Behind the Mask, twisted sister, unpopular Nicola Sturgeon says she would vote for Twitter troll candidate Neil Hay who compared Scots who support the Union to Nazi collaborators, Sturgeon seal of approval to cybernat abuse, vote tactically to get rid of bad rubbish

Dear All

One of the biggest lies in Scottish politics which has never been successfully challenged in my mind is the lie that the Scottish National Party stands for fairness, equality and social justice.

They don’t.

As I keep saying eventually the truth about people comes out, you might have to wait for it, in that period you may experience disappointment but truth will always out.

Unpopular Nicola Sturgeon is a rat, her husband, Peter Murrell is a rat and she surrounds herself with rats.

The rat list is growing, you just have to let SNP Candidates speak and they will dig their own hole, no help from the opposition required other than being an audience.

No matter how many kids Sturgeon clings on to the fact is she isn’t a nice person, she never was, she is an angry wee Nat full of bile and hate, the mainstream press in Scotland don’t do any real digging because it is not in their interest and they don’t wish to be targeted.

You can understand why as these people have families.

Nicola Sturgeon has said she would vote for Twitter troll candidate Neil Hay, this tells you and anyone else what lays beneath the false front that Sturgeon puts up. She claims Neil Hay has learnt his lesson, so what is the lesson he learned?

Don’t get caught?

Keep your mouth shut and you can get an MP’s salary?

I don’t think in my opinion that Hay experienced any type of regret for what he done in much the same way as other SNP candidates who have been outed. The SNP just a damage limitation exercise, claiming their candidate or elected person are sorry and they have moved on, lessons learned.

In this election as many commentators have noticed Nicola Sturgeon is unable to answer the big questions, Eddy Mair certainly took her apart on her disgraceful record as Health Sec, she couldn’t defend her failures, because there was so much in year in year out.  

The latest person from the BBC to be attacked by the cybernats is Kaye Adams, her crime, conducting a BBC radio interview asking difficult questions of Nicola Sturgeon.

Hundreds of Nationalists took to Twitter to abuse Kaye Adams after the Radio Scotland phone-in with Sturgeon, accusing her of being rude, ignorant and of displaying an anti-SNP bias. In TV debates, you can’t fail to have noticed that Nicola Sturgeon is rude, ignorant and completely lacking in class as she talks over people. It seems when Nicola Sturgeon shouts people down her sycophantic cult followers think this is a sign of strength when it is in fact weakness and fear.

Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t stand up for Scotland and she doesn’t speak for Scotland.

Sturgeon effectively runs a cult with her husband which allows them to rake in the best part of a quarter of a million a year.

The fact she has said would still vote for a disgraced SNP candidate Neil Hay speaks volumes about her personal integrity, Hay who compared Scots who support the United Kingdom to Nazi collaborators. Hay is standing in a key marginal of Edinburgh South where Ian Murray is the Labour Candidate, his majority isn’t great.

One of the ridiculous demands that the SNP have floated is that broadcasting should be devolved to Holyrood. After the last few years of abuse which we now know can be traced back to the core of the SNP, devolved broadcasting is a non starter.  

One of the angry Nat mob on Twitter said:

“If the Scottish Government got control of the BBC in Scotland the likes of Kaye Adams will be history and that is why she is hostile.”

Threatening someone’s job security when they are an innocent person is a hallmark of the Nationalist community in Scotland.

A BBC Scotland spokesman said:

“Kaye’s interview was rigorous and fair. The interview is one of a series on the programme, featuring the leaders of the main parties. Each interview has been and will be conducted with equal fairness. The leaders are given the opportunity both to explain their thinking on matters of public concern and answer criticisms of it, but it is also Kaye’s role to put the questions on behalf of our listeners and support the members of the public who have called in to look for answers.”

What we can take from this sorry episode is a number of things, the BBC and other reporters are fair game for abuse, Nicola Sturgeon has given the green light to her nasty vile clique to abuse anyone, including opposition politicians, and the lie of equality, fairness and social justice is just an election gimmick, a tool to con the public.

The Scottish National Party is a rat ship, one in seven Scots as I blogged yesterday are voting tactically because they know or sense a general unease in Scottish politics, the like of which they have never felt before.

Nicola Sturgeon’s mask has slipped, the horrible nasty bitter person of old hasn’t learned the lessons of history, she like Alex Salmond just managed to cover it up for the cameras, but as I said in the end, the truth will always out!

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Voting Tactically for Scotland and the UK

Changing Scotland; One in seven Scots are intent that they will vote tactically in the Westminster 2015 election to shut out the SNP, but now it is time for Jim Murphy and Ruth Davidson to come out and join Willie Rennie in the tactical voting strategy

Dear All

Tactical voting is nothing new in politics; however, it has never really been used on an industrial scale in Scotland.

In the main most political parties chart their own course because they want to see their candidates elected or increase their vote in an area, this is normal politics. Success in politics is a bit like moveable goal posts, if you don’t win, you try and put a positive spin by saying, our vote increased by so many or if that option isn’t available then you play the percentage game.

That being said, in this Westminster election, tactical voting hasn’t exactly been welcomed by party leaders, they at best have given it lip service with the exception of Willie Rennie of the Lib Dems. He appears to recognise that with politics being unstable, his party’s poor polling rating and the electorate in a state of flux, he needs to adapt to what is a changing situation.

Last year, tactical voting was used to get Ukip candidate elected to the European Parliament, David Coburn’s election shut out Tasmina Ahmed-Shiekh who had hoped to get the third seat for the SNP. At the time, I wrote a couple of posts on tactical voting because I knew if the idea was floated it could take off.

This year, tactical voting is back on the agenda, admittedly it is a bit late in getting started, the Labour and Conservative Parties seemed reluctant to grasp the nettle because like in the Better Together campaign, they wanted to do their own thing. In doing so, if it panned out, they could claim that it was their ideas that won the day. In fact Ruth Davidson recently said that voters should vote with their hearts.

Politics isn’t about emotion, it is about logic.

If you take her advice, Ruth Davidson could be sitting with no MPs in Scotland, so what is more important for her career prospects as leader, delivery of more seats or keeping the Conservatives share of the vote?

Answer is delivery of more seats, they way to try and get this is tactical voting. If on May 8^th Ruth Davidson wakes up to having no Conservative MPs in Scotland, the ‘men in the grey suits’ once they get over the shock will not be happy. Ruth Davidson could possibly get more seats via tactical voting; it would then be up to the Conservative candidates to make a go of it in Scotland to keep their re-election chances alive by working harder than any MPs at Westminster.  

Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates in Scotland have seen plenty bad polls of late, but many could get a lifeline if Conservative voters in this election would switch and vote tactically to keep out the SNP.

Research has flagged up something interesting, one in seven Scots will vote tactically in the election.

It is a start, but the work isn’t being done by political parties in the main, it is being done by groups like Scotland in Union, United Against Separation and Scotland’s Big Voice to name but a few. Grassroots organisations have realised in the new politics, it is sometimes better to ignore the ‘advice’ from the top and get on with pulling the coals out of the fire.  

A tactical voting survey was carried out for the Scotland in the Union organisation which says that voters would switch to opponents of the SNP in greater numbers than to the Nationalists.

All you need to win is one more than the other person, if the research is correct and it is a snap shot in time, there are about thousands of extra votes floating about which if secured for selected candidates could help saving many Labour and Liberal Democrat seats.

Alastair Cameron, from Scotland in Union, said:

“These figures are from across Scotland, so the proportion could be significantly higher in key constituencies. We’re hearing examples of intended tactical voting in many constituencies, as people look closely at the realistic options available to them. People are realising that without tactical voting, they could accidentally hand victory to divisive candidates who won’t work positively for Scotland and the UK.”

Although party leaders don’t appear to grasp the scale of the problem or think everything will be okay on the night, they should have a re-think, Senior Conservative Sir Malcolm Rifkind is among the senior figures that have backed tactical voting, he gets it; he understands what the overview is.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind says Tory voters in areas where the party has no hope of winning could switch to Labour or the Lib Dems in order to keep the SNP out. And the same goes the other way round, in an area where a Labour Candidate has no hope in a month of Sundays; people should switch and vote Conservative where their candidate is the main contender.

SNP Candidate Angus Robertson said:

“The reality is that tactical voting campaigners are trying to get more Tory MPs elected in Scotland, which would make David Cameron’s re-election more likely – underlining the importance of electing a team of SNP MPs to make Scotland stronger at Westminster.”

For years, the SNP have relied on Scotland hates Conservatives, must be a shock for him to realise that people hate the Scottish National Party even more, and tactical voting isn’t going away, it will be updated for Holyrood 2016.  

Lib Dem deputy leader Sir Malcolm Bruce said:

“People who have voted for other parties in the past are backing the Liberal Democrats this time round. We have an excellent team of hardworking candidates and in each of our 11 seats voters have a straight choice between the Liberal Democrats, who will grow the economy and invest in the NHS, or the SNP who want a second referendum and would ramp up our debt.”

Quite so ma’am!

So, one in seven people voting tactically is a good start, however, the numbers should climb, this election is a test bed for future elections, Scotland needs a new type of politics, in fact it also needs a new type of nationalism, something that the SNP cannot deliver as it is a ‘rat ship’.  You just have to open the daily paper or turn on the TV to see what kind of dross the SNP plan to ship to Westminster.

Unpopular Nicola Sturgeon trying to split the Labour vote in Scotland said:

“I wish that he (Miliabnd) would be tougher and not be kicked around so much by the Tories. I think he should be bolder in saying that he will respect the wishes of voters. That means talking to others, it means compromising. I was the deputy leader of a minority government for four years. At a very practical level, unless you are prepared to respect the wishes of the people who vote, and talk to and compromise with other parties, you don’t get your business through.”

Leaving aside the pap in this her diatribe above, the leaders of Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems in Scotland need to talk and compromise with each other, to get their candidates through, and accept in an area where someone hasn’t any realistic chance to tell their core support to switch.

For those still unsure of the scale of the problem and why tactical voting is needed, a poll of 1,003 adults in Scotland asked people who they feel would “try to get the best deal for Scotland at Westminster”.

42 per cent favour Nicola Sturgeon, with Jim Murphy trailing on 8 per cent and Ed Miliband on 3 per cent.

And Sturgeon is selling a pig in a poke of sheer fantasy, awhile ago the London School of Economics published an article on political ignorance of the electorate; this is what I have said in the past. Education is the key, and the first order of business of whoever wins and becomes the Westminster Government is the realisation that the Scotland Office needs an enhanced role in Scotland, also the Westminster Government needs to make their leader in Holyrood, a Westminster Cabinet Minister, this can easily be done via the Lords. Parties need to up their game as just pottering along has really produced the desired effect.

Once these changes are made then, it will be time to go see unpopular Nicola Sturgeon and her rat pack to have a real political fight!

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights a Glasgow University

Andrew Neil tears apart SNP Finance Minister John Swinney, this is an epic crash of the GE2015 election , hat tip to blog reader Freddy for finding pure gold

Meine Ratten: unpopular Nicola Sturgeon backs SNP Westminster Candidate Brendan O’Hara exposed for using sectarian outbursts; the hypocrisy of the SNP position appears to be summed up as do as we say not as we do; is this return to old style Billy Wolfe hatred by the Nats?

Dear All

Some time ago, I said there was a real lack of talent in the Scottish National Party.

As the Earth continued to spin on its axis, the Sun rises and falls, unpopular Nicola Sturgeon finally admitted it, by getting outside candidates.

George Laird right again, and ahead of Nicola Sturgeon of ‘education got me were I am today’.

The list of dross so far!

Mhairi Black; the Paisley Braveheart, who in my mind is more like Nedheart (check out my youtube video; apologies for it being test material).

Neil Hay abusive to the elderly, and No Voters liken them as Quislings, and is a twitter troll without the bottle to do it under his own name!

Natalie McGarry, an obnoxious piece of shit.

Tasmina Ahmed-Shiekh, who on her way out of the door of the Conservative Party decided to play the 'race card' against them. 

Chris Stephens, who sat back and allowed an Asian Man to be abused during the Pollok SNP council selection meeting, denying the man, his right to a free and fair election, so much for being a social justice campaigner!

Now, we get another dud, this one is called Brendan O’Hara, he is standing in the seat of Argyll and Bute. His claim to fame is that he called Rangers supporters “Huns” on a Celtic fans’ website.

During the SNP fiasco that was the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act, the SNP got its knickers in a twist as none of the other parties wanted to back this pile of tripe. Humza Youaf in a vain attempt to sell that shite, found he had oodles left over, no one wanted a bite.

My objection to this law is that it is bad law, as a Sheriff aptly put it, it is ‘mince’.

After being outed O'Hara was forced into an apology, ‘Huns’ is used as a bigoted term for the Ibrox club and their followers, however a case could be made that it is also a derogatory term to all Protestants.

So, what is unpopular Nicola Sturgeon doing about this incident?

Well nothing!

As I said the Scottish National Party is a ‘rat ship’, if you do a bit of digging, you can see that ‘Rat Scotland’ is well represented in this election. Going about the shop calling people ‘Huns’ can be a very sticky wicket indeed, as it appears use of the word can lead to people being convicted of a criminal offence in Scottish Courts.

To add further woes onto Nicola Sturgeon, O’Hara once described ex-Celtic striker Maurice Johnston as a “rat” who should not “show his face” in Glasgow.

Rat?

Where have I read that before?

Oh, yes, I remember, I called Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell, ‘rats’, however both of these people as far as I am aware don’t play football, their ‘game’ is playing at being as ‘social justice campaigners’ while screwing over the working class. They have done quite well out of that one to the tune of over £250,000 a year.

Did you catch Eddy Mair ripping Nicola Sturgeon a new arse on the radio, a painful experience for any deluded SNP supporter to listen to, after sitting listening to that, it clearly shows Sturgeon isn’t not a superwoman; easily pulled apart for her failure as the Health Sec by way of factual evidence!

O’Hara, 51, has stood for the SNP in two previous General Elections in Springburn in 1987 and Glasgow Central in 1992. I never came across him in my travels, the 90 minute Nationalists only tended to surface just before elections when they suddenly became gung ho about Scotland and its people.

But O’Hara’s most damning piece of rubbish was when he targeted Mo Johnston, the former Rangers player.

He was quoted as an “ardent Celtic follower” in a Chicago Tribune piece on the hatred between the Old Firm.

O’Hara said:

“The (Mo Johnston) man’s a rat. I don’t think he can show his face in this town again.”

So, does earning a living using your talents make you a ‘rat’?

Clearly not in the case of Mo Johnston!

To be clear, although some consider football more important than life and death, this type of crap promotes sectarianism in Scotland, not that O’Hara is anyone to take notice of, but obviously his position in the SNP gives him a vehicle and an audience.

Dave Scott, director of anti-sectarian charity Nil By Mouth, said:

“The internet often brings out the worst in people when it comes to posting provocative and offensive material and people all too often don’t think before they type. Research published by the Scottish Government earlier this year highlighted that a majority of people found using terms like ‘hun’ and ‘fenian’ to be unacceptable and whether you are part of this majority or not it’s clear that continued use of these terms, particularly from public figures hardly diffuse any lingering sectarian tensions in our society.”

A Conservative spokesman said:

“It is entirely unacceptable from someone hoping to represent the public in Parliament.”

So far, I have listed 5 people who in my opinion aren’t fit to be elected to Westminster from the SNP, this in my view is probably just the tip of the iceberg, Nicola Sturgeon appears to have cobbled together the worst type of dross available; sheep will always be sheep.

Brendan O’Hara has as about as much political credibility as Nicola Sturgeon fake hair colour.

Presumably, when I next stand for public office, someone in a fit of fake Nationalist outrage will highlight me calling unpopular Nicola Sturgeon, a ‘rat’ and ask is that ‘acceptable behaviour’?

My reply will be, ‘go get her and I will call it to her face’, and of course highlight the rest of the SNP ‘rat ship’, after all might as well get everyone in the same night and not play favourites.

Nicola Sturgeon will be doing nothing because Nicola Sturgeon lacks class, integrity, and the ability to be a leader of men; she needs dross around her to feel ‘special’.

And she really is willing to scrap the bottom of the barrel to get it.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

‘Queen of Rats’, The SNP are the cybernats, the cybernats are the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon backs ‘hate’ candidate Neil Hay in Westminster election by refusing to remove him, the message from Sturgeon appears to be, ‘hate is okay, just don’t get caught’, anyone still wondering why she surrounds herself with kids now?

Dear All

Have you ever heard of the Nolan Principles?

They are the bench mark for setting standards in public life for Politicians. One of the principles that people entering public life are supposed to have is leadership. Regular readers know that for some considerable time that I have commented on the fact that the Scottish National Party is a ‘rat ship’.

Some people in the cybernat community including the current poster boy of Nationalist abuse Piers Doughty-Brown have disliked me for ‘writing him up’ on the blog for his despicable antics regarding Margaret Curran.

He was wrong.

Piers Doughty-Brown is just a symptom of the disease that infects Nationalism in Scotland. Although credit where credit is due, it appears for the moment that rather than continuing his ‘crusade’ against Margaret Curran when she was doing doorstep canvassing, he moved onto public events involving Jim Murphy.

Nothing wrong in heckling at a public event, if you pop your head over the parapet, you are effectively saying ‘come ahead’. That being said, you should use judgment at all times, people have the right to run their events to get out their message, bottom line is that everyone should have a free and fair election.

If heckling is your thing, and it can be good fun, then election night in the counting hall as the result is announced is an excellent place to ‘rip the utter pish’ out of the opposition. Hustings are another good place for those interested in being vocal, but the ‘chair’ must be respected, so if they tell you sit your ass down, then you sit your ass down.    

The Scottish National Party for years have claimed that the cybernats are nothing to do with them, the reality is however very different.

If you do a bit of digging, which I had to do, you can find out that these people doing the abuse are connected to the SNP leadership despite trying to be anonymous.

As people know, I have no time for unpopular Nicola Sturgeon, she is common, lacks class, has a massive chip on her shoulder, and isn’t a leader of men.

Leadership is a serious responsibility, if you have someone who is ill prepared, lacks decency or doesn’t care, it is a recipe for disaster. The person at the top ‘sets the standard’, people take their lead from them, if that person is a piece of shit, then the rest below will become embolden to act as if they had some kind of green light.

Nicola Sturgeon isn’t a leader that is fairly obvious, leadership isn’t about just accepting the ‘glory’, which seems to be the hallmark of Ms Sturgeon’s leadership, she appears to being in ‘love’ with being liked, a very shallow and needy woman, leadership is about accepting the other baggage that goes with it.

Sturgeon has refused to sack an SNP election candidate called Neil Hay after he was exposed for posting online messages which branded No voters “traitors.” On 22 October 2012 in a tweet he likened supporters of Scotland staying in the UK to “Quislings”. Quisling was a Second World War 2 term used as an insult from the name of the Nazi collaborator who headed the puppet Norwegian government.

Neil Hay was posting under the anonymous name Paco McSheepie.

What does it say that Neil Hay was posting under an anonymous name, it show that he is at heart a coward like many people in the Scottish National Party. A cowardly piece of shit that patently doesn’t the courage of his own convictions just about sums him up. Another of his gems was the mocking of elderly voters for “barely knowing their own name”. After the indy defeat, some of the Nationalists blamed the elderly for voting no.

In a statement Hay said:

“The words in these old tweets were poorly chosen, and I apologise for any offence caused. They are not in keeping with the way I would express myself now.”

Oh, isn’t there an election on?

At present the current Nationalist line is that this is an ‘old account’,  the bad news for Neil Hay is that Edinburgh Evening News after some digging discovered the account was used earlier this month, and was only deleted after the paper approached the SNP about it.

So, what should have Nicola Sturgeon have done?

Firstly, she should have suspended him, after reviewing the evidence, and that means reading Hay’s entire tweets from when he became an approved SNP candidate.

If any of the tweets were written during this period, she should have removed him as an SNP candidate, leaving him if he so wished to continue his campaign alone.

Sturgeon should have then banned any current SNP member from taking part in his campaign, and if he was elected, she should state that for the entire life of the next Westminster Parliament, he would be an independent.

So, what did Nicola Sturgeon do?

Well, she did the ‘cheap talk’ of apologising in Parliament which is really meaningless; then she decided to play the blame game after the matter was raised by Labour MSP Kezia Dugdale.

Sturgeon said:

“I would invite Kezia Dugdale before she comes to me lecturing me on what she expects me to do about SNP members - can I politely suggest that she puts her own house in order first.”

Labour Deputy Leader Kezia Dugdale said this wasn’t enough; however she should accept that this is all she is getting.

Nicola Sturgeon has in my mind absolutely no integrity, and speaking of people getting their ‘house in order’, perhaps she should start with her own home in Baillieston, Glasgow.

A good place to clean house is to start to have a rather large word with husband Peter Murrell. After that rather frank discussion with hubby, she should next move onto the people in her Glasgow Southside clique, namely the odious Natalie McGarry who is standing in Glasgow East. She is another person who should have been removed as an SNP Candidate but wasn’t, it seems that if you are a ‘good pal’ of Sturgeon you can’t be removed.   

The victims of Nationalist abuse are piling up, in one sense; it gives the Court system a run of business which they possibly didn’t bank on. Victims include journalists and participants in TV debates; women seem to be a special target of the abuse from the Nationalist camp.

Neil Hay is the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate, if there is any justice left in Scotland, the people of Edinburgh South should send the Labour Candidate Ian Murray to Westminster.

Although, the focus is on Neil Hay, the real focus should be on Nicola Sturgeon, why is she so lacking in the fundamental requirements of leadership, she surrounds herself with sycophants who are as equally as poisonous as Neil Hay, her party is effectively a cult top heavy with idiots.  

Eventually people in Scotland will come to the George Laird view as has happened many times before; sadly it may transpire that some of the worst type of Nationalist pond life might slip through the net.

I supported tactical voting very early on; I did so because there is something incredibly rotten at the core of Scottish society, it is the Scottish National Party.

The SNP is a ‘rat ship’.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University  

SNP Verbal Masturbation, publicly unelectable Humza Yousaf dismisses claims of ‘racism’ in the SNP by Adil Bhatti, a former Sturgeon ally, in 2012; I witnessed how Adil Bhatti was abused at Pollok SNP by Humza's own parliamentary employee, Shona McAlpine, Glasgow South West SNP Candidate Chris Stephens sat and done nothing to stop it

Dear All

In 2008, there was a by-election in Glasgow East.

The SNP put a candidate, John Mason, after a hard fought campaign which went right down to the wire, he won by 365 votes.

At that by-election, I met several people, one of them was Humza Yousaf, I was sent with him and his future wife Gail Lythgoe to do leafleting at a train station to catch commuters coming back and forth. Being new to political campaigning, I was surprised to be left on my own on a platform, while he and his girlfriend went to the other side.

As, I was handing out leaflets, I was joined by Matt Kerr, he is the Labour Councillor for the Craigton Ward. So, we ended up chatting away, but I couldn’t help but notice that Humza Yousaf and his partner sat on seating and occasionally handed out a leaflet here and there, this surprised me as I thought, they would be pro active.

Another person, who I met during that the campaign was late MSP Bashir Ahmad; I wasn’t an SNP member at that time, every time he saw me, he would make a point of popping over for a chat. In part, he was responsible in me making my mind up to join the SNP. I thought at that time, these Nationalist crowd seemed really nice people, and Bashir genuinely was, it wasn’t until later, I discovered that the SNP was rotten to the core.

Fast forward to 2012, and I decided to put myself forward as a council candidate in Glasgow, at the selection day, I saw people who I had campaigned with previously and who knew me well. Among the group was another Asian man, Adil Bhatti, although I had seen him at the ‘big’ by-elections, I didn’t know him well. At selection day, he did a talk to the group on Police, my topic was recreational violence.

Mr. Bhatti decided that he wanted to put himself forward as a candidate for Ward 4 which is the Craigton Ward. I had put myself forward for Ward 3 which is Pollok. Anyway, at that Pollok SNP selection meeting was an employee of Humza Yousaf called Shona McAlpine, she was part of the Sturgeon clique. During the process and to my surprise she started to abuse the Asian man, Mr. Bhatti who had been sent out of the room by Chris Stephens, the current candidate for Glasgow South West.

Out of all the people who put themselves forward to be candidates in Ward 3 & 4, I was the only person to speak out against the way he was being treated, all the current SNP Councillors in Wards 3 & 4 were silent, and as I said, so was Chris Stephens, he was also the Pollok SNP branch sec so held a position of authority. He could have stopped the abuse but he didn’t, he remained complete silent.

Adil Bhatti, a former ally of Nicola Sturgeon had experienced discrimination, I know this to be true, because I witnessed it, and put a stop to it. Later on in the evening, I was unsuccessful as the Pollok branch also rejected me, was it because I stood up for Adil Bhatti, I don’t think so, I thought at the time, it was based on their pure contempt for me. I was generally; the only rank and file member of Pollok SNP to come out, the other circa 130 members, week in week out wouldn’t come out for Chris Stephens.

Given his experience, I am not surprised that Adil Bhatti has claimed the grassroots of the SNP is prejudiced against ethnic monitories. If you had seen how he had been treated that night, you couldn’t help but think his chances of a free and fair election process had been deliberately sabotaged by Shona McAlpine.

Adil Bhatti, has said there is "racism" among the Scottish National Party’s rank and file members. I don’t know whether that is true, however, there is discrimination which is practiced in the SNP, and that discrimination goes right up to the top of the organisation which Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband is the Chief Executive.

My experience was Sturgeon’s husband didn’t seem to be too bothered to act on complaints from members.

I experienced discrimination during my time in the Scottish National Party, but this was because although a member, I was never accepted by them. As I have repeatedly written, the SNP is a party within a party; it is run like a cult. When Adil Bhatti sought help from unpopular Nicola Sturgeon, he says Sturgeon totally ignored the situation. Given the conduct of her husband, Peter Murrell that doesn’t surprise me in the least, like many people, Adil Bhatti found out his face didn’t fit, in the SNP, there is no such thing as equality or being promoted on merit in my opinion unless you are one of the clique.

Bhatti's observations appear to be in sync those of another ex Sturgeon ally Muhammad Shoaib, he said that prior to leaving the organisation; he had experienced bias in the party.

Muhammad Shoaib decided to defect to the Labour Party.

Shoaib caused controversy on his way out the door of the SNP by saying that SNP activists wanted "coconut Pakistanis, not pure Pakistani" candidates, and cited Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh. The phrase "coconut Pakistani", which he said meant "white inside" has been fiercely condemned by the SNP. I once campaigned with Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh in 2011, I wouldn’t describe her as a "coconut Pakistanis” and the choice of words is a rather poor taste. I would simply describe her as pleasant enough to work with; however, she is an opportunist in my opinion. I doubt she would make a good MP for Ochil & South Perthshire from the point of view of the constituents.

Unsurprisingly Humza Yousaf has been rolled out to protest.

He said:

"These are more disgraceful comments from a Labour Party member, which are completely untrue. To attack the late Bashir Ahmad as weak is a truly appalling slur on a wonderful man who was the most sincere politician of his generation”.

I would go along with Bashir Ahmad as a nice gentleman, I found I genuinely liked him, if I had stayed with the SNP; I would have done his campaign if he hadn’t unfortunately died.

Yousaf added:

"The SNP is a civic party which embraces all of Scotland's communities and ethnic diversity, which is clear for all to see."

This is from a man who employed a woman who abused an Asian, a man who married a woman who ran a hate campaign against Labour MP Ian Davidson, and was one of the laziest people I ever came across in Nationalism. As a member of the Pollok SNP branch, he never did a single day of activism, week in week out for years with me.

And he is part of an organisation that does practice discrimination, as to his claim that “the SNP is a civic party which embraces all of Scotland's communities and ethnic diversity, which is clear for all to see."

That is just verbal masturbation otherwise known as a load of ‘wank’ in my opinion!

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Set extension test castle 2

SNP Government does another major U-turn, this time they are backtracking on the abolition of corroboration, unpopular Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are making a mockery of justice in Scotland, sheer incompetence is the hallmark of her government, government used as an election tool

Dear All

One of the things you will have noticed from time to time, is that I have blogged on the fact that the Scottish National Party in Government don’t do Law well.

Kenny MacAskill was arguably the worst Justice Secretary in the history of the Scottish Parliament, he was Alex Salmond’s pal, this is the criteria it seems for holding Ministerial office.

Some time ago, during the Scottish referendum campaign, the SNP came up with what they thought was a ‘whizz bang’ idea to try and capture the women’s vote.

Plans to abolish corroboration in criminal trials, so in effect, this was akin to a return to the days of ‘witch craft’ trials. The Nationalists used as their justification emotive cases such as rape.

Rape is a truly awful crime; the victims of such abuse need our help, our sympathy and a justice system that is fit for purpose. The SNP highlighted as their reason the woeful conviction rates as they sought to lower the bar for evidence. No justice system can function properly were there is not a level playing field, we expect and demand that one of the cornerstones of a democratic society is justice.

I blogged that Scottish Government plans to abolish corroboration were utterly wrong some time ago, if you google my name and corroboration, you can read previous articles or click on my article of October 2012.

http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/senior-judges-reject-snp-government.html

This post also appears at:

http://www.law-pedia.com/corroboration.htm

And you can’t have failed to notice that on all the major issues that Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon got wrong, George Laird got it absolutely right.

Now, the Scottish Government has been forced to do another U-turn.

Apparently, they have managed to get George Laird, yet again, after several years; you see it takes the SNP years to get to the correct decision which takes me a few minutes.

Anyone who has an interest in human rights can plainly see how wrong it was for the SNP to embark on this course of action.

However, I am not welcoming the decision by Kenny MacAskill’s replacement Michael Matheson because I think this U turn is a temporary measure, to get them over this election and the subsequent one in 2016.

Corroboration is a basic safeguard of Scots Law should be retained, although the SNP farmed out the idea to Lord Bonomy, a High Court judge who did a study, he has came back with a series of proposed checks and balances to support people accused of crime.

I want you to think of now of the ‘Cadder Case’, in this case, the Scottish Government had to be forced by the UK Supreme Court to reinstate an accused person’s human rights to a fair trial after an accuse was denied access to legal representation.

Human rights cannot be replaced by ‘gifts’ from the Crown Office dressed up as safeguards. Not unsurprisingly that case was found against the Scottish Government, it seems that ‘who pays the piper calls the tune’ as famously said by Kenny MacAskill holds no sway in justice.

Lord Bonomy has interestingly said the corroboration rule should be preserved for cases where the accused as confessed or where evidence is hearsay.

The way that human rights work regarding a fair trial is that accused people have access to the same rights. If people have more rights than others, then plainly that is wrong, it would not be a surprise if this measure was adopted that a person found guilty could appeal that a miscarriage of justice occurred because they were afforded the same rights as others.

I have served on a jury, I did my duty, the person on trial was guilty, and he got sentenced for stabbing someone in the face with a weapon. At the end of the trial, a fellow jury member said to me, ‘you were right’. I told him, ‘we all were right’; I was just the one who prepared to stand up’. Although the jury members all felt he was guilty, they were reluctant to vote that way in case the person was sent to prison. I told them, we are not here to send people to prison, we are here to ensure justice is done, the judge will determine what sentence is required. At the end of the trial, it transpired that the person had a history of violence that stretched into several pages.   

Many justice insiders believe it is not the rule of corroboration that prevents convictions for rape and other crimes committed in private, but the reluctance of juries to convict, my story bears this belief out. Sending people to prison isn’t a nice thing to do but society has to be protected from dangerous people.

Matheson told Holyrood:

"The issues Lord Bonomy raises are of crucial importance, and we should take the time to consider them fully. The Scottish Government will look at Lord Bonomy's detailed recommendations as a package, alongside the corroboration requirement itself, and form a view on the best way forward."

Alistair Morris, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said:

"Lord Bonomy is recommending measures which could improve the criminal justice system whether or not the corroboration requirement is abolished. The Law Society strongly believed that abolishing the requirement for corroboration in isolation without a full review of its role in our criminal justice system would lead to an increased risk of miscarriages of justice."

This also tallies with what a serving Sheriff said to me some time ago when discussing this issue, they also said that women would see though this gimmick by the SNP to garner votes for independence.

The abolition of corroboration will now be removed from the Criminal Justice Act passed last year.

However, despite this, I believe that this issue will return if the SNP get majority government in 2016.

And when it does, the fight will simply start back over again.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

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

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