Peter Dow's political defence -v- "criminal tweets" charge

[russycarps]

7 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

Other "gruesome words there in black and white".

"Hold Westminster's feet to the fire" - Alex Salmond

"Brexit battle: top Tories knife the PM"

If you think about these words literally, then holding someone's feet to a fire, or sticking a knife in them are gruesome words. However, if you don't have the sense to understand political rhetoric then you shouldn't be a police officer, prosecutor or Sheriff. We simply can't have good justice with fools running the state.

 

But they are long-established idioms, widely accepted as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words.

Last time I checked the phrase "I will blow your brains out and leave them splattered all over the floor" hasnt quite achieved that status.......

 

[Peter Dow]

17 minutes ago, mjsell said:

If someone said they wanted someone to put ' a bullet in my head' I would feel extremely threatened. Just because the aim of these words is towards someone in a position of priviledge does not change the fact that on a basic level the words are in themselves threatening. I think you are assuming that because the target of your words couldnt give a flying fuck, and presumably doesn't even know about them, the words are not as significant than if they were to an average joe in the street.

Words don't always have the same meaning "in themselves" irrespective of the context. Context matters. Sometimes words are not meant literally, but in a political context, the meaning of the words used in rhetoric is different from the literal meaning.

Hyperbole is very often used by average joes on the street and it is understood as such by the context.

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

deleted

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

11 minutes ago, russycarps said:

But they are long-established idioms, widely accepted as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words.

Last time I checked the phrase "I will blow your brains out and leave them splattered all over the floor" hasnt quite achieved that status.......

 

Well someone's got to start a new idiom sometime. There must have been a first time use for every idiom.

For the particular case of idioms that might be appropriate to use about the Queen and all the deaths and disasters she is guilty of, all the state crimes against the people - then some new more robust idioms should be being thought up and brought into first usage.

Hopefully my original rhetoric and hyperbole will achieve idiom status in due course. My tweets may appear on T-shirts one day!

[Peter Dow]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Peter, if you read some words "I want Peter Dow dead", can you wholely dismiss that as merely hyperbole?

Or, because you don't know anything about the person who said it, is there the intellectual room to believe they might have serious intent?

That's why your defence is unlikely to work.

I suspect you made these arguments to the old bill when you were arrested, and they didn't accept them hence you ended up before a court. While it's not certain a court would take the same view, the likelihood is that they will.

Because the court will take the view that the police must have believed enough intent was there to bring it before the court in the first place. That sort of self-re-enforcement of the establishment is their standard operating manner.

 

Well you've just proved my point. Clearly, you didn't mean the words "I want Peter Dow dead" literally and so I would be foolish to complain to the police about it, right?

[Peter Dow]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I suspect you'd have been found the same 'guilty' by a people's judge in a people's court.

After all, making threats is a crime and you made threats.

Actually, I didn't make "threats".

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

Words don't always have the same meaning "in themselves" irrespective of the context. Context matters.

so does the subjectivity of the reader. You cannot define that subjectivity for them, apart from via the specific words you use.

And seeing as you didn't lead them towards a conclusion of hyperbole, that's not necessarily what they'll subjectively take from your words.

Which is why you were found guilty.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

Actually, I didn't make "threats".

the court says differently, via your conviction.

If you go in there still arguing tomorrow that you didn't make threats, they'll take that as you dis-respecting the court's verdict, and are likely to treat you more harshly with a sentence because of it.

Edited February 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

Well you've just proved my point. Clearly, you didn't mean the words "I want Peter Dow dead" literally and so I would be foolish to complain to the police about it, right?

My words had a whole context to explain them. 

Your tweets did not.

If you can't get that, you need to restart basic reading lessons.

[Peter Dow]

Just now, eFestivals said:

so does the subjectivity of the reader. You cannot define that subjectivity for them, apart from via the specific words you use.

And seeing as you didn't lead them towards a conclusion of hyperbole, that's not necessarily what they'll subjectively take from your words.

Which is why you were found guilty.

"my army" is precisely leading to a conclusion of hyperbole.

The problem arises when you get foolish, ignorant, uneducated police officers taking words literally that only a fool would take literally and that problem is escalated when prosecutors and courts excuse the foolishness of the foolish police officer and make it their own.

[Peter Dow]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the court says differently, via your conviction.

If you go in there still arguing tomorrow that you didn't make threats, they'll take that as you dis-respecting the court's verdict, and are likely to treat you more harshly with a sentence because of it.

I've submitted my reply published here 

Social Enquiry Report (lacks insight) - with Peter Dow's insights annotated

to the court already which precisely argues for tomorrow that I didn't make threats. I don't agree with the court's verdict, think it foolish.

I respect that individuals have a right to their own views, but I can disagree while respecting the rights of fools to be foolish.

What I don't respect is the right of the Queen to impose foolish courts to rule over the people though. That's why I am a republican - so that instead of having to respect foolish courts, we can elect a head of state whose duty it is to see that we don't get ruled by foolish courts.

There is no way I am going to admit to making "threats" when I did no such thing and only a foolish court could come to that verdict.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

My words had a whole context to explain them. 

Your tweets did not.

If you can't get that, you need to restart basic reading lessons.

My tweets had the context of my twitter account which explains that I am a republican socialist and linked to my political website explaining my peaceful politics in great detail.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

"my army" is precisely leading to a conclusion of hyperbole.

or it's alternatively how you're going to follow thru on what you posted.

Even I don't know if you've got an army or not. I presume you haven't, but I don't know with certainty.

 

6 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

The problem arises when you get foolish, ignorant, uneducated police officers taking words literally that only a fool would take literally and that problem is escalated when prosecutors and courts excuse the foolishness of the foolish police officer and make it their own.

It was probably a foolish, ignorant, uneducated 'civilian' who reported it to them, where they are then obliged to take it at the face value of your words.

Which is how it's gone with every other abusive or threatening tweeter who's ended up in court.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

My tweets had the context of my twitter account which explains that I am a republican socialist and linked to my political website explaining my peaceful politics in great detail.

nothing of which was immediately available to anyone seeing the tweet, while the full context was right there in front of you with what I wrote.

They're not the same things.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

I've submitted my reply published here 

Social Enquiry Report (lacks insight) - with Peter Dow's insights annotated

to the court already which precisely argues for tomorrow that I didn't make threats. I don't agree with the court's verdict, think it foolish.

I respect that individuals have a right to their own views, but I can disagree while respecting the rights of fools to be foolish.

What I don't respect is the right of the Queen to impose foolish courts to rule over the people though. That's why I am a republican - so that instead of having to respect foolish courts, we can elect a head of state whose duty it is to see that we don't get ruled by foolish courts.

There is no way I am going to admit to making "threats" when I did no such thing and only a foolish court could come to that verdict.

You'll find that republican courts rule that threats are illegal, too.

 

[Peter Dow]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

or it's alternatively how you're going to follow thru on what you posted.

Even I don't know if you've got an army or not. I presume you haven't, but I don't know with certainty.

 

It was probably a foolish, ignorant, uneducated 'civilian' who reported it to them, where they are then obliged to take it at the face value of your words.

Which is how it's gone with every other abusive or threatening tweeter who's ended up in court.

Well you really should know that only heads of state have their own armies.

On the contrary, the police officers are obliged by the eligibility / essential criteria stated on the Police Scotland website to possess qualities such as

• Strong community and customer focus
• Problem solving skills
• Respect and understanding of equality and diversity

But the detective constable Martyn Thomson (now detective sergeant) who led the investigation didn't have those qualities.

He didn't focus on community and customer. His actions didn't help either community or customer. No-one but police witnesses were mentioned by prosecutors.

He didn't efficiently solve the problem of my tweets, if they were a problem, by for example, asking me to delete the tweets.

He didn't respect and understand republican opposition to the monarchy, didn't treat republicans with equality, our right to be diverse from the mainstream view of support for the Queen.

This officer violated his obligations and violated his duty as a police officer and he should be demoted to a non-detective job. He's not smart enough to be a detective. Maybe he should do traffic patrol - where a useful job can be done even by those who don't understand political rhetoric and hyperbole. The officer could save some lives by keeping the roads safe instead of creating misery for republicans.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

nothing of which was immediately available to anyone seeing the tweet, while the full context was right there in front of you with what I wrote.

They're not the same things.

The phrase "my army" is immediately available to be understood as rhetoric. You don't need to check someone's website to make sure they don't have an army. Unless it was Trump tweeting that, it simply is not reasonable to take it literally.

[Peter Dow]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You'll find that republican courts rule that threats are illegal, too.

 

No problem because my tweets weren't "threats". 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

The phrase "my army" is immediately available to be understood as rhetoric.

Only if the reader knows you're a mouthy but harmless fish.

 

10 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

You don't need to check someone's website to make sure they don't have an army. Unless it was Trump tweeting that, it simply is not reasonable to take it literally.

there was no army for the 'A' in IRA?

[Peter Dow]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Only if the reader knows you're a mouthy but harmless fish.

 

there was no army for the 'A' in IRA?

All but foolish readers should know that twitter users don't, as a rule, have their own armies. Army commander in chiefs are few and far between and that's something every educated person or police officer / prosecutor / judge should know.

I don't command the IRA either. I'm not sure who exactly does, but it is not me. Anyway, they are on cease-fire and having a peace process, right?

I'm not even Irish but Scottish.

Scottish republicans have no tradition of armed resistance. There is no "SRA", no "Scottish Republican Army" and if there was, a civilian like me with no military experience would be the last person they'd ask to command it.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

All but foolish readers should know that twitter users don't, as a rule, have their own armies.

Really?

There's a dead Jo Cox that didn't take an army, it just required someone following thru on their hatred of the current establishment.

Like you display and incite, just in case you're having difficulty joining up the dots.

Edited February 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[Peter Dow]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Really?

There's a dead Jo Cox that didn't take an army, it just required someone following thru on their hatred of the current establishment.

Like you display and incite, just in case you're having difficulty joining up the dots.

Really.

I loved Jo Cox. I'd even have voted for her for British president if we the people were allowed that, assuming of course that she was going to protect the other MPs from a similar fate.

Whose kingdom, whose government failed to provide armed guards for Jo Cox? The Queen's.

Jo Cox and thousands of other innocents are dead because of the Queen's failure as head of state.

My republicanism flows from love  of the people, of the innocents who should have been saved, like the little children murdered in the Dunblane Primary School massacre, killed by a man who was allowed a firearms certificate by this kingdom, by Her Majesty's Government of the day.

L

LOVE and SAVE the INNOCENTS (not the Queen)

The innocents like Jo Cox and the Dunblane children needed a competent elected head of state, a president, who provided armed guards for MPs / MSPs, made schools secure and whose state didn't give firearms certificates to madmen.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

Whose kingdom. whose government failed to provide armed guards for Jo Cox? The Queen's.

There was no particular reason to think Jo needed an armed guard ... because, funnily enough, the threats she'd had she'd brushed off as coming from mouthy but harmless nutters.

Remind you of anyone? 

That aside, I'd hate to live in a country where MPs most people have never heard of require armed guards by default, as you're advocating. I'd much prefer the Swedish version where their PM didn't even have protection (and was murdered).

Edited February 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

....and whose state didn't give firearms certificates to madmen.

and perhaps didn't give the benefit of the doubt to madmen in courts of law, too...?

Peter, you need to stop and think, about everything you do and you're doing.

Edited February 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[Peter Dow]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There was no particular reason to think Jo needed an armed guard ... because, funnily enough, the threats she'd had she'd brushed off as coming from mouthy but harmless nutters.

Remind you of anyone? 

That aside, I'd hate to live in a country where MPs most people have never heard of require armed guards by default, as you're advocating. I'd much prefer the Swedish version where their PM didn't even have protection (and was murdered).

Well that's my point about the Queen. She lets MPs get murdered, doesn't provide armed guards and because I really love Jo Cox and other MPs/MSPs doing their duty, I insist that they be protected. If they don't want the armed guard then don't run for parliament would be my view.

I hate living a country where innocents are expendable but the Queen is to be saved at all costs, including the cost of the lives of innocents.