War, Now Arson - what next?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 01 Sep 2005, 19:25

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1876172005

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 01 Sep 2005, 19:29

Good to hear that they're taking up Social Work Reports on him

what a farce

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 01 Sep 2005, 19:30

what next is that we have to circumvent the fucking profanity filter so we can use the word ar son!

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 01 Sep 2005, 19:31

I said farce deliberately

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » 01 Sep 2005, 20:33

MSP accused of setting fire to hotel curtains, putting many lives at risk = no suspension from Scottish Parliament or fine even vaguely considered a possibility.....

MSPs carry out brief entirely peaceful/non-violent protest in Scottish Parliament calling for democratic right of peaceful march in Gleneagles = banned for a month from scottish Parliament and fined Â£30,000.....

Isn't there something wrong with this?? like political bias for one thing? it just so happens Mike Watson is Labour and Labour rule the Scottish Parliament, along with their Lib Dem friends, who also, along with every other Party except SSP, voted for this extraordinarily harsh punishment of the SSP MSPs but fail to have made any points about Mike Watson so far as I know

I appreciate he has only just owned up to lighting up the curtains (potentially killing many people asleep in bed in Hotel at time including from smoke inhalation) but its not even been mentioned as an issue - he's been able to carry on as an MSP as normal, taking his salary, and presumably will do until he obliges us with his resignation. SSP MSPs have been banned from the entire Scottish Parliament building, not even able to check emails or collect mail from Constituents - for a whole month. What about the rights of the SSP MSP's Constituents to access their MSPs? don't we count because we are a minority party? or have the wrong sort of politics? or Could it be some people don't want the SSParty, to which our MSPs donate half their salaries, to employ more staff, to continue to be a force in the Scottish Parliament??

surely not!

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 01 Sep 2005, 20:43

Carla wrote:MSP accused of setting fire to hotel curtains, putting many lives at risk = no suspension from Scottish Parliament or fine even vaguely considered a possibility.....

MSPs carry out brief entirely peaceful/non-violent protest in Scottish Parliament calling for democratic right of peaceful march in Gleneagles = banned for a month from scottish Parliament and fined Â£30,000.....

Isn't there something wrong with this?? like political bias for one thing? it just so happens Mike Watson is Labour and Labour rule the Scottish Parliament, along with their Lib Dem friends, who also, along with every other Party except SSP, voted for this extraordinarily harsh punishment of the SSP MSPs but fail to have made any points about Mike Watson so far as I know

I appreciate he has only just owned up to lighting up the curtains (potentially killing many people asleep in bed in Hotel at time including from smoke inhalation) but its not even been mentioned as an issue - he's been able to carry on as an MSP as normal, taking his salary, and presumably will do until he obliges us with his resignation. SSP MSPs have been banned from the entire Scottish Parliament building, not even able to check emails or collect mail from Constituents - for a whole month. What about the rights of the SSP MSP's Constituents to access their MSPs? don't we count because we are a minority party? or have the wrong sort of politics? or Could it be some people don't want the SSParty, to which our MSPs donate half their salaries, to employ more staff, to continue to be a force in the Scottish Parliament??

surely not!

Or could it be something to do with the fact that Mike Watson like every other citizen is innocent until proven guilty

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » 01 Sep 2005, 21:18

But its not even been speculated upon as a likely consequence of him being found guilty..... and the SSP MSPs' fate was apparently decided at the Business Committee of the Scottish Parliament without them even being there to represent themselves or hear the debate -

besides which - don't you think there is a huge difference in 'offence' between a minor peaceful disruption of Scottish Parliament - possibly a day's ban would have sufficed - and endangering lives?

I agree people are innocent until proven guilty - but where's the call from the Scottish Parliament for punishment of Mike Watson?

My point is the punishment of the SSP MSPs is way over the top for the non-crime they committed - in fact I think the Scottish Parliament is exactly the place for such a peaceful protest.....

Carla

Post by **wangi** » 01 Sep 2005, 21:46

Carla wrote:But its not even been speculated upon as a likely consequence of him being found guilty.....

Don't know where you get your news... but it has. Found guilty and he's booted oot of the Scottish Parliament (so his resignation is of little substance). Likewise he'll be barred from sitting in the House of Lords.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Sep 2005, 22:03

Not sticking up for the P (and the 3 letters that fform Roland Rats surname) but he actually pleaded guilty he was not found guilty. He has not been booted out of the parlaiment. He can be imprisoned for up to one year before he has to resign or so I believe. If that is the case, I cannot imagine he will be booted out of the HOL. It is full of ...............

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 01 Sep 2005, 22:03

Carla, I think you're comparing apples with pears.

Mike Watson commited a criminal act in the community and will be punished accordingly. His employer had no right to fine, suspend or sack him until that he had been found guilty or admitted guilt...so now!

I presume that the Business Committe of the Scottish Parliament acted within its mandate and presumably the constitution of the Parliament to ban and fine the SSP MSP's. I do not agree that the Parliament is the place to protest, peaceful or otherwise. They are there to work on their constituents behalf. If they want to protest they should do it in their own time like everyone else has to

Post by **wangi** » 01 Sep 2005, 22:13

Ah, my recall of the Hootsmon was a bit off:

If Lord Watson is sentenced to any more than one year in jail, he would automatically be barred from being an MSP.

There are likely to be calls for him to be stripped of his peerage, although his criminal conviction will not mean he is automatically barred from the House of Lords.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 01 Sep 2005, 23:22

wangi wrote:Ah, my recall of the Hootsmon was a bit off:

If Lord Watson is sentenced to any more than one year in jail, he would automatically be barred from being an MSP.

There are likely to be calls for him to be stripped of his peerage, although his criminal conviction will not mean he is automatically barred from the House of Lords.

The fundamental argument here is :

Peaceful protest in the Scottish Parliament Building to defend democracy, fined Â£30K and suspended for one month.

Set alight curtains in a Hotel, a serious criminal act, the consequences could have been dire.
But only 'IF'
he is sentenced to more than 1 year in jail, would he automatically be barred from being an MSP. What are the chances of this happening ?

The SSP MSP's did nothing but stand up for what they believe and what their supporters believe - for this they were dealt a mean ban from the Labour controlled Parliament - god bless Margo MacDonald for standing up for them.

Meanwhile - for a Joke - a

Labour MSP and Lord to boot, thought it would funny to set fire to a pair of curtains - he may/ may not be imprisoned, he may/may not loose his MSP status, he Could loose his peerage but will not loose his Title.

I take it this is what New Labour call justice and democracy!

It's a bl oo dy fa rce.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Sep 2005, 23:36

Gemini, I urge you to read Foxy's post. She deals with the differences in the situations, succinctly, factually and eloquently.

Gemini wrote:The SSP MSP's did nothing......

Your capacity for turning a blind eye to evidence is awesome. The SSP MSP's did do something, they broke parliamentary rules. It is not a matter of debate or opinion. They acted in a wholly inappropriate manner, peacefuly inappropriate, but outwith the rules of the organisation that salaries them.

They are employees and need to observe workplace rules and conduct. They must have been aware of the possible penalties but they carried on regardless. Watson was a drunken, criminal a rse. The SSP MSP's were stone cold sober, disrespectful, rule breakers who got what they deserved. They don't truly value democracy or they wouldn't break the rules of the democratic body of which they are members.

Whatever sentence is passed upon Watson it will fit the crime. Just like the sentence passed on the parlamentary neds. The parliament may be labour controlled, hey that is democracy. It wasn't labour that made the rules or decided the potential levels of punishment.

BTW I hate the way your ilk drop in the word peaceful, as if that makes it ok. It doesn't, it just makes it better than violent.

A peaceful protest
A peaceful burglary
A peaceful fraud
A peaceful theft
A peaceful rape

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 02 Sep 2005, 00:04

Porty wrote:
Gemini wrote:
wangi wrote:Ah, my recall of the Hootsmon was a bit off:

The fundamental argument here is :

Peaceful protest in the Scottish Parliament Building to defend democracy, fined Â£30K and suspended for one month.

Set alight curtains in a Hotel, a serious criminal act, the consequences could have been dire.
But only 'IF'
he is sentenced to more than 1 year in jail, would he automatically be barred from being an MSP. What are the chances of this happening ?

The SSP MSP's did nothing but stand up for what they believe and what their supporters believe - for this they were dealt a mean ban from the Labour controlled Parliament - god bless Margo MacDonald for standing up for them.

Meanwhile - for a Joke - a Labour MSP and Lord to boot, thought it would funny to set fire to a pair of curtains - he may/ may not be imprisoned, he may/may not loose his MSP status, he Could loose his peerage but will not loose his Title.

I take it this is what New Labour call justice and democracy!

It's a bl oo dy fa rce.
See Foxy's post above.

Whatever sentence is passed upon Watson it will fit the crime. Just like the sentence passed on the parlamentary neds. The parliament may be labour controlled but hey that is democracy. It wasn't labour that made the rules.

BTW I hate the way your ilk drop in the word peaceful, as if that makes it ok. It doesn't, it just makes it better than violent.

A peaceful protest
A peaceful burglary
A peaceful fraud
A peaceful theft
A peaceful rape

Get real Porty - when has the punishment ever fitted the crime
of that Ilk?
Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

Only the first item on your list makes any sense.

BTW - I loathe and detest the way your ILK drop the follwing list of
words

Regime Change
WMD
45 Minute strike capability
Collateral damage
Shoot to Kill

Your becoming more like Tony Bush every Day.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Sep 2005, 00:11

Sorry, Gemini.

What the hell are you doing up at this time of night? I was editing as you were posting, my bad. Please see above.

Perhaps you would care to reconsider your response?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 02 Sep 2005, 00:27

Porty wrote:Sorry, Gemini. What the hell are you doing up at this time of night? I was editing as you were posting, my bad. Please see above.

Perhaps you would care to reconsider your response?

I am bleary eyed searching screeds of name's for rellies in PA!

What's your excuse ?

Will respond to your edited version later.

Nighty Night.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Sep 2005, 00:30

xx, sleep tight.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Sep 2005, 07:00

Party wrote:They don't truly value democracy or they wouldn't break the rules of the democratic body of which they are members.

We're much closer to a truth, if not "the" truth, here - even if I'm slightly pulling you out of context.

Firstly, I would turn this statement on its head. I would argue that those who value democracy should be prepared to make a principled stand, based on the dictates of conscience alone, even if it does break rules.

Secondly, bad people have a way of bypassing rules to get their way, such that the man in the street can be robbed or betrayed without the letter of the law being broken, even if the spirit which it was written in in the first place has been. It's so very easy for the cleverly corrupt to hold up their hands if the finger is pointed at them and claim that they are innocent of any rule- or law- breaking.

The SSP MSPs are guilty of naivety, innocence and stupidity in the face of that most corrupt and evil of all things - an establishment and its rules. It is much better for them that they do get kicked out, as the longer they stay there the more likely it is that Goliath will prevail, even if David should have.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Sep 2005, 08:35

I certainly didn't, don't want the SP butI cannot agree with you, I don't accept that the SP is corrupt or evil. Some of its members may be.

Dadaist wrote:The SSP MSPs are guilty of naivety, innocence and stupidity in the face of that most corrupt and evil of all things - an establishment and its rules. It is much better for them that they do get kicked out, as the longer they stay there the more likely it is that Goliath will prevail, even if David should have.

Goliath is a; possibly mythical but definetly unelected figure. The SP is a real elected body that represents and is made up of what the people that it represents wants. Are you sayomg SSP should not stand in MSP elections? Even if you are, they have and whilst they are members they need to abide by the rules.

The SSP were naive and stupid, whats more they were premeditated. Their party is struggling financially and they take an action that cost them and their party dearly. It is yey another indicator of unworthiness to hold an esteemed public position.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Sep 2005, 09:25

I'm just glad that we've seen that our MSPs haven't become part of the establishment. I'm glad that you think public positions are "esteemed" and that the people who hold them should be "worthy" - it's a much better indicator of your politics than the usual leaden analysis of statistics.

I support the passion and conviction (and convictions!!) of our MSPs regardless of the consequences, as I feel their causes are worthy and the points they are trying to make are worth making.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 02 Sep 2005, 09:48

Am I the only one who feels a bit of sympathy for Mike Watson? He acted completely out of character (OK, I don't know him personally, but I have it on good authority that he's not a twisted firestarter by nature) and while very drunk. What he did was extrememly dangerous without a doubt, but surely it is a lesson to us all about the dangers of drinking until out of your tree?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Sep 2005, 10:17

Marya wrote:Am I the only one who feels a bit of sympathy for Mike Watson? He acted completely out of character (OK, I don't know him personally, but I have it on good authority that he's not a twisted firestarter by nature) and while very drunk. What he did was extrememly dangerous without a doubt, but surely it is a lesson to us all about the dangers of drinking until out of your tree?

His mum will feel sympathy too. The people asleep in the hotel at the time - nyeeeeh, maybe not.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Sep 2005, 10:56

I don't agree with vandalsim particularly potentially life threatening vandalism. Drunk is no excuse. Would you feel sympathy for a drunk that hit his bird?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Sep 2005, 11:38

Porty wrote:I don't agree with vandalsim particularly potentially life threatening vandalism. Drunk is no excuse. Would you feel sympathy for a drunk that hit his bird?

It depends whether it was a budgie or a canary I guess. Canaries at least have some use in mining, but I really can't stand budgies - all they do is niblle cutllefish and have different colours.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Sep 2005, 12:10

Dadaist wrote:...but I really can't stand budgies - all they do is niblle cutllefish and have different colours.

So what other activities must budgies partake in to avoid getting a good doing in from you?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Sep 2005, 13:56

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:...but I really can't stand budgies - all they do is niblle cutllefish and have different colours.
So what other activities must budgies partake in to avoid getting a good doing in from you?

There's nothing they can do except stay away from me. It's not just them, it's the whole aesthetic of cages, nighty-night tea cosies, mirrors and millet, whos a pretty boy then, kiss kiss.

I only dislike capitalism. I HATE budgerigars and all they stand for. Somebody has to pay for this. And you have to clean out that tray thing and put new newspaper in it. Grr.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 02 Sep 2005, 17:19

One thing in their favour, though, is that they're quite hard to set alight. Unlike curtains, which tend to 'go up' quite quickly

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Sep 2005, 19:34

Epykat wrote:One thing in their favour, though, is that they're quite hard to set alight. Unlike curtains, which tend to 'go up' quite quickly

It's curtains for the budgies, that's what I'm saying.

If anyone dares start posting pictures of budgies I'm going to get really mad. Little smug things that they are. Tweet, warble, yeah - think you're clever don't you.

And then there's those people - you know, the ones who bring the budgies at night, in your house. You know, the Budgie Men.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Sep 2005, 19:37

Epykat wrote:One thing in their favour, though, is that they're quite hard to set alight. Unlike curtains, which tend to 'go up' quite quickly

Perhaps. However, I am with dada. Fuck em they are multi coloured parasites. Devoid of entertainment, dumb, deaf, bewidered. They are officially fucked.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 02 Sep 2005, 19:38

Dadaist wrote:You know, the Budgie Men.

I once saw a dreadful rock band called Budgie back in the seventies. They were Welsh I think.
All their album covers had big ferocious budgies on horseback and the like.

In fact, like this exactly

Hahahahahahahahahahahha etc.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Sep 2005, 19:45

They are coming. Fear them. It starts with the "pets" then when the signal is beamed down, they change.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 02 Sep 2005, 19:57

We used to have a really nice wee budgie. He used to say "Merry Christmas" all year.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 02 Sep 2005, 19:59

Epykat wrote:We used to have a really nice wee budgie. He used to say "Merry Christmas" all year.

How tiring for the wee thing.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 02 Sep 2005, 20:09

Well....it kept him occupied. That and feeding his mirror.

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » 02 Sep 2005, 22:49

I dunno about budgies but if you had been at a plush do, got well fed and well pished, came back to a comfy Hotel, but were a bit teed off with not getting that last drink or 6 you wanted, what would you think of doing next? Some options I can think of are:
- Searching for a spare bottle somewhere
- Breaking into the Bar - equally illegal but less dangerous than arson
- Falling asleep
- Falling over drunk and falling asleep
- Searching for food, fags or any other substance

- Setting fire to the curtains!

Somehow, setting fire to the curtains doesn't come to mind as a first choice.....

anyhow, its curtains for Mikey although does anyone know if he is still to remain a Lordship?!

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

War, Now Arson - what next?

War, Now Arson - what next?

but he wasn't suspended from the Scottish Parliament

Re: but he wasn't suspended from the Scottish Parliament

Ha Ha

Re: Ha Ha

Budgies and Mike Watson