issue is the conduct of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal.

So far no politician has called for an investigation into their misconduct while in public office.

And that is a serious charge indeed because the integrity of the Crown Office has been breached.

That is the elephant in the room that politicians are running away from.

They want this to be all about the ‘threat’ to the independence of Scottish legal system and in the next breath blurt out about having direct access to the European Court.

You can’t have it both ways.

The UK Supreme Court hasn’t interfered with the independence of Scottish Justice, they were not re-running the trial but rather they looked at the breach of Nat Fraser’s Article Six rights to a fair trial.

No politician has come on tv and said Fraser got a fair trial, only that he was convicted.

To say he had is to enter a minefield both legal and political.

A Scottish Government spokesman said:

“The UK Supreme Court should have no role in matters of Scots criminal law, a view supported by Scotland’s leading legal figures, including the then Lord Advocate, who set out the detailed case at the Scotland Bill Committee of the damage being done to the integrity of the Scots legal system by the UK Supreme Court. The issue is not human rights; it is that the distinct Scottish legal system should have direct access to the European Court in Strasbourg just like every other legal jurisdiction.”

So, it is okay for the European Court of Human Rights to circumvent the independence of the Scottish legal system but not the UK Supreme Court in London who have jurisdiction to rule on matters of human rights which the Fraser case exposes.

I go with the weight of legal opinion such as Brian Scott.

Human rights lawyer John Scott said:

“Scottish lawyers I know are not frightened of the Supreme Court and welcome its oversight in these matters. In reality, the High Court in Scotland, the appeal court, has demonstrated it is all too prepared to sit back on its laurels.”

Which begs the questions;

Why did the Appeal Court not do its job properly?

Why did the Appeal Court feel that it was acceptable for the Crown Office to withhold evidence?

Why did the Appeal Court dismiss the human rights breach of the accused as meaningless?

It comes back to a theme of this blog, Scotland is a corrupt country.

And Holyrood should be sorting out these problems.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Silly-Love -Songs- Glee, The Warblers

Lord Hanningfield is convicted on six counts of fraud over his parliamentary expenses, there needs to be proper reform of allowances

Dear All

Another day and another ‘victim’ of the Westminster expenses scandal is hung out to dry.

The peer and former Essex Council leader Lord Hanningfield has been found guilty of fiddling his expenses.

And as he never coughed earlier, he gets no reduction in sentence unlike ex-Labour MPs who have gone before him.

Lord Hanningfield, whose real name is Paul White, had denied six counts of false accounting relating to his parliamentary expenses!

The prosecution said he had claimed for overnight stays in London between March 2006 and April 2009, when he had actually returned home to Essex.

His version that he told the court was that he had seen it as a "living-out-of-London allowance" rather than overnight subsistence.

The jury thought otherwise.

The jury at Chelmsford Crown Court found White guilty on all six counts and he will be sentenced in six weeks' time.

And he might be off to prison as everyone in the expenses scandal before as joined Club Fed or HMP Longpoke as a guest of the Queen but she doesn’t pop in there.

Members of the House of Lords were able to claim up to £174-a-night to stay in London when attending Parliament.

If their main home is outside the city, which is reasonable enough but this should be changed to a daily allowance based on verified attendance.

However White had made claims for journeys and overnight stays in London, which he never made.

Westminster operates on the honour system which has been abused greatly.

The prosecution when he made claims for overnight stays, he usually made the 50-mile trip home.

And on one occasion he was on a plane bound for India at the time, on others he was "at hotels outside London all paid for by someone else, mainly Essex County Council".

In his defence he argued he had subsidised his long years of public service out of his pocket, and said most other peers claimed the maximum under the allowance.

The trial heard he had told police:

"It is an allowance scheme, not a reimbursement scheme. Quite honestly, people see it as a way of recouping what we spend."

But the rules are quite straight forward and clear, however I believe that members of the House of Lords should get a daily allowance if they are a member, effectively this should be a salaried position.

Then we won’t have these problems.

Paul White was an Essex councillor for 40 years and led the council from 2001 until he was charged in 2010.

His political career stands in ruins but it should be that way, there needs to be a grown up debate about people in public service being paid a decent salary whether they be Councillor, Lord, MP or MSP.

That way their focus will be on their job, not trying to screw the system.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Police want power to issue their own search warrants circumventing the checks and balances of a Sheriff, any politicians stupid enough to back it?

Dear All

In any system of justice there must be checks and balances.

The Police want the power to issue their own search warrants.

In effect they want to act as a de facto court where it will be their judgement whether to kick someone’s door.

Good idea?

No, not at all, it strays took much into territory beyond their remit.

Who thought up this donkey?

The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, they are calling for the age-old Scots law safeguard of sheriff warrants to be scrapped.

Senior officers mistakenly believe last year’s Cadder ruling judgment strengthens their case, which is sheer nonsense.

And this isn’t for the benefit of suspects as officers argue; they are having to spend more time than they need to behind bars while police wait for a sheriff to sign off a warrant that could determine their guilt.

Chief Superintendent David O’Connor, president of the association, stressed that decisions on warrants should not be made by officers investigating the matter in question, but by a separate senior figure, at least of inspector rank.

Chief Superintendent David O’Connor shouldn’t involve himself in matters which are the province of Parliament.

I think if this was brought before Holyrood, it would get blown out the door pretty sharpish.

And O’Connor wants a system similar to that of England and Wales.

Surely an easy solution is before arresting people on serious issues like drugs or human trafficking etc, get the warrant first.

Under this scheme, if the Police pick anyone up, they could just go fishing in a person’s home based on no evidence whatsoever.

Would we have warrants granted on a subjective whim?

So, clearly checks and balances are needed and warrants must remain the province of the Sheriff.

And as to the argument fronted that the Police are interested so that people don’t spend too much time locked up and are interested in their ‘welfare’, I think adults can see through that like a sheet of clear glass.

Although Cadder change Scottish practices, it should not be a justification for allowing mission creep by the Police.

Lord Carloway, is currently reviewing Scottish legislation to see if it can be hammered into line with European norms.

This raises the issue why the Police and Crown Office hadn’t done this before; clearly they wanted to continue the status quo!

They weren’t interested that they were violating human rights of people detained until they were forced to do so by law.

If they weren’t smart enough to be pro active, should we make them less accountable?


Carloway has put forward some simple practical proposals for reducing the amount of time suspects are in detention, including Saturday courts.

Good idea; has merit and O’Connor backs those but would also like Lord Carloway to look at warrants.

He said:

“Let there be no doubt that these decisions and the emergency legislation that resulted presented the police with significant operational issues to manage. There is a need to get suspects out of police custody sooner. Many could be out before a solicitor even arrives.”

If Carloway is one of the one of the country’s most respected legal minds, he will bounce this straight out the door.

And solicitors are also nervous about police demands for searches.

Late in 2009 police raided the Glasgow home of a woman called Sonja Wilson. Items were recovered during that search and Ms Wilson was questioned about them without a lawyer being present.

Late last year a sheriff upheld a complaint from Ms Wilson’s solicitor that she should have had access to legal advice during that interview in her home.

The matter is now going to the UK Supreme Court.

That interview could be carried out with lawyers present.

But wasn’t.

The move to English-style police search warrants, however, could be granted so quickly it would be impossible for Cadder-style demands for access to a lawyer to be made.

That, legal sources said last night, is why some police chiefs are so keen on scrapping sheriff warrants.

They want to try and circumvent justice to make their life easier.

And that is why the European Convention on Human Rights was created, to stop abuses by the State.

Will this fly?

I don’t think so, we live in a corrupt country were our institutions don’t function for the benefit of the citizens, something which must be addressed if independence is to be achieved.

Police issuing their own search warrants, the answer is no!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Scottish Justice system is in tatters as Nat Fraser wins appeal after Crown Office deliberately violate his Article Six right to a fair trial

Dear All

I have a healthy interest in independence which is widely known, a question which will figure in the minds of voters before they vote for this, will be, will an independent Scotland be fairer and just.

People are constantly fed the economic argument on independence that we would be better off financially.

But independence will not be won simply on the basis of economics, fronting a single issue will eventually run out of road.

There has to be more than one strand to the independence argument.

What will an independent Scotland look like?

What changes will be brought in regarding institutions?

How will the Scottish Government be re-organised?

And you can add a phone book of other questions.

Yesterday, I blogged on the Nat Fraser judgement in which a Scot found guilty of murdering his estranged wife won his appeal against the conviction.

He did so because, five justices at the Supreme Court in London said Scottish prosecutors had breached Nat Fraser’s right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

This was not a re-run of the trial but rather how the State in terms of Crown Office has acted in relation to this case by concealing evidence.

Clearly, Nat Fraser’s Article Six rights were violated in the same way that Peter Cadder's were.

Having jumped through the hoops to try and get justice in Scotland, they had to go to London, England.

And the UK Supreme Court had to do what the Scottish Court of Appeal in Edinburgh should have done in the first place.

And didn’t.

Fraser will now face a retrial but given the circumstances, publicity, conduct of the Crown Office staff acting in a rather nasty fashion, he will not be able to get a fair trial.

As to those who denied Fraser his rights, nothing at present is being said about them, 'don’t say don’t ask' seems to be the motto.

The current thread is talk about the ‘threat’ to the independence of Scotland’s criminal legal system.

As politicians are speaking of ‘threats’ will they be dealing with the threat posed by members of the Crown Office?

Or are we all Team Angiolini now?

The current political argument centres on has the UK Supreme Court involved itself in criminal matters, it hasn’t, they aren’t re-running the case, they are looking solely at the human rights issue.

The Supreme Court was established in 2009 to ensure people who believe their rights have been infringed did not need to take their appeals to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

If politicians believe it is acceptable to go to Strasbourg then it is untenable and naïve to suggest they cannot go to London.

Lord Hope, deputy president of the Supreme Court ruled:

“The court holds that the trial would have been significantly different if the undisclosed evidence had been available. There is a real possibility that the evidence would have been sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether (Fraser) placed the rings in the bathroom on May 7. If that were so, the jury’s verdict would have been bound, in view of the judge’s direction, to have been different.”

And let us review how Lord Hope got to that judgment it was said that three of Arlene’s rings had been the “cornerstone” of evidence against Fraser. They were found in the bathroom of her house on May 7, 1998.

Prosecutors suggested that Fraser had removed them from her body and placed them in the bathroom to make it appear that she had left home.

However, the judges said, it later emerged that prosecutors had evidence from police to suggest the rings were in the house on the night Arlene vanished.

Fraser’s counsel argued that the failure by the prosecution to reveal that information to his legal team breached his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR.

Ergo, Fraser was deliberately not accidentally denied a fair trial by the prosecution.

Maybe rather than criticism of the UK Supreme Court that gaze should shift across the room to the Crown Office prosecutors.

It is time Scotland put its own house in order on the justice front because economics isn’t enough to sell the independence argument to the masses.

And until we do get that type of political will in the corridors of power, we need the wisdom of the UK Supreme Court because there is precious little down at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Nat Fraser wins appeal at UK Supreme Court, Crown Office withhold evidence, is conviction by any means legally and morally justifable?

Dear All

It is widely known that people who believe they didn’t receive a fair trial can go to the European Court of Human Rights, not to re run the trial but on matters of process regarding Article Six rights to a fair hearing.

Recently, the Peter Cadder case brought about a swift change in how a person is treated once arrested by the Police.

To put it bluntly, the Police were forced to give suspects their rights to legal representation immediately.

Previously that was denied on an institutional basis.

If you don’t support the Cadder ruling in full, then you don’t support the right to a fair trial.

It is that simple.

This has nothing to do with the actual merits of that case or Cadder himself but the way he was treated.

Another case which has been rumbling on is the Nat Fraser murder case.

He claims he is innocent and didn’t receive a fair trial for the murder of his wife Arlene.

Fraser from Elgin was convicted in 2003 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Her body has never been found and a great deal of the evidence at the trial was circumstantial.

Fraser prompted appealed going through the Scottish appeals system, then he went to the UK Supreme Court.

Created by the UK Labour Government in 2009, The UK Supreme Court has produced some good judgements.

Fraser’s lawyers argued that his right to a fair trial had been denied because important evidence about Mrs Fraser’s rings was withheld from the defence.

In a statement this morning, the Supreme Court said:

“There was a real possibility, in light of the undisclosed evidence, that the jury at this trial would have arrived at a different verdict.”

So, the question is why was evidence unlawfully withheld?

And we should be looking over at Crown Office and Fiscal Service for an explanation of that and who did it.

People are entitled to ‘quality of arms’ which simply put means full disclosure, the only reason not give this is in order to increase chances of conviction.

Did someone in the Crown Office decide ‘the end justifies the means’?
Although The Supreme Court cannot ‘free’ Fraser, the case will go back to the Appeal Court in Edinburgh who will as a result of the ruling, will quash the conviction.

The Crown Office in Edinburgh has confirmed it will seek to bring a fresh prosecution against Fraser.

However they maybe stopped dead in their tracks if the Appeal Court decides that, for reasons such as the passage of time and publicity, the accused cannot get a fair trial.

Given the publicity this case has received it would be impossible in my opinion that a fair trial could take place.

We are where we are’ and that is because of the Crown Office and Fiscal Service being cute.

So, there should be an investigation into them.

Many Scottish lawyers are fearful that the Supreme Court imposes a ‘British’ level of judiciary above Scotland’s supposedly independent legal system.

However, no one is shouting the odds about the European Court of Human Rights; the Supreme Court means instead of going to Strasbourg, people can go to London.

Why isn’t anyone shouting that Europe imposes a ‘European’ level of judiciary above Scotland’s supposedly independent legal system?

Because they know that argument is hollow.

No system of justice is a sacred cow not even Scottish system; it took circa 25 years for Scots to get the same treatment as English suspects.

We denied people a fair trial and due process during that time.

Should we be celebrating that?

Professor Robert Black, professor emeritus of Scots Law at Edinburgh University said:

“I am not surprised. This latest case is a natural progression of the system we have got at the moment whereby under the Scotland Act we have devolution issues such as alleged breaches of human rights legislation. It’s not the Supreme Court or its predecessor the House of Lords making a takeover bid for Scots Law. Far from it. So careful are the Supreme Court about Scottish sensibilities that even though they had the power to quash Nat Fraser’s conviction, they did not actually do so but said that it is a matter for the Scottish courts. Unless the Scottish courts start taking the European Convention on Human Rights seriously, we will see more cases referred to the Supreme Court - and a good thing, too. There will be those who say the Supreme Court shouldn’t interfere, but the Court would not have to interfere if the Scottish courts and Scottish Prosecution Establishment were doing their job properly – that’s the scandal.”

If Politicians are so keen to defend Scottish law as many do, they should be pro active in ensuring that people get their full legal rights beyond a shadow of doubt.

It is not enough that justice is done it must also be seen to be done.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Fifa begins ethics inquiry into Bin Hammam & Jack Warner over allegations of alleged bribery, so much smoke but can they prove fire?

Dear All

For some considerable time there have been allegations that some FIFA Officials are corrupt re-selling free tickets for profit and the buying of their votes.

Fifa is reluctant to talk about it and BBC Panorama has being doing a running piece over the years.

Now, Fifa is investigating allegations against four officials, including vice-president Jack Warner and presidential candidate Mohamed bin Hammam after serious allegations were made by executive committee member Chuck Blazer.

Allegations of bribery!

Blazer says Fifa's code of ethics was violated at a meeting "apparently organised" by Bin Hammam and Warner which was also attended by two other officials are Debbie Minguell and Jason Sylvester from the Caribbean Football Union.

The CFU represents 25 Fifa member nations as well as five territories not affiliated to Fifa.

The meeting is alleged to have centred the Fifa presidential election which takes place on 1 June.

Bin Hammam, the president of the Asian Football Confederation, is running against current president Sepp Blatter to be the new head of football's world governing body.

So, we have a situation where four officials have been called to a hearing of Fifa's ethics committee in Zurich on 29 May.

Fifa has also announced that Claudio Sulser, the head of the ethics committee, will not take charge of the hearing because he shares Swiss nationality with Bin Hammam's presidential rival Blatter.

The committee's deputy chairman Petrus Damaseb of Namibia will instead chair proceedings.

The Fifa statement read:

"On May 24 2011, Fifa executive committee member and Concacaf general secretary Chuck Blazer reported to Fifa secretary general Jerome Valcke possible violations of the Fifa code of ethics allegedly committed by officials.

So many allegations of wrongdoing are now swirling around, questions are being asked, is it right for Fifa to press ahead with Wednesday's presidential election?

I would say no.

Fifa added in its statement:

"In particular, the report referred to a special meeting of the Caribbean Football Union (CFU), apparently organised jointly by Fifa vice-president Jack A. Warner and Fifa executive committee member Mohamed Bin Hammam, which took place on May 10 and 11 2011. This meeting was linked to the upcoming Fifa presidential election. In view of the facts alleged in this report, which include bribery allegations, Fifa secretary general Jerome Valcke, in compliance with art. 16 of the Fifa code of ethics, yesterday requested the Fifa ethics committee to open ethics proceedings."

These allegations levelled by Warner's longtime Concacaf ally Blazer are likely to destroy Bin Hammam's already fading hopes of defeating Blatter in the vote by Fifa's 208 national members.

It seems that the closed world of Fifa needs to be brought into the 21st Century.

News of this inquiry comes after Fifa had to launched a separate investigation into claims made by former Football Association and England 2018 World Cup bid chairman Lord Triesman.

Triesman alleges that four Fifa members, Warner, Nicolas Leoz, Ricardo Teixeira and Worawi Makudi wanted "bribes" in return for votes to back England's failed 2018 World Cup bid.

The bid was won by Russia.

Warner has already stated the allegations made against him by Triesman were "a piece of nonsense".

British MPs at the culture, media and sport committee in the House of Commons have also claimed that Confederation of African Football (Caf) president Issa Hayatou and executive committee member Jacques Anouma took bribes related to Qatar's 2022 World Cup bid.

While Fifa operates and is run by a clique, there will be no will to put their house in order.

But with 208 members it seems that getting consensus maybe a difficult proposition as people jockey for position within the organisation.

So far nothing substantial has ever been done to change the organisation.

It’s a closed world and cash cow run for the benefit of a minority.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Burglar claims he should be released from prison because locking him up violates his children's human rights, this is complete and utter nonsense!

Dear All

Long ago but not that long ago, Wednesday, March 3, 2010, I wrote these blog posts.




The jist was that Tam Baillie wanted judges to consider the human rights of children before considering jailing their parents convicted of a crime.

It came after a ruling by Judge Abie Sachs in South Africa who refused to jail a woman because she has children.

At the time I said;

If you break the law then you cannot use the human rights of others in order to circumvent justice. That isn’t then a human right, as “rights” are specific to the individual in the Court.

In other words you can’t use the innocent to escape justice.

In short the ‘concept’ touted by Abie Sachs was complete bollocks.

It wasn’t a human right but it was a subjective whim on his part, him taking pity on the woman’s children was an act of kindness.

Now, we have a burglar claiming that his eight-month jail term violates his human right to 'respect' for family life.

Again; short version this complete bollocks.

Simple minded Wayne Bishop, from Clifton, Nottingham, says he is the sole carer for his five children.

His lawyer Ian Wise QC has won permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal. Bishop will be granted legal aid to fund his case.

And he will lose it on the basis, if this went through no one could be sent to prison because either human rights apply to everyone or they don’t apply at all.

It is thought it will be the first time that a convicted criminal has used family circumstances to ask for leniency in a UK court.

Mr Wise told Nottingham Crown Court:

“This case is of public importance and could have significant wider repercussions.”

And it also flags up that clowns are running legal aid in this country.

Mrs Justice Gloster has granted Bishop permission to appeal and ordered that his case be heard 'with the greatest possible expedition and given the earliest possible hearing date'.

Clearly, Gloster should know that this case is rubbish and bounced it out the door.

Bishop was jailed on April 11 to four months for burglary and four months for dangerous driving after pleading guilty.

He was also banned from driving for three years.

His Consel, Ian Wise QC referenced Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention - which enshrines the right to respect for family life and privacy - saying judges 'have to bear in mind the consequences to children if the sole carer is sent to prison'.

Bollocks, and this is the problem with human rights, the ‘rights’ of the children don’t exist in the court case as it travels through the court.

They maybe brought up in mitigation but the judge isn’t legally bound to consider there circumstances.

The lawyer graciously has said that although the jail term was not 'wrong in principle', but it had a 'disproportionate' impact on Bishop's family life and the children should have been a 'primary consideration'.


He added:

“It would appear from the judge's sentencing remarks that he had no regard to the interests of the children whatsoever. He did not carry out the balancing exercise required of him”.

Not relevant and not a right.

“There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the court inquired into the caring arrangements and any potential impact on the children of their father being committed to prison.”

So, let’s imagine Bishop was a murderer because as we know human rights apply to everyone all the time and cannot be taken away except in certain circumstances.

Would a judge prior to sentencing a murderer who has children say to themselves, ‘they have children; I must consider whether not to put him in prison’.

Not for a minute.

Bishop's full appeal is likely to be heard by a three-judge Appeal Court in London within the next few days.

And it will lose because it is nonsense to try and use the human rights of others as a shield or get out of jail free card.

Wayne Bishop is going to jail.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

The Ryan Giggs super injunction case rumbles on but it is more than Saving Ryan’s Privates, it is about freedom of speech and so much more

Dear All

The Ryan Giggs case rumbles on in the press.

After he was outed ion Twitter by about 75,000 people, plus The Sunday Herald and in the House of Commons, he still hasn’t dropped his super injunction.

This story is more than just a ‘cock of destiny’ issue; it is all about freedom of speech and the rich gagging people.

But aside from the curiosity value, we should remember that Giggs has a wife and kids.

And he should be thinking about them, they are the important elements in this story.

He should be sorting out his own problems not adding to them.

If he is smart he will drop the super injunction and try and save his marriage.

The worst kept secret in British Football isn’t anymore.

Liberal Democrat backbencher John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to name the Premier League footballer.

But he shouldn’t have to because the gagging order shouldn’t have been granted in the first place.

Gagging the truth doesn’t look good, it didn’t work for Sheridan when he was outed and decided to sue the News of the World.

Instead of this being chip paper wrapper, Giggs made this a topic beyond mere ‘slamming in the lamb’.

The High Court in London is still going on the gagging order barring his identification as the footballer alleged to have had an affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas in England.

Elsewhere on the island, people can shout Ryan Giggs all over the place.

And have! R

Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting in London, rejected an application to lift the order.

Mr Justice Eady had also refused to lift the ban.

The ban is meaningless now.

The farce came as the Tory-LibDem Coalition admitted that the current system of injunctions was not working.

Prime Minister David Cameron described the situation as “unsustainable.”

Now, there are plans by the Government for an urgent review with the results to be published in the autumn.

Yet again in British public life a penis makes the headlines.

One can only imagine at fun at a match as opposition fans chant.

PNS over and over again at Giggs!

With Giggs making a disastrous decision last week to sue the micro-blogging site Twitter, he will find that case won’t fly; First Amendment applies in the US, the right to free speech.

In sunny Scotland where the super injunction doesn’t apply, the Giggs case has also sparked a separate row over the primacy of Scots law. There is a bizarre suggestion that Mr Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General might start proceedings against the Sunday Herald for outing Giggs in their paper despite the fact that the injunction did not apply in Scotland.

First Minister Alex Salmond was among the politicians across the political spectrum on Scotland who said that the independence of Scots law should remain paramount.

He said:

“I would find it extraordinary, almost unbelievable, if the Attorney General were to be so foolish as to tread where angels fear to tread.”

That would be another case that would be blown off pretty quick by a Court.

As the story develops, we will have to wait for the movie, Saving Ryan’s Privates.

His wife gets first dibs on cutting them off.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Labour MSP Jackie Baillie gets some 'good' news, Nicola Sturgeon is doing a wonderful job running the NHS as report highlight infections down!

Dear All

Fresh from losing the Holyrood 2011 election, the Labour Party has suffered another blow.

The number of patients catching hospital infections in Scotland continues to fall.

For Jackie Baillie the Labour Shadow Health spokesperson it is another dent in her bid to be Labour Group leader at Holyrood.


The SNP Flagship policy remains intact; Baillie can only read the newspapers and keep munching the biscuits and sipping tea.

The new report shows for the third year in a row there has been a significant drop in the number of elderly people suffering clostridium difficile.

Around 2200 cases were recorded last year, a massive 38% down on 2009.

This could not have happened under a Labour Government at Holyrood.

Levels of the superbug MRSA which is particularly nasty have also been in decline for five years.

All on the SNP’s watch under Nicola Sturgeon!

Infections dropped 33% during 2010.

Independently verified by Health Protection Scotland (HPS); another blow to the Labour Party in Scotland.

A possible result of a crackdown on the prescription of antibiotics and the pre screening of patients for MRSA before they are admitted to hospital for operations has been successful.

With better hygiene practices in hospitals introduced as the norm coupled with more intensive cleaning and hand-washing, many problems are being solved before they can take root.

Professor Jacqui Reilly, HPS’s lead consultant for healthcare-linked infections, said:

“While we are making good progress, we must guard against complacency and ensure that we remain focused on preventing and controlling these evolving and complex infections.”

She needn’t worry; it’s the SNP that is charge not the Labour Party, its all about vision, ideas and work ethic, which Labour is out of.

Well out of.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Monday, May 23, 2011

Raise Your Glass - Darren Criss and the Warblers

US Criminal Profiler Pat Brown throws down the gauntlet after Kate McCann's book is published, take a lie detector test, questions need to be answered

Dear All

While pottering about the internet, I came across an open letter to the parents of Madeleine McCann, particularly Kate McCann.

The letter comes from Pat Brown, who has a blog called the Daily Profiler.

I am putting it up as it is an interesting read.



Yes, Kate,

It isn’t your breast size or weight that is causing your problems. It is you and your narcissist evaluation of the situation and your PR team’s equally stupid assessment of the situation that is making you look so bad in the public eye.

I am a criminal profiler with years of experience dealing with parents of murder victims and missing relatives. Your behavior and the behavior of your husband fall far outside or the norm for grieving parents. Now, this may be because you are just terribly narcisstic folks who had nothing to do with your child going missing (outside of neglecting your children and putting your needs to party before their needs for comfort and safety, a narcissistic behavior if I have ever seen one). You and Gerry may simply be so narcissistic you have no understanding of how other people view your behaviors and your PR team may share your narcissism so that no one on your team has a clue to normal human behavior.

But, SHUT UP! Every time you open your mouths you do more damage to yourselves. You seem guiltier by the day. Your attempt at “damage control” is so obvious and so very much a day late and a dollar short, everything you do or say seems a cover up and a transparent attempt at proving your innocence.

Let me make clear what I think is weird about what you say and do:

You choose words about Madeleine’s disappearance which make it appear you know there is no abductor and that Madeleine is dead.

Both you and Gerry state your only guilt in the matter is not being their when Madeleine “was taken.” This statement makes no sense for abduction as Madeleine could not be taken if either of you were with Maddie when an abductor would have shown up. It makes more sense in the context that Maddie died while you were not in the apartment.

Your statements and attitude about Madeleine being alive do not square with parents who really believe their daughter is in the hands of a pedophile or pedophiles who are brutally raping and torturing her daily.

Your attempts at “finding” Madeleine do not represent the manner most parents would choose if they were actively searching for a live child but appear more to be the actions of parents trying to prove after the fact of a child’s death that they “cared” (not care) about her.

Your behaviors of “keeping a normal routine” and “keeping up one’s appearance” is admirable, but extremely bizarre. I don’t know any other parents of missing children who can appear so together and cheery. When my daughter cooked our kittens by accident in the dryer, I cancelled Christmas.

Gerry’s blog creeps people out. It is too upbeat. Terrified and distraught parents of missing children are rarely able to jog and play tennis and go to park with their other kids and have a fun time. Over a long period of time, maybe, but this is usually years after the nightmare begins. Some parents never recover from the trauma and it is common for marriages to fail and the brothers and sisters to feel their parents went absent after their sibling went missing.

Your ability to sleep at night after the first five days, Kate, is beyond belief. It is the behavior of one who already knows the answer and even then, is quite a narcissistic trait. If you believed your daughter was being raped as you lay in bed at night, sleep would be very hard to come by. I guess you finally realize this and your mother is saying that NOW you can’t sleep and Madeleine comes to visit you in the night. What changed, Kate?

Your PR team coming up with an answer to every accusation, answers that are ludicrous in themselves, makes you seem awfully defensive, and, if there is no way you or Gerry had anything to do with Maddie’s disappearance, you have nothing to defend. Furthermore, if all you care about is finding Maddie, you shouldn’t be wasting your time on such silliness. After all, as Gerry said, Maddie is the only important thing, right?

So, SHUT UP, Kate. SHUT UP, GERRY. Fire your PR team as they are totally worthless. If both of you really are innocent and your think Maddie is alive, return to Portugal. Start searching for real (and it took six months to set up a hotline?). Cooperate with the police. Take the polygraphs as you have zero to hide and, with competent polygraph examiners, the questions are so simple you can’t screw them up. I will even give you the four questions that should be asked:

“Did Madeleine die while you were present?”
“Did you return to the apartment and find Madeleine dying or dead?”
“Did you move Madeleine’s body at any time?”
“Did your spouse move Madeleine’s body at any time?"

These are simple questions. The answer to all of them should be “No.” There is no ambiguity in these questions (unlike a question such as “Do you feel responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine?” which you could if you acknowledge leaving her without an adult caretaker is irresponsible; an affirmative answer to such a question would be useless to the detectives as it could falsely indicate that you had something to do with Maddie going missing when you are only feeling guilty over leaving her unattended. Also, an affirmative answer could mean you simply do not feel responsible for what happened to Maddie no matter what happened to her as a total narcissist might).

The above four questions are simple and unambiguous and even a narcissist can’t misconstrue the meaning of the questions. The answers will be a simple “Yes” or “No.” Have the polygraph session videotaped so the police will be unable to do any underhanded scare tactics or interrogation that might distort the results of the tests.

Quite frankly, Kate, you and Gerry had everything going for you as parents of a missing child if you hadn’t left your children unattended night after night to go out partying. THIS is what made people dislike you. It was to your advantage that you are both relatively attractive people because IF you had big breasts and a porky physique and were not well-heeled professionals, you would have become suspects right off the bat and you would have not had the incredible monetary support you have been blessed with nor all those kindly letters. You would have been viewed as just a pair of slobs who probably abused their children as well as neglected them and you wouldn’t have gotten the phenomenal amount of publicity worldwide concerning Maddie’s disappearance. Other parents have gone public, run campaigns, and had web sites, but your fortune with publicity and support has been unprecedented. And, you complain, Kate, that people are treating you badly because you are fit! It was being fit and professional and well-off that got you so much attention. It was you and Gerry’s fitness as parents and your peculiar behaviors that got you the negative attention.

I have a final suggestion. Ask the PJ if I can come analyze the case. My organization will send me pro bono. As a criminal profiler I can analyze the actual evidence to advise the investigators as to the best investigate strategy. I have no problem determining this crime as an abduction and finding the creep that took Madeleine if the evidence points that way. I don’t have to like you and Gerry as people to view the evidence in an objective and professional manner. No one should be convicted of a crime simply because of personality and because people don’t like the individual’s personality. Solid physical and circumstantial evidence must exist to the point where there is no question as to who committed the crime. I would work very diligently to assist the PJ with the evidence and the facts and do a thorough crime scene analysis that would move the case forward.

Furthermore, if you and Gerry get charged in Madeleine’s disappearance and must truly defend yourselves, my services are available to you and your lawyers. I will be more than happy to analyze the evidence and, if you are innocent, do all I can to serve in your defense.

Good luck, Kate. May the truth be brought to light soon and you and Gerry get the justice you deserve in the case of your missing daughter.

All the best,

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

It is an interesting read but like in the Jo Yeates Case which I put up the correct solution 13 days before the arrest of Vincent Tabak, the evidence was already there to solve that one.

It wasn't rocket science by any means.


You have to look at what is there and what should also be there but is missing.

To make to make the point yet again, Madeleine McCann each night of the holiday for five nights lay in bed with her cadaver scent impregnated toy cuddlecat.

A police source said:

"When Kate tucked Madeleine up in bed earlier in the evening she had the toy tightly in her arms as she did every night".

Five nights, about eight hours a night plus and the bedding and pillow never became contaminated, nothing transferred to the bedding.

Nothing, during what, 30 hours plus!

Is it just me who finds that extremely odd?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Former head of propaganda at human rights abusing Glasgow Uni resurfaces at Strathclyde Uni after being caught doing covert surveillance, oh the shame

Dear All

Checking the blog to see who has trotted by I discovered someone from Strathclyde University on a return visit typing in Raymond McHugh.

Raymond McHugh was a former head of propaganda at human rights abusing Glasgow University.

He was caught carrying out doing covert surveillance but unfortunately wasn't good enough to not get found out.

After catching him doing his ‘undercover’ work, he suddenly left his job and bailed out of the human rights abusing Glasgow University.

And has landed at Strathclyde University in the role of Head of Media and Corporate Comms!

He is a former News Sub-Editor at Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd.

And former Editor at The Glaswegian Newspaper!

Wow, how wonderful, what a career, editor of The Glaswegian!

To be editor of a free newspaper is a remarkable achievement, I read their horoscopes myself.

So, his new ‘billet’ is

Tel: 0141 548 2099 Fax: 0141 552 1576 corporatecomms@strath.ac.uk

Presumably his new employer didn’t know of his covert James Bond past, shaken not stirred at Glasgow University.

Did he decide he needed new challenges?

Or was it getting exposed that put heat on McHugh’s ass?

Glasgow University has a habit when staff get caught that they suddenly disappear elsewhere.

This maybe McHugh’s last post before he shuffles off to the great newspaper room in the sky.

His greatest claim to fame for me will be that he worked at the University of Guantanamo Bay as their Chief propagandist.

Is it McHugh visiting the blog or someone just letting me know he is at Strathclyde University?

Who knows or cares, he isn’t a newsmaker or opinion former.

Just a spinner and anyone can do that job after all I get top spot on TotalPolitics.com in their blog directory under SNP beating MSPs, Councillors and Candiates.

I wasn’t even trying.

Maybe Strathclyde University should realise that anyone can do propaganda and cut costs.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Labour MP Ann McKechin creates a single job opportunity in Scotland, its an Office Manager’s position, and possibly temp but gets the beans in!

Dear All

Ann McKechin MP is looking for an office manager.

So, in the spirit of public service, click on the link!


The job involves:

managing the office

overseeing budgets

dealing with complex queries and complaints

carrying out research into local, national and international issues as required

ensuring Ann is made aware of any relevant issues

being able to identify any issues to assist her in her parliamentary work

Requires good knowledge of UK and Scottish politics excellent communication skills both verbal and written and strong experience of IT systems including Microsoft Office package, email and internet and preparing reports and spreadsheets.

Upon appointment you will be required to comply with the Baseline Personnel Security Standard, undertaken by the Members’ Staff Verification Office (MSVO). See www.w4mp.org/html/msvo/main.asp for further info.

You could look at it as a job’s a job!

However it maybe temporary because Scotland is moving towards independence!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

The SNP have set their sights winning Glasgow City Council from the Glasgow Labour Mafia, Glasgow is the key to independence

Dear All

For sometime I have been writing about the ‘Central Scotland Question’.

Former MP Tam Dayell had the ‘East Lothian Question’ and George Laird had the ‘Central Scotland Question’.

Eventually people come round to my way of thinking, to gain independence it must be done in a series of jumps that take the people with it.

Glasgow is another key part in the road to an independent Scotland.

It is the heart of the Labour empire in Scotland and once described as the ‘Kremlin on the Clyde’, the Labour Mafia’s impregnable bastion in the west of Scotland.

It must be stormed and assaulted.

People think that Holyrood is the key to independence, it isn’t, it is a lock but Glasgow is the key.


As I say I have been writing about this for some time, and above is a post I dug out to highlight this point, written on Wednesday, November 10, 2010.

The SNP’s spectacular success has opened up a rich seam of voters who recognised that the SNP in 2007 through till 2011 did a great job in government.

That can also be done in Glasgow.

Glasgow is the biggest council in Scotland and the SNP can win it, but they have to develop themes and let people know; what will the SNP Council be doing in their interests.

The Labour Party in Glasgow has a lame duck leader in Gordon Matheson; he struggles to keep his own councillors under control.

And for some Labour Councillors of shame, panic will set in soon as they realise that the SNP will be putting up two candidates in every ward. There will be a lot of Labour infighting among Labour Councillors soon as some will be voted out of office, discipline will go right out the window.

Life in the chambers is getting very interesting again as Labour Councillors are seeing new faces with SNP Councillors, is this the person who is going to take my seat must be running through their minds.

With James Dornan becoming an MSP, there is a vacancy for a new SNP leader at the City Chambers, so far there are three candidates are standing to replace him, Allison Hunter, Phil Greene and Kenny McLean.

I would think that Allison Hunter would be the winner; however I suspect she would stand down if the SNP won the Council.

At that point a new leader out of the new wider pool would be selected to guide Glasgow through the difficult times which are coming due to cuts.

And that person needs to be an ideas person who can bring in the public services reforms that are sorely needed in Glasgow across a whole range of portfolios, be a people person and articulate that Glasgow is open for business and for people.

I am full of ideas myself.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University