Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Like it or not - cos it's repeating Dow - the laws of this country certainly do oppress republicans. There's a huge number of laws that are framed with privilege to the monarch and no rights for those of a different view.

An easy example is a republican taking up their legitimately won seat to Parliament has to swear allegiance to the monarch - thus proving that we don't operated the democracy that we like to kid ourselves that we do.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

Although many political campaigners may be republicans please remember that the victims of this monarchy and kingdom are by no means all republicans. Most are not.

What about the Dunblane Primary School kids who were shot dead, were these 5 and 6 year olds "republicans"?

No but they died because a kingdom gave a firearms certificate to an unstable person to keep guns and anyone who tried to protest that police decision to get it reversed, perhaps swearing at the police would have got arrested or perhaps publishing stories in the newspaper about gross incompetence by the police would have been sued by the gunman or by the police.

Protestors trying to save the lives of innocents and arrested or sued for that would have been told by their lawyer while under threat

"Well I am sorry if you can't see how you are not helping yourself by swearing at the police and publishing critical stories for giving Thomas Hamilton a firearms cerficate then I can't help you".

My point is it should be a duty of conscience of lawyers, politicians and decent citizens to help the innocents who are in danger by supporting military action to remove the head of state, to have a revolution against the state so that any safety campaigners can swear at the police and publish critical stories when they feel it is right to do so because they ought to have their constitutional right to freedom of expression defended by the state, not attacked.

Lawyers, politicians or citizens who accept the state as is and tell protestors to shut up and just let innocents die if that is what is going to happen are really bad people, morally bad, cowards, unacceptable people you should not want to stand next to at a festival.

Innocents are being killed or left in danger and yet people who support the status quo of no right of freedom of expression are seen to be acceptable as fellow human beings when they are not, not to my mind anyway.

It seems to me that those who go along with this state rule in any way - who don't call for immediate military action against the head of state to change the nature of the state - are simply guilty of complicity in the deaths of innocents caused by such police incompetence and lack of freedom to do anything about it.

Likewise with the students killed in London - possibly the French students were republicans but they weren't killed because they were republicans - they were killed because this kingdom is rubbish and incompetent and puts convicted criminals, violent burglars and potential killers back out on the street who do kill anyone irrespective of age, gender, faith, skin colour, politics, religion etc.

Again any safety campaigner who tries to make the streets safe by protesting too much for the police's liking is arrested, tortured, jailed and again those who excuse the system say it is always the protestors' fault for protesting and not simply sitting back like most apathetic people and let people be killed on the streets or in their own homes.

I think you misunderstand my complaint.

I am not compaining simply that a defamation action was taken against me.

I am complaining that defamation and libels laws are bad and should be constitutionally banned.

In other words, if the people of this country want to vote for defamation laws and libel laws so the courts can put anyone in jail for saying "so and so should not have a police firearms cerificate because he might shoot innocents" - the people should not be allowed to get the law they want.

Defamation or libel laws are a cause for war to change the constitution as far as I am concerned

So my points has nothing at all to do with if I never get sued for defamation again.

It is a complete outrage that ever it can happen that a person is not allowed to express their views because a Queen's judge takes a different view.

Anyone who is sued for defamation or libel and denied their freedom is oppressed and persecuted.

If you believe in defamation laws and libel laws then, to my mind, you believe in persecuting and oppressing people for expressing their point of views.

So the state persecution using defamation and libel laws is not "subjective" to my point of view.

To me it is objective whether you are OK with defamation and libel laws and courts issuing gagging orders or whether you want a bullet in the back of the Queen's head for being a head of state whose state allows the courts to do that.

To me it is objective whether or not the courts are to be allowed to deny freedom.

To me it is objective whether or not we as citzens support war againt this kingdom to stop them persecuting anyone with defamation, libel and gagging orders.

So it is nothing to do with whether the person being sued is "paranoid" or not.

If it everything to do with whether you as a citizen support defamation and libel laws, ever, against anyone. If you do then to my mind objectively you are an oppressor, a persecutor and an enemy of freedom.

If the Queen or the next King or any president allows defamation and libels laws that head of state should be removed by any means necessary.

If the head of state can't be impeached as seems to be the case with Queen Elizabeth then she or he should be removed by military action.

I am not complaining only about who is or might be against my free speech.

Me quoting the newspaper article was just an example of how the defamation and libel laws operate to shut anyone up and stop them saying what they want to say. The bare facts of how courts issue gagging orders and threaten to imprison people for contempt of court for disobeying court orders is all the proof of persecution and oppression I need.

If you understand the principle of gagging orders by the court - to stop publication of defamatory or libellous comments - then fine - forget the case against me. Think about the law. Think about the practices of the courts. That is the issue.

I am talking about not just changing the law but changing the constitution so that never could there be defamation or libel laws allowed, unless it was some kind of law which allowed a right of reply, but didn't stop you making your points in the first place.

A democratic constitution would demand that any courts operating persecution and oppression defamation or libel law would get a head of state impeached, removed or assassinated.

Right now, there is libel and defamation laws in operation and so I think the nations ought to rise up to demand of our national military that the Queen must go into exile or be subject to military attack.

This is what I am saying. I am calling for a war of liberation against the Queen's courts, starting my removing the Queen by all means necessary.

I want the Queen out of the country on the next plane or dead by the morning and it has got nothing to do with if I personally am ever sued for defamation again.

I am not saying "someone is out to get me" in a vague undefined way.

I am in political conflict with anyone, anyone at all, who supports libel and defamation laws.

I am a democratic republican and I bound to be at cold war at least with any kingdom or fascist republic which denies freedom.

It is a war for freedom as far as I am concerned and I don't care if no-one comes for me because I want any republican army to go for the Queen and get her out.

I don't mind if you disagree with my point of view but please at least try to understand what I am saying.

So I am not saying that "people are out to get me" in some kind of vague way.

I am saying that, as a democratic republican, I am out to get the Queen because of her police and courts attacks on freedom.

Is that clear yet?

[Ed209]

Here's a good game to play... I play it myself sometimes..

If you woke up one morning, and everything you wished for was granted, what would you do next?

[russycarps]

Anyone else think Peter has got a secret crush on Queen Elizabeth?

[fred quimby]

Anyone else think Peter has got a secret crush on Queen Elizabeth?

Edited December 15, 2011 by fred quimby

[russycarps]

I think there maybe a mummy complex going on. In his dreams she comes in and spanks him, sends him to bed, but later lets him suckle for a bit of comfort.

Perhaps she was the one many years ago that snuck into his place and made his thesis a bit Sh*t, and he has blamed her ever since

[fred quimby]

I reckon the night before he had to hand it in, instead of proof-reading it he stayed up all night w*nking over his special picture of Liz - this was the days before photoshop so it was just a page from Razzle with a cut out of the queens head sellotaped on it.

He's never forgiven her

Edited December 15, 2011 by fred quimby

[russycarps]

You maybe onto something there, do you reckon he still has a copy and goes and punishes himself every now and then

[fred quimby]

why do you think he takes so long to reply to our posts??

[russycarps]

[Peter Dow]

_{I think Petey is more like Bin Laden than Mandela, lazing around all day long and occasionally getting up to make a web video about killing the Royal Family/The West in the name of their beliefs.}

Edited December 15, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

_{I think Petey is more like Bin Laden than Mandela, lazing around all day long and occasionally getting up to make a web video about killing the Royal Family/The West in the name of their beliefs.}

[Uncle Liam]

Thread going a month now.

I will just echo what Ed said a few days ago, using Dunblane Victims for your own purposes is really quite sick.

So far, you've used Fiona Pilkington, Dunblane, Those two medical students (names escape me) amongst others. Its really distasteful.

[Peter Dow]

Backstabbing and being unreliable in the fight against terrorism is widespread.

Fascist elements in Pakistan, such as the ISI - military intelligence - have been aiding terrorists.

Not forgetting the Queen's government of Scotland releasing the Lockerbie bomber "home to die" supposedly but although 100 million people have died in the world since the Lockerbie bomber was released, the Lockerbie bomber has not yet been one of the deceased.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

Backstabbing and being unreliable in the fight against terrorism is widespread.

Fascist elements in Pakistan, such as the ISI - military intelligence - have been aiding terrorists.

which only gets to prove that the REAL issues are the policies that a person in power pursues, and absolutely naff all to do with monarchies.

Or have you not realised that Pakistan is a republic with a president as a head of state?

[Uncle Liam]

Peter,

why dont you directly address the points that myself and Ed have made, that you exploiting the suffering of the families of the Dunblane Massacre, relatives of Fiona Pilkington etc for your own political purpose is phenomenally distasteful?

Also, tell us exactly what a Scottish National Standard Bearer actually does. Would you put that on your CV?

[Peter Dow]

Yep yep that's fine. It is hard for us to comment on whether you were or were not justly ...

Edited December 15, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Uncle Liam]

You don't get it. I don't have a hard-on for William Wallace.

I have a hard on for Condoleezza Rice.

[kaosmark2]

Get a fucking job!

[Ed209]

Peter,

why dont you directly address the points that myself and Ed have made, that you exploiting the suffering of the families of the Dunblane Massacre, relatives of Fiona Pilkington etc for your own political purpose is phenomenally distasteful?

Also, tell us exactly what a Scottish National Standard Bearer actually does. Would you put that on your CV?

[kaosmark2]

Unfortunately Peter is about 9 days behind in his replies. Which makes any kind of reasonble debate with him impossible. His 20 condi w*nks a day really slows him down, especially because the last two or three take hours.

I expect us to have a response to this at christmas.

[Ed209]

I do find it weird how he posts every day, yet posts things related to posts from over a week ago. While he does post fairly lengthy replies, lots of people put a fair bit of detail in and keep up, across several topics as well.

Peter, why do you reply to posts this way?

[kaosmark2]

And we await the answer in 9 days time .....

[Peter Dow]

I really am no royalist... As far as I concerned we should get rid of the lot of them

Edited December 15, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

awwww you poor love.

Sounds like mummy and daddy didn't prepare you for the big bad world and you seem rather spoilt. (still living at home as well I guess).

Edited December 15, 2011 by Peter Dow