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

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, russycarps said:

did you ever think you'd live to see the day when peter dow's mug would be front page news? What a time to be alive!

nationalism is standard click-bait for Scots. If you check the Guardian, you'll see that ne2ws there of the SNP gets more comments more quickly than just about anything else the G publishes.

Sadly - for the state of Scottish political intelligence - they're mostly full of idiocy from Nats. For example, there's a new SNP story there today, and as ever, there's people posting that the "once in a generation" thing was just a meaningless off-the-cuff comment by Salmond that meant nothing at all and he shouldn't be held to....

Which only goes to prove how few of the indy supporters bothered to even read the indy white paper their govt published, as it made a clear statement about it in there (plus Salmond said it loads of times, as did Sturgeon).

It's all the same myths repeated endlessly in each thread, with none of them prepared to do facts. If you want to see the brain-dead worst of them, I suggest 'skipsdad'.

(Just to be clear and fair, there's plenty of anti-indy idiots too, and there's some indy supporters who are well clued-up - tho the clued-up ones never ever correct the morons posting the clearly-wrong stuff, presumably because they don't want to risk scaring them off indy if they actually knew the real stuff and not the wrong stuff. Seemingly, the most dedicated indy supporters know there's only a victory to be had by lying to their countrymen)

 

 

[russycarps]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

nationalism is standard click-bait for Scots. If you check the Guardian, you'll see that ne2ws there of the SNP gets more comments more quickly than just about anything else the G publishes.

Sadly - for the state of Scottish political intelligence - they're mostly full of idiocy from Nats. For example, there's a new SNP story there today, and as ever, there's people posting that the "once in a generation" thing was just a meaningless off-the-cuff comment by Salmond that meant nothing at all and he shouldn't be held to....

Which only goes to prove how few of the indy supporters bothered to even read the indy white paper their govt published, as it made a clear statement about it in there (plus Salmond said it loads of times, as did Sturgeon).

It's all the same myths repeated endlessly in each thread, with none of them prepared to do facts. If you want to see the brain-dead worst of them, I suggest 'skipsdad'.

(Just to be clear and fair, there's plenty of anti-indy idiots too, and there's some indy supporters who are well clued-up - tho the clued-up ones never ever correct the morons posting the clearly-wrong stuff, presumably because they don't want to risk scaring them off indy if they actually knew the real stuff and not the wrong stuff. Seemingly, the most dedicated indy supporters know there's only a victory to be had by lying to their countrymen)

 

 

ha I was reading those exact comments earlier on today. Underneath the article about Fallon right? I cant read more than 10 or 15 of them though anymore. As you say, it's the same old circular arguments, from the same old people. It's exhausting reading it. My interest in the subject drained away long ago to be honest. The raving nationalists dont seem to realise that there's much bigger fish to fry these days.

 

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, russycarps said:

ha I was reading those exact comments earlier on today. Underneath the article about Fallon right? I cant read more than 10 or 15 of them though anymore. As you say, it's the same old circular arguments, from the same old people. It's exhausting reading it. My interest in the subject drained away long ago to be honest. The raving nationalists dont seem to realise that there's much bigger fish to fry these days.

yeah, it was the fallon story. Where the most amusing thing was Sturgeon calling him a back-tracker.

Fallon only backtracked from a few too-loose (not thought thru well-enough) words, while Sturgeon has been backtracking ever since she got over-excited the morning after the brexit vote.

And I'm loving her threats. "If you don't do what we want, we'll do something that we want even more" (get the fuck on with it, then), and "do what we want and we'll hold off doing what we really want for a few years" (yeah, cos that would be a real bargain for the UK, to sell itself short to please you who plans to fuck us over anyway).

And all the time she knows if she followed thru, she'd lose. It's not been about indy for a long time, it's been all about Sturgeon trying to save her own political career.

BTW, latest (secret) word from inside SNP HQ is that all these bollocks anyway, as the SNPO no longer want an iScotland to stay in the EU.... tho that's got nothing to do with trying to harvest enough votes for indy, of course.

[Peter Dow]

deleted

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow
deleting

[Peter Dow]

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

I have recently attended at 74-76 Spring Garden, Aberdeen for a few meetings with one of Aberdeen City Council's social workers, a Mr Brian Hourigan, to co-operate with the production of his "Criminal Justice Social Work Report" which I am publishing today, with the addition of my own annotations in red "ink" which offer my clearer insights into the harmless non-threatening hyperbole of my republican rhetorical tweets in contrast to Brian's report which lacks insight doggedly claiming that my tweets were somehow "threatening", which they weren't, of course.

I am appearing in Aberdeen Sheriff Court on Tuesday 21st February (tomorrow) for sentencing.

           Accused Details          Court Ref No            PF Ref No        Court Room

20 Alastair Peter DOW    SCS/2015-060310    AB14008188     Court 1

[russycarps]

threatening

ˈθrɛt(ə)nɪŋ/

adjective

having a hostile or deliberately frightening quality or manner.

 

" One message stated that he wanted to see the “Queen’s brains blown out and her body splattered over the ground”.

Another said: “As a man at war for my freedom against the imposed monarch I want my army to put a bullet in the Queen’s head."

 

hmm.

 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, russycarps said:

 

hmm.

 

yes, indeed. :lol:

[Uncle Liam]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

yes, indeed.

I have to say it's quite the read. 

Rather amusingly, it ultimately all comes back to the looking for love page on the website. 

Which for new people to the board, information on can be found HERE

[russycarps]

4 minutes ago, Uncle Liam said:

I have to say it's quite the read. 

Rather amusingly, it ultimately all comes back to the looking for love page on the website. 

Which for new people to the board, information on can be found HERE

That's a pretty spiteful, bullying article. I'd like to see the person who wrote it, I suspect they are no oil painting.

While I do think peter has to take some responsibility for his words - they were undoubtedly threatening and it is absurd to argue otherwise - I really hope he doesnt talk himself into prison. I have a bad feeling he's not going to let this go and it will all end in tears.

A grovelling apology and promises never to say such things again are the only way forward. Deleting his entire website would also be a good idea (if he hasnt done so already).

A solitary person cannot possibly hope to beat the system.

 

 

[Peter Dow]

2 hours ago, russycarps said:

threatening

ˈθrɛt(ə)nɪŋ/

adjective

having a hostile or deliberately frightening quality or manner.

 

" One message stated that he wanted to see the “Queen’s brains blown out and her body splattered over the ground”.

Another said: “As a man at war for my freedom against the imposed monarch I want my army to put a bullet in the Queen’s head."

 

hmm.

My tweets were hyperbole and could not reasonably be understood to represent a threat, "a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

I stated no intention to do anything other than I had done for years, which is peacefully to oppose the monarchy by such as tweets.

Being a republican, opposing monarchy peacefully in favour of a republic, is not a "hostile action" - otherwise one would have to claim that all politics is "hostile action" and all politics is "threatening", which would be absurd.

hyperbole

hʌɪˈpəːbəli/

noun

 

1. exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

15 minutes ago, russycarps said:

While I do think peter has to take some responsibility for his words - they were undoubtedly threatening and it is absurd to argue otherwise - I really hope he doesnt talk himself into prison. I have a bad feeling he's not going to let this go and it will all end in tears.

A grovelling apology and promises never to say such things again are the only way forward. Deleting his entire website would also be a good idea (if he hasnt done so already).

A solitary person cannot possibly hope to beat the system.

I accept full responsibility for my words which were hyperbole and not "threatening" and therefore not criminal.

It is simply mistaken to take my tweets as "threatening". I was not threatening to do anything and it is absurd to presume my tweets were literally meant, that I was "in command of an army" - clearly my language was hyperbole.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

I accept full responsibility for my words which were hyperbole and not "threatening" and therefore not criminal.

except there's absolutely nothing to indicate they were hyperbole. To any reader they're a clear threat.

Whether or not a court would accept that because you've not followed thru on similar tweets these are similarly harmless I've no idea, but I wouldn't have thought so. They could simply take the view that you've not followed thru to date but would if you got a reasonable opportunity to do so.

[russycarps]

29 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

I accept full responsibility for my words which were hyperbole and not "threatening" and therefore not criminal.

It is simply mistaken to take my tweets as "threatening". I was not threatening to do anything and it is absurd to presume my tweets were literally meant, that I was "in command of an army" - clearly my language was hyperbole.

It does not matter what you intended, the true test of a threat is whether the words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

Unfortunately suffixing conciliatory words to the end of a threat doesnt cancel out the threat.

Try walking up to a copper and saying "I'm going to murder you" Then a few minutes later add "Only joking!" and see what happens.

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by russycarps

[Peter Dow]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

except there's absolutely nothing to indicate they were hyperbole. To any reader they're a clear threat.

Whether or not a court would accept that because you've not followed thru on similar tweets these are similarly harmless I've no idea, but I wouldn't have thought so. They could simply take the view that you've not followed thru to date but would if you got a reasonable opportunity to do so.

Nonsense. "my army" is clearly indicating hyperbole. How many people do you know who have armies? President Trump, is one. The Queen is another. You need to be a head of state before you can say "my army" and be interpreted literally.

As for the “Queen’s brains blown out and her body splattered over the ground”. I never even hinted that I would be the one to blow the Queen's brains out and I am happy to confirm that no, I would not ever do that.

But if some freedom fighter did that, to get justice for the people against the Queen, I would shed no tears, think it a kind of summary justice for all the wrongs the Queen's men have done - the police murders - Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead by police while riding the London Underground, the murders of prisoners in custody that should have been protected by the state, the use of police torture equipment - rigid handcuffs - wrongful imprisonment of innocents, terrible conditions in prisons, half-starved, forced to breathe in smoke of cell-mates, the disasters the Queen was responsible from Aberfan to Dunblane Primary School.

The deaths and misery this Queen is responsible certainly means she deserves justice - ideally being arrested and tried in an international court - but if not that, then people's justice of some kind is what is needed.

None of that is me stating MY intention to do anything other than to make the case against monarchy peacefully.

I am a political activist. My weapons are words, only. But I fight using words for the people to protect them from the evil of this Queen's kingdom and all its tyranny.

[Peter Dow]

6 minutes ago, russycarps said:

It does not matter what you intended, the true test of a threat is whether the words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

Unfortunately suffixing conciliatory words to the end of a threat doesnt cancel out the threat.

Try walking up to a copper and saying "I'm going to murder you" Then a few minutes later add "Only joking!" and see what happens.

 

I didn't make any threat. No reasonable person could feel threatened and the Crown didn't present any witness in court who said they felt threatened.

It is unreasonable to feel threatened from my tweets.

I didn't say I was going to "murder the Queen". I am happy to confirm that no I am not going to murder the Queen or anyone else.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[russycarps]

3 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

I didn't make any threat. No reasonable person could feel threatened and the Crown didn't present any witness in court who said they felt threatened.

It is unreasonable to feel threatened from my tweets.

I didn't say I was going to "murder the Queen". I am happy to confirm that no I am not going to murder the Queen or anyone else.

Please understand I am on your side here, and I agree it is nonsensical to think that the queen is sat cowering on her solid gold throne in buckingham palace.

But this is something you cannot hope to win with logic and reason. The gruesome words are there in black and white. Falling to your knees in supplication, begging for mercy is your only option. 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

Nonsense. "my army" is clearly indicating hyperbole. How many people do you know who have armies?

If you were not making idle threats, you'd probably have that army (or don't you really want to achieve your aims?)

Someone reading that message doesn't know either way, but you say you have one. It's not unreasonable for them to assume you do.

I'm no fan of the old bill, but if you tangle with the man the man will play to his rules and not the rules you'd like him to have.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

No reasonable person could feel threatened

similarly, no reasonable person would write the words you did. 

By writing the words you did, you move things into the unreasonable - where it's not unreasonable to assume you meant it.

[Peter Dow]

14 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Please understand I am on your side here, and I agree it is nonsensical to think that the queen is sat cowering on her solid gold throne in buckingham palace.

But this is something you cannot hope to win with logic and reason. The gruesome words are there in black and white. Falling to your knees in supplication, begging for mercy is your only option. 

Other "gruesome words there in black and white".

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

"Brexit battle: top Tories knife the PM" - the "i"

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.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If you were not making idle threats, you'd probably have that army (or don't you really want to achieve your aims?)

Someone reading that message doesn't know either way, but you say you have one. It's not unreasonable for them to assume you do.

I'm no fan of the old bill, but if you tangle with the man the man will play to his rules and not the rules you'd like him to have.

I wasn't making any kind of "threat" idle or otherwise. It was political rhetoric. The hyperbole gives a strong impression of political opposition but one cannot reasonably take the words literally.

It's just not reasonable to assume I have an army. It is unreasonable to assume I have an army. One cannot reasonably assume that random individuals have armies. That's absurd.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

If you think about these words literally, then holding someone's feet to a fire, or sticking a knife in them is gruesome words.

good luck with arguing equivalence of those with what you tweeted. :lol:

[mjsell]

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.

[Peter Dow]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

good luck with arguing equivalence of those with what you tweeted.

Oh no amount of "good luck" was ever going to matter with the unfair trial by a Queen's judge in a Queen's court. I was found "guilty" as expected.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

I wasn't making any kind of "threat" idle or otherwise. It was political rhetoric. The hyperbole gives a strong impression of political opposition but one cannot reasonably take the words literally.

It's just not reasonable to assume I have an army. It is unreasonable to assume I have an army. One cannot reasonably assume that random individuals have armies. That's absurd.

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.

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:

Oh no amount of "good luck" was ever going to matter with the unfair trial by a Queen's judge in a Queen's court. I was found "guilty" as expected.

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.

Edited February 20, 2017 by eFestivals