Persecuted scientist Peter Dow @ British Science Festival, Aberdeen

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by Peter Dow, Sep 8, 2012.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You went further than merely criticise the powers that be though, didn't you?

    From your own link to your website, the newspaper clippings you provided, details your reaction to their failing your thesis. In short, you got so bad, they had to seek an injunction order against you, which you appear to have breached. The reason behind said injunction order is because you had been deemed a nuisance, since you had taken it upon yourself to disrupt the running of the university, meetings, etc and started a one man war against the university and its staff.

    There comes a point where a line is crossed and you appear to have crossed that line.

    Labeling people child killers, because they fail your thesis is extreme and slanderous.

    The court didn't silence you. It just asked you to adhere to the university's ruling and to not trespass anymore. And this campaign of yours had been going on for 2 to 3 years? The court didn't silence you. You silenced yourself by your actions and behaviour. And I can assure you, a Bill of Rights would not have allowed you to do what you did. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech does not give you the right to slander people or to harass people and organisations. It would also not have ensured that you passed your thesis.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    I'm with Bells....seems to me from reading your website, you go looking for trouble, and when you find it, you cry foul.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Until you can concisely state the facts of what you did and what others did, you have no credibility, certainly not as a scientist.

    All I'm getting here is absurdity. If that's you in the photo, you certainly appear to be mature. But your posts are childish. You seem utterly incapable of stating your grievance. So far all I'm hearing from you is that you are a victim. I don't believe it. Most cases of true victimization begin with the victim making a clear concise statement of the complaint. In a true instance of righteous indignation you would simply say, for example: "I paid my fees, but they put in their pocket and walked away without entering into the record that I had paid."

    You seem to want to raise a question of law, although I still have no idea what the facts are. For a person steeped in science I can only wonder if you ever attempted to do any legal research. For example, can you confirm that in Scotland, when a student enrolls in an institution of higher learning, that the right of free speech is retained? I doubt it. I believe you surrender this by contract. For example, you may be asked to remain silent during a lecture. You may be restrained from disturbing the peace of the students and faculty when they are working. And so on. I'm quite certain you have seen rules posted, or read them in rule books, or had them uttered to you by people in charge. All of these you agreed to do when you paid your fees and signed anything that references university rules.

    So far you strike me as a lawyer's equivalent of a pseudoscientist. That is, you seem to want to impose on the law a definition which does not comport with its true nature. Law is based on rules. There is a top-down system which defaults to the local rules when you are in the jurisdiction of a local entity. You seem to be naive about this. I assume the campuses you attended had something like a campus police dept. This would certainly be a clue. The presence of any law enforcement officers on or near a campus is not happenstance or arbitrary. There's a rational explanation for paying those people's salaries. I think even the janitors who clean the toilets on campus can snap to that, even those who have no academic accomplishments under their belts.

    So where's the beef, man? So far all I'm getting is milk-toast.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Ineffective criticism can be and often is ignored by the powers-that-be. Only when you begin effectively to expose their incompetence do they take action to nip your revolutionary revelation in the bud.

    There's much more detail there of the judge's ruling and viewpoint than how I would describe matters.

    For authoritarians whose authority hangs on the thread of suppression of effective criticism, all effective criticism is seen as "bad" and worthy of suppression.

    No they didn't have to. They chose to.

    Well for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men and women to do nothing. I tried to disobey the order but the state is more powerful than I.


    "nuisance", "disrupt" and "one man war" are pejorative terms which I reject. I was merely attempting to exercise academic and civil freedoms which as I found out, do not exist for citizens in Scotland under the kingdom and its monarch Elizabeth.

    I sought no more than a properly functioning university where matters of academic and administrative issue can be openly and freely debated and discussed.

    The point is when you begin to win the argument against the powers-that-be and they see the political threat and move to exterminate it.

    The phrase was "potential child killers" and the killing I had in mind was never murder but manslaughter or involuntary homicide, equivalent to killing someone while carelessly or recklessly driving a car - no intention to kill, but deaths occur because of the careless or reckless action.

    Again, the issue for me was never the failing of the thesis. The issue was the banning from university and the gagging orders which were actions of the courts at the request of the lawyers for the university managers.

    If we have open universities with academic freedom, if we have the civil liberty of freedom of expression then we can all do our best to advance medical science and save lives which otherwise would be lost.

    If the state oppresses those freedoms then our universities cannot properly function without academic freedom, our hospitals and economy generally do not perform to the best and more lives are lost.

    If stupid people call the shots inside and outside universities and clever people can say nothing about it then we as a society will perform less well, people who otherwise would have lived will die.

    It did. I was terrorised into stopping giving out leaflets, terrorised into abandoning my campaign to be allowed back onto the premises of Aberdeen University.

    The court was not "asking" it was demanding. The threat was imprisonment if I did not obey.

    It is a perverse disregard of the true idea of a "university" to paint it, as you are doing, as a private organisation with no required legal duties to support academic freedom and instead an absolute right to suppress academic freedom by banning any academic for being outspoken as to their opinions on academic and administrative matters, a right to name any person as "trespasser" and have them removed.

    What you are describing is a "private members club" which is not what a university is or ought to be. A university ought to have a legal duty to behave as a university. The managers ought to have no legal power to mismanage a university as a private members club.

    Yes.

    It did.

    On the contrary, my voluntary behaviour was outspoken and publishing. My silencing myself was due to being terrorised by the prospect of imprisonment.


    One also needs a president of a republic who will insist on those rights being upheld by the courts and who will use the power of president as commander in chief to call upon the army to arrest any judge who is treating the bill of rights with contempt.


    I was and am telling my truth as I see it. It was their view that it was slander or defamation. In a free country, both sides would be free to make their arguments. I was not free to make mine. It's not a free country.


    For the third, at least, time, the passing or otherwise of my thesis, was not the issue that concerned me.
     
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    What we have here is a professional martyr.
     
  9. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Is the university in question state run, or is it privately owned?
     
  10. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    I go through life trying to make a difference for the better. When the state threatens to jail me for doing so, I cry "foul".
     
  11. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    Let me ask you this, do you believe anyone should be able to express themselves under any and all circumstances?
     
  12. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Well, Peter...I'm from Texas, so when I said hello to you, I told you all I know about Scotland...except y'all make the best damn whiskey in the world.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here in the states we have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, but that freedom is not absolute. If I want to protest in downtown Dallas, I first have to go to city hall and get a permit. If I protest without a permit, the cops can tell me to leave. If I refuse, they will forceably remove me, and if I resist, they will probably arrest me. If I decided to set a protest on your front lawn, on your private property, you can call the cops and have me removed, because I don't have a right to be on your property without your permission. I'm also not allowed to go door-to-door, passing out flyers at 3am. There are limits to free speech for good reason.

    From what I've read, you seem to think you should be able to do or say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you want.
     
  13. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    I have already concisely stated the facts. I can explain further for those with comprehension problems but the very act of adding to my earlier concise statements will make the totality of my statements less concise overall though it will make the initial statement of facts no less concise and indeed clear for those who have adequate English comprehension abilities.

    My grievance is the persecution I have endured and expect to endure
    - the ban from both universities of Aberdeen and
    - the gag against campaigning to reverse the ban
    - the terrorism of living in a kingdom whose courts treat my liberties and other people's liberties with contempt.

    Then also hear that if any scientist is persecuted and not allowed to do his / her work then the benefits of that potential work is lost to society and all society is made a victim of the persecution of one scientist.

    Then join my persecutors. They are many and I am one.


    Done.

    I am a Scot yet the Queen's courts took my freedom. (See "Braveheart")

    Well I am no lawyer yet the law is at its most useful when it can be understood by any educated person.


    I have stated the relevant facts. You are turning a blind eye to the facts or their relevance.

    I did do some legal research many years ago and it is a long time since I looked at it but as I vaguely recall there is a Universities (Scotland) Act of the U.K. Parliament which gives power to manage the university as a university but there seemed to be no power to mismanage as a private members' club suppressing academic freedom.

    I would add that even if there were a Universities can be run as private members' clubs (Scotland) Act then I would like to have freedom to campaign against that law as it would be very harmful to destroy the notion of universities as places to host academic freedom.

    Well I am not a lawyer but I do have a strong political belief in freedom, that whatever the law is, one ought to be free to hold forth on the law as it is or how it is implemented by the courts, what the law ought to be.

    The beef is a constitutional beef. That whatever the law is it ought not to infringe upon certain constitutional rights that people believe they ought to have - such as freedom of expression - rights and freedoms our nations have fought to defend against enemies domestic and foreign.

    If I am denied freedom, if I am persecuted into silence then it's a constitutional issue for me.
     
  14. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    I don't think there can be a professional body or trades union for martyrs since by definition martyrs have died for their beliefs.

    "Martyr"? Oh come on now, it's not as if they have burned me at the stake like they did Giordano Bruno.

    Mine is a persecution de luxe style, with a comfy arm chair and internet connection.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    There is law as I mentioned, the Universities (Scotland) Act and the universities have royal charters wherein the kingdom says words to the effect of "Yup, you're a university OK" but probably in medieval language.

    In practice though, the state always calls the shots because the state courts decide who is the legal owner of things or is legally allowed to govern nominally "self-governing" things.
     
  16. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    No. If an authoritarian's views are oppressive to others, prevent others expressing their own views then I don't defend that authoritarian's attempt to suppress.
     
  17. Peter Dow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Well if you as a Texan are happy with the way the state manages your rights then I see no reason as a Scot to question the set up there.

    Well I have tried to be specific about what I wanted to able to do, to say, where and when. I haven't asked for the freedom to shout "FIRE!" in a cinema causing a stampede.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Not to me.
    In all of that you could have simply said "The university ....". In case you haven't noticed, I'm asking you to state only the facts, without any conclusions.

    A conclusion, not a fact.
    A fact. But I am asking why you were banned.
    "campaignining" is too vague to render this as a fact. Just say what you actually did.
    This is tantamount to a conclusion to any outsider who has no facts, since it's too vague to determine what specifically happened.
    I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't there. You are forcing me to digest your personal lexicon. Are you by any chance having some other problem?
    That's absurd. How can you possibly associate me with "your persecutors"?
    OK if you say so. You're driving this train.
    I'm trying to figure out if you took your own freedom. I don't have the facts.
    Here I'm proposing that you may be mistaking the law. I believe it's like any matter of science to investigate it.
    No, I simply did not wish to reply to the prompt on your link. So I still have an open mind.
    Then you may want to go to a more fundamental question, which is the one I raised: did you or did you not surrender some portion of your constitutional rights during enrollment? For example, are you not prohibited from running down the halls naked, screaming "Long live the Queen!" while classes are in session? Is that not an exercise of free speech? How then may this right be lawfully denied? That's the kind of question you might want to explore.

    "Campaign" can mean a shooting war or handing out flyers at the school entrance. I have no idea how you were restrained. And I have no idea how your academic freedom was taken from you.

    You might want to look into it. You are raising a question of law here, which is why I mention it.

    Here again I'm questioning whether any institution, or even any employer, can be guilty of a constitutional tort for imposing certain restrictions on students. The test would be whether the restriction is rationally related to the normal operating procedures of that institution. A restaurant might require that you be fully dressed upon entering. Is that an unconstitutional deprivation of a civil right? Of course not.. Why? Because it's normal to go to dinner fully dressed, or because there are hygiene considerations in the proximity of food, etc. These are what we mean by "rationally related" to normal procedure.
    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    All I've been able to figure out is that you got kicked out of school. I'm not able to figure out the rest.
     
  19. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    Am I the only person who sees the OP's whole cause and thinks of this?
     
  20. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    So you believe that ONLY those in authority should have limits on their expression?
     
  21. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    Though metaphorically that is exactly what you have done.


    Numbers added by me to simplify the response.

    1. You have shown this to be justified.
    2. You have shown this to be justified.
    3. This is the crying fire in a crowded cinema, you are deluded, which justifies the judges order for a psychological evaluation. If you are not crazy, why not prove it by getting the psych eval. Worried you may fail?
     
  22. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    You are not being persecuted. You were prosecuted for violating the rights of others. You are trying to prevent the University from expressing their opinion of your work. They are not obligated to support work they do not believe in. If my child, has a dream to become a politician with an agenda I do not agree with, I am under no obligation to contribute money or a platform to support her campaign. She can continue to campaign in any legal manner that she chooses but I do not have to support it with money or words publicly made. I also then have the right to not allow her to campaign on my property. I am not obligated to allow her to put her campaign signs on my front yard or to talk to her siblings who live at home in an attempt to persuade them to her views. She may talk to anyone anywhere else so long as she does not slander me. If she violates my right to express my opposition to her views by trespassing on my property and harassing the residents of my home, I can press charges against her and she will be ordered by the courts to cease and desist. at that point the court takes control of the situation and any violation of the court order is then a higher crime and worthy of jail time for disobedience.

    Your dissertation failed. That is your fault. You have said yourself that you don't mind that they failed your paper. If you don't mind, then what was the motivation for the harassment and slander? They did not harass or slander you, they only rejected your dissertation. They did not ban you based on that rejection. They banned you for your abhorrent reaction to having had your dissertation rejected. Why don't you get that? Do you think you are the first to have a dissertation rejected? I imagine many successful scientists have had their ideas rejected. What do they do? Go back to the drawing board. Ask for help in understanding why your thesis is flawed. Examine yourself. You are after all human, right?
    If only this meant you were done whining...
    the facts you have stated incriminate you, no one is turning a blind eye to it at all.
    Maybe you should find out for sure. Rather than continuing to waste everyone's time fighting against a law that might exist. Next you may suggest that we all take chemotherapy treatments because we might get cancer some day.

    Your idea of academic freedom would give way to teachers who want to teach that 2+2=6 and that gravity is imaginary, and that it is safe to drink bleach. There is a certain amount of integrity that our institutions of learning must represent which means they have to adhere to consistent standards. What kind of world would we live in if anyone could become a doctor because they passed courses where bad science were taught. Suppose your doctor got his degree from a school that allows such academic freedom and he was convinced that you could live without a heart. and that was his proposed solution to a case of angina. Heart messing up? No problem we'll just remove it then it wont hurt anymore.
     
  23. Gorlitz Iron Man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Hi Peter, I read your post earlier today it seems since then you've had lots of replies, I've also read your posts on thescienceforum. I'd like to say that I don't see any point whatso ever in offering criticism to anyone that feels they are, or describes them self as persecuted. So with this in mind please accept all my further comments in constructive spirit that they are mean't.

    First off I'd like you to ask yourself a few questions, what I you actually hoping to acheive? Have you been successful with your current approach in acheiving this goal? How do you feel you can improve the way others perceive you and your cause?

    The reason I would ask you to do this self analysis is to help you to understand your current level of progress and also so that you might be able to move foward in a possitive way.

    The way you have described your treatment and the derision you receive seems to strongly suggest that you have a credibility problem. This is a difficult kind of problem because whilst ever your credibility is in question you will are not going to find that people take you, your ideas or your cause serioulsy. This is not a critisism! This is merely an observation of a problem that you have to overcome.

    So just how do you go about tackling this credability issue? Well I would suggest your starting point is identifying just why people are not taking you seriously.
    Is this because of your approach, is it the issues themselves, maybe they don't find you're suitably qualified for an opinion on subject of cause.

    Ok right before you tell me it's because they don't like being challenged, yes I agree with you but I would also say that most people don't like being challenged. However it seems most people don't seem to be subjected to the same levels of persecution that you are feeling. This would suggest that one of the aspects in which you can improve your credibility with, is learning how other people can make challenges in a manor that doesn't lead to suffering adverse consequences.

    Again here though I would ask you to do some self analysis, do you wish to continue on the way you are going or look at how you can impove things. The more honest and realistic you can be with yourself the greater the possibility for improvement.

    Ok right, lets look at other ways you can improve your cedibility. There's the saying 'No man is an Island' and this is useful to remember. In the modern world we live it's very hard to do or acheivement anything truely by yourself, you need support. You need people that understand what you are trying to acheive and why.
    Again usually though in order to persuade people to support you they have to like you and they have to believe in you. This all comes down to being honest about yourself and taking a possitive approach.

    I would also maybe ask you to consider trying to step back a bit, perhaps whilst you're working on restoring your own credibility you should give yourself time to consider which issues are really important to you and who you ask to help you and your cause.

    ****** I don't like the idea that anybody feels like they are, or have been, persecuted. I would offer the same advice to anybody in your situation, regardless of their cause, or whether I felt it had merit or not. The world we live in expects us to behave in the correct way and to maintain a level of professionalism in order to succeed. I hope that you manage to turn things around, improve your situation and no longer feel persecuted. ******
     

Share This Page