Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Open letter to Piers Doughty-Brown, only yesterday you said that you weren’t going to reply anymore or answer legitimate questions on the harassment incident involving Margaret Curran, today you are back with the SNP’s attempt to smear me as homophobic, you seem very rattled for an innocent man, care to explain?

















Dear Piers

Thank you for your speedy reply.

“Good grief George”.

Are you at the good grief stage, surely not, I am just asking questions.

“You really are scraping the barrel here aren’t you?”

Am I really?

I am using your material, is that scrapping the bottom of the barrel?

“I certainly will not be addressing all the points you’ve scraped from said barrel, but am amazed at the sheer bellicosity you aim at someone you know so little about.”

Time for a quote:

“Don’t try honey, my law is, my law is, my degree is law”.

Well, I know that as this is in the public domain.

“What really bothers me though, it that your first condemnation of me was made without you ever viewing the video, I suspect it was based on the article in the Telegraph?”

So, I condemned you for what you did to Margaret Curran but apparently that doesn’t bother you, how well exactly should someone know you before they have the ‘right’?

“That you suggest the use of the word ‘fag’ is somehow homophobic, this is a disgraceful slur, which assumes (you’re good at that) that I am not a member of the community you say I insult, shame on you!”

If you had answered the question, then why should I have any reason to doubt your veracity, I don’t like the Scottish National Party assume someone is a liar when they give an answer. I take the view that they act in good faith until such time as proven otherwise. I operate moderation on my blog because I don’t allow abusive comments against people to appear on the blog, therefore having allowed your comment to be published; I have a duty to ensure in what context it was written.

Also, for example, if the Police come across a man screaming ‘fag’ in the street, you will find that even although he maybe a member of the LGBT Community, this doesn’t translate to having an exemption in law. You don’t get exemptions in law based on sexuality in order to commit hate crime, but you already know that. I am simply asking you a question, which I am legally entitled to do; we already know that you were sexist to the young woman, so not unreasonable for me to ask you for clarification. You still haven’t clarified but you will be delighted to know that is your human right. And for your information, you haven’t been slurred or indeed received a disgraceful slur by me and I made no assumptions about your sexuality because that isn’t relevant in me asking the question.

Are you saying that sexuality somehow is a legitimate barrier when asking someone questions?

Surely you also believe in equality don’t you?

“Oh, just so as you and your readers know, the picture of me with Nicola Sturgeon was taken LAST Friday”.

Let’s leave Nicola Sturgeon out of this (I am sure she will be pleased) and concentrate on you and your actions. You seem at great pains to state that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP had nothing to do with your actions.

Why so defensive?

“As for your passing interest in Law try this

Dear Colleague Guidance Regarding Photographers I write in my capacity as chair of the Corporate Communications Sub-Group in relation to the above. Guidance was circulated recently by ACPO colleagues on this matter following a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers had detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. The guidance has reached colleagues in Scotland and partners in the media (Scottish Newspaper Society) who have sought clarification of the position here. While the instances of this in Scotland may be small, I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in public places. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so. We rely on the cooperation of the media and amateur photographers whose images can help us identify criminals. Citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever. Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and could undermine public confidence in the police service. Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it; this does not however affect officer’s powers to seize items where they suspect there is evidence of criminality. If you require further guidance please contact my staff officer John McBride (john.mcbride@btp.pnn.police.uk) Yours sincerely David McCall Assistant Chief Constable”

Thank you, are you under the impression that somehow this gives you a green light, but let’s for a moment look at this letter above, were you for example under the belief you were recording ‘crime’ as per section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998? Also this relates to general filming, you were filming someone’s home, albeit you were standing in the street, and less we forget, you specifically set out to target Margaret Curran by your own admission. If you had wanted to simply ask questions, why didn’t you simply go to a hustings? Tell me if Margaret Curran had been in the resident’s bedroom, if she had been looking at a housing complaint such as dampness, would you have still filmed?

It would be helpful I feel to remind you of this part of the advice:

“this does not however affect officer’s powers to seize items where they suspect there is evidence of criminality”.

In plain speak; if someone is being harassed by being filmed, your argument rather falls flat.

“You’ll note I did not respond to your patronising invite to respond to you, given you felt my first response was ‘WORTHY’ of further comment from yourself.”

You decided to complain, therefore, I am duty bound as a citizen blogger to respond. 

“Given you have access to my facebook, you had every opportunity to contact me, before publishing yet more bile,, the invitation remains open”.

I am just using what you done, and what you wrote, personally I have no view as to whether or not your writing is ‘bile’.

Isn’t that a disgraceful slur on me?

Some of your recent other comments, I feel I must respond to.

“George I will continue to conduct myself within the law”.

So, does that mean you will be not going back to film Margaret Curran when she is on private property?

At 2.35 seconds in your video, Margaret Curran said:

“Promise you will go”!

Does that sound like she enjoyed your treatment of her?

“As for your comments and insults and that of your followers, it really is water off a ducks back”.

I don’t have ‘followers’, I have readers, Piers, you will be delighted to know unlike the SNP, I am not running a cult. ‘Followers’ is term used by Blogger to describe people who wish to see updates to my blog appear on their timeline. I believe I have 109 people who fall into this category.

“Given the contents of your and your followers comments I'll not waste anymore time responding, but have a care to keep your comments within the law, and those of your followers eh?”

Allow me to offer back some advice to you, I personally know a Sheriff sitting on the bench in Scotland, and if I wish some legal advice, I just have to ask, and that person is as sharp as a razor legally.

“I'd hate to see you bring Glasgow uni into disrepute”.

Fear not, Anton won’t be putting your complaint anywhere but the bin. 

1888 people have read that post, and you are the first person to complain, just to clarify, will you be giving up filming Margaret Curran, no reason not to answer, if you so wish,  after all what do you have to hide?

Finally, I noticed that when approached by the young man in the video, you said:

“Get away from me now” in what appeared to me to be an agitated state, how do you feel Margaret Curran must have felt?

And you weren’t even being filmed!

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

George.
This guy is typical of the SNP activists. Joined because he's really a sheep and thick with it. This new mob love getting photographed with the hierarchy. Makes them feel important when in the pub with theIr mates. But this one boasts of harassing women, even a tendency to violence or threatening behaviour. And it's nearly always women.
What us long term members of the SNP call " A Fucking Wierdo". I can tell you the place is awash with them.
This is a personal comment and in no way reflects on you. Why does his looks, demeanor and aggressive manner remind me of "A Fucking Wierdo". I wouldn't want any female members of my family near him.

Anonymous said...

great post Georgieboy

you have em rattled

Crookie

Anonymous said...

George, anyone can make a complaint to the police if they consider an individual's actions may constitute an offence. (Katie Hopkins is an example).

That does not in anyway assume that a person has committed an offence, but the police are duty bound to review and if necessary investigate any such complaints.

It is quite legitimate to ask someone - politely - questions regarding their political views / policies. But to follow someone around then is not pleasant and distinctly worrying.

For one, it could result in someone reacting in the wrong way - ie violence. Someone might - quite wrongly - take matters into their own hands.

While there were Yes campaigners who suffered verbal abuse during the Referendum, I don't recall any Better Together activists following and filming prominent SNP politicians.

Anonymous said...

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/

Tuesday 21st - news catch up. 5th video down. "John Major -clear and present danger to our future" story.

1min 50secs in.....

Anonymous said...

It say's alot that he tries to justify the harassment of women as thats exactly what this is . When you have SNP people describe this as "hunting Margaret Curran" and "Community Justice" it says alot about how sinister these people are .

This type of behavior need to be highlighted in the national press as it shows the people that the SNP are not the progressive party they claim to be and are nothing more than thugs intent on denying people their democratic rights!!

Incidents like this convince me even more about the need to vote tactically to kick these Nazi's out of Govt .

Come on people vote for country before party so we can rid ourselves of these Nazi's.

Anonymous said...

Love your point about shouting the word "fag" when you come out with such tripe as, "when i used the word "gay" to describe independence campaigners Brian Cox and Alan Cummings, i meant happy (😀 cobblers) Piers was perhaps dimply asking someone across the street if they had a cigarette, no?

G Laird said...

Dear Anon

“Love your point about shouting the word "fag" when you come out with such tripe as, "when i used the word "gay" to describe independence campaigners Brian Cox and Alan Cummings, i meant happy (�� cobblers) Piers was perhaps dimply asking someone across the street if they had a cigarette, no?”

Well, given I tell the truth, and when you read the entire post, it bears out my view, your opinion is meaningless, add to that I have several times campaigned for lgbt candidates outside my own area, it is you who is talking rubbish.

As to; “Piers was perhaps dimply asking someone across the street if they had a cigarette, no?”

You putting words into his mouth, and that isn’t the scenario he said in comment?

Did you go to the same law school?

Did they teach stick with the facts?

Piers knows what he meant, you are just guessing.

George