| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Red Justice |
Is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?Are we allowed to discuss this below when it is under judicial consideration or are we silenced by Scottish law? If we are not allowed to lets debate our views about free speech in Scotland.A HIGH-POWERED coalition of politicians, writers and lawyers last night joined forces to warn that the courts’ treatment of human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar represented an “attack on freedom of speech”. Iain Banks, the author, joined veteran Labour politician Tony Benn, Respect MP George Galloway, Bashir Mann, convener of the Muslim Council of Scotland and human rights lawyer Gareth Pierce, among others, to appeal to the courts to stop pursuing Mr Anwar. Mr Anwar is facing a contempt of court charge for speaking out against a series of verdicts in September. His client, Mohammed Atif Siddique, had been jailed for eight years on terrorism offences and Mr Anwar reacted by issuing a strong press statement outside the court. Mr Anwar claimed that the verdicts were a tragedy for justice and freedom of speech and alleged that his client had not received a fair trial. Lord Carloway looked into Mr Anwar’s remarks and decided that the lawyer had made an “unjustified attack on almost every area of the trial process”. The judge then passed the issue to the courts to decide whether Mr Anwar had been guilty of contempt of court. If Mr Anwar is found to have been in contempt of court, he could be jailed - a prospect which has angered many senior politicians and lawyers. Last night, a number of high-profile Scots came together in Mr Anwar’s defence and sent a letter to The Scotsman warning the courts could cause considerable damage to freedom of speech in Scotland if the case against Mr Anwar was pursued. The authors of the letter stated: “The possibility that Aamer Anwar may have to face contempt charges is deeply worrying and is an unprecedented attack on freedom of speech.” The letter writers praised Mr Anwar’s work as a human rights lawyer over the last few years and added: “If the judiciary is successful in silencing Aamer Anwar, then this will have far-reaching consequences. “We should all be very worried if the effect of this case is to make lawyers reluctant to carry out this work for fear of the repercussions. “We believe that the current attack on Aamer Anwar is an attack on the fundamental right of all lawyers to represent their clients.” Last night, Mr Anwar said he could not comment while the issue was still “under judicial consideration”. However, in a further development which will increase the pressure on the judiciary over the case, Margo MacDonald, the independent MSP, said that she wanted to raise the issue in the Scottish Parliament, probably in the form of a parliamentary motion, if she was allowed to do so. Ms MacDonald said: “I am concerned about any restraint being put on lawyers who speak their minds, give their opinions or campaign against injustice - and Aamer Anwar does all three. “When he spoke after the guilty verdict against Mr Siddique, he was speaking on behalf of his client and I think it might have been wise for everyone to take account of the heightened sensitivity at that time.” |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I don't see what the question you are asking has to do with the article, nor does it even make sense. There is no real dichotomy between Scots law and British law, unless you are expressly suggesting pre-1707 law, again about as easy to nail down as an uncooked egg on a wall.
Either way, this does not affect 'free speech' - there are plenty of forums for the consideration of judicial reform. Simply acting unprofessionally does nothing. |
||||||||
| Red Justice |
I think the article is very much about the right to free speech in Scotland. The issue is here because a human rights lawyer faces a contempt of court charge for publicly questioning the conduct and outcome of the recent trial of Mohammed Sidique. Today we learn that the Metropolitan Police also bugged a lawyer known for his civil rights advocacy. The Scots law forbids even a human rights lawyer Aamar Anwar from expressing his opinion about the case against his client outside their stupid Scots court. This rule about freedom of speech does not apply in England that has Aamar facing a contempt of court charge. Who is acting unprofessionally the imperialist law establishment in Scotland? |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Aventinian wrote "I don't see what the question you are asking has to do with the article"
I agree that the question is pretty meaningless, and just causes confusion. However the article does raise important issues. Aventinian continues "There is no real dichotomy between Scots law and British law, unless you are expressly suggesting pre-1707 law" There is no such thing as "British law". There is Scots law and there is English law. English law applies in Wales, which had been administered as an integral part of England long before 1707 or come to that 1603. I think there is also such a thing as Irish law, which applied to the whole of Ireland when it was all part of the UK, and has continued to apply to Northern Ireland. But I am not too familiar with Irish legal matters. What I do know is that SCOTS law continued to be distinct after 1707 and many specifically Scots law were passed over the years since then. For example, when an Education Act was passed for England in 1870, a separate Education Act (Scotland) was passed a bit later, with very different (and in some ways better) provisions from the English one. |
||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Northern Ireland has a separate legal system. In terms of international law the UK consists of three separate legal states. Hence why the Lockerbie case was held under Scots Law. | ||||||||
| Rinty |
I dont think that there is a 'scots v english law' argument here, and it distracts the real question over the treatment of Ammer Anwar.
Aamer was the opening speaker at the Solidarity conference recently and wasnt allowed to discuss the specific ssue, the TV journalists who attended also were estricted in what Aamer could or couldnt say in interviews afterwards. This already has the effect of shutting him up on the Siddique case and any succesful charges would be a disaster for politics in Scotland. To me, the statement from the family that Aamer read out after the case embarrassed the judge, the truth hurts at times and he overeacted to the accusations that his court made political decisions, which it clearly did. But I think the question should be as first stated in the thread heading, the subsequent question about Scotland vs England is irrelevant. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Rinty wrote "I dont think that there is a 'scots v english law' argument here, and it distracts the real question over the treatment of Ammer Anwar".
I agree that is the real question. Which is precisely why the extremely badly worded question on which we are asked to vote at the top of this page, "Is Scots law at present more fair than British?" only confuses things. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
It's under attack in the entire UK, thanks to legislation passed since the 1970s by successive Tory and Labour governments.
p.s. Are you doing your bit for "free speech" super Dave? |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Radge Jougal wrote
> Are you doing your bit for "free speech" super Dave? Apart from a totally un-necessary and completely un-justified personal jibe, what is the point of that remark? I might ask "Are YOU doing your bit for 'free speech', Radge Jougal?" - except that it would, of course, be a totally pointless question. As there is no such person as "Radge Jougal", there would be no way of anybody verifying whether or not the answer was true. |
||||||||
| Red Justice |
Well I do agree with Dave Coull that there is no such thing as British law but rather English law and Scots law etc.. Perhaps best not to put the question without explanation as it is unclear. No Rinty it is not a Scotland vs England thing but more about capitalism or imperialism in Britain and the antiquity of Scots law. The contempt of court situation for Aamar would hot have happened in England under their laws but is an issue about Scots law and freedom of speech outside a Scottish court. At least that is what I am to believe was the case and should be central to the campaign to clear Aamar and his right as a human right lawyer to free speech. The MP that was bugged is a human rights advocate also sinister forces are clearly at work across Britain re human rights. | ||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Red Justice wrote "sinister forces are clearly at work across Britain re human rights" - I agree. The particular forms that the attack on human rights takes might sometimes vary a wee bit according to the different legal systems in Scotland and England, but the general tendency in both is towards a growing threat to human rights from government, and from state agencies of various kinds, as well as from quasi-governmental bodies. | ||||||||
| Red Justice |
The different legal systems between Scotland and England often count for little as much Scots Law is or has been superseded by Acts of Parliament from Westminster, quite simply introducing a British element into law in Scotland. Unecessary new draconian anti-terror laws are an example. I grew up in a Scotland where the law of trespass did not exist but freedom to walk Scottish countryside cannot be taken for granted nowadays. Today in Scotland the laws from Westminster undermine our human rights and civil liberties. Centralised decision making from Westminster could be recognised as authoritarian and any idea that we live in a liberal type democracy is worth laughing out loud about. | ||||||||
| Red Justice |
The treatment of Aamar Anwar is central to the question Is Freedom of speech under attack in Scotland? If a human rights Scots lawyer cannot express an opinion outside a Scottish court what chance do the rest of us have regarding free speech. Perhaps the poll should of been worded is Scots law more fair than British decision making? |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
[quote="Dave Coull"]There is no such thing as "British law". There is Scots law and there is English law. English law applies in Wales, which had been administered as an integral part of England long before 1707 or come to that 1603. I think there is also such a thing as Irish law, which applied to the whole of Ireland when it was all part of the UK, and has continued to apply to Northern Ireland. But I am not too familiar with Irish legal matters. What I do know is that SCOTS law continued to be distinct after 1707 and many specifically Scots law were passed over the years since then.
That's a load of nonsense, to be frank. Yes, of course there is distinctive post-1707 Scots law. There is distinctive post-1707 laws of local application all over the UK. I don't hear you bleating on about Orcadian law, although it certainly exists. If you're referring to the position under the Act of Union, that was largely realised by Scotland becoming a separate legal jurisdiction from England. To deny the existence of a framework of British law is to, quite simply, deny reality. I wonder if your selective application only applies to nationalities that you don't like, or if European law and international law are so affected too. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
You have greater access to the countryside than ever before, thanks to the Scottish Parliament.
A lot of hot air. The passing of the Human Rights Act was one of the most impressive commitments to civil liberties made by a British government in decades. The very idea of human rights was barely even on the agenda before 1997. |
||||||||
| Red Justice |
The Scottish parliament in 2004 introduced laws governing rights of access and responsibility which affects walkers, ramblers...You would have to go back and check how todays laws passed in Holyrood compare to the freedoms I enjoyed walking in Dumfries countryside as a wean. As for Human Rights being impressive tell that to the detainees in Dungavel or political prisoners held without trial in Belmarsh Britain's Guantanamo Bay. The so-called war on terror is clearly making it's mark also in Scotland. Check out how the powers want to put Aamar Anwar out of business. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
"Perhaps the poll should of been worded is Scots law more fair than British decision making?"
Why? The first question that started the thread "is freedom of speech under attack?" was sufficient, why does the poll question have to be a comparison with England or the UK as neither will tell us much about the situation in Scotland. The 'terror' laws are very dangerous, we have seen protesters at arms fairs arrested under terrorism laws, protest at parliament closed down, old men thrown out of Labour conferences and held for questioning under terror legisalation and constant push from New Labour for less influence by juries in the justice system and more detention without trial. An active group of students in Dundee were the subject of special branch attention simply because a high number of muslims were involved in anti-war activity. We are getting to the stage where being against govt policy abroad can be seen as promoting terrorism. When rendition flights fly through Scotland and the EU it seems that no-one can or will do anything about it, the police even refuse to investigate it. |
||||||||
| Red Justice |
Cannot argue with you there Rinty fair play to you |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
To the question in the heading of this topic, "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?", my answer would be "yes". But if you were to ask me a similar question, about any country, at any time, I would always answer "yes". There are always threats to freedom of speech, everywhere, everywhen. The price of such freedom of speech as we have at any time is eternal vigilance. There are _always_ people trying to take our freedom of speech away. As for the question in the so-called "poll" at the top of this page, it is so confused, I see absolutely no point in voting on it. Whichever way it goes, the outcome of the poll on this meaningless question will itself be totally meaningless.
Yes, the Aamer Anwar case is significant. But whoever devised this meaningless poll did nothing to help Mr. Anwar in doing so. Rinty writes "The 'terror' laws are very dangerous, we have seen protesters at arms fairs arrested under terrorism laws, protest at parliament closed down, old men thrown out of Labour conferences and held for questioning under terror legislation and constant push from New Labour for less influence by juries in the justice system and more detention without trial. An active group of students in Dundee were the subject of special branch attention simply because a high number of muslims were involved in anti-war activity. We are getting to the stage where being against govt policy abroad can be seen as promoting terrorism. When rendition flights fly through Scotland and the EU it seems that no-one can or will do anything about it, the police even refuse to investigate it." All of this is true. Although there is always a threat to freedom of speech, the level of this threat has increased, is increasing, and should be opposed. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
You had no right to the countryside as a child. Indeed, the only reason that people were allowed so much freedom was the inefficiency of the judicial system. Legally, you were committing the delict of trespass and could quite conceivably have been subject to an interdict to prevent you if the act continued.
They are, as the law requires, only held for as long as is necessary to effect their removal from the country.
Who have, unlike anyone in any US bases in Cuba, complete access to the courts. Indeed, their actions effectively saw the striking down of a UK Act of Parliament on the basis of human rights, for the first time in history, and moreover are regularly assessed, where justification must be made for their detention and their level of restriction under the relevant control order. I'm afraid I don't disagree with internment, where there is a clear and present danger presented by an individual. I don't agree with all the 'anti-terror' statutes, but I believe this is now essentially a fair one. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Sorry, I was just asking an innocent question, and seem to have touched a nerve. Surely, as part of free speech, I am allowed to use a pseudonym as the majority of people do on this forum. Probably including yourself, as only a handful of unreliable witnesses have ever sighted you off the internet (usually in the distance, like Bigfoot or UFOs). I totally agree, Dave, I don't exist. And all these words are in your imagination. Keep taking the pills. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Radge Jougal called me "Super Dave".
This was an attempt to imply that I make some sort of exaggerated claims regarding my own abilities. Which isn't true. Radge Jougal also wrote "I was just asking an innocent question". That's a lie. I'm not saying that _everything_ you say is a lie, but, on this particular occasion, you are a liar. For reasons of your own, which I'm not even going to bother speculating about, you have a long record of aiming quite unprovoked snide remarks at myself, and there was nothing "innocent" about your remarks on this particular occasion. As for what I have done for free speech, well, in my old age I'm not as active as I used to be, but I've done a bit over the years, and I will be glad to compare my record on this with yours, if you can ever manage to pluck up the courage to slither out from under your stone so that it is possible to examine your record. |
||||||||
| Red Justice |
What is essentailly fair? The British law will apply in Scotland regarding detainees suspected of terror offences and can be held longer than other European countries. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"What is essentailly fair?"
Well, it's not fair that I don't exist. "on this particular occasion, you are a liar." On this occasion you dodged the question, with a question. Like you normally do. But I'm not entitled to free speech, as I don't exist. "if you can ever manage to pluck up the courage to slither out from under your stone so that it is possible to examine your record." Post reams and reams of stuff about how wonderful and clever I am? I'm sure everyone would love that. But there's not enough space on here for two of us to do so, and anyway, I'm imaginary. "This was an attempt to imply that I make some sort of exaggerated claims regarding my own abilities. Which isn't true. "  And you call me a liar! 
Read this forum. Read that News of the World "article". |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Radge Jougal wrote
> I'm not entitled to free speech You are entitled to spout your manure, and I am entitled to say "Piss off". I'm not a politician, I'm not a candidate for any kind of public office job, I never have been, and I never will be. So I don't have to answer anybody's questions if I don't feel like it. I don't have be nice to anybody if I don't feel like it. Piss off. > you dodged the question No I didn't. If somebody asks me "where were you last Friday at 10pm?" and I say "Piss off", that is not "dodging" the question, that is a refusal to answer. Which is a completely different thing. "Dodging" is when you avoid a question. Not when you refuse to answer. Not only did I refuse to answer, I gave you my reason for refusing. YOU have no right to ask me, unless you are prepared to compare your own record in standing up for freedom of speech with mine. But any claims made by "Radge Jougal" would be completely meaningless. They might as well be made by "Mickey Mouse". Therefore...............Piss off. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"I don't have be nice to anybody if I don't feel like it."
No change there then. I'm off to the fair the morra for the DODGEMS. 
"This was an attempt to imply that I make some sort of exaggerated claims regarding my own abilities. Which isn't true. " The funniest thing I've heard all week. By the way, do you change in a phonebox when you're off to save the world? |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
This topic started off being about "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?". Apparently, the specific case which prompted the question related to Aamer Anwar. This was an important matter. Radge Jougal has quite deliberately sought to change the subject, to try to make it about me personally. Note that it was HIM that did this, not me. All I did was to respond to his totally irrelevant personal attacks on me.
As any of us who has ever read the comics knows, Clark Kent has some quite astonishing abilities. In taunting me as "Super Dave", Radge Jougal sought, quite deliberately, to change the subject from "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?", to make it about me personally, by suggesting (out of a clear blue sky, and not in relation to anything I had actually said in this discussion) that I had made some sort of exaggerated claim regarding my own abilities. Note that word "abilities". It does NOT mean "what a person has done", it means "means what a person can do". Now, all of us have abilities of one sort or another. For instance, some people are expert on the workings of computers. Some people can draw, or paint, or play a musical instrument. Some people can climb mountains, or are good in the boxing ring, or they can win cycling races. Some people are good at woodworking, or plumbing, or electrical work. Some people have "green fingers", they can make plants grow into a beautiful garden. I can't do any of these things, and I have never claimed that I could. In fact, I would be interested to know just what "abilities" Radge Jougal is alleging I have made exaggerated claims about. I would be willing to bet that he can't produce one single example (quoting my exact words, not his own malicious twisting of them) of me making an exaggerated claim about my abilities. When challenged about his totally irrelevant personal attacks on me, Radge Jougal claimed "all I did was to ask an INNOCENT question". I know that was a lie, most people reading this will know it was a lie, and Radge Jougal himself knows perfectly well his claim about "innocent" remarks was a lie. If every discussion descends into a personal slanging match, then genuine discussion becomes impossible. Maybe that is the INTENTION. Maybe Radge Jougal is a paid agent of those who want to prevent genuine discussion on such matters as freedom of speech being under attack in Scotland. The reason I quit the Our Scotland forum before was because such irrelevant personal attacks made genuine discussion of important issues virtually impossible on this forum. Yes, they could be discussed elsewhere, but not here. Within days of me returning to this forum, here we go again. This discussion on freedom of speech in Scotland has been hijacked and turned into something else. But note that this was NOT my choice. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
That's simply not true. It was not a criminal offence (except over railways and certain other designated places) - which remains the case.
Be that as it may, a court of law has, in possession of the full facts, decided that these situations are entirely necessary to effect the quite proper end of deportation and thus legal.
A & Others v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Don't confuse it with the identically named case on torture evidence.
What is essentailly fair? The British law will apply in Scotland regarding detainees suspected of terror offences and can be held longer than other European countries.[/quote] I think you're conflating two issues here: the idea of detention without charge on suspicion of having committed a crime, which raised the 90-days issue. In such cases, the supposition is that a crime has been committed and will eventually be charged and brought to trial. Yes, we can hold such suspects far longer than the vast majority of countries, which I must say I do disagree with. The second matter, the so-called Belmarsh detainees are held under, is the control order, which I have been discussing before. It allows for theoretically unlimited detention of any person should there be good evidence that they present a credible risk - the 'control' can take many forms, and internment is its most extreme. Both the nature of the restriction and its level are investigated by courts. The courts held that the previous orders, which were similar in nature, conflicted with the Human Rights Act, it was on the basis of not being proportional to the threat and discriminating between foreign and British terror suspects. Both matters have been fixed. So yes, I'm inclined to say if a court believes it to be proportionate, that there is a good cause for it. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Great stuff, Dave. Keep it coming. I'm noting it all down for a sitcom I'm writing.
"Maybe Radge Jougal is a paid agent" Yes, for a theatre, and you're hired for the role of Widow Twankie. " suggesting (out of a clear blue sky, and not in relation to anything I had actually said in this discussion) that I had made some sort of exaggerated claim regarding my own abilities." Never! You have never exaggerated your abilities or past. 
I've heard the first cuckoo now. Spring must be coming.
|
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
At today's meeting of 'Determination', the campaign for self-determination for Scotland, I put forward a proposal that if, in future, the group should ever want to seek publicity for any kind of action we are doing, then the person to contact the press should definitely NOT be myself. Other members at the meeting were a bit worried that if we passed such a motion this could be wrongly interpreted (by the sort of folk who like to deliberately twist things), as being some sort of reflection on me, whereas what it actually represents is an attempt by me and other members to take the focus away from me personally. And speaking about the sort of folk who like to deliberately twist things, the coward who hides behind the pseudoname Radge Jougal wrote.
> Keep it coming. Unfortunately, I do have to. Because you do. And yes, I do realise that this may be precisely your intention. Whether this is because you are actually being paid to disrupt the campaign for self-determination, or just because you get some sort of sick pleasure out of doing that sort of thing, I don't know. But whichever of these is your motive, unfortunately I do still have to respond, because, unfortunately, if I don't, then that could lead to your lies becoming more widely accepted as the truth by default. But let's be clear about this: the person who is making it difficult to have serious discussion about things like "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?" is the coward who hides behind the pseudoname 'Radge Jougal'. It is he who has chosen to turn this discussion into being about me personally. That most certainly was NOT my choice. I am not a politician, I am not a candidate for any kind of public office, I never have been and I never will be, and I have no interest in trying to impress the public with my abilities, whether real or exaggerated. > Never! You have never exaggerated your abilities or past. We weren't discussing my past. There was no mention of "the past". Only of abilities. As anybody who has ever read the comics knows, Clark Kent was supposed to have some quite astonishing abilities. In taunting me as "Super Dave", you sought, quite deliberately, and not in relation to anything said by me in this discussion, to change the subject from "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?", to make it about me personally, by suggesting that I had made some sort of exaggerated claim regarding my own abilities. Note that word "abilities". It does NOT mean "what a person has done", it means "what a person can do". Now, all of us have abilities of one sort or another. For instance, some people are expert on the workings of computers. Some people can draw, or paint, or play a musical instrument. Some people can climb mountains, or are good in the boxing ring, or they can win cycling races. Some people are good at woodworking, or plumbing, or electrical work. I can't do any of these things, and I have never claimed that I could. In fact, I would be interested to know just what "abilities" you are alleging I have made exaggerated claims about. I would be willing to bet, oh, let's see, ten pounds, yes, I would place a ten pound bet, that you can't produce one single example (quoting MY exact words, not your own malicious twisting of them) of me making an exaggerated claim about my abilities in any way. Go on, take the bet. Try to prove your lies. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"Try to prove your lies."
You mean the lies about how you never brag about your "abilities"? "the coward who hides behind the pseudoname 'Radge Jougal'." It's pseudonym as I keep on telling you. Do you think most of the people on this board are cowards? How do we know you're real, and not some bizarre "comedy terrorist"? 
Comedy terrorists http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/m...?xml=/arts/2003/07/01/btbar01.xml |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I have always disliked "spy" stories. Regardless of which "side" they are on, for me, the main characteristic of a spy is not courage, or glamour, but lying. All spies are, almost by definition, liars. I also take a rather old-fashioned view on "special operations". For me, anybody who snipes from deep cover is, by definition, a coward.
The coward who goes under the pseudoname Radge Jougal asks "Do you think most of the people on this board are cowards?" No. With many of them, there is no real attempt to hide their identity from us. For instance, "Rinty" has told us quite clearly who he is, "Holebender", I have met on dozens of occasions, and the same for Carol. While I prefer folk to be open and honest, I recognise that some people can have valid reasons for not using their own names. However, when a pseudoname is used with deliberate intention to mislead, and when this cover is used to launch unprovoked personal attacks on more open and honest folk, that I consider cowardly. This topic started off being about "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?". Apparently, the specific case which prompted the question related to Aamer Anwar. This was an important matter. The coward who hides behind the pseudoname Radge Jougal has quite deliberately sought to change the subject, to try to make it about me personally. Note that it was HIM that did this, not me. All I did was to respond to his totally irrelevant personal attacks on me. I challenged the coward Radge Jougal "Try to prove your lies". He has, of course, realised that he cannot do so. He has realised that he cannot convict me (from my own words, and not HIS twisted version of them) of what he alleges. So he has backed down. Of course, like the liar he is, he will try to present this differently. Nevertheless, that is the reality. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"He has, of course, realised that he cannot do so"
You've just told another lie, without realising it. Didn't your mum tell you that every time you tell a lie, God kills a kitten? "pseudoname" Pseudonym. Pseudo-intellectuals should check their spelling before they pontificate. If you think that's a lie, looky here - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudonym 
|
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
This topic started off being about "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?". This was an important matter. The coward who hides behind the pseudo-name Radge Jougal has quite deliberately sought to change the subject, to try to make it about me personally. Note that it was HIM that chose to change the subject, not me. All I did was to respond to his totally irrelevant personal attacks on me.
The liar who uses the pseudo-name “Radge Jougal” wrote (about me) “You've just told another lie” When you say “another”, you are suggesting that I told a first one. You were challenged with a bet of ten pounds that you couldn’t produce any evidence for this. Of course you backed off from taking the bet. “without realising it”. It is impossible to tell a lie without realising it. If somebody says something which they honestly believe to be true, but it isn’t, that’s not a lie, it’s just a mistake. For instance, when Christopher Columbus set out to sail round the world, many people still believed the world was flat. They were wrong, but they were not liars. Columbus himself calculated the world was much smaller than it actually is, and thought he could find a short cut to the East Indies. He was wrong, but he wasn’t lying. When he described the native people of America as “Indians” (because he honestly believed he had found his short cut to the Indies) he was wrong, but he wasn’t lying. When I call you a liar (which I do) I mean that you are consciously and deliberately lying, not that you are doing so “without realising it”. The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, another one who went in for consciously and deliberately lying, operated on the principle that there was no need to produce any "evidence" for his lies, if he just kept on repeating them often enough people would come to believe them, simply because they'd heard them so often. You apparently follow Goebbels' example in this. > Pseudonym. I know how you spell that word. But that word makes the thing sound almost respectable, which, as far as I’m concerned, it isn’t. If you look up the adjective “pseudo” in the Oxford English Dictionary, you will find it defined as “ NOT GENUINE ; FAKE ; PRETENCIOUS ; or INSINCERE “. It is in these senses I quite deliberately refer to the false name you have chosen as your “pseudo-name”. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"You were challenged with a bet of ten pounds that you couldn’t produce any evidence for this. Of course you backed off from taking the bet. "
You can't back off from something you never accepted. What bet? Do you think anyone can actually be bothered wading through your spiels? Everyone just humours you. "If you look up the adjective “pseudo” in the Oxford English Dictionary, you will find it defined as “ NOT GENUINE ; FAKE" As in pseudo-intellectual. You ought to know about that one, Davie.
|
||||||||
| RFM |
To Red Justice,
I am informed that the Laws of Scotland include an offense known as "Murmuring the judges", a sort of a contempt action which may be initiated by the procurator fiscal. I understand the gravamen of the offense is speaking contemptuously of or with ridicule about or attempting to demean, the Scottish legal system. Robert Louis Stevenson wrote about it in "Wier of Hermeston". The point is that Mr Anwar as an attorney admitted to practice before the bar of Scotland's courts would and certainly should have known about that Law. While freedom of speech may well be the right of every citizen of Scotland, the obligation of an attorney is that of an officer of the court. As the American Supreme Court Justice O.W. Homes wrote in a land mark case in America, "Petitioner may have a constitutional right (not to incriminate himself) but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman". |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
For some reason which I will leave it to the mental health professionals to try to fathom, the person who masquerades under the pseudo-name Radge Jougal is obsessed with me. He seeks to change the subject of discussions here on this Our Scotland forum, to make them about me. Some people might think I ought to be flattered, but really it is just a nuisance. He now says "Everyone just humours you".
I know for certain that isn't true. I encounter people every day who listen to what I have to say with a certain amount of interest. I have friends who are not involved in political activity in any way, who think about what I say. Also, yesterday, I was at a meeting of a campaign of which I am a member. I know for certain that, although of course my fellow members of Determination do not always agree with me, they do consider my contributions to the discussion. Therefore, you do not speak on behalf of "everyone". Some, maybe. But so what? I have never in my life believed that it is possible to win them all. What proportion of people find my views interesting? I don't know. But it doesn't need to be a majority. It only needs to be "enough". And I think I am probably reaching "enough". As for your "pseudo-intellectual" remark, it is, like so much else that you say, irrelevant. Since I have never in my life claimed to be an "intellectual", it therefore follows that I cannot possibly be a "pseudo"-intellectual. |
||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"I encounter people every day who listen to what I have to say with a certain amount of interest."
OMG! You actually believe that?!
'Therefore, you do not speak on behalf of "everyone".' No of course, I don't. But you do, don't you? That's why you get on with everyone so well. 'it therefore follows that I cannot possibly be a "pseudo"-intellectual.' That's called fallacy. You fancy yourself as one, and pretend to be one... pretty obvious from your own words. "What proportion of people find my views interesting? I don't know" I'd guess it's probably well under 10%. Possibly under 1%. Most of your views are ripped off other people, but you never acknowledge that. Crank it up loon! (That's "loon" in the Doric sense. )
http://tinyurl.com/3dzzxn |
||||||||
| azzuri |
Thread locked.
Absolutely pointless - this has turned into nothing more than a mud-slinging thread. RadgeJougal, please keep this sort of 'dialogue' to private messages and email, I'm sick of this pish littering the forum. |
||||||||