Persecuted scientist Peter Dow @ British Science Festival, Aberdeen

The news clippings mostly present the lawyers for the universities point of view. My point of view was not understood or at least not supported by the judge so in his judgement he parrots what the lawyers for the university said, and the language is biased.

Not "disrupted" - intervened to make my protest, to make my points, to raise my issue. The authorities see it as "disruption" because my contribution was not what they planned, it was not what they wanted said or heard, it cut across their attempt to manage the agenda of the publicly advertised meeting so that views like mine which were critical of their management were suppressed.

Not just the university administration in isolation. The administrators employed lawyers to suppress me. The major criticism I was making was of actions of the lawyers and the courts at the behest of the university managers. Yes those legal actions were at the request of the administration so the university managers were in the frame for criticism but you need to appreciate that without the court bans and gag orders the criticism of university administration would have been somewhat moderate in comparison to the language I did use.

Well I was forcibly removed from one meeting at the university and technically that was a criminal assault but the way the management of the university went along with that use of force against me - hired lawyers to get court orders to ban me from the premises, that official force for the common purpose to exclude me from university meetings would be used by the police in future to arrest me for contempt of court then I saw the violent assault against me as done for a common purpose by gangsters, official gangsters, legalised gangsters but gangsters who were violating academic freedom and for whom the term "gangsters" was a fairer description in my opinion than "university administrators".

My understanding of what the criminal law is or should be was that it was criminal to use force to turn a university from a place where academic freedom is respected into a private members club which has contempt for academic freedom and which violently throws academics out.

That was then and is now my view of what the law is or should be. I was speaking my truth and the gag order was to prevent me speaking my truth - to persecute me for expressing my honestly held views.

The legal actions to suppress my freedom I viewed as also by the state whose officials I would also describe as criminals and gangsters. Any good democratic legal system would ban those judges and lawyers from abusing the legal system to suppress civil liberties such as freedom of expression, crush democracy and impose the dictatorship of the state with no effective challenge to state decisions allowed.

If I were president of republic with a written constitution defending the right to freedom of expression I would certainly have sent the army to remove that bad judge and to prevent defamation / gagging order type lawyers from having the power to initiate court actions to suppress freedom of expression.

The state of the kingdom of Scotland in my view is clearly a fascistic gangster state which any self-respecting republican army would move to crush.

The Queen's judiciary and the legal profession, the police, the prisons and so on form a ruling class in Scotland, a self-perpetuating elite of officials and officers of the crown that imposes its rule by force and by imposing terror of the force they could use. These people we call "the state" but it is just the top, biggest, most powerful gang and the people running it could be described as the gangsters who run the state, and they can also be described as "fascists" or in a state that is a kingdom, as "royalists".

Any good legal system would declare these state officials "criminals" and / or sack them for suppressing freedom. However this gang of officials and officers actually control the courts and the administration of the law and they get to decide who is a "criminal" and who is "a judge". So obviously they are not going to agree with my suggestion that they declare themselves as "criminals and gangsters".

Well clearly the parallel is not exact since here I am years later living and breathing which Hitler and the Nazis would not have allowed any of his critics to get away with. So yes the comparison is extreme and not entirely fair but nevertheless there are some aspects of comparison - the use of the state to suppress critics by threatening to jail them. Hitler did jail his political opponents before having them put to death.

So the parallel is not exact but if people ask why I made it that's why and those comparisons were not meant against the principal alone but against the whole machinery of the state, all the little Hitlers who would happily have jailed me for speaking my mind.

Clearly turning a university into a private members club with disrespect for academic freedom is a corruption of the notion of what a university should be. Threatening me into silence I do think is evil. I was and am trying to do good and if you oppose the doing of good as the Queen's state does, that is "evil" in my book. We have in Scotland an evil state that corrupts universities by suppressing academic freedom and makes them no better than private members clubs. It's very damaging for society to allow this. It's important that someone explain this. It has been a persecution of me all these years to prevent me from leafleting about my views.

As I have explained a few times already in this thread, the potential "killing" was never said to be potential "murder" but potential manslaughter, potential involuntary homicide. Suppressing academic freedom is a very reckless act which endangers lives. It is very difficult to quantify how many lives Scottish and British universities could have saved if the state did not suppress academic freedom but advances in medical science can save millions of lives so we could be talking about manslaughter on the scale of a holocaust even though there was never any intention to hurt a fly. People lash out to suppress academic freedom and I am trying to raise the alarm in society to explain how foolish and dangerous it is to do so - and have been persecuted for my caring act of humanitarian concern.

Well you say that as if you have respect for the libel or defamation laws and practices of the court to suppress freedom of expression and you say that as if you have contempt for the the legal support for freedom in such statements as the USA's 1st amendment to the constitution of the United States of America and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which defend freedom of expression.

The libel laws and practices of the courts suppress freedom, allow mismanagement which leads to death and disaster and are an evil imposition by the the class of lawyers which trust itself and hates anyone outside the law from saying they got it wrong.

If you are supporting libel laws then you are doing a bad thing for humanity, possibly the worst thing you have ever done. Sorry I don't mean to upset you but people need to wake up to their wrong prejudices that the courts can be trusted to allow things that should be allowed to be said and trusted to suppress things that ought to be suppressed. That is a very wrong view because those defamation / libel laws do a lot of damage such as prevented the disarming of the man who shot kids dead in the Dunblane Primary School massacre because the newspapers were intimidated by the prospect of being sued for defamation by the gunman if they said he was thought to be a danger.

The libel laws prevent absolutely urgent political action to overrule decisions of the state which endanger life. If you support libel /defamation then you are allowing the state to be reckless and stupid and those who know better have to bite their tongue and watch people die.

The libel laws really are evil. Please think about this. It is a matter of life and death.

Yes but if someone works as a doctor for 40 years then he/she is taking up the time of his/her patients for 40 years. It doesn't mean the time spent working as a doctor is time wasted!

It is prejudice to say that all I did for 2 or 3 years is a waste of time. If I raised the vital issue for 2 or 3 years I did marvellous work for 2 or 3 years and it is an outrage that that life-saving work against the lethal libel laws was suppressed after that.

Many people such as yourself I suspect have lived in ignorance of how libel laws kill people. I could have saved so many lives if could have been allowed to get people to understand that instead of being suppressed.

It is not a surprise that people who think themselves so clever, well informed and doing something useful for society don't want to discover that what they do and believe in terms of suppressing freedom is actually very harmful to society. They don't want to learn that. They don't want to change their view. They don't want to admit all the harm they have let happen with their ignorance.

People will move heaven and earth to save face, to not admit to their failings and the failings of those they look up to.

Godwin's law is wrong. Those who refuse to learn and to apply the lessons of history of what can go wrong in society are doomed to make the same mistakes.

Godwin is not big and not clever. It is for people who are as stupid as those who allowed the Nazis to come to power to save face. You don't get to save face! Stupid people allowed the rise of the Nazis and people just as stupid as them are posting on forums wanting to save face by dismissing an accusation that they could be that stupid. Yes they are that stupid.

Democracy means government by all the people which needs free speech. Libel actions, gagging orders do block political action.

Who knows perhaps the leaflets I was giving out criticising the university could have been the basis of the starting of a political party but since the leaflets were banned yes that political action was blocked.

But political parties are not all there is to a democracy - you also need freedom of expression for the people to inform each other about how harmful their courts, universities and political parties are being to society so that the people can organise themselves politically to make the changes to the law and government which are needed.

You can't have a proper democracy without freedom of expression. There is no proper democracy in Scotland or the UK because there is no freedom of expression because of the libel laws and the courts suppressing freedom.

The UK is not a democratic country - the name of the country is "The United KINGDOM" and kingdoms are where kings or queens rule not where the people rule.

The people are being tricked and lied to by those who say this is a democracy with no problems rather than this country should be a democracy but isn't allowed to be by the state, because it is a kingdom, because the Queen's judges suppress freedom of expression.

Gag orders are almost always wrong and the first instinct of any educated person ought to be to distrust any gag order.

If you are saying you support many gag orders and not some - we don't agree. For me this is about all gag orders. You can't give these judges this power and expect a free country.

Oh well one can write to one's member of parliament and nothing gets done. If you want something done you have to go public and be political about it or sometimes if you are rich you can hire a lawyer to take legal action but often people cannot afford to do that and so ought to be free to make their case in public.

It is worthless to say "you have a right to complain" but when you do publicly and embarrass the powers that be they threaten to jail you!

The kingdom does not give the people a "right to complain" it keeps for itself the right to suppress complaints.

We need a republican revolution. We need a president with a republican army to force the courts to defend freedom.

There's no solution to this by keeping the Queen. If the Queen stays innocents will die. That's just how it is.

I know people don't mean to kill innocents but by backing the Queen that is really what they are doing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Although that's your reply to my post and one might think of that as an invitation for me to respond and answer your points, there is for me the vital issue of your support for my jailing that takes priority.

How on earth could we be having this conversation, at all, if I was in jail as you appear to support?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It appears you don't have a strong command of how the English language is used. She was saying, that if she had been in the university's shoes she would have jailed you sooner. In case that is still over your head, If Bells had been an administrator at the university you are persecuting, during the time that you were "campaigning against them", she would have had far less patience and tolerance for you and would not have waited three years to file charges against you in court. Considering many people only attend university for 4 years, it is sad to know that so many people spent 75% of their university life having to dodge your insanity on the campus grounds. I am sure you caused many of them unnecessary anxiety that may have affected their ability to concentrate on their studies and could plausibly led to lower grades for them as a result. but you are too selfish to consider any of that, aren't you? YOUR problems are so much more important than anyone else's.

And if I were in Bell's shoes, oh wait I am, I would prefer you stop your BS, grow up, get some help, and figure out what was wrong with your dissertation so that whatever skill you have in science isn't completely lost to your insanity. maybe if you chill out and make an honest effort to understand the flaw in your dissertation, then try to correct it and resubmit it, you might be able to redeem yourself. But at this point, it seems you have dug yourself such a hole that you will not likely ever recover from it and it is no one's fault but your own. Congratulations, you ruined your life.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bhahhahahaha!!!!:roflmao:


(BRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIP!!!!)

"Mac!!!! You just farted! that's so gross!"

"No, I didn't fart, I employed my abdominal muscles to expel a waste mixture of air and sulfur dioxide from my lower intestine."

"Dude....that's what a fart is!"

"No, it's not."

 

I really wish we could rate people's posts, that was classic. Gotta love it.

 

Here's something for you Peter, you might enjoy.

"Braveheart meets Metal" by the insanely talented 331Erock:

[video=youtube;UK-5Qzv-A9k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK-5Qzv-A9k&feature=relmfu[/video]

 

No actually in the legal action case, regarding the university of Aberdeen, I never disrupted student classes but made interventions at publicly advertised meetings open to the public. I also got a 1200 signature petition signed by mostly Aberdeen University students in support of my freedom of expression and against the court action to gag me.

At RGU, there was no legal action, I simply asked orderly questions of the lecturer in class and no more than was appropriate, perhaps one or two questions per lecture at most. I also stood for election as National Union of Students representative for Robert Gordon University and got about 1/3 of the student votes. It is false to claim that I was "disrupting and unpopular" with RGU students but of course you are happy to say something that is untrue. It is a vicious malignant smear you invented that students "might not have felt free to move around campus as they might have wished to". You are so full of hate you are just making things up to smear me some more. Shame on you. You are no scientist interested in the truth. You are more like the persecutors of the 16th century who burned people at the stake such is your vile mood against someone like me.

Of course, if you had your way I would not be able to explain that - I would be in prison and you could mislead everyone here about what I did and no-one could contradict you. That's how suppression works. That's how people like you get away with it. The lies that are told can't usually be contradicted.

Except this time.

 

I did actually. Thanks! :bravo:

 

And you present your own. I don't see what you are expecting to accomplish here. You are presenting your side. The court heard your side as well as the side of the university administration. They had much more information available to them on which to base a ruling than anyone you contact on the internet does 20 years later. Nobody here has any basis on which to disagree with the legal rulings made against you. In the absence of such information, we're going to side with the court judgements just by default.

From your description, "disrupted" actually sounds pretty accurate.

You are not only alive and well but are or were living on state benefits and are visibly enjoying unrestricted internet access. I point this out because I think that if Queen and country were really dead set on suppressing you, but felt squeamish about outright murdering you, they could probably quite easily and effectively suppress you by terminating your benefits and/or internet access. They may also be able to imagine ways of threatening your website (e.g. when I first loaded your forum I noticed it started playing a music track - do you own or have you licensed the rights to use it?). Imagining a Hitler that elects not to gas you is one thing. But a Hitler that actually pays you state benefits and doesn't try to restrict your internet access? Seriously? You've endured legal slaps on the wrist compared with what Holocaust victims suffered.

As James R nicely put it, universities really do work like private members' clubs in some important ways, in particular with regard to the importance they place on credentials and publication records and the opinions of other established academics. Within universities, you are a qualified academic if your host university and other academics recognise you as one, which normally happens after you spend many years building up that position and reputation. Academia is a meritocracy: everyone's opinion is not accorded equal weight.

As I have said - and you have agreed - your rights end where they infringe upon the rights of others, including the freedom of others not to have to listen to you, freedom from harassment, and freedom from defamation and libel. An immediate consequence of that is that you do not have arbitrary and unrestricted freedom of expression. Having agreed to that, you can't keep posting the same old rhetoric about being denied freedom of expression. It might sound like a great tagline in your favourite movie, but in the real world it very much matters how and in what manner you went about expressing yourself. The laws and practices you are complaining about exist to protect those rights of others.

Given that libel and defamation laws and the existence of such a thing as a gag order exists both in the United States and throughout the European Union, I'd say the Americans and the European Parliament don't share your interpretation of their own fundamental rights charters.

I don't think your conclusions are warranted. There are literally so many things wrong with your arguments that I don't know where to start. In your many sweeping accusations of police incompetence and suppression of information, I get the uncomfortable impression you are really ranting more about your own personal experience than the results of an impartial investigation into what went wrong in the events leading up to this tragedy. If that's the case, your perversion of this tragedy into propaganda and fuel for your own persecution complex disgusts me.

This is silly. By your argument, protons, neutrons, and electrons cannot exist because the word "atom" derives from Latin and Greek for, respectively, "smallest particle" and "indivisible". The UK still has a monarch but is not an absolute monarchy as your description seems to suggest. The UK has been governed by a constitutional monarchy for over 300 years that has seen the reigning monarch's power systematically diminished and transferred to parliament. The British monarchy today is a vestigial relic of what it once was with little real political power and which now holds a largely ceremonial position. How can you possibly live in the UK and not know this?

In case you hadn't noticed, you are the only person I've seen openly call for anyone's death here.

 

See....this is what I don't understand. I'm a Texan, and have never even been to the UK, but I know the Queen is just a figurehead, with no real power. Parliament makes all the laws...the Queen is just an old lady who knights people and attends ceremonies. Yet Peter's rants are all directed at the queen...why is that? Why not rant against the prime minister or Parliament?

 

Because in Peter's world, he's too important to be persecuted by the parliament alone. It has to be the queen behind all of this. Anything less would be insulting.

 

if i may not so humbly suggest that, although i understand that anger at unfair treatment can be overwhelming, the documents i perused show one Peter Dow as exhibiting a very very high level of polemicism, or perhaps an understandable hostility. Reminds me of the study on monkey fairness, where the monkey throws away their reward because they are so upset at not being treated fairly - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html

It is easy for people who have not had their hard work thrown in the trash to to say, "I would have been more reasonable in that situation instead", and probably we would have, but I have to say I am sympathetic towards these unfortunate events and hope sometime that the situation can be resolved peacefully.

I would also like to suggest that perhaps Mr. Dow can take comfort in claiming solidarity with many great minds who were just a little too far out of the box for institutionalized learning centers (auguste rodin comes to mind).

 

Her Imperial Majesty Queen Victoria, no less.

 

i am not defending that behavior, even beyond that, it is also possible that rodin just wasn't very good yet when he applied, just as perhaps Mr. dow deserved failure based on his work. I just feel that even if a person was autistic or socially inept, or had touretts or whatever, the school could reconcile with such a person. Of course, that would require much different tactics on the part of mr dow.

I would agree that the evidence looks pretty convincing that Dow made some pretty serious mistakes in this process - I was just throwing out ideas, since i don't know whether any of the complaints Dow made were valid.

 

Your example would set just fine except that Mr. Dow has said he doesn't mind that his dissertation was failed. Either he is lying or he is delusional. Either way he has displayed the characteristics of a paranoid delusional conspiracy theorist who is potentially dangerous considering he has said he would support the assassination of the queen. He shot any hope of getting anyone to hear him out on anything at that point. In any country, threatening the head of state with assassination is grounds for imprisonment.

I'm surprised mods have not banned him and deleted this thread. I have seen similar action against individuals who just hint at wanting the US President to have a bad day.

 

I didn't see that he said he didn't care about being failed, but is that really honest? Man protests excessively not getting degree, and says he doesn't mind the thing that stopped him from getting his degree. I guess i didn't read all the supporting docs thoroughly. Perhaps i was too hasty in just supposing if someone wouldn't be such an asshole they might get further in life, and it is much deeper than that.