The World At War 1973; History teaches us to learn from the mistakes of the past, recently, I was thinking how we have creeping oppression in the West, in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we have politicians who haven't learned the lessons of the past, their behaviour, their acts of intolerance, their use of the State as a means of oppression eerily harks back to 1930's Germany

Dear All 

Few documentary television series stick out and remain deeply ingrained with you through-out your life. One such production was by Jeremy Issacs in 1973, when he put together an incredible team of researchers and decided to tackle and explain the most devastating period of history. That history was the greatest conflict ever fought of the modern era, it was the Second World War. After the team was assembled, the first task was to decide what should be covered as key events leading to the rise of the Nazis and the allies eventual victory. The universally acclaimed The World at War remains as a jewel of British broadcasting. 

Although all the laurels went to Jeremy Issacs, as the visionary producer, he was generous enough to mention one person repeatedly who along with Noble Frankland of the Imperial War Museum the 26 part series wouldn't be the same. She was one of our best researchers of this series, a driving force who worked tirelessly, her name is Sue McConachy. Sadly, Sue doesn't appear in the wiki page entry of series. I mention her because it was her skilled persistence that secured interviews with Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge, and Himmler's adjutant, SS General Karl Wolff. When Sue passed away Jeremy  Issacs paid extensive tribute to her and her central importance in making the World at War, and how she shaped the incredibly series that it was to become, into a landmark piece of television history. 

Sue McConachy was one of the finest television researchers of our time. 

When you watch this series, you quickly see that The World at War, a British 26-episode documentary television series was a series in which the finest talents were brought together. Produced by Jeremy Isaacs, narrated by Laurence Olivier, who had perfect pitch gravitas and included the incredible music and theme composed by Carl Davis. To me this will always be the greatest ever documentary series in the history of television. Made in 1973, and chronicling the events of the Second World War. The sheer number of interviews of key players on both sides of the conflict was extraordinary. Among these were Sir Max Aitken, Joseph Lawton Collins, Mark Clark, Jock Colville, Karl Dönitz, James "Jimmy" Doolittle, Lawrence Durrell, Lord Eden of Avon, Mitsuo Fuchida, Adolf Galland, Minoru Genda, W. Averell Harriman, Sir Arthur Harris, Alger Hiss, Brian Horrocks, Traudl Junge, Toshikazu Kase, Curtis LeMay, Vera Lynn, Hasso von Manteuffel, Bill Mauldin, John J. McCloy, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, J. B. Priestley, Saburo Sakai, Albert Speer, James Stewart, Charles Sweeney, Paul Tibbets, Walter Warlimont, Takeo Yoshikawa, and historian Stephen Ambrose. 

This series was made at the right time in history. 

The World at War was commissioned by Thames Television in 1969. From, its first episode on TV, it was an instant hit, if ever there was a history series which should be compulsory viewing in schools, this series fills that criteria and more. As well as covering key elements of the War, priority was given to interviews with surviving aides and assistants which gives a richness to the overall production. You will hear about campaigns from senior figures but also from rank and file soldiers, sailors and airmen. The series talks about the cruelty, the harshness that people suffered under occupation, lessons about tyranny which would not be place being talked about today in various countries whose leaders are oppressing their own people. 

Finally, ever one can give you a recommendation for a movie, they can give you the same for a television series which takes their fancy. Few people can reel off a documentary series which they feel is a must see. Although the World at War aired in 1973, this is a series which stands the test of time. As it approaches its 50th anniversary in 2023, if you haven't watched it, then I urge you to do so. Such a series must be kept alive in the minds of people everywhere, there other series which are very good as well such as The Nazis: A Warning from History, well produced, well narrated, but The World at War is the Gold standard. I found the first episode available to watch on a youtube channel, so I put it at top of this post for you to watch later. Although this isn't a normal politics post, the world is in a dark place, we have oppression in the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In 1930's the Germans demonised the 'dirty jew', for political ends, in 2021, we have politicians demonising the 'dirty unvaxxed', moving towards a two tier society. This is why I urge you to watch the World at War, we have a version of history repeating itself, right now, today, all over the world. In the series, a woman said, she didn't noticed the oppression until it affected her family personally, well in 2021, oppression is affecting many families.      

Yours sincerely 

George Laird                                                                                                                                The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

The Scottish Inquisition is Paused; the Crown Office call off the 'Scottish Witch hunt' against Marion Millar, although prosecutors discontinue their unwinnable 'hate crime' case against her, they say they are leaving the case on the back burner, speaking the truth in Scotland has consequences, but we can't stop raging against the dying of the light

Dear All 

The Scottish Inquisition is off at the moment, it could be climate change, it could be bad weather, it could be they are expecting a lot of business from Cop26 in Glasgow. Either way, the Crown Office has halted the madness of the Marion Millar 'hate crime' case. If you thought that the Crown Office had suddenly seen sense, I would ask you to pause a moment and consider what the chances were of winning a blatantly obvious unwinnable case? Prosecutors have dropped the case against Marion Millar because, they knew they had no chance on God's green earth of concocting a plausible story to get her banged up with the help of a jury.  Marion Millar a 50-year-old account from Airdrie, had been accused of posting homophobic and transphobic material on social media. The case was seen by many as a 'try out' of censorship using lack of credible evidence. Basically it was a case of someone saying, 'I don't like what you say', then roping in the Police, then them playing safe with the Crown Office to railroad a woman into Court. Marion Millar is a supporter of sex-based rights for women who opposes transgender self-identification. The Millar Case attracted a huge interest in Scotland because of the nature of this case and general erosion of rights. 

So, now we have a quiet withdrawal by the Crown Office which is viewed as a tainted organisation which is not fit for purpose. They confirmed it had discontinued proceedings against Marion Millar ahead of a court hearing scheduled for next Monday. Although in theory, they could still have a crack at Marion Millar down the line. That said, there is no upside for them, continuation only means an inglorious defeat all the way to the bitter end of a jury fore person saying not guilty.  Part of the reason for the Crown folding their tents was that Millar’s defence team, led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, had been preparing to challenge the prosecution on human rights grounds. Human Rights allow people the right to free speech and freedom of expression. There is no human right to be offended by what someone says or does, or writes. If you don't like what someone says, you don't have to read, hear it or accept it, but you don't get to use the State as your proxy censor. 

In many ways, it is a pity that the Crown Office backed down, because we would have had case law post not guilty verdict to end the 'Scottish Witch hunts'. If the Prosecutors are to believe that Millar repeatedly posted content on social media that was of a “homophobic and transphobic nature”, they would have fought to the death. The fact they were about to be wiped out of the face of the earth legally thus preventing other abuses of their power is interesting. One can only conclude, by not testing their nonsense in court at this time, they are saving it up for another day and less attractive victim. Too much light was shone on the Marion Millar case, the Crown Office obviously feels that they need to get some easy prey under their belts so they can cite precedent. 

The original complaint against her alleged she directed threatening or abusive behaviour at three people, including a police officer, via social media between October and June, contrary to Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. The complaint said the conduct was aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation and transgender identity. So basically, looking back on this story, we have on 28th April 2021 Millar receiving a phone call from a police officer who told her she would need to attend her local police station to be interviewed under the Malicious Communications Act (MCA). When Marion told her she had small children to care for she was informed that social services would look after them while she was interviewed. Some people view that scenario as a threat to take Millar's kids away from her, she horrified and intimidated by this news. She was contacted again and told to attend the station on 27th May but later this appointment was cancelled, ostensibly due to the custody suite not being available. One thing is certain, the custody suite is always available. Her interview was eventually rescheduled for 3rd of June, leaving her to spend five weeks under huge amounts of stress.

Marion Millar's case rightly made the news, and attracted international attention very quickly, it soon became an anchor around the necks of the Crown Office and the SNP Government headed by Nicola Sturgeon who are 100% signed up to the woke agenda of the subset lgbt minorities in their ranks. When Court dates finally appeared, her attendance drew hundreds of supporters, many of whom were now chanting the recognisable battle cry, 'Women Won't Wheest" and wearing the purple, white and green of the Suffragettes. 

David McKie of Levy & McRae said: 

“My client is very pleased to have received confirmation that the case against her had been discontinued by the Crown. She had intended to defend the charge against her vigorously had it proceeded to trial and this decision brings a very stressful period to an end. In her view, it is the right decision for a whole number of reasons, not least of which is the cost to the public purse. She has asked me to thank her legal team of Joanna Cherry QC, Paul Harvey and Levy & McRae. Most of all, she would like to thank everyone who has supported her throughout this case including her family and friends, those who turned up at court, those who donated to her crowdfund and the many thousands who wished her well online and in person. That helped her greatly during a very stressful period in her life.” 

As defeat was announced, a spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: 

“Those directly involved have been informed of an update in this case and there is a right to call for a review of this. Until any review has been completed the question of whether or not there will be a prosecution remains open. The Crown reserves the right to proceed and will not comment further.” 

Short, sweet, no apology and a possible lingering threat from an organisation which is seen as damaged goods. Oh to be alive and sitting on that jury! If you haven't done jury duty, you are missing out in life, sometimes in a jury of your peers, you can be the lone voice of reason, but in a case like this, I would expect a unanimous verdict. Let me give you a question to ponder, and see if you can explain it to me in the comments sections. You know that men can self ID as a woman, can you explain the difference between a female penis and a male penis? Are they the same, or does self ID change the female penis into something else? I would also urge you if you would want a better advocate in your corner, then who better than Robert Winston, a peer at Westminster, he was guest on Questiontime, and spoke on the issue of sex, so here is that link. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFHVV_GcykI 

Lord Robert Winston says without reservation, 'you can’t change your sex whatever you do', and as a noted scientist, he should know. Looking at his rather extensive wiki bio, I think I am minded along with the bulk of humanity to side with him on this one. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston 

Finally, Marion Millar in my mind appears to be out of the woods, but the intolerance that placed her in this stressful situation will like a travelling circus move onto someone else. Someone else is the next victim of intolerance in Scotland, we can only hope that the same interest is shown in that person as was shown to Marion Millar. If you can simple change gender by self ID, what is to stop people changing colour, white people self ID as black, people self ID as another race, people self ID as a tractor, or another species or as Martian, where does this lunacy end? It can only end by taking it back to start, and not accepting the principle of Self ID as a concept. 

Yours sincerely 

George Laird                                                                                                                                The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University  

Did the SNP Just Cancel the NHS in Scotland; SNP Health Secretary Humza Yousaf is now cancelling face-to-face appointments at Glasgow Yorkhill hospital citing traffic disruption, with a significant covid outbreak predicted to happen because of Cop26, why is Yousaf allowing Scots to needlessly suffer, is Humza Yousaf just plain stupid and immoral?

Dear All 

Having made the wrong decision to allow the cancelling of face to face GP appointments which will endanger lives, SNP Health Sec Humza Yousaf takes his insanity one step further by cancelling outpatient appointments at a Glasgow hospital. The official excuse is curtail travel in the City of Glasgow so that Cop26 delegates can move more easily around the city. Just as the cancelling of face to face GP appointments was bad, this bad judgment takes Humza Yousaf's stupidity to a whole number level. One of the things I touch on yesterday was that the 10,000 extra police drafted into the city should bring their own medical support teams. Given the location of t The outpatient facility, located in the former children’s hospital building in Yorkhill, it could be entirely possible that this facility so near the SECC could be earmarked as a possible site. The official also has us believe that only a "small number" of patients due to attend the West of Scotland Ambulatory Care Hospital on Monday November 1 have had appointments rescheduled or relocated to alternative sites.  I suppose if you believe that the city will be gridlocked on Monday November 1 what about the other two weeks? 

In a statement, NHSGGC said: 

"As a result of the COP26 programme and associated road closures on 1 November, and given the expected disruption, we took the decision not to run any face to face clinical services from the West Ambulatory Care facility at Yorkhill. As a result of early planning, there should be minimal impact on patient appointments, with only a small number rescheduled or located to other sites. Anyone attending any of our facilities, particularly in Glasgow, over the next three weeks, should plan ahead to avoid disruption." 

Does this sound like only a small number of patients being affected or are they clearing out the whole facility? The next question is, how did the Health Board define that the number of people affected was 'small'? So, we have 25,000 delegates, campaigners and media from around the globe plus an estimated 100,000 protestors. Given the shambles of the Health Services in Scotland, and if there are injured people, they will presumably all be funnelled to the Royal Infirmary. If any protestors are injured in the West End, the Clyde Tunnel will be shut off for security reasons because many world leaders will come into the city via Glasgow Airport. I think that leaves the generally overworked and under pressure Royal Infirmary as the obvious choice, because it is doubtful that ambulances will take the long way round through the City of Glasgow, with the Clyde Tunnel closed as well as the Squinty Bridge, traffic on Paisley Road West will be as bad as if there is a major football match on. It once took me 45 minutes from the city centre to the Palace of Arts at Bellahouston. 

Health Secretary Humza Yousaf says there is “absolutely a risk of Covid cases rising” after the event, but there is also a risk shuttling patients around elsewhere will result in death or further serious medical issues for them. Yousaf said something which to me doesn't sound credible, he said, the Scottish Government is “not actively considering” additional restrictions at present. In a major security event where 125 world leaders are attending, there will be a full security plan, so those additional restrictions on people are already part of the plan. The layered security ring for the Cop26 show will be enforced even before the events officially starts. When there is multiple layered security than everything grinds to a snail's pace for the people on the outside of the security barriers. I suppose the question is who deemed it acceptable that outpatients who are ill should suffer. The buck would have to stop at the door of Nicola Sturgeon, who during this pandemic famously said, 'I am in charge', and then straight after that copied the UK government's decision in lock step. On interesting item which caught my attention is that although Covid cases are said to have leveled out at just over 2,500 per day, virus-related intensive care admissions have more than doubled over the past week from an average of 3.7 to 8.3 per day. I would have to ask two questions, is the plateau due to the decline of vaccine take up, and are the virus-related intensive care admissions due to people who have been double jabbed. In previous data, 7/10 people in hospital with covid have been found to have been double jabbed. One piece of information which didn't surprise me except for who said was the U.K. Health Security Agency suggesting that Vaccines may hobble the immune response on infection. 

If what the U.K. Health Security Agency says is true, and we get 135,000 vaxxed people roaming the City, then in theory, we could see an explosion of covid related illness in Glasgow. As I pointed out previously when at uni, at the start of the new term, there would be an explosion of bugs on campus. If so many vaxxed people with compromised immune systems gather in one place, there could be a significant outbreak. I don't believe for a minute the Health board is concerned about people travelling, I think they are concerned about a massive covid spike during the two week event overwhelming their resources. And surely there is a security plan scenario worked out how to address that issue? At present, Humza Yousaf, who isn't really the Health Sec, more a mouthpiece is saying that Scotland was “on track” to deliver booster jags on time to eligible adults. Has he commented on the U.K. Health Security Agency report on whether vaccines may hobble the immune response? Is he able to understand the significance of what the report could mean? If you look at what he is saying, it would seem to be business as usual, the booster rollout according to him is seen as a vital measure to ease pressure on hospitals over winter. However with 7/10 double jabbed people in hopsital with covid, you might be tempted to ask him to explain the logic that a vaccine that doesn't stop you getting covid or spreading it is any good.   

Yousaf said: 

“Appointments for both vaccines are being scheduled based on clinical need and age and it will take until the middle of January for everyone to be offered their vaccines.” 

In my last post, I flagged up a few stories of people who once vaccinated died, it was not done to be a scare tactic, but rather to give people a moment of pause to consider what they are doing. Through-out the pandemic, we are continually informed that side effects are "rare", but one in ten people experience them, I don't call that rare. I also don't understand why the governments, the politicians, the medical profession and the mainstream press have more or less operated a blanket ban on vaccine injury coverage. I came across another story which I randomly stumbled upon. This story doesn't mention that Megan Creevy, 28 was double vaxxed, and at this point, no autopsy has been done. However, I would like to point out her cause of death, Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome is highly unusual. Your heart in its crudest terms is a pump, that pump requires electrical impulses from the brain via the nervous system. If the electrical system is interfered with then Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome can occur, one of the known side effects of vaccine injury is that it attacks the spinal cord. 

The full story is here. 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/mum-tragically-dies-son-school-25297988 

The death of Megan, a young mum is so tragic, it is almost beyond belief, but I would also say, it should set alarm bells ringing. Looking at newspaper stories, videos and other sources, I am convinced there is enough evidence to instigate a formal review. Something is not right here. I would like to be wrong, but many regular readers of this blog know I have a habit when proven correct to write, 'George Laird right again', in this case, I hope to God I am wrong. One thing I would say, we have long passed the point that we should class these side effects as "rare". I would say that we cannot shutdown medical treatment for people in any facility as the SNP are willing to do, if I was in charge, the Cop26 Climate Conference would have been cancelled, but given the date, this event will be pushed through, and then we will see the aftermath. When bug season happened at university, it was because so many people from so many countries had brought variants of diseases into the campus. The SNP Government are making a mistake. 

One name above anyone else stands out on this pandemic, that is Anthony Fauci. Fauci sat before a Congressional Committee and said under oath, that the US wasn't funding 'gain of function' research in Wuhan, China. 'Gain of Function' research on coronavirus was done and funded by the US in Wuhan, this was to make a virus transmittable to humans from bats. I came across this information on 'the Rubin Report'. Fauci was very vocal repeatedly in the media that the US hadn't funded 'gain of function' research, we know different now. I urge you to watch this whole video, David Rubin's show is very good, if you aren't a subscriber, then take the time to watch his show, if there is such a thing as a 'voice of reason', he classifies as one in these increasingly troubled times. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPrCh28bWQ0  

Robert West, emeritus professor of health psychology at University College London, compared COP26 to the G7 summit held in Cornwall in June which “clearly prompted a large number of cases”. He believes that more should be done to drive up “stalled” vaccination coverage and improve ventilation in public spaces. he said: 

“A lot of the people who are unvaccinated would get vaccinated if the communication was right, you could persuade them”. 

One thing that 'smart' people like Professor West assume is that lesser educated people are gullible and can be manipulated, he is of course right, people without knowledge can be swayed by others. Some people can be swayed by titles such as emeritus professor of health psychology at University College London. But that doesn't work when people like the professor come across people who have taken the time to research or have become self aware. Does, the professor think that he could persuade the one of the biggest groups of people who haven't got vaccinated, they are PhDs? I know of graduate Drs of medicine who haven't taken the vaccine, what would the professors' chances with them be? When I was a kid, I watched a drama called, 'Danger UXB', it was set in London during WW2 and dealt with German unexploded bombs, sometimes in an episode a bomb would go off killing the officer. You wouldn't get any heads up when that bomb would detonate but the effect was devastating. If you think of vaccine injury as a bomb, some bombs went off immediately after injection, some exploded in the body later, but when it did go off, the result in some cases was, death or serious injury. If  emeritus professor of health psychology at University College London,  Professor West is double jabbed, he may be okay, or he may be like many in serious danger.   

Finally, don't assume that because someone has a degree, works in academic, has read up on health and psychology, and teaches classes that somehow they aren't prone to making bad decisions. You see although Professor West is smart, that doesn't mean he is reading the same material as others, and it is reading the right material at the right time that allows people to make the correct informed decisions. I don't know how he rationalised his decision to presumably get jabbed, maybe he went along with the flow, trusted in others. We live in a time, where you as a citizen should question everything, because if you don't you may find that allowing others to make choices for you can be detrimental to your well being. The Professor believes he can because of his position as an emeritus professor of health psychology at University College London talk people into doing things, that is only part right. He has never met the individual who turns up referenced up to the hilt and put him through the mill. He wants to tell people things, but when people start asking him questions, you will see just how much he doesn't know. Health Services in Scotland need to be immediately returned to normal operations, and a national screen process started without delay, starting with everyone who registered on the yellow card reporting website. 

Yours sincerely 

George Laird                                                                                                                                The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University 

The Humza Plan for Glaswegian Deaths During Cop26, SNP Health Secretary Humza Yousaf stands idly by as hundreds of Glaswegians lose face-to-face GP appointments in bid to slash traffic levels during Cop26 climate summit, the people of Glasgow cannot wait two weeks or more to see a GP, will Humza Yousaf's stupidity cost more lives than ex Health Sec Jeane Freeman allowing infected elderly covid patients into sterile care homes, how many are going to die?

Dear All 

The incompetence of the SNP and the current Health Secretary Humza Yousaf cannot be over stated enough. The Scottish Health Service is in crisis, the crisis started before Covid 19 as far back as 2007 when Nicola Sturgeon was appointed as Health Sec by Alex Salmond as part of a makeover to make Sturgeon look a warm caring human being. In the evolution of Ministers from her to Humza Yousaf, the downward trajectory has continued, we had the uber incompetent pal of Sturgeon, Shona Robison woefully out of her depth, Alex Neil who fainted at the sight of blood, and the dreadful Jeane Freeman who failed her duty of care in stopping the shipping of infected Covid patients into sterile care homes. In this pandemic, the SNP and the medical profession left many elderly people to die, Freeman will be remember for this slaughter alongside Nicola Sturgeon. At the recent election, Freeman stepped down to enjoy want time she has left now she is 68. As she left parliament, the opposition said nice things about her, the public didn't get to have their say about her especially the relatives of elderly people. 

Freeman is gone, but in her wake, it forced Nicola Sturgeon to put arguably the worst person off the SNP front bench, Humza Yousaf in charge. I don't know if the term 'in charge' aptly describes him or what he is doing, to me the Health Service is leadership supplemented by benign neglect. It seems a service run by as a curtailed enterprise, which will be storing up future problems. The future problems will be people who have undetected cancers, heart problems, serious medical illness and covid injection injuries. Yes, covid injection injuries are going to feature heavily in my opinion on the NHS treatment lists. One of the noticeable aspects of covid injection injury is that the politicians, governments and mainstream press have all worked together to more or less maintain a complete blanket ban of silence. When an injury is reported, the public is told that this is 'rare'. I came across a website in passing that listed some 48 /50 side effects of covid injections, normally I would put the link up, but big tech such as google, facebook and twitter is censoring such information on the web. I have several links for you to read to see if you agree with a growing suspicion that covid injection injuries aren't as portrayed 'rare'. 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health/mum-needed-life-saving-surgery-25283561      

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10124957/Australian-actress-Melle-Stewart-suffers-stroke-getting-AstraZeneca-Covid-vaccine.html 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9612535/British-woman-39-dies-Cyprus-blood-clotting-incident-days-receiving-AstraZeneca-jab.html 

This fourth link, I urge you read. 

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/23/infection-rates-for-vaccinated-aged-40-79-hit-double-the-rates-in-the-unvaccinated/ 

The headline is pretty encompassing, "as Infection Rates for Vaccinated Aged 40-79 Hit Double the Rates in the Unvaccinated, the U.K. Health Security Agency Suggests that Vaccines May Hobble the Immune Response on Infection". Although the first part doesn't surprise me, the U.K. Health Security Agency talks about the covid injection suppressing the immune system of everyone jabbed is pretty damning. On GB News, the presenter Nana Akua says she cannot understand why anyone would refuse getting vaccinated because in her own words, she says, 'it makes perfect sense to me'. People who have a superficial understanding of an issue can be easily swayed, in her case she says she worked for the NHS, and also the care sector. Whereas both these sectors have a tremendous amount of support, and why won't they. Their endearment to the British people shouldn't extend to the big pharma companies, especially those who have a history of paying massive damages to victims of their products. When I listened to Nana Akua her piece to camera, I wasn't impressed, in fact I wrote a reply back on youtube when she urged people to explain to her the problem. The reply didn't get published, it was removed because I included factual links to back up my argument, all these links appear above plus the additional link on the British woman, 39, who recently tragically died. My points as best as I can recall them were; 

1/There is no screening programme to exclude people who could be at risk from the vaccine.

2/ Unqualified people (the public) had to ask low level NHS staff technical questions which the staff mostly have no or limited knowledge to answer, and they were also not prepped on a persona's personal medical history, they would have to make decisions in the moment.

3/ Pre injected, concerns about body immunity were ignored totally.

4/ There is no counter drug to the vaccine.

5/ Governments operated a one side campaign of information to ensure vaccine take up.

6/ Politicians and the MSM have operated an almost blanket ban on vaccine injury

7/ The vaccine is still under trials

8/ The vaccine has caused massive injury to some people but no government announcement of a working party to address this.

9/ Big tech companies which people used for discussion on vaccine safety all acted to suppress and remove any material which didn't conform to the official government line. 

The problem with people like GB News presenter Nana Akua is that she hasn't done rolling forensic research. If you look at the comments following her piece to camera, you will see that many people are firmly against her. If a person wishes to risk their life and health doing skydiving, we would say that is their choice, but with choice comes consequences. Ms. Akua is effectively saying that you should lose your right to choice, lose your right to assess risk. When Nana Akua talks of carers having a duty of care to their patients, she willing ignores that a carer's first duty of care is to their own health. Why doesn't she think that is important? In her piece, she touches on natural immunity protection, then also immediately dismisses it, while at the same time failing to compare the vaccine doesn't stop you getting covid and doesn't stop you spreading it. So, what does natural immunity do? Natural immunity means the body acts to attack the whole virus, whereas covid injection only attacks the spike protein, so natural immunity is far superior. And of course, there is a link provided above regarding the vaccine. 

If the U.K. Health Security Agency is right in suggesting that covid vaccines may hobble the immune response on infection, what does that means. That means that people vaccinate could have a serious ongoing problem, it would also mean that the immune system would be less successful in tackling cancer cells floating around in the body. And with no counter drug to neturalise the covid vaccine, and with no long term data available, there could be a real problem. The unvaccinated people would therefore be special because they would the only supply of uncontaminated blood, unless of course a screening process could be used to kill off the covid vaccine in blood. Have you heard of such a process being talked or written about because I haven't. There could be a major need for unvaccinated blood for research and hospital treatments. I obviously cannot say for 100% this would be the case, but it would seem logical if what the U.K. Health Security Agency is suggesting is true. Look at the first link about the poor woman who ended up needing a brain operation, now imagine multiplying that up 1000's times, there isn't enough Surgeons. 

Could you imagine what a scenario would look like in Scotland, if the NHS was swamped by people who had vaccine injury? And as I mentioned, once injected, there is no getting this stuff out. Normal drug trials are circa 15 years from drawing board to approval, covid vaccine were rushed through in little under a year. I suppose when you hear an "expert" claim that there is long term data when there isn't it becomes a red flag. I think this topic is grim, and it is a diversion from the initial start of the thread but I consider this to be of such importance that it must be touched on. At the start, no stories of vaccine injury appeared anywhere in the MSM press, now they are leaking out. Before you continue, time for a break and light hearted entertainment which is why I recommend this youtube video. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kic31Si1vc 

To get back to Humza Yousaf, the Health Sec, all that I wrote about above, probably hasn't crossed his mind, there is I assume no special planning done by him re vaccine injury, an everything is left to medics on the ground. As well as the covid issue, there is an elephant in the room, the backlog of people who need medical treatment on a range of issues which can be quite serious and possibly fatal. To me, it is doesn't make sense that Humza Yousaf would allow hundreds of face-to-face GP appointments to be cancelled or rescheduled in Glasgow in bid to slash traffic levels during Cop26 climate summit. If I was the Health Sec such nonsense would never see the light of day across my desk. The NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde plan of virtual appointments being offered means that people are being offered a substandard service. A major part of a patient interview is based on the Dr observing the patient, how can they do this proerly on a smartphone, an IPad or a 15.6 laptop at 720p resolution? It should be of no interest to the health service in Scotland about the reduction of road traffic while Cop26 climate conference runs. 

We have an already curtailed health service provision, we have patients who have waited months to see their GP, and in some cases those months lost could be the difference between treatment to save life and death. GPs shouldn't care how patients get to the surgery, they should care that they just get there. The City of Glasgow could be a covid hotspot since 25,000 people will attend the conference, and 100,000 protestors are expected to turn up, each one of them is a potential covid carrier, and that includes the 125 world leaders. With strikes planned by the RMT, this means fewer available means of public and private transport increasing the risk of transmission. Humza Yousaf says it is possible that there will be a jump in covid cases but the 25,000 delegates to the conference face no restrictions. If there is an light in this farce it is that In-person appointments will continue for cancer referrals and urgent care. Everyone else's lives the Scottish government is willing to gamble with. Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour's health and Covid recovery spokeswoman, says the Humza plan is 'recipe for disaster'. I would have to agree with that, Nicola Sturgeon wants a successful conference as part of her CV to help look for another job, which I would presume would be out with Scotland. 

Finally, Cop26 will entail a huge security operation, codenamed Operation Urram, will involve 10,000 officers. Each one of them interacting with themselves and the public will increase risk of covid transmission. And of course, these officers probably will be fully jabbed, given the side effects of covid vaccine injury such as Myocarditis and Pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination, I would hope that the Police have setup their own access to medical support just in case of issues. I would also recommend they have a separate medical support teams brought up from England. With the pressure of 135,000 people potentially entering the city, pressure on health services could be stretched to breaking point. 

Did Humza have a plan for getting extra help or was the plan to simply sacrifice Glaswegians by denying them treatment?

Yours sincerely 

George Laird                                                                                                                                The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University 

The SNP Sexual and Hate Hounds of Hell; SNP Westminster Ian Blackford tries to prop up his failing leadership by denying he has failed in rooting out SNP abuse of Joanna Cherry, the SNP have a track record of failing members and victims by drawing out investigations, and by failing to act when the 'accused' are allies/ supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, are all bullies and sexual predators outed since 2014 been Sturgeon's allies?

Dear All 

What can you say about the leadership of SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford, the right man in the right place, or a circus clown on the UK parliamentary stage who fails to realise that he isn't leading and isn't funny? Blackford is leader at Westminster because there is basically no one else capable. A likely candidate would be the deputy but as we saw with Kirsty Blackman, even a little responsibility can sometimes be too much. If you look at the current Chief Whip Owen Thompson MP, he has his own problems, like trying to string a coherent sentence together. If you failed to catch Owen Thompson's intervention when David Davis spoke under parliamentary privilege regarding the Alex Salmond affair you missed a treat. If I was an Alba MP protected under parliamentary privilege, I would have named everyone of the close circle who surround Nicola Sturgeon, and who had a hand in that affair in the House of Commons. Thompson looked panic when David Davis MP spoke, his concern was about David Davis naming names beyond what the public was current told and their role in attempting to imprison Salmond. Although the Salmond Court case failed to remove Alex Salmond from public life, and have him imprisoned, the affair isn't over. 

There is a small matter of historical revenge that Salmond's supporters want to address, and Sturgeon's crew know this isn't going away! I don't know if you have ever taken the time to look through the SNP front bench at Westminster, it is remarkably unimpressive, and I urge you to take a peep, just to satisfy yourself, these people couldn't run a piss up in a brewery. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontbench_Team_of_Ian_Blackford 

Although these people are the 'chosen ones', loyal sheep, some more quieter than others, they are just sheep. One name is missing in this line up, probably one of the few SNP MPs who ever made a mark at Westminster on a technical point, that is Joanna Cherry. Cherry who is seen as a threat to the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon has been effectively cast out within her own party. When Joanna Cherry was sacked from the Justice Brief, she is a QC, the role was handed to Anne McLaughlin who is a Sturgeon supporter. McLaughlin is an absolute waste of space, can you remember anything she has said in her role in the SNP front bench? Can you remember her accomplishing anything in politics other than employing her relatives and boyfriend? Probably not. You can understand that Sturgeon's crew are keen to suppress anyone who is a Salmond ally, or an independence supporter. It seems everyone in the SNP Westminster Group gets a 'made up' title except Joanna Cherry, because it is important for the SNP to establish in her mind that she isn't welcome. Although Cherry isn't special, she has made a mark by using observational skills and understanding to catch out the Westminster Government. Most of the rest of the SNP front bench at Westminster couldn't catch a frisbee if someone tossed it at them. Cherry has certainly been cast out, marginalised, her use to the SNP is merely voter fodder in the lobby as the SNP protest against any UK Government provisions. Opposition for opposition sake! 

What really make Joanna Cherry a target was as mentioned, she is a direct threat to Nicola Sturgeon's leadership, if Sturgeon goes, then the raising of Angus Robertson to leader isn't a done deal. The longer that Nicola Sturgeon doesn't deliver a second indy referendum, the more tainted she is, and her supporters like Angus Robertson. At present, there is a con trick being run by the SNP with people, fake independence referendum 2 preparations. It is the election gag run at council, Holyrood and Westminster elections since 2007. The SNP at Westminster have gave themselves 'titles' to sound important, but as we hve seen by the performance of Angus Robertson at Holyrood as a Minister, Westminster was a school for learning governance, it was more akin to being a London social club for nationalists to milk the system. Nothing that any SNP MP does at Westminster generally matters, they aren't changing Scotland, they aren't changing UK policy and they aren't learning anything that matters except filling in expenses claims to max out their take out. 

As Joanna Cherry is a cast out, her shield of protection is also gone, and with Cherry positioning herself as a women's rights advocate in direct opposition to Nicola Sturgeon's Gender Reforms to allow men into women's personal spaces, Cherry has a target painted on her back. The SNP has a rule that members must not criticise other members publicly, this rule was to suppress dissent at Nicola Sturgeon's leadership. Women's rights is a good platform for Joanna Cherry to use against Sturgeon because she will continue to get a high profile from it. Cherry taking up the criminal case of Marion Millar who spoke up for women's rights is also guaranteed to increase the notion that Cherry is really the 'leader in waiting' in the SNP and not Angus Robertson. So you can understand why attacks on Cherry from within the SNP are allowed, ignored and sanctioned by inaction. In a recent flare up, Ian Blackford has denied his leadership of the SNP at Westminster has failed in calling out abuse suffered by Joanna Cherry. The attacks on Cherry are noticeable by who is doing them, Kirsty Blackman who appears to wish to see the SNP act against Cherry and have her removed as an MP. Blackman was previously Deputy leader of the Westminster Group under Blackford. 

Kirsty Blackman doesn't hold an SNP front bench position, she is also the ideal person to attack Joanna Cherry, loyal to the Sturgeon, loyal to the Sturgeon doctrine of trans rights. She is far enough outside the SNP leadership group to be a 'clean pair of hands' doing the dirty work against Cherry. Also, Blackman is ideal for the task because she if she goes too far can play the mental health card as protection. In July 2020 Blackman announced that she would be stepping down as the deputy leader of the SNP Westminster Group, saying "Like many others, I've struggled with the impact that lockdown has had on my mental health. In order to prioritise my constituency and my family, I have made the difficult personal decision to step down from my Leadership role. I strongly believe that people must be able to talk openly about mental health issues, which affect so many of us". You don't see others from what I can see attacking Joanna Cherry from the SNP front bench, why is that? Surely they are all signed up to the trans agenda like Blackman? In the wake of the recent murder of Sir David Amess, the debate instead of focus on the real issue has been turned towards abuse and harassment of MPs and possible censorship. The murder of the Conservative MP was said to be linked to Islamic Extremism, and the police are treating the killing as a terrorist incident. Some people will obviously use Sir David Amess' death to push their own agenda like Cherry. 

Cherry in the wake of the recent tragedy, has spoken of the abuse and harassment she has faced both by SNP members and others. This is a dig at the SNP leadership of Nicola Sturgeon and Ian Blackford. The Edinburgh South West MP has told how she considered leaving elected politics due to the level of abuse and threats she receives. As I wrote in a previous post, I am not buying Joanna Cherry's crap, if she was going to leave politics, she can dos so at anytime, to me this is nonsense, someone looking for sympathy when there is none to be had. Last year, Cherry was fighting with the SNP leadership over the abuse she claimed to have received over her stance on reforming gender recognition and trans rights. When she pinned her colours to the mast over women's rights, it was more than about rights, it was opposition to Sturgeon and her cult. 

The SNP leadership at SNP HQ has a history of ignoring complaints, which is why if a Salmond ally ever takes the throne, people like Ian McCann et al should be sacked immediately. There is of course scope for a clear out beyond SNP HQ into Holyrood and Westminster support staff but that is a longer post for another time. Cherry highlights the inaction of SNP HQ run by Nicola Sturgeon's husband, Peter Murrell by saying that "despite my complaints, indeed pleas for help, nothing has been done to address this issue”. Well, this isn't a new thing, it has been happening over many years. The SNP is run as a cult, there is a party within a party, it was noticeable and developed under Salmond's nose. Alex Salmond in part is to blame for how the SNP developed, different factions were allowed to grow unchecked within the party, in some ways it is reminds me of Labour's fight with militant tendency except the various factions took over control of the party machine and leadership. 

In highlighting her problems, Joanna Cherry said: 

“When is someone in the leadership of my party going to call out the campaign of abuse, smears, and violent intimidation against me?” 

Never! 

You see Nicola Sturgeon, Murrell and Blackford have no interest in doing anything to protect Cherry, she is an enemy, a cuckoo in the nest and a threat. You can see this by the way that the Sturgeon controlled SNP changed the rules to prevent her standing for Holyrood.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53607198 

The general feeling of some was that the rule change was to ensure that Nicola Sturgeon's 'heir in waiting' Angus Robertson was a shoo in. In order for Cherry to stand for Holyrood, she would have to resign as an MP. When the rules got changed, Cherry voiced her displeasure by saying: 

"It is unprecedented in our party's history of dual mandates to demand that a parliamentarian make themselves and their constituency staff unemployed in order to be eligible to be a candidate." 

If you want to cheat someone out of an opportunity, change the rules after they express an interest in apply for a position. Although the SNP in theory has a NEC committee, they are puppets who dangle on a string to Sturgeon's tune. If the SNP is willing to cheat someone out of a fair opportunity, does Cherry really think that bullying issues of the same person would be acted upon? Seriously, who is kidding who? In response to Cherry's statements of harassment and abuse, Ian Blackford told the Scottish Parliamentary Journalists' Association that there has been no failure in his leadership in rooting out abuse and supporting Ms Cherry. There has been no failure because there has been no action! Blackford insisting that he was “concerned that there’s toxicity in our politics” is laughable, it is firefighting bad PR. He added that “we’ve all got a responsibility to make sure that we can get to a better place”. Tell me, can you ever forget that the seat that Ian Blackford holds is the same seat that Charles Kennedy held when he was effectively bullied to death by the SNP? The death of Charles Kennedy, and how he died is one of the worst episodes in the history of the SNP.  

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ian-blackford-and-the-hounding-of-charles-kennedy 

Please take the time to read this article. 

Blackford added:

“Since I became SNP Westminster leader in 2017, I made clear that I wanted to make sure that we did offer pastoral support in a broad sense – whether that may be a member of parliament or whether that be a member of staff. It’s really important that we do offer that support to people. I can absolutely assure you that that is done and is done in all cases.

“I will always make sure that every colleague, whether that’s a member of parliament or whether it's a member of staff will be offered support.” 

Recently two SNP MPs Patrick Grady and Patricia Gibson was alleged to have committed sexual misconduct. Where was the support for the alleged victim? Where is the SNP investigations into both Grady and Gibson? Grady is alleged to have committed sexual misconduct against young men. Nothing has happened to Grady, he is a Sturgeon ally, nothing has happened to Patricia Gibson, her husband is the 'seal' who sits behind Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood and bangs the table showing support for her. The SNP is a sleazy unethical and devoid of morals party. Cherry serious about asking for her help or is she establishing victim status? In the aftermath of firing Cherry from the front bench, the press asked Blackford if he regretted firing Cherry. 

He said: 

“I have to make decisions in terms of who should be on my front bench. Every party leader does that - the Prime Minister does that with his Cabinet and Keir Starmer does it with the Labour (shadow ) cabinet. It’s up to me to choose the people that I think are best suited to serve in a collective way.” 

Cherry was replaced by Anne McLaughlin, who is clearly not in any way as capable of holding the justice brief as Cherry. The argument used by Blackford is bogus, he is saying that McLaughlin is 'best suited to serve in a collective way' which means she isn't the best person for the job. Cherry isn't seen as being part of the 'gang' even although she far outstrips McLaughlin on ability, education, talent and presentation, whatever happened to merit?. The bit I find interesting in Blackford's firefighting is him defending his decision to allow North Ayrshire and Arran MP Patricia Gibson to remain on his frontbench while she is investigated over sexual harassment complaints made by an SNP staffer. 

Blackford said: 

“At the end of the day, there are complaints that have been made and these complaints have to be heard. We will deal with those accordingly. There’s no reason at the moment that I should be taking any particular action against Patricia. Justice has got to prevail and whether it’s Patricia or anyone else, they along with the complainant have got the right to that process to be heard without being judged ahead of any completion of the process.” 

Finally, due process isn't happening is it? Derek Mackay, a Sturgeon ally, previous 'heir in waiting' before Robertson was under investigation for his actions. Mackay was said to be grooming a young 16 year old boy who he found 'cute'. The SNP investigation was ended when Mackay didn't stand for re-election, and he left the party. The proposed boundary changes may take care of Patrick Grady's political career as an MP, but there will be no end to the investigation until after the 2024 Westminster election. Why does it take several years for the SNP to investigation allegations of sexual misconduct against Nicola Sturgeon's allies? I am sure if you are smart enough, you can work out why, it is because the SNP plan to do nothing, and then refer to these complaints as 'historic' allegations which are unproven. When Ian Ian Blackford denies his leadership has failed in rooting out SNP abuse of Joanna Cherry, I say remember Charles Kennedy, remember how he died, and remember those who drove him to his death. The SNP don't right wrongs, they do wrongs!

Yours sincerely 

George Laird                                                                                                                                The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University 

I Am Not Buying Joanna Cherry's Crap; SNP MP Joanna Cherry says she contemplated leaving politics due to abuse and threats, no one cares if she does, Cherry tries to pitch an idea that all MPs should never see constituents, face to face, citing protecting democracy, if you want to see a MP, MSP or Cllr, you can join a political party and see them at meetings, see them at street stalls, see them canvassing, or leafleting, so how does she overcome circumvention of this security flaw, isn't the reality she doesn't want to do the job she is paid for handsomely, £81,932 a year, plus pension and expenses, I don't feel her angst!

Dear All 

SNP MP Joanna Cherry has said she 'contemplated' leaving elected politics due to the level of abuse and threats she receives. I suppose the most obvious question to ask, is she saying that she didn't know the nature of the SNP before signing up to them. Cherry is a lesbian, normally as lesbian, part of the lgbt group, she would be part of a protected group. However in Cherry's case, she is seen as a threat to Nicola Sturgeon, she is a supporter of Alex Salmond, and she is a supporter of women's rights over the current SNP dogma of trans rights. Some people would say that the SNP has been hijacked by a vocal minority over trans rights, as if this just happened. The truth is more historic, several minority groups such as the lgbt group saw that embedding themselves in political parties was a way to push their agendas. If you take the SNP, the lgbt group embedded themselves s Cllrs, MPs, MSPs, MEPs, staffers, committee members at various levels and HQ staff. Four groups make up the SNP, lgbt, muslim, sein fein lite and the rich, the controlling group leading the party is lgbt. The upshot of this is, well look around you, the country of Scotland is in decline as are its people because minority groups are always pushing their agenda that they are a discriminated group. 

Over the last 5 years, two MPs have been murdered, one just recently, the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess shocked the nation and the political class. He was stabbed multiple times while meeting his constituents in Essex on Friday in what Police say was a terrorist incident. A 25-year-old man, Ali Harbi Ali, was arrested at the scene and remains in police custody. If found guilty, he will die in prison, he will never be released, the nature of the crime, and the victim will ensure his case is in a special category of killer. Sir David Amess had been an MP for 40 years, during his time as an MP, he helped many constituents, his death is all the more painful because he was very well liked by constituents. The same however cannot be said of every elected politician. The other high profile murder was of Jo Cox, a Labour MP murdered in Batley and Spen, she was replaced by her sister in the by-election, which was a pretty nasty campaign. 

Joanna Cherry rise in the SNP meant that she became a high-profile SNP MP very quickly, just as she rose up quickly, her demise was equally as swift downwards when she was seen as a threat to Nicola Sturgeon. The press however seem to have marked her out as a 'go to' politician for a story, and for watching incase she was to eventually become leader of the SNP. The same lgbt minority who act against her because they are hitched to Nicola Sturgeon's star would reinvent themselves as 'Cherry supporters'. And presumably she would do what most leaders do when they inherit a nest of vipers, bring in her own top team, and use her enemies as drones. If I take you back 20 years and work forward looking at Nicola Sturgeon, you can see that she has had a 'makeover', she went from being a wretched horrible nasty little woman to a wretched horrible nasty little woman who wears a mask. During my first ever attempt to stand for public office, in October 2013, I met many people who considered Nicola Sturgeon a horrible bastard, some of whom were disabled whom Sturgeon had failed to help. One old boy was particularly angry about how Sturgeon and her staff failed to her help him over a mobility issue. 

After her 'makeover' from wretched horrible nasty little woman, we, the public were asked to believe that Nicola Sturgeon was a warm caring human being, the mother of the nation, a superwoman, a family woman, and all the general horseshit that the press chuck in. The lie was carried into government when Alex Salmond made Nicola Sturgeon, the Health Sec to boost her image of being 'caring'. Nicola will take care of you and family in your darkest hour. Well, if you check her law career, you will find on google, that Nicola Sturgeon was reported for leaving a woman in the shit. At the time this was done, the press who are supposed to hold politicians to account never ran the story. Why? The same reason that if Cherry becomes leader, her enemies will reinvent themselves as 'allies', and all for self advancement. I am sure the press is sitting on many stories about politicians which could be described as being in the public interest but they steadfast refuse to publish them. The press like to build people up, and in the case of Sturgeon protect them by keeping back stories or running 'puff' pieces of feel good stories. 

The press is grooming Cherry who represents Edinburgh South West because the press and politics have become fused. You can see this by the fact reporters become PR spinners for parties, advisors and spads. The press see politics as a career route, which is why they are so reluctant to break major stories on senior politicians. Writing in the Daily Record, Joanna Cherry, talks about the death of Conservative MP Sir David Amess but then switches the story to be on her, this begs the question, did she approach the Daily Record or did the Daily Record approach her? Cherry said; 

Sir David's tragic death "has prompted us all to think about the safety of people in public life and the way debate is conducted in our society. I am acutely aware from my own personal experience of the threats to the safety of MPs and our staff." She then went on to say on one occasion a constituent "behaved in such a menacing and threatening manner I and my office manager were in fear of our lives". Sir David's tragic death was said to be a terrorism incident, which is entirely different from any story that Cherry has to relate about her safety. The reason many people get upset with MPs, MSPs and Cllrs is simple, they go to see them for help, and in many cases, they don't get it. If they do get help, the quality of the help and the length of time it takes to resolve a problem is a disgrace. I remember a Patrick Grady story where a constituent's representative went to see him because Grady's had done 'fuck all' to help him, this had gone on for weeks, and weeks. Not only the staff member, a little bastard wasn't just unhelpful but he was also rude and gobby. Is it a surprised that people get annoyed and upset. 

If you go to an SNP elected politician for help, your case needs to be very simple to fix, because these people want to push you off to CAB or some other organisation. They really don't want to do that part of their jobs. Instead, they want to focus on other aspects, like research, producing PR and spin. The double insult of course, is when you get the full time Cllr who also works in the same area, as they represent working but also works as a constituency office worker for an MP or MSP, they get paid twice for the same job. It is a racket that many parties are involved in, and should be viewed as corruption or at the very least unethical. So, what you have is an incestuous with people in a small political bubble milking the system. Part of the reason for this, is that Cllrs are paid too low a salary, many have external full time jobs, when they should be full time Cllrs. I believe there should be a law that bans Cllrs from working in the office of any MP or MSP, and they should get £30k if they commit to full time, 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. Some people are using being a Cllr as a route to being an MSP or MP, which is why we get such a poor service, others work elsewhere full time, which is why we get such a poor service. There isn't enough hours in the day, when you play at being a Cllr part time, you aren't squeezing a week's work in a few hours. 

As Cherry relates her tale, presumably to draw sympathy, she said

"We were so terrified that after he left we pushed all the furniture against the door of the room in the suburban library where my surgery was being held while we waited for the police to arrive. Subsequently we had to go to court to give evidence against him. He was convicted.

Earlier this year another man was convicted after he threatened me with sexual violence." 

Here we have Cherry lumping everyone in who she sees as a threat, but the press aren't asking the right questions. Why was the person who saw her at a surgery angry? Why didn't the press highlight that the rape threat came from within the SNP? Why haven't the press asked why the SNP don't investigate Sturgeon supporters? Why don't the press ask for updates on SNP investigations? Why do some SNP investigations of seriopus misconduct take years? Why do some SNP investigations apparently not happen at all? Cherry says the UK needs to consider whether MPs "can continue to meet total strangers at vulnerable locations such as libraries and church halls". This question is stupid, if a person wishes to continue as an MP, the public will simple vote for someone who will see them. If this term of Westminster is Cherry's last, she can enact her 'no see' policy at time she wishes, but it appears that Cherry wants everyone to adopt a 'no see' policy, as a cover. When elected, it is said that Candidate X is elected to serve as the member for Y, as the people's representative. If Cherry doesn't want to meet the public, she should resign as MP, one thing we know, is that her 'no see' the public policy would be lifted at election time. So, she would be willing to see the public if it benefits her, but not if it can be a benefit to them. 

Are you feeling all warm and fuzzy towards Joanna Cherry or do you think you would say to her face, 'look, just fuck off'? 

Cherry points out: 

"During the height of the pandemic we took our surgeries online or by phone. We may need to return to doing this while Parliament and the police look at what should happen in the long term." 

What you don't see is the total number of complaints, the number of complaints accepted as case, and the resolution of complaints and how long it took. You see this data isn't published, and it is also not open to scrutiny. You shouldn't just accept the narrative that any elected politician is doing a good job. When I was in the SNP as a high profile activist, I case a case to Anne McLaughlin, she is now an SNP MP. She chucked the case in the bin, her staff never contacted the disabled woman who I knew who had heart problems, and need a stair lift. The woma was fucked about by Glasgow City Council, and told there was a two year waiting list. In 2017, I went to campaign against McLughlin in Glasgow North East, and helped throw her out of Westminster. Sadly she got back in 2019, I had several operations which limited my ability to campaign against her, and there was other problems in the campaign which I joined, she got back in. What a fucking joke! 

When Cherry speaks about the debate around trans rights, she said "concerted efforts" are being made to remove women from public life "simply for our belief in the importance of biological sex and the importance of preserving the sex-based protections which the Equality Act affords women and the same sex attracted". This isn't a bunch of straight white heterosexual men and women banding against her, it is a vicious nasty minority who are embedded in the lgbt community who the ear of Scottish Government funded groups like Stonewall and various others. 

Finally Cherry said: 

"Recently I contemplated leaving elected politics due to the level of abuse and threats but I’ve decided to stay and fight my corner. We must not let the bullies win. Our democracy is at stake." 

You will have to forgive me if I don't appear overwhelmed, maybe it is because Cherry gets a lucrative MP salary, pension and expenses. You shouldn't be overwhelmed either, many times in your life, you have had to fight against some despicable people who wish to deny you your rights in one way or another. When you did your fight, you probably had to do it alone, and without the basic annual salary for an MP of £81,932, or without a high profile or without access to people in power. I have to say, I am not impressed by Joanna Cherry piggy backing her 'pain' on the back of the Conservative MP Sir David Amess. I am not moved to sympathy of her angst about having to do her well paid job. I am not moved in any way shape or form unless I see firsthand proof of her record of achievement of total number of complaints received against total number of complaints accepted and resolved to the satisfaction of the constituent. There are people in the SNP who are elected to political office at every level who should be removed, who are a liability and a burden to the areas they got in. The puff piece in the press to make SNP MP Joanna Cherry out to be some courageous plucky heroine doesn't impress me at all. We have all seen it done before, manipulate the public to think that finally they are getting a diamond when in fact they are getting a lump of coal. Cherry's final sign off is the line, " Our democracy is at stake." My question to that is, what version of democracy is she talking about, her party has destroyed democracy in Scotland over the last 14 years, where was her outrage when that was happening, and why was she silent? Is it that unless something affects her personally she is deaf, blind and stupid?

Yours sincerely 

George Laird                                                                                                                                The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University