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.