Freedom to speak out against the system
Recently, Mohammed Atif Siddique was sentenced to a total of eight years for terrorism offences. Irrespective of the differing views on the outcome of the case, the criticism levelled at Mr Siddique's solicitor, Aamer Anwar, over a statement that he released on the day of the verdict is extremely disturbing.
Following sentencing on October 23, Aamer Anwar was ordered to appear at a court hearing before the judge. He was accused of showing disrespect to the judge, the jury and the court. Aamer has now been informed that the matter may be remitted to another High Court judge to consider contempt of court proceedings against him.
The possibility that Aamer Anwar may have to face contempt charges is deeply worrying and is an unprecedented attack on freedom of speech. Aamer has earned a reputation as one of the most prominent human rights lawyers in Scotland today. He represented the Chokhar family in their long struggle for justice and has diligently defended asylum-seekers. He has represented victims of the "war on terror" who were accused of terrorism and who were eventually proved innocent of the charges laid against them. In 2005, he helped campaigners negotiate a way to the G8 summit at Gleneagles and defended demonstrators arrested during the protests.
Following the collapse of the World's End Trial, the Lord Advocate stressed the importance of the independence of the judiciary and prosecution. Equally as important is an independent defence, which is often all that stands between the accused and the state. We might not always agree with Aamer Anwar, but he is part of a rich and important tradition of campaigning lawyers that speaks without "fear or favour".
If the judiciary is successful in silencing Aamer Anwar, then this will have far-reaching consequences. A lawyer's job is to represent their clients to the best of their ability - no matter what crimes they are accused of. All those who campaign against injustice and for a better world know that one day they may have to face the state in a courtroom. They need lawyers who are willing to advocate and speak out on their behalf. 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 the current attack on Aamer Anwar is an attack on the fundamental right of all lawyers to represent their clients.
Tony Benn, president, Stop the War Coalition; Moazzam Begg, ex-Guantanamo Bay detainee; Iain Banks, author; George Galloway MP; Lindsey German, national convener, Stop the War
Coalition; Professor Mike Gonzales, University of Glasgow; Imran Khan, human rights lawyer; Bashir Mann, convener, Muslim Council of Scotland; Professor David Miller, University of Strathclyde; Gareth Pierce, human rights lawyer; Mohammed Sarwar MP; Sandra White MSP; and many others.
Lord Carloway appears to be confused about the role of defence lawyers in the legal system, complaining that law agents should not attack the courts or the law. Defending Mohammed Asif Siddique, it was Aamer Anwar's duty to represent his client, not to act as an ambassador for the court or Parliament.
Aamer Anwar has maintained that he was, indeed, espousing the thoughts of his client. Yet even if they were his own beliefs, the notion that lawyers are not at liberty to set forth their opinions should offend everyone who believes in freedom of speech.
Should we next expect to see Baroness Helena Kennedy QC tried for her continuing eloquent and lucid criticism of anti-terror laws?
Geraint Bevan,
3e Grovepark Gardens,
Glasgow.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Flabskin, Ma' Bit on 2:27am Thu 8 Nov 07
"the notion that lawyers are not at liberty to set forth their opinions should offend everyone who believes in freedom of speech..."
Aamer Anwar was afforded every opportunity to 'set forth his opinions' in the courtroom. He lost the case. If he genuinely believes his client was innocent, then maybe he should do a better job next time.
Outside the court, he chose to tell lies, and to cast aspersions on the integrity of the jury who had heard the case. And now we have the usual troop of self-righteous moral relativists chucking their oar in.
Presumably this ugly campaign of public bullying will continue until jurors get the message, and start to deliver the 'right' verdicts.
"the notion that lawyers are not at liberty to set forth their opinions should offend everyone who believes in freedom of speech..."
Aamer Anwar was afforded every opportunity to 'set forth his opinions' in the courtroom. He lost the case. If he genuinely believes his client was innocent, then maybe he should do a better job next time.
Outside the court, he chose to tell lies, and to cast aspersions on the integrity of the jury who had heard the case. And now we have the usual troop of self-righteous moral relativists chucking their oar in.
Presumably this ugly campaign of public bullying will continue until jurors get the message, and start to deliver the 'right' verdicts.
Posted by: Maria Regina on 8:42am Thu 8 Nov 07
Two fundamentally ignorant letters!
Two fundamentally ignorant letters!
Posted by: Nemo, The Land That Time Forgot on 8:59am Thu 8 Nov 07
Scotland's senior courts are an international joke. Point this out in Scotland (even as a layman), and you can still end up in jail. What about "matching of arms", something meant to be held dear by all practitioners in the system? The Siddique case was anything but a level playing field, but maybe a good opportunity for one of their "lordships" to tweak the nose of an SNP goverment doing its best to maintain racial and religious harmony (and unity) in Scotland. It is time our judiciary got real. Aamer Amwar has a right, indeed a duty, to attack the system.
Scotland's senior courts are an international joke. Point this out in Scotland (even as a layman), and you can still end up in jail. What about "matching of arms", something meant to be held dear by all practitioners in the system? The Siddique case was anything but a level playing field, but maybe a good opportunity for one of their "lordships" to tweak the nose of an SNP goverment doing its best to maintain racial and religious harmony (and unity) in Scotland. It is time our judiciary got real. Aamer Amwar has a right, indeed a duty, to attack the system.
Posted by: Displaced Glaswegian, Lanarkshire on 9:53am Thu 8 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Maria Regina[/bold] wrote:
Two fundamentally ignorant letters![/quote] Maria, please stop this electronic heckling. If you have a point (s) to make on the letters please do so but these one off exclamations tell us nothing.
You have done the same thing on the Gordon Gentle items this morning........and please do not come back with the glib answer that it wouldn't be worth the time required to explain your points clearly. either contribute to the debate or stop heckling!!!!!!
Maria Regina wrote:
Two fundamentally ignorant letters!
Maria, please stop this electronic heckling. If you have a point (s) to make on the letters please do so but these one off exclamations tell us nothing.
You have done the same thing on the Gordon Gentle items this morning........and please do not come back with the glib answer that it wouldn't be worth the time required to explain your points clearly. either contribute to the debate or stop heckling!!!!!!
Posted by: Paul, Glasgow on 11:09am Thu 8 Nov 07
So is Tony Benn and his co-signatures saying that it's okay for someone to lie and slander the jury, prosecution and judge? I don't think that is what freedom of speach is meant to protect
So is Tony Benn and his co-signatures saying that it's okay for someone to lie and slander the jury, prosecution and judge? I don't think that is what freedom of speach is meant to protect
Posted by: Rob Keith on 1:25pm Thu 8 Nov 07
[quote][bold]Maria Regina[/bold] wrote:
Two fundamentally ignorant letters![/quote] And you should know them when you see them maria.
Being fundamentally ignorant is your stock in trade on newspaper forums.
Maria Regina wrote:
Two fundamentally ignorant letters!
And you should know them when you see them maria.
Being fundamentally ignorant is your stock in trade on newspaper forums.
Posted by: Myles, Glasgow on 2:23pm Thu 8 Nov 07
Mmmm....one of the signatories is Gareth Pierce, human rights lawyer.
Is that the same Gareth Pierce whose human rights law firm earns millions of pounds a year from the taxpayer representing (mainly) Islamists charged with plotting to commit mass murder in the UK?
Mmmm....one of the signatories is Gareth Pierce, human rights lawyer.
Is that the same Gareth Pierce whose human rights law firm earns millions of pounds a year from the taxpayer representing (mainly) Islamists charged with plotting to commit mass murder in the UK?
Posted by: Ian, Dalbeattie on 2:35pm Thu 8 Nov 07
Aamer Anwar's statement on the steps of a Scottish Court had nothing to do with freedom of speach or the Scottish Legal system. It was all about self publicity and cleary aimed at a defined section of the population. As a Solicitor he knows full well that there is an appeals process to go through if he thought that justice had not been done. That process is carried out in Court and not on the streets of Scotland.
Aamer Anwar's statement on the steps of a Scottish Court had nothing to do with freedom of speach or the Scottish Legal system. It was all about self publicity and cleary aimed at a defined section of the population. As a Solicitor he knows full well that there is an appeals process to go through if he thought that justice had not been done. That process is carried out in Court and not on the streets of Scotland.
Posted by: Florence, Edinburgh on 3:07pm Thu 8 Nov 07
FLABSKIN & IAN, DALBEATTIE: I agree entirely with your comments. Aamer Anwar and Tony Benn - both ready to jump on any bandwagon. As for Gareth Pierce and the other signatories, well, what can one say?
FLABSKIN & IAN, DALBEATTIE: I agree entirely with your comments. Aamer Anwar and Tony Benn - both ready to jump on any bandwagon. As for Gareth Pierce and the other signatories, well, what can one say?
Posted by: dismayed, scotland on 4:09pm Thu 8 Nov 07
Just to say how deeply saddened I was to read that the finest intelectual socialist of our time should append his name to such rubbish.
You lose a case and react by maligning all involved apart from yourself!!!!!
What is a human rights lawyer anyway and when was the last time Mr Anwar won any sort of "human rights case" and what has he done to advance our democracy and protect all our freedoms.
Will the Herald just print any old rubbish.
Lord Carloways judgement is well argued, considered and bereft of any racism. Get behind him and we'll all be better for it.
Just to say how deeply saddened I was to read that the finest intelectual socialist of our time should append his name to such rubbish.
You lose a case and react by maligning all involved apart from yourself!!!!!
What is a human rights lawyer anyway and when was the last time Mr Anwar won any sort of "human rights case" and what has he done to advance our democracy and protect all our freedoms.
Will the Herald just print any old rubbish.
Lord Carloways judgement is well argued, considered and bereft of any racism. Get behind him and we'll all be better for it.
Posted by: seedubbyah, Glasgow on 8:23pm Thu 8 Nov 07
Whatever the arguments of the case here, the fact that Ian, Dalbeattie - Paul, Glasgow - and Florence, Edinburgh have joined Maria Regina in the ranks of the anti-Anwar chorus has certainly added to the geographical spread of postings. Given their recent postings what a relief to Anvar to know of the help it has now guaranteed him. For a bigger crowd of numpties is hard to imagine. Correction: is impossible to imagine.
Whatever the arguments of the case here, the fact that Ian, Dalbeattie - Paul, Glasgow - and Florence, Edinburgh have joined Maria Regina in the ranks of the anti-Anwar chorus has certainly added to the geographical spread of postings. Given their recent postings what a relief to Anvar to know of the help it has now guaranteed him. For a bigger crowd of numpties is hard to imagine. Correction: is impossible to imagine.
Posted by: neil robertson, dundee on 10:35pm Thu 8 Nov 07
Long may Aamer Anwer murmur High Court judges! But I have to take issue with the suggestion implicit in the letter from Geraint Bevan that independent-minded scourges of the Establishment
merit comparison with that dreadful publicity-seeking Hypocrite
Baroness Helena Kennedy QC of The Shaws - who as the paid
Chairperson of The British Council denied employment rights to
all her overseas-based staff and turned a blind eye to corruption
at the very highest managerial levels of that stooge organisation.
She remains in my view unfit for public office unlike Aamer Anwar
who is, in very sharp contrast, a true hero of these troubled times.
Long may Aamer Anwer murmur High Court judges! But I have to take issue with the suggestion implicit in the letter from Geraint Bevan that independent-minded scourges of the Establishment
merit comparison with that dreadful publicity-seeking Hypocrite
Baroness Helena Kennedy QC of The Shaws - who as the paid
Chairperson of The British Council denied employment rights to
all her overseas-based staff and turned a blind eye to corruption
at the very highest managerial levels of that stooge organisation.
She remains in my view unfit for public office unlike Aamer Anwar
who is, in very sharp contrast, a true hero of these troubled times.
Posted by: Cmon Scotland, Aberdeen on 12:34am Fri 9 Nov 07
I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of comments here detailing how Siddique recieved a fair trial and the Lord Carloway's comments at the end of the case were well founded.
I have one question, did any of the people who are commenting here actually sit throughout the trial and hear every single piece of evidence with which to make a reasoned and balanced judgement? I doubt it very much - in fact as usual I believe that most people believe what they read in the papers - which essentially picks out the most gory and best pieces for storytelling from day to day.
I am not for moment saying that Mr Siddique did not recieve a fair trial - I do not know if he did or not. What I am saying is that some people are spouting nonsense about something which in reality they know very little about. We will find out soon enough at Mr Anwar's contempt hearing whether what he said amounted to holding the court out to contempt - I hasten a guess it will not and frankly neither should it (although that is merely a personal view). Love him or hate him for whatever reason it is clear that perhaps Mr Anwar should have chosen better words - but it seems there are very lucid undertones of a Law Lord feeling like a modicum of his pride has been hurt. Perhaps he would have been better placed to complain to the Law Society - the correct mode of disciplining defence lawyers. The Government has spent enough money on reforming in order that this should be the correct mode of conduct for any complaints regarding solicitors.
I also find it funny how Elish Angiolini is very quick to come out and criticise the courts in the wake of the Worlds End trial - surely that is no different to what Mr Anwar had to say. Moreover, if anything, as Scotland's chief prosecutor you would imagine that in reality she has even more duty to the court and the Government than Mr Anwar. Why should she be allowed to make comment and Mr Anwar not? I think both have a right and fingers crossed common sense will prevail.
I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of comments here detailing how Siddique recieved a fair trial and the Lord Carloway's comments at the end of the case were well founded.
I have one question, did any of the people who are commenting here actually sit throughout the trial and hear every single piece of evidence with which to make a reasoned and balanced judgement? I doubt it very much - in fact as usual I believe that most people believe what they read in the papers - which essentially picks out the most gory and best pieces for storytelling from day to day.
I am not for moment saying that Mr Siddique did not recieve a fair trial - I do not know if he did or not. What I am saying is that some people are spouting nonsense about something which in reality they know very little about. We will find out soon enough at Mr Anwar's contempt hearing whether what he said amounted to holding the court out to contempt - I hasten a guess it will not and frankly neither should it (although that is merely a personal view). Love him or hate him for whatever reason it is clear that perhaps Mr Anwar should have chosen better words - but it seems there are very lucid undertones of a Law Lord feeling like a modicum of his pride has been hurt. Perhaps he would have been better placed to complain to the Law Society - the correct mode of disciplining defence lawyers. The Government has spent enough money on reforming in order that this should be the correct mode of conduct for any complaints regarding solicitors.
I also find it funny how Elish Angiolini is very quick to come out and criticise the courts in the wake of the Worlds End trial - surely that is no different to what Mr Anwar had to say. Moreover, if anything, as Scotland's chief prosecutor you would imagine that in reality she has even more duty to the court and the Government than Mr Anwar. Why should she be allowed to make comment and Mr Anwar not? I think both have a right and fingers crossed common sense will prevail.
Posted by: Richard Quinn, Glasgow on 1:00am Fri 9 Nov 07
There is a lot of injustice in our legal system.
Judges have been known to instruct jury's to find people guilty of an offence, and there are some numpties on jury's who just want to go home for their tea or whatever.
This trial was most unlikely to have been played on a level playing field.
Mr Aamer Anwar probably was wrong to make that speech, but at the end of the day what damage did it do ?. Not much I guess.
My guess is that all of the laws of this country should be reviewed, as in many circumstances they are badly put together in haste by politicians, who have a knee jerk reaction to some event or other, and then interpreted literally by some judge, and the original intent of their meaning is lost by default.
No one is perfect, and a defence lawyer should not be vilified for doing their job to the best of their ability, because tomorrow it maybe you who needs their services.
Yeah, rap him on the knuckles if he deserves it , but don't deprive him of doing his job.
ps. Don't forget about all the crooked lawyers who get off scot free, and some judges who are a wee bit dodgy.
There is a lot of injustice in our legal system.
Judges have been known to instruct jury's to find people guilty of an offence, and there are some numpties on jury's who just want to go home for their tea or whatever.
This trial was most unlikely to have been played on a level playing field.
Mr Aamer Anwar probably was wrong to make that speech, but at the end of the day what damage did it do ?. Not much I guess.
My guess is that all of the laws of this country should be reviewed, as in many circumstances they are badly put together in haste by politicians, who have a knee jerk reaction to some event or other, and then interpreted literally by some judge, and the original intent of their meaning is lost by default.
No one is perfect, and a defence lawyer should not be vilified for doing their job to the best of their ability, because tomorrow it maybe you who needs their services.
Yeah, rap him on the knuckles if he deserves it , but don't deprive him of doing his job.
ps. Don't forget about all the crooked lawyers who get off scot free, and some judges who are a wee bit dodgy.
Posted by: Ian, Dalbeattie on 12:46pm Fri 9 Nov 07
As this debate was supposed to be about free speech it is quite in order for Seedubbyah to call everyone who writes something he does not like a Numptie. I am also free to hold my opinion which is that Aamer Anwar is a self seeking chancer. I was not in Court during the trial in question but I did see Anwar on the television news afterwards and that performance by him is the basis of my opinion.
As this debate was supposed to be about free speech it is quite in order for Seedubbyah to call everyone who writes something he does not like a Numptie. I am also free to hold my opinion which is that Aamer Anwar is a self seeking chancer. I was not in Court during the trial in question but I did see Anwar on the television news afterwards and that performance by him is the basis of my opinion.
Posted by: seedubbyah, Glasgow on 1:39pm Fri 9 Nov 07
To Ian, Dalbeattie
Hi Ian
Just for the record I did not and do not call everyone who writes "somehing he does not like a Numptie". If you would put a (?)at the end of your sentences (again) when you ask a question I'd be less tempted to do so. That way your meaning would not be an antonym of what you wanted it to be.
However, I disagree that Aamer Anwar is "a self-seeking chancer" - now there's a nice turn of phrase for somebody so sensitive to being called a Numpty. "Free speech" is one thing 'bad taste' another. ('Chancers') should be reserved for war criminals
For somebody whose decision to become a lawyer was engendered by being savagely beaten up by the police, Aamer Anwar shows remarkable calm. He's usually right in his judgements which is why he is making such a (highly paid) success of his legal career. I say that as somebody who is the father of two criminal lawyers, one on the prosecution side. I'll be fair here: they're not great fans of Aamer's. I sometimes call them Numpties too, but then I'm their Dad. (You woudn't believe what they call me - on second thoughts maybe you would.)
I look forward to the day when I can post here: 'Well done, Ian, Dalbeattie". If you pick better targets, I promise, repeat promise, I will.
And one day you'll thank me for helping you to become a better poster. See: every cloud has a silver lining.
To Ian, Dalbeattie
Hi Ian
Just for the record I did not and do not call everyone who writes "somehing he does not like a Numptie". If you would put a (?)at the end of your sentences (again) when you ask a question I'd be less tempted to do so. That way your meaning would not be an antonym of what you wanted it to be.
However, I disagree that Aamer Anwar is "a self-seeking chancer" - now there's a nice turn of phrase for somebody so sensitive to being called a Numpty. "Free speech" is one thing 'bad taste' another. ('Chancers') should be reserved for war criminals
For somebody whose decision to become a lawyer was engendered by being savagely beaten up by the police, Aamer Anwar shows remarkable calm. He's usually right in his judgements which is why he is making such a (highly paid) success of his legal career. I say that as somebody who is the father of two criminal lawyers, one on the prosecution side. I'll be fair here: they're not great fans of Aamer's. I sometimes call them Numpties too, but then I'm their Dad. (You woudn't believe what they call me - on second thoughts maybe you would.)
I look forward to the day when I can post here: 'Well done, Ian, Dalbeattie". If you pick better targets, I promise, repeat promise, I will.
And one day you'll thank me for helping you to become a better poster. See: every cloud has a silver lining.
Posted by: Ian, Dalbeattie on 2:11pm Fri 9 Nov 07
C.W.
I did not pose a question in my last posting.
I said "it is"and not "is it "?
C.W.
I did not pose a question in my last posting.
I said "it is"and not "is it "?
Posted by: seedubbyah, Glasgow on 5:52pm Fri 9 Nov 07
Hi Ian: please
You said: "....it is quite in order for Seedubbyah to call everyone who writes something he doesn't like a Numpty" Agreed? So why do you go on to whinge about it? But you are wrong anyway: I don't and I didn't call everyone etc. I didn't, for example, include "dismayed, Scotland" in my gang of four (Numpties), but more of him in a moment.
The last time I took issue with you was over your 56-word sentence with three questions which did not include a question mark at its end. It must to make sense. Even one question demands it.
George Orwell in his essay on the English language stresses the importance of clarity in English, especially in political discourse where politicians are so practised in language's deliberate misuse. Blair was a master of it which, apart from the verbless sentences, is why his legacy is one of lying, as in all-the-time. Hundreds of thousands lie dead largely because of it. Calling Anwar "a self-seeking chancer" is in poor taste and does not entitle you to get self-righteous when somebody calls you a Numpty. If you cannot see this then you have a problem. Your fellow gang member Paul called somebody a pro-death activist the other day which an Australian said disqualifed him from "civilized discussion". Anwar would say that Paul had "previous".
Colons, question marks, apostrophes, commas and spelling all have a reaon and a purpose. Your arguments will be the better if you learn that lesson. We all make slips (I'll have done so here), but serial errors are a hanging offence. I have two children who are criminal lawyers who will tell you that. I jest.
As for "dismayed", Scotland, I did not say he was a Numpty mainly because he doesn't deserve such a categorisation - he's too illiterate for that. In his posting he manages to say that he admires one "intellectual" although he cannot actually spell the word, then places six exclamation marks like ducks-in-a row, asks a question - like you - minus a question mark, abandons any use of apostrophes, then another question minus a question mark, before ending by asking the Herald wait for it....."if it will publish just any old rubbish" (minus, of course) the question mark). You couldn't make it up, could you. What do you think? Do you support this man since you haven't disowned him? I invite you to do so and have a word in Paul, Glasgow's ear about personal abuse while you're at it.
My well meaning advice: watch your company on the blogs and try to follow Orwell's advice.
Hi Ian: please
You said: "....it is quite in order for Seedubbyah to call everyone who writes something he doesn't like a Numpty" Agreed? So why do you go on to whinge about it? But you are wrong anyway: I don't and I didn't call everyone etc. I didn't, for example, include "dismayed, Scotland" in my gang of four (Numpties), but more of him in a moment.
The last time I took issue with you was over your 56-word sentence with three questions which did not include a question mark at its end. It must to make sense. Even one question demands it.
George Orwell in his essay on the English language stresses the importance of clarity in English, especially in political discourse where politicians are so practised in language's deliberate misuse. Blair was a master of it which, apart from the verbless sentences, is why his legacy is one of lying, as in all-the-time. Hundreds of thousands lie dead largely because of it. Calling Anwar "a self-seeking chancer" is in poor taste and does not entitle you to get self-righteous when somebody calls you a Numpty. If you cannot see this then you have a problem. Your fellow gang member Paul called somebody a pro-death activist the other day which an Australian said disqualifed him from "civilized discussion". Anwar would say that Paul had "previous".
Colons, question marks, apostrophes, commas and spelling all have a reaon and a purpose. Your arguments will be the better if you learn that lesson. We all make slips (I'll have done so here), but serial errors are a hanging offence. I have two children who are criminal lawyers who will tell you that. I jest.
As for "dismayed", Scotland, I did not say he was a Numpty mainly because he doesn't deserve such a categorisation - he's too illiterate for that. In his posting he manages to say that he admires one "intellectual" although he cannot actually spell the word, then places six exclamation marks like ducks-in-a row, asks a question - like you - minus a question mark, abandons any use of apostrophes, then another question minus a question mark, before ending by asking the Herald wait for it....."if it will publish just any old rubbish" (minus, of course) the question mark). You couldn't make it up, could you. What do you think? Do you support this man since you haven't disowned him? I invite you to do so and have a word in Paul, Glasgow's ear about personal abuse while you're at it.
My well meaning advice: watch your company on the blogs and try to follow Orwell's advice.
Posted by: Pete, dundee on 6:35pm Fri 9 Nov 07
Aamer Anwar tells lies - I didn't say that a High Court judge did. I have little time for self-seeking, self-promoting, half-wit apologists for terrorism in the UK as a general principle. That last remark if it causes any disrespect to anyone, then like Mr Anwar I offer my insincere apologies.
Aamer Anwar tells lies - I didn't say that a High Court judge did. I have little time for self-seeking, self-promoting, half-wit apologists for terrorism in the UK as a general principle. That last remark if it causes any disrespect to anyone, then like Mr Anwar I offer my insincere apologies.
Posted by: weehumpty, wee bit hill and glen on 7:04pm Fri 9 Nov 07
Keep going Pete: smear everybody and anybody. You're doing Mr Anwar's case the world of good. I nominate you for membership of Seedubbyah's Gang of Four. Or would you rather be classified with "displaced Scotland"? He says he's half a mind to have you join forces with him, and half-a-mind is all you need. You'd qualify nae bother.
Keep going Pete: smear everybody and anybody. You're doing Mr Anwar's case the world of good. I nominate you for membership of Seedubbyah's Gang of Four. Or would you rather be classified with "displaced Scotland"? He says he's half a mind to have you join forces with him, and half-a-mind is all you need. You'd qualify nae bother.
Posted by: Ian, Dalbeattie on 7:23pm Fri 9 Nov 07
C.W.
You are right. I do have a problem.I am not as skilled with the use of the invective as you seem to be.Please tell me why it is all right for you to call me a numptie but when I say someone is a self seeking chancer ,you regard that as bad taste.
C.W.
You are right. I do have a problem.I am not as skilled with the use of the invective as you seem to be.Please tell me why it is all right for you to call me a numptie but when I say someone is a self seeking chancer ,you regard that as bad taste.
Posted by: seedubbyah, Glasgow on 7:59pm Fri 9 Nov 07
Hi Ian
As I say, if you can't see the difference between "self-seeking chancer" and "numptie", then I can be of little help in the short run. The name "numpty" came into the currency with Jack McConnell - hence the song/video - the "best wee numpty in the world". It is not without a trace of affection.
But that's also why I mentioned Paul: he couldn't see the harm in calling someone a "pro-death activist" either, until someone from 10,000 miles away pointed it out - I'm not sure even then. "Oh, wid some power the giftie gie us..........." I'm just as guilty I'm sure of the implicit narcissism. I think I'm just droll but might be hurting feelings when I am.
Others will have to be the judge (I'm far too self-effacing) to suggest that my being more skilled with invective (you say) is the only, repeat only, difference between us. I think I may have a wee bit more experience of life. But even if true, that's hardly your fault.
But I will say this: there is something about your manner that I like: honestly. You have courage for a start and I have a friend called Ian with whom I visited the town of Dalbeattie some years ago. His ancestors were from there. I also had a caravan at Auchenlarie nr Gatehouse, but then you'll know that. Whatever it is, there is this vestigial regard. I hereby withdraw your membership of the Gang of Four.
If you take my advice, even some of it, then you'll be a very good poster, able to knock lumps out of me whenever you feel like it. Don't get mad, get even.
Hi Ian
As I say, if you can't see the difference between "self-seeking chancer" and "numptie", then I can be of little help in the short run. The name "numpty" came into the currency with Jack McConnell - hence the song/video - the "best wee numpty in the world". It is not without a trace of affection.
But that's also why I mentioned Paul: he couldn't see the harm in calling someone a "pro-death activist" either, until someone from 10,000 miles away pointed it out - I'm not sure even then. "Oh, wid some power the giftie gie us..........." I'm just as guilty I'm sure of the implicit narcissism. I think I'm just droll but might be hurting feelings when I am.
Others will have to be the judge (I'm far too self-effacing) to suggest that my being more skilled with invective (you say) is the only, repeat only, difference between us. I think I may have a wee bit more experience of life. But even if true, that's hardly your fault.
But I will say this: there is something about your manner that I like: honestly. You have courage for a start and I have a friend called Ian with whom I visited the town of Dalbeattie some years ago. His ancestors were from there. I also had a caravan at Auchenlarie nr Gatehouse, but then you'll know that. Whatever it is, there is this vestigial regard. I hereby withdraw your membership of the Gang of Four.
If you take my advice, even some of it, then you'll be a very good poster, able to knock lumps out of me whenever you feel like it. Don't get mad, get even.
Posted by: seedubbyah, Glasgow on 8:07pm Fri 9 Nov 07
PS: for the record - in the circles in which I move Blair is often referred to as a "chancer". Perhaps that's why I find the word so distasteful, just as I find Blair so distasteful and for the reasons I detailed earlier. I try to limit its use therefore to war criminals.
PS: for the record - in the circles in which I move Blair is often referred to as a "chancer". Perhaps that's why I find the word so distasteful, just as I find Blair so distasteful and for the reasons I detailed earlier. I try to limit its use therefore to war criminals.
Posted by: Pete, dundee on 10:25pm Fri 9 Nov 07
[quote][bold]weehumpty[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Pete: smear everybody and anybody. You\'re doing Mr Anwar\'s case the world of good. I nominate you for membership of Seedubbyah\'s Gang of Four. Or would you rather be classified with \"displaced Scotland\"? He says he\'s half a mind to have you join forces with him, and half-a-mind is all you need. You\'d qualify nae bother.[/quote] wee-humpty-numpty, get it right chum. Smear everyone? No, the judge said rent-a-quote told lies. Its that simple even half a mind will enable you to understand it. Baw-bag.
weehumpty wrote:
Keep going Pete: smear everybody and anybody. You\'re doing Mr Anwar\'s case the world of good. I nominate you for membership of Seedubbyah\'s Gang of Four. Or would you rather be classified with \"displaced Scotland\"? He says he\'s half a mind to have you join forces with him, and half-a-mind is all you need. You\'d qualify nae bother.
wee-humpty-numpty, get it right chum. Smear everyone? No, the judge said rent-a-quote told lies. Its that simple even half a mind will enable you to understand it. Baw-bag.
Posted by: Displaced Glaswegian, Lanarkshire on 12:22am Sat 10 Nov 07
[quote][bold]weehumpty[/bold] wrote:
Keep going Pete: smear everybody and anybody. You're doing Mr Anwar's case the world of good. I nominate you for membership of Seedubbyah's Gang of Four. Or would you rather be classified with "displaced Scotland"? He says he's half a mind to have you join forces with him, and half-a-mind is all you need. You'd qualify nae bother.[/quote] Excuse me, there is no poster named 'displaced Scotland. You may be confusing 'displaced glaswegian' with 'dismayed Scotland'. Justy want to keep you on the right track.
weehumpty wrote:
Keep going Pete: smear everybody and anybody. You're doing Mr Anwar's case the world of good. I nominate you for membership of Seedubbyah's Gang of Four. Or would you rather be classified with "displaced Scotland"? He says he's half a mind to have you join forces with him, and half-a-mind is all you need. You'd qualify nae bother.
Excuse me, there is no poster named 'displaced Scotland. You may be confusing 'displaced glaswegian' with 'dismayed Scotland'. Justy want to keep you on the right track.
Posted by: weehumpty, Largs at the moment on 10:08am Sat 10 Nov 07
To Displaced Glaswegian:
Since I know that you're a friend of mine - and very supportive the other night in my jousts with AG - I apologise for referring to you as "displaced" Scotland when I meant "dismayed" scotland....... "You were always on my mind" and all that; it was "dismayed" Scotland's illiteracy and spleen that was the object of my scorn.
To Pete, dundee
"Baw-bag" - what style. Is that part of the dialect in the land of the Broons? I can hear Daphne spluttering it from here. I take it to be mildly hostile. We don't use it down here but then we were part of the Enlightenment. Nor is it in my Oxford & Cambridge.....or even my Glasgow patois.
If he cared to re-read his original posting he'd see (apart from the cowardly attack) that it is a veritable model of double negatives, causing lack of clarity, and inferring an address to nobody in particular and everybody in general, as I said.... but why not keep going, Pete? It reinforces the suggestion that you join forces with your illiterate pal (and others in the Gang of Four) 'illiteracy' being a thread of these postings. I'd venture he's from dundee (note the lack of capital - is it that bad{?}) as well. You continue to help Anwar, and that's terrific. It's also such a compliment to know that we are not on the same side. I never am when it comes to infantile name-calling. Why is it that so many posters when they indulge their spleen do so from behind a wall of anonymity? I am required to add my name and address when I am often published in the mainline paper. Naturally, I have to protect myself from the nutters in cyberspace, which clearly includes you, given your original attack on Anwar. But why don't you send your postings to the Editor and see how you get on? That would be a new experience for you; and a salutary one at that, placing you within the applied laws of defamation and within the boundaries of decency which sadly the jungle you inhabit gainsay.
By the way, if you wish to say 'it is' try ever so hard to write 'it's'. Meanwhile I'm afraid you're partnership with "dismayed scotland" still obtains.
Have a nice day, Pete, or are you really Daphne?
To Displaced Glaswegian:
Since I know that you're a friend of mine - and very supportive the other night in my jousts with AG - I apologise for referring to you as "displaced" Scotland when I meant "dismayed" scotland....... "You were always on my mind" and all that; it was "dismayed" Scotland's illiteracy and spleen that was the object of my scorn.
To Pete, dundee
"Baw-bag" - what style. Is that part of the dialect in the land of the Broons? I can hear Daphne spluttering it from here. I take it to be mildly hostile. We don't use it down here but then we were part of the Enlightenment. Nor is it in my Oxford & Cambridge.....or even my Glasgow patois.
If he cared to re-read his original posting he'd see (apart from the cowardly attack) that it is a veritable model of double negatives, causing lack of clarity, and inferring an address to nobody in particular and everybody in general, as I said.... but why not keep going, Pete? It reinforces the suggestion that you join forces with your illiterate pal (and others in the Gang of Four) 'illiteracy' being a thread of these postings. I'd venture he's from dundee (note the lack of capital - is it that bad{?}) as well. You continue to help Anwar, and that's terrific. It's also such a compliment to know that we are not on the same side. I never am when it comes to infantile name-calling. Why is it that so many posters when they indulge their spleen do so from behind a wall of anonymity? I am required to add my name and address when I am often published in the mainline paper. Naturally, I have to protect myself from the nutters in cyberspace, which clearly includes you, given your original attack on Anwar. But why don't you send your postings to the Editor and see how you get on? That would be a new experience for you; and a salutary one at that, placing you within the applied laws of defamation and within the boundaries of decency which sadly the jungle you inhabit gainsay.
By the way, if you wish to say 'it is' try ever so hard to write 'it's'. Meanwhile I'm afraid you're partnership with "dismayed scotland" still obtains.
Have a nice day, Pete, or are you really Daphne?
Posted by: Harry Hay, Cambuslang on 4:31am Wed 21 Nov 07
The idea as put forward in this article that Mr Anwar represents the best of crusading civil liberty defending lawyers is laughable. He clearly is a self promoting individual, from his early career role as a fly poster, to his arriving on the Chokhar family doorstep to offer his services through to his turning of his wifes minor road accident into a racist incident. He and others of his ilk would have us believe that if you oppose their argument then you are a racist. This is I suspect a greater danger to our right to freedom of speech than any questions asked by his fellow lawyers as to his motives for his inflammatory statements.
The idea as put forward in this article that Mr Anwar represents the best of crusading civil liberty defending lawyers is laughable. He clearly is a self promoting individual, from his early career role as a fly poster, to his arriving on the Chokhar family doorstep to offer his services through to his turning of his wifes minor road accident into a racist incident. He and others of his ilk would have us believe that if you oppose their argument then you are a racist. This is I suspect a greater danger to our right to freedom of speech than any questions asked by his fellow lawyers as to his motives for his inflammatory statements.
Search This Site
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (27)
