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