To everyone reading this forum. This does not follow as a reply to my quote. Then you must use you brain to elicit the facts from my facts plus conclusions. You quoted only an introductory phrase to a list of facts you did not quote. Banning me was not my idea and I do dispute the logic of their stated reasons for banning me. I gave a link to quotes of their stated reasons. I am repeating myself here but I have added another direct link to the image of one of the scan-ins to see if that helps you more. At that link you should be able to find a scan-in of a newspaper clipping entitled "Former student faces prison after campaign. University: Interdict failed to halt accusations". (re: the University of Aberdeen) appeal papers I submitted to the Robert Gordon University (the other university in Aberdeen) Students Disciplinary Appeals Committee The correct answer to the prompt is "Braveheart". Speaking to people, giving out leaflets. Although I was not arrested and imprisoned as regards the particular court case to enforce the ban and gag, only threatened with arrest and imprisonment by the courts, I have been terrorised by arrests and imprisonment on other occasions, as per the examples I gave earlier. I am talking about when the state denies any scientist the civil liberties we need to defend academic freedom in universities and other places scientists might work, then the scientist cannot do his or her work. Scientists do require to be allowed onto the university premises where equipment and colleagues can be matched up for scientific research and development. If the scientist is booted out by university or research centre by administrators, has his or her reputation as a scientist wrecked (Reference - "we could not even stand him on the premises") and he or she is not allowed to defend his or her reputation by criticising the bad decision of incompetent managers to boot him or her out then his or her career can be permanently wrecked, however good a scientist he or she might be. All the potential good work the scientist might have done had he or she been allowed that freedom to speak in defence of his or her potential is lost. All of society doesn't get the benefit of new good scientific knowledge gained or newly applied, in medicine, in engineering, in all aspects of the economy. My persecutors do not believe that I should be entitled to freedom of expression, they do not believe that I am a victim of persecution in having my freedom to express myself suppressed. I am saying if you too believe that, then you join them in sharing that belief. I would not wish to put myself in Her Majesty's prison under any circumstances. It is always the authorities who decide to do that. It is perverse to blame the prisoner for imprisoning himself or herself. It is perverse to blame a person who feels forced to obey a court order for fear of the imprisonment which may follow if he or she does not obey the order. There was no mistaking the threat to imprison me. The newspapers did not mistake the threat - they reported it. I was fully clothed and only spoke as loud as I needed to be heard. It is apparent that in practice we in Scotland are afforded no constitutional rights by the Queen's courts. But I do not surrender my view of what my constitutional rights ought to be. Nothing I said or did prevented the university from functioning as it ought to. Suppressing my contributions on campus did prevent the university from functioning as it ought to. As for exploring the law, I am not a lawyer and have no wish to be one. It is simple, if I am not free but subjugated, oppressed and terrorised by the state then I want a different head of state who will deliver my freedom. If it is not a free country I want a president with a republican army at his or her back who will make it a free country. I did only the latter, but it was a university not a "school". By court orders with the threat of imprisonment if I did not obey. Well I was not allowed to give out leaflets about my view of the law, or what it ought to be. I was told by the court not to do that on pain of imprisonment. Well clearly there was a difference between the managers' view and my view of what normal operating procedure should amount to. Further, I was not allowed to speak or publish about my view on pain of imprisonment. I am talking about I want to live under a constitution that allows me freedom of expression. As there is imposed upon me and other Scots a constitutional monarchy whose courts deny me freedom of expression then I want the constitution changed, reformed, overthrown by revolution, regime-changed, whatever it takes. I want a republic and a president who would arrest all such judges who deny the people freedom of expression and other essential democratic rights. It was not a "school" but a university and the courts enforced the ban of me and the gag order to stop me complaining about the ban.