Monday, April 20, 2015

Open letter to Piers Doughty-Brown, you say “I do acknowledge that my report in facebook used some clumsy language, however every day’s a learning day”, did no one ever teach you that harassing innocent women is wrong, interfering with someone’s human right to a free and fair election is wrong, denying their right to privacy is wrong, and being sexist to a young woman is wrong?

























Dear ‘Piers’

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to post feedback on my blog and registering a complaint.

Unlike unpopular Nicola Sturgeon, I take complaints seriously and if the complaint is valid, I will make a correction, apparently if you are unaware of this, you now have been informed of my blogging policy.

I notice that you said in the video where Margaret Curran was harassed that your degree is law. While at University of Glasgow, I met many law students, and very helpful they were to me.

And I also have a passing interesting in law myself.

In fact, on this very blog, I have done many articles where the SNP Government legally have made a complete arse of themselves, and I pointed out where they went wrong. Lord Hope in his judgments at the UK Supreme Court has also pointed out their stupidity; however, he is less blunt than I am.

I will afford you my views on your actions.

At 19 seconds into the footage of the event involving Margaret Curran, the sound becomes suppressed, having a degree in law, you must be very bright, so can you explain why there is a sound gap between 19 seconds and 27 seconds?

As you can tell the young woman hadn’t stopped speaking and the footage continues without pause. And also from the covered up part of footage, it can be clearly heard at 23 seconds, someone saying the word ‘otherwise’. You might have to turn the sound up, but please feel free to do so. One wonders, how loudly someone must be speaking to get picked up on a piece of poorly muted footage.

Did someone suddenly need two hands to hold the recording device at that point?

Prior to that you said to the young woman:

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

So, what is the deal with the sexist and patronising comment?

Surely every young woman deserves respect when making a reasonable request, do they not?

What did she do that prompted sexism from you other than ask you to stop filming?

Can I be supplied a copy of the video which is not covered up between 19 to 27 seconds?

After all you are making a complaint, so this isn’t an unreasonable request from me.

Also, since I am making a direct quote from your video, I trust this addresses, part of your general complaint about not having seen the video which in my opinion tallies with my blog post:

“I doubt George Laird has actually seen the video we made on the day”.

As to your next part:

“and it’s a sad day when a Human Rights Activist reports complete falsehoods about my actions on the day, i.e. that I screamed at the canvasser that challenged me, the video clearly demonstrates that didn’t happen”.

So, your specific complaint is you object to the word ‘screams’, but not the harassment of Margaret Curran, as the video clearly shows in my opinion. You were not talking in a normal voice through-out the entire event, your tone to the young man was loud and aggressive in my opinion; you were just sexist and patronising to the young woman. The other part of the conversation to the young woman was covered up and you also raised your voice to Margaret Curran.

Is that a fair account?

And:

“The video clearly demonstrates that didn’t happen”.

Some people because of the fact the sound is covered up for part of the recording couldn’t say “the video clearly demonstrates that didn’t happen” because they would have to hear the entire recording.

Is that fair comment?

To clarify a point, why is it acceptable for you to harass Margaret Curran, by shouting over some distance when she is having a conversation with a voter?

Doesn’t Margaret Curran have the right to privacy?

I mean, you will know this as, you said earlier in the video:

“Don’t try honey, my law is, my law is, my degree is law”.
 
So, under the Human Rights Act 1998, Margaret Curran has the right to privacy as she was standing on private property.

Would you agree with that?

Does any person standing on private property have the human right of privacy, even if they don’t own the property?

I am saying they do, what are you saying on this issue?

This clearly wasn’t a public event, as the resident didn’t invite you to join the conversation as clearly demonstrated by the footage. Also to enlighten you further, under various parliamentary laws, Margaret is entitled to what is called a free and fair election.

So, in your opinion, is harassing her while on private property affording her a free and fair election?

Just in case, you are unclear, standing for election doesn’t mean you give up your human rights for the period of the election, can we agree on that concept?

So, if she hasn’t given up her human rights (which she can’t anyway), they must still apply, isn’t that correct?

Clearly you wished to disrupt her private event with the resident.

Also, some people consider that shouting is the same as screaming in their opinion, also do you have access to a thesaurus? Type in ‘scream’ and what do you get, you get ‘shout’, ‘yell’, ‘shriek’, ‘cry’, screech’, ‘bawl’ and ‘squeal’. So why are you trying to deny me, my right of freedom of expression, that’s another human right in case you don’t get it. Indeed, at the start of the video, you even zoom in the recording device to get a closer view as you were standing some distance away from Margaret.

What is the distance from where you were standing to the resident’s door?

Your colleague was clearing screaming out, and as your footage shows, you didn’t move forward, so why did you raise your voice?
  
Are you under the impression that Margaret Curran is deaf or has a hearing impartment?

You also stated:

“I do acknowledge that my report in facebook used some clumsy language, however every day’s a learning day”.

Clumsy language, a guy with a law degree using clumsy language, how did you get through law?

Allow me to update your campaign skills; because I have got plenty of experience, in fact, during my time in the SNP, I was Glasgow SNP top activist. 

It is absolutely wrong to interfere with someone’s election because under the law they are entitled to a free and fair election that means they get to say their piece, even if you don't like it.

In a democracy, you defend the other person’s right to speak.

To address, your point:

“Had I and my comrade been colleagues of Dominic Littlewood (Don’t get done get Dom BBC) or part of Ester Ransoms’ crew, then we’d have been hailed as heroes”.

Well, to update, your knowledge again, had you been colleagues of Dominic Littlewood (Don’t get done get Dom BBC) or part of Ester Ransoms’ crew, the chances are that you would have allegedly been in breach of the BBC Charter and been put on suspension immediately the footage became public or if Mrs. Curran or the resident filed a complaint. You see, the BBC who are impartial, understand what constitutes a free and fair election and also the Human Rights Act 1998, some others apparently don’t have their expertise. 

“Currently praise for our actions by far outweighs the bile, I'd aver the bile comes from those who don’t agree with the SNP, but would happily sit back with a tea and a fag to watch Dom et al do their thing”.

What do you mean by the word ‘fag’?

Is that a reference to the homosexual community in Scotland?

Maybe you should point the really ignorant in the SNP to my blog so they can be clued up because they might have a shaky understanding of what their responsibilities are to ensure a free and fair election.

Does anyone from the SNP leadership agree with the harassment of opposition candidates?

Can you provide a link where the SNP leadership applaud your actions?

“At no point during or before the challenge was the SNP mentioned. My political affiliation has been assumed by my critics, neither I nor my comrade wore any SNP paraphernalia; hence we could have been from any party, or simply unaffiliated activists”.

Take a look at this picture; is that you wearing an SNP badge?

Is this you standing in the SNP campaign rooms of Anne McLaughlin, (big poster on the wall)?

Is this you getting a ‘selfie’ standing next to unpopular Nicola Sturgeon, (she is one wearing red, in case you don’t recognise her)?

Also as to ‘neither I nor my comrade wore any SNP paraphernalia’, so do you want a medal?

If you are looking for congratulations, then speak to Nicola, she will no doubt inform you, I don’t hand out praise lightly, and especially not for the shit you pulled.

“I’d challenge any of you to find evidence of any political party support in any of my activities as an activist”.

I think the issue should be that you present evidence of any political party support in the harassment of Margaret Curran, not the other way round, I won’t be playing the ‘prove a negative’ game.

“In all my political campaigning my motivation has always been related to the issue and my own beliefs, not the party”.

How does that fit in with harassing a woman on private property?

At times like this when people talk such utter shit to me, I am somehow reminded of the Criminal Procedures Act (Scotland), section 196, where a person pleas guilty to stop wasting the Court’s time and their lawyer gets to present mitigation, otherwise known as a sob story.

“No laws were broken on the day, by either of us”.

Are you acting as your own judge and jury?

Did you watch the footage, would you concede that some people might view that as breach of the peace in a public street?

Don’t you really mean that no one called Police Scotland to have your asses hauled off?

“To my mind there is a vast imbalance in the media access available to politicians; an access they abuse by using it as a conduit to feed the public their lies, (think referendum) and little opportunity for us the public to expose their lack of voracity. Hence the need (I feel) to employ the occasional public exposure”.

Bollocks!

“During the referendum I was part of many direct actions, as were millions of the people of Scotland, inter alia; the protests at the BBC; the visit of the ‘Three Amigos’ to name just two. Are my critics suggesting those protests were also wrong?”

Millions of people, I didn’t realise how casual you are with numbers, I thought it just extended to law. Only 1.6 million voted for independence; that is 37.7% of the Scottish population; that number is rounded down. I don’t recall anyone from any Unionist Party gate crashing Yes events or picketing the BBC or filming Yes women.

Do you regularly film women without their consent and do you plan to continue this practice?   

As to the protests at the BBC, those were an utter disgrace, and an affront to democracy by several hundreds of people, not millions. The intimidation tactics and hate campaign towards the staff of the BBC; these people are doing their jobs, it was completely unjustified. Apparently news organisations have the right to report the news and on occasion ask the difficult questions.

“To my mind, it’s a melancholy time if we’ve reached a political climate, where three minutes of discomfiture to a politician of questionable voracity outweighs the consequences of the blight their policies and lies bring to the people of Scotland i.e. the bedroom tax; austerity; anti-independence etc”.

To be clear, the SNP had to be bounced in doing something about the bedroom tax, the SNP is planning more austerity to the tune of £180 billion, and given Ms. Sturgeon has a £7.6 billion black hole if Scotland had Full Fiscal Autonomy which she can’t fill without job losses, reduced services and slashed budgets, what kind of ‘blight’ would she be inflicting on the poor and vulnerable?
 
These are all called ‘facts’!

“More of the UKs population have died as a consequence of ATOS issues, than were killed in Afghanistan”.

Apparently the SNP Government didn’t have a problem when they let ATOS become sponsors in the Commonwealth Games. Also, I find you using the issue of Afghanistan and British Soldiers deaths as a rather poor argument indeed. 

“So when politicians are complicit in a policy that’s led to 1600 vulnerable folk dying (or committing suicide) versus 648 dying at war, I’m to sit on my hands and wait until peaceful debate has resolved the issue right? Not gonna happen!”

So, just to be absolutely clear, you appear to be saying you don’t advocate ‘peaceful debate’:

“I’m to sit on my hands and wait until peaceful debate has resolved the issue right? Not gonna happen!”

If you don’t advocate ‘peaceful debate’ then some people might concluded that since you aren’t sitting on the fence, you advocate ‘non peaceful debate’.

Was the harassment of Margaret Curran ‘non peaceful debate’?

Is there such as thing in law as peaceful harassment?

If I was still in the SNP, and had a position of authority, I would be speaking out against you, and your tactics as being disgusting, nasty, stupid and counterproductive, and I wouldn’t care whose arse you were sucking up to, I would also campaign for your suspension from SNP activism for the entire election.

Grow up and allow Margaret Curran have the same right to a free and fair election as any other candidate in Glasgow East.

What are you afraid, could it be the truth?
 
I enjoyed you saying:

“I doubt George Laird has actually seen the video we made on the day”.

Finally, the production values are exceptional poor, ever heard the word ‘tripod’?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

21 comments:

Piers Doughty-Brown said...

Good grief George

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

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.

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?

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!

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

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

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.

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

Freddy said...

I think you cover it all quite succinctly George. Police Scotland should be called whenever these morons appear if they are filming the phones could always be confiscated for evidence of any crime being committed, that old catch all of conduct likely to lead to committing of a breach of the peace comes to mind. It's a pity the press are not picking up on this numpty and have pics of him with senior Nationalists. As for not representing the SNP if it looks like a duck etc.

Alan parker said...

Great response to the guy , he can sue me if he wants but I think his tactics of even following other candidates is deplorable and sick and the guy needs a shrink , It is insidious intimidation and it is not only shameful it will do more harm than good because when people walk into the ballot box the camera and intimidation are not there and just like the referendum they will vote against the SNP haters. SNP OUT

Anonymous said...

Great stuff George. I note he replied with more drivel and misses the point that if the individual that reports it as harassment he would be in trouble. I guess his law degree was procured in a joke shop

G Laird said...

Dear Piers

“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.”

Personal courage deserted you?

Guy with a law degree doesn't want to answer questions based on human rights!

What about answering?

Will you continue filming women and denying political opponents their right to a free and fair election?

George

Piers Doughty-Brown said...

George I will continue to conduct myself within the law.

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

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?

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

Anonymous said...

Following someone about and filming them can constitute harassment, if the individual feels threatened.

While filming itself may be legal, shouting at someone could be deemed as a breach of the peace.

Interestingly enough, there are plans being openly discussed on Facebook and nationalist blogs for more demonstrations at the BBC, and also George Square. Some of those who supported previous action are now gett8ing panicky, and telling people to wait until AFTER the election.

So the tactics of intimidation are alive and well. Listening to Sturgeon today was frightening. Fidel would be proud.

Irene said...

Piers Doughty Brown must think it's ok to harrass women. Wasn't there SNP MSP who thought it was ok too? He went to jail, as I recall!

Anonymous said...

The SNP's bizarre intimidation tactics are seen nowhere else in the UK.

So the question has to be what do they hope to achieve by it?

A one party state, with the opposition marginalised, or driven underground?

If so then that has to be stopped.

Perhaps Mr Doughty Brown can tell us what would happen if other parties in Scotland start doing as he does (allegedly)?

I seem to recall that Ms Sturgeon had a man jailed for 'staring' at her, if she was prepared to do that.

Then perhaps Mr Doughty Brown may care to reflect on that...

Anonymous said...

Mr Doughty-Brown should be ashamed of himself. There is no room in a democracy for the type of tactics that he employed against Ms Curran. In my mind the only purpose for 'stalking' doorstep campaigners in this fashion can only be one of intimidation and is all the more sinister when directed at a woman. He is lucky a complaint was not made against him for harassment. Disgraceful behaviour which is hard to justify in a supposedly civilised society.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Piers Doughty-Brown said...
George I will continue to conduct myself within the law.

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

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?

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

SOUNDS LIKE A THREAT TO ME!

MEANWHILE IN HOLLYROOD

http://www.firmmagazine.com/first-minister-in-missing-records-riddle-over-hollie-greig-abuse-allegations/






Freddy said...

Reading back on the comments i cant see any insults i figure the man with the funny double barrelled name must have taken fright lol. I note he don't wan't to give you access to unedited video means he has something to hide. On the other hand you could look for someone who could lipread to put it to the test.

Piers Doughty-Brown said...

Well Well

George Laird, 49, will face a hearing in front of the party’s disciplinary committee today.

He could be kicked out of the party over the article on his “The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University” blog.

Writing about the launch of the campaign, he said: “Rather than ‘The A Team’ it looked more like ‘The GAY Team’ in nature.”

Actors Brian Cox and Alan Cummings were among those to lend their support to leader Alex Salmond and his deputy Nicola Sturgeon at the launch in Edinburgh in May.

National secretary William Henderson made the complaint.

In a letter to disciplinary committee convener Elaine Wylie, he said: “His comment both implies that sexual orientation bears some relevance in the independence campaign, and that somehow sexual orientation diminishes the impact of those involved in the campaign.”

But Laird, who has been a member of the Glasgow Pollok branch of the party since 2009, last night denied he was a homophobe.

He said: “I don’t regret the remark. Nothing in that post was homophobic. The entire post had nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation. The context in which the word ‘gay’ was used was ‘happy’.

“I am the victim of a smear campaign. William Henderson who made the complaint has been instrumental in organising the hearing against me.”

An SNP spokesman said: “Mr Laird is subject to a disciplinary complaint. It would be inappropriate to comment further.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... ng-1166336

Piers Doughty-Brown said...

Seems I'm not alone after all

sorted by: best
[–]centipod 4 points 6 months ago
Not surprised to see you bigging up a known charlatan and fantasist. I'm sure the two of you would get on like a house on fire.
Just in case anyone is confused here: George Laird's "campaign for human rights at Glasgow University" consists of him sending barely coherent green ink letters to the rector to complain about his dismissal.
He was booted out of the SNP some time ago for general fud-dom, blowhardiness and snide homophobic remarks. He seems to have had a wee bit of a chip on his shoulder about it ever since.
He's entertaining, in a let's-get-drunk-and-go-bear-baiting kind of way but he is not a mentally stable individual.
permalink
[–]wappingite[S] 0 points 6 months ago
Where exactly have I 'bigged him up' ?
He's certainly entertaining but mentally unstable sums it up. I can't quite tell what side he's on; other than being generally angry.
'unpopular Nicola Sturgeon' made me chuckle. As did 'Englishman Angus Robertson'.
permalinkparent
[–]Muuk -3 points 6 months ago

Terry Summers said...

To Piers Doughty-Brown,
What a revelation!
Anyone following Georges blogs would have read all this stuff long ago and consigned it to the sour grapes bin.
When I started to follow George's blog, I read all of the back blog's to get a sense of his trajectory from SNP activist to his current position. I value the political insights he has into the inner working of the SNP in Glasgow and his knowledge of the current leadership.
I look forward to hearing more of George's predictions on the forthcoming election and a lot less of you.
Cheers
Terry

G Laird said...

Hi Terry

Thanks for the endorsement, it seems Piers has decided to smear me by proxy.

You have to laugh at his vain attempt, my record for campaigning for LGBT candidates stands up.

George

Duncan Mclean said...

Cut out the Canker Mr Laird.

Anonymous said...

I could be wrong but this piers nutter might have been on the news tonight - there was a similar looking guy heckling Jim Murphys event in Glasgow. There was also a guy there wearing a "Scottish Resistance" tee shirt. Loony tunes stuff

Anonymous said...

Let's clear things up about Paul Stephen Doughty (aka Piers Doughty-Brown).

1: Piers is from England.

2: I don't know why he kept his married name of Doughty-Brown as the Brown part is his ex wife who divorced him a very long time ago.

3: he is very used to upsetting women and I believe it something he will not stop.

4: It is better to ignore him and then like most nasty things in life, he will go away.

G Laird said...

Dear Anon

“Let's clear things up about Paul Stephen Doughty (aka Piers Doughty-Brown)”.

Wonder why he calls himself Piers, is it so he sounds terribly middle class?

“1: Piers is from England”.

I wonder if an English guy was harassing unpopular Nicola Sturgeon, I wonder how the cybernat community would react?

“2: I don't know why he kept his married name of Doughty-Brown as the Brown part is his ex wife who divorced him a very long time ago”.

Maybe it sound like part of the ‘jetset’.

“3: he is very used to upsetting women and I believe it something he will not stop”.

I noticed online another female appears not to like his methods.

“4: It is better to ignore him and then like most nasty things in life, he will go away.”

I won’t live in hope of that one, in his video of Maragret Curran, he says, ‘see you again’.

George

Anonymous said...

Dear Piers/Paul (delete as appropriate),

A few questions for you,

1. When and where did you get your law degree? Was that a recent thing?
2. How does it feel to be suspended from the SNP?
3. What are your views on people that abscond from child maintenance payments?
4. Would you ever stick up for someone that made a racist joke?
5. Would a GP recommend that someone that needs to take tramadol for a medical complaint drink alcohol frequently? (Yes or No)
6. Is it slightly creepy for a gentleman approaching his seventies to court/groom a young female in her early twenties?
7. How many skeletons can you fit in a double barrelled closet?

Just asking.