Peter Dow is a Scottish scientist and a republican socialist whose legal human rights are cruelly violated by the police and courts in Aberdeen, where he lives. Peter Dow's political defence blog publishes the truth about the wrongful and unjust royalist arrests, prosecutions, convictions and punishments he endures.
Peter Dow - a self-proclaimed scientist and anti-terror expert - denied posting racially offensive messages and is defending himself in court.
By Reporter
November 6 2025, 6:00 am
An Aberdeen man who allegedly posted racially offensive messages online claimed the only “crime” committed was by the police when they seized his prized computer.
Peter Dow, who described himself as an anti-terrorism expert and scientist, is charged with acting in a racially aggravated manner towards Humza Yousaf, then the First Minister, on dates in February, March and June 2024.
The 64-year-old is also accused of sending similar tweets about Kaukab Stewart, then the SNP’s Equalities Minister, on December 3 last year.
Defending himself at Aberdeen Sheriff Court on Tuesday, Dow told Sheriff Ian Wallace there was no case to answer.
During the hearing, the sheriff had to repeatedly remind him to focus solely on the matter at hand.
Proceedings will continue in December, when Dow, who denies any wrongdoing, will learn whether he successfully argued to have his prosecution abandoned.
‘Crime against humanity’
Dow’s Hollybank Place flat was raided by Police Scotland on December 18 last year.
His desktop computer and mobile phone were seized as potential evidence.
He yesterday branded it a “crime against humanity”, claiming to rely on the device to carry out scientific research.
The court heard he had also used the computer to post on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
On it, he used the term “P***” in posts about both the former First Minister and Mrs Stewart and called for imams to be deported.
In an impassioned address to the court, Dow read from a five-page document and urged Sheriff Wallace to drop the charges.
“It is simply not possible to harass anyone on X because it is so easy to avoid reading any more posts from the same author whose post you’ve taken a dislike to by muting or blocking posts from disliked authors,” he said.
“If you can’t stand to read on X displeasing words which are critical of your favourite politicians, then don’t read them. It is that simple. It is that easy.”
Dow then claimed his work as a scientist was being hindered by the prosecution, claiming that humanity was being impacted.
He told the court: “The interruptions of the duties of a scientist in the service of humanity is a crime against humanity committed with inhumane recklessness by police and prosecutors to this day. That’s true. That’s damning.”
Dow ended by demanding the return of his seized possessions and for the replacement of his front door, which was forced open during the police raid.
Peter Dow said his scientific research has been disrupted by his arrest. Image: DC Thomson
This document for the defence is produced to support a submission that the accused has no case to answer as allowed by Section 160 “No case to answer” of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
THE CHARGES LIBELLED
The charges falsely allege that the Accused did some things
- CONTRARY to the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 Section 50(A)(1)(b) and (5)
- CONTRARY to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, Section 3(1)(b)
THE LAW
Section 50A(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 says
50A [ Racially-aggravated harassment.]
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he—
(a) ..
(b) acts in a manner which is racially aggravated and which causes, or is intended to cause, a person alarm or distress.
Section 3(1)(b) of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 says
3. Racially aggravated harassment
(1) A person comments an offence if the person-
(a) ..
(b) acts in a manner which is racially aggravated and which causes, or intended to cause, another person alarm or distress
DEMOCRATIC POLITICS
The method of democratic politics is to criticise a politician for his or her policies (or for their actual misbehaviour other than pursuing their declared policies) so as to hold that politician accountable before the court of public opinion so that voters are better informed so as to choose whether or not to withdraw their support and their vote for that criticised politician.
The method of democratic politics is absolutely not to “cause politicians alarm or distress” which would not strengthen a criticism, but which, if anything would be a gift to the politician of attracting sympathy for alarm and distress and therefore would be counter-productive for holding the politician to account.
It may well be that if and when a politician loses support following criticism and is at risk of losing votes and elections then the politician or their loyal party supporters may be very displeased about that criticism - so displeased that they may engage in malicious actions to undermine the credibility of the critic, including making malicious complaints to the police.
The difference between the two malicious witnesses is that no-one is paying David Fernandez to be professionally malicious to the Accused, unlike Darren Steadwood whose job, that is akin to a Scottish Parliament Gestapo officer, encourages him to make malicious complaints to the police.
WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS DONE
The Accused has posted comments on X using his username @_Peter_Dow, comments which admittedly, are very critical of the politicians Humza Yousaf and Kaukab Stewart, but always in a manner in accordance with X site rules and the law of Scotland. It is simply not possible to “harrass” anyone on X because it is so easy to avoid reading any more posts from the same author whose posts you have taken a dislike to, by muting or blocking posts from disliked authors. Darren Steadwood is paid to search for posts he doesn’t like and David Fernandez deliberately made no effort to mute or block social media posts from @_Peter_Dow. In their own different ways, both were hunters seeking people to deem “offensive”, but neither witness provided any evidence of anyone being a victim of harassment by the Accused.
WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT DONE
The Accused has not posted anything which was intended to cause alarm or distress to either Humza Yousaf and Kaukab Stewart. There was no evidence to suggest that alarm or distress was caused to anyone or that was the Accused’s intent.
What the Accused has also done is take responsibility for his own social media posts and apologise to anyone who found them offensive.
However in apologising to those who are comparatively easily offended, the Accused has never pleaded guilty to the charges libelled. Some sensitive people get easily offended in politics by perfectly lawful criticisms but if they can’t stand the heat, then they shouldn’t go into the kitchen, so to speak. In other words, if you can’t stand to read, on X, displeasing words which are critical of your favourite politicians then don’t read them. It is that simple. It is that easy.
OTHER CHARGES
The prosecutor fiscal depute has floated in court the suggestion that if the Sheriff was not minded to convict on the charges libelled, the prosecution would switch to a charge of breach of the peace.
THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN PEACEFUL
The Accused is responsible for his own actions, peacefully typing on a keyboard from his own home, but the Accused is not responsible for the disproportionate actions of the police, who, truth be told, did breach the peace by forcing entry into the Accused’s home on the morning of the 18th December 2024 and the police did commit other crimes such as criminal damage of the Accused’s flat front door when police forced entry and for the crimes of theft in taking the Accused’s digital devices for which ultimately the prosecution had no use for but whose data was critical for the uninterrupted performance of the Accused’s duties as a scientist and a political activist.
In particular, the interruption of the duties of a scientist in the service of humanity is a crime against humanity - committed with inhumane recklessness by police and prosecutors to this day.
Perhaps the policy solution to crimes against humanity would be to establish a specialist branch of the police or the military dedicated to arresting just this sort of inhumane police and court actions against scientists.
So if anyone should face a charge of breach of the peace it should be the police to face that charge but in truth, the speedy return of the Accused’s digital devices and the payment to the Accused of civil compensation, paid by the police, to replace the Accused’s front door would be more useful and the preference of the Accused.
PLEAS IN LAW
The evidence led by the prosecution being insufficient in law to justify the Accused being convicted of any charge, the Defence submits that there is no case to answer and that the Accused should be acquitted, under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 160.
Date lodged - 27th October 2025 Lodged by the accused representing himself
DOCUMENT CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
DOCUMENT CONTENTS
RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD
HEARING OF 17th SEPTEMBER 2025
WITNESS DARREN STEADWOOD
LINE OF QUESTIONING
RECALL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION
SHERIFF IAN WALLACE PRESIDING
NO PHOTOGRAPH
PLEAS IN LAW
RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD
The Accused moves the court to recall the prosecution’s witness Darren Steadwood, for further cross-examination by the defence, at the next or a subsequent trial diet of this case.
The Accused was arrested after his social media post was referred to the police by Darren Steadwood, an “Information Security Analyst” of the Scottish Parliament’s “Social Media Monitoring Service” - a euphemism for a fledgling Scottish Parliament Gestapo.
HEARING OF 17th SEPTEMBER 2025
WITNESS DARREN STEADWOOD
The prosecution called a witness Darren Steadwood to testify before Sheriff Ian Wallace presiding in an Aberdeen Sheriff Court at a hearing on 17th September 2025.
When Dow’s questioning then turned to Mr Steadwood’s use of the computer game Call of Duty 2, where players shoot members of the Taliban, the sheriff halted the proceedings and asked the witness to step outside of the courtroom.
Turning to Dow, Sheriff Wallace said: “We don’t have time to unpick all the reasons why that question is just not relevant.
“You are not asking him about Call of Duty.”
When the trial resumed and Dow’s cross-examination continued, he asked Mr Steadwood about his YouTube channel – featuring him playing Call of Duty.
Sheriff Wallace interrupted again and brought the cross-examination to a close and asked the witness to leave the court.
“I’m not allowing you to ask any more questions,” he told Dow.
Time may have been short towards the end of the hearing of September 17th but there has since been plenty of time for the defence to produce this document herein to show the reasons why that question was intended to be the beginning of a very relevant indeed line of questioning, illustrated below.
A competent sheriff who takes the time and who has the patience to indulge the defence’s list of questions, reproduced below, can understand how such questioning intends to reveal the inconsistency, hypocrisy, arrogance and intellectual laziness of the witness Darren Steadwood.
The defence’s cross-examination is intended to scrutinise Steadwood’s failure to recognise and to admit that the Accused’s X post, reported to police by Steadwood, is transparently for a reliable witness not motivated by “racial hatred” in its criticism of Pakistan and Pakistanis for secretly supporting terrorism etc. - but the Accused’s post is just as non-racist as Steadwood’s game-playing and just as non-racist as this country’s military fighting our enemies.
LINE OF QUESTIONING
The defence has this important line of questioning still to put to the witness Darren Steadwood which Sheriff Wallace did not allow the defence to develop at the previous hearing.
1. Mr Steadwood, do you or have ever you played the Call of Duty computer-game?
“Call of Duty is a first-person shooter military video game series and media franchise” - Wikipedia
2. There was a YouTube channel in the name of “Darren Steadwood” (see snapshot image saved by the defence below) which featured recorded gameplay from the “Call of Duty” game but which channel has recently been deleted - was that your channel?
3. Did you delete your Youtube channel after it was unexpectedly mentioned in court by the defence at the earlier September hearing?
4. You weren’t attempting to hide evidence which the defence considers to be of relevance to this case to attempt to defeat the ends of justice, were you, Mr Steadwood?
7. But can we presume that in these Call of Duty war games, whether set in Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere, there is no incitement to a racial hatred motivation for players in any of the game plots? Players are not encouraged to shoot enemy fighters, for any reasons of “racial hatred” against Afghans or Pakistanis, correct?
8. Do you agree that, in the real 20 year war in Afghanistan, British soldiers and our American and coalition allies were also not fighting for “racial hatred” reasons but were fighting the Taliban, their Al Qaeda terrorist guests in Afghanistan, or on occasion in Pakistan, for War on Terrorism aims which are to defend our people from terrorist attacks organised by Al Qaeda, assisted by their Taliban hosts and by the Pakistani ISI? Our real war was against terrorism, not for “racial hatred”, correct?
9. Is it also reasonable to state that it would appear to be malicious to falsely attribute “racial hatred” motivations to either gameplayers or governments who deployed our soldiers to Afghanistan?
10. Are you aware that Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda was tracked by the CIA to a Pakistani safehouse where he was killed by US Special Forces without prior notice to, or the cooperation of, the Pakistani authorities?
11. Will you please view with the court this 2 minute video, which shows the introduction of a 2011 BBC Panorama “Secret Pakistan” series revealing the extent of the complicity of the Pakistani military in supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists.
- Display with loud sound the defence’s digital production video “BBC’s Secret Pakistan - introduction”
12. Do you accept at face value the truth of the revelations which the introduction to the BBC Panorama programme makes about Pakistan -that Pakistan in international relations plays a double game, secretly supporting our terrorist enemies while pretending to be our good-faith allies in the War on Terrorism?
13. Do you accept that the Accused’s social media criticism of Pakistan and Pakistanis, including Scottish-Pakistani Scottish Government minister Kaukab Stewart MSP, could reasonably be motivated by the same intent of the War on Terrorism which is to defend the people, in particular our people in this country against terrorism secretly organised by Pakistan?
14. Are you aware how the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, supported by Pakistan, abuses, violates the human rights of or executes Afghan girls and women?
15. Will you please view with the court this video downloaded from a post on X of the Pakistani-supported Taliban stoning an Afghan girl to death?
- Display with loud sound the defence’s digital production video “Afghan girl stoned to death by the Taliban”. Length 26 seconds.
16. Do you accept that it is reasonable for the Accused to criticise Scottish-Pakistani Kaukab Stewart for her uncritical political support for Pakistan in the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament and for her failure to criticise Pakistan for its role in supporting the Taliban abusing the women and girls of Afghanistan, thereby betraying the Scottish Government, Parliament and People as “Equalities Minister”?
17. Wasn’t it very unfair for you to malign the Accused’s social media post referencing his sound reasons for criticising Kaukab Stewart as something his post is not - “racially abusive” - simply on the pretext that the Accused used the abbreviation “Paki” in place of the unabbreviated word “Pakistani”?
18. Your job is intended to censor, not merely to “monitor” social media posting isn’t it? Do you even know what the word “monitor” means? In medicine, a heart monitor provides helpful information to doctors about how the patient’s heart is working. That’s “monitoring”. Whereas in crime, a stab to heart can kill the victim. Stabbing is not heart “monitoring”. Your reporting of my post to the police for censorship was more like a stab to the heart, killing my democratic freedom of expression than it was like a heart monitor, wasn’t it? As far as democracy is concerned, your job employs you as a state-criminal, a Gestapo officer, to stab at Scotland’s democratic freedoms, doesn’t it?
19. What is the name of your immediate supervisor of your unit - the man who was formerly employed as a police inspector? We know that you are the number 2 Gestapo officer at the Scottish Parliament but Scotland’s democrats would like to learn the name of the number 1 Gestapo officer too? You have sworn to tell the whole truth so tell us the whole truth about who supervises you in your job? What’s his name?
So this line of questioning leads from a starting point of Steadwood’s own non-racist game-playing behaviour, in a logical progression, to the Accused’s also non-racist social media posting behaviour.
Both persons, the Accused and the witness, exhibit, whether in game-play or in social media posting, not entirely unrelated non-racist, anti-terrorist inspirations, motivations and intent.
If an equivalently non-racial-hatred intent to oppose related game/real world enemies can hopefully be agreed in cross-examination then Steadwood may oblige the defence by accepting his error in reporting the Accused’s social media post to the police.
Alternatively, if Steadwood stubbornly maintains that unlike game-players like him, real world political activists like the Accused strangely “cannot” have non-racial-hatred intentions against real world enemies often represented in game-play then this witness can be shown to be inconsistent, a hypocrite, arrogant, intellectually lazy and therefore an unreliable witness.
RECALL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION
Considering all of the above, the defence insists that, in the interests of justice, to allow the defence a full and a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, Sheriff Wallace is obliged to support the defence’s motion and order Darren Steadwood be recalled for further cross-examination by the defence at the next or a subsequent trial diet.
Alternatively, if Sheriff Wallace unjustly and maliciously refuses to permit a further hearing of cross-examination of the witness Darren Steadwood, thereby wilfully sabotaging the defence’s cross-examination of this witness in order to defeat the ends of justice, then in the interests of justice, Sheriff Wallace should recuse himself from any further involvement in this case, leaving another Sheriff to pick up the legal pieces.
“I’m not allowing you to ask any more questions,” - Sheriff Wallace
Sheriff Wallace may refuse to reverse himself and refuse to recuse himself believing arrogantly that he can follow Steadwood and the Scottish Parliament’s fledgling Gestapo unit to tell vile lies about the Accused and fit the Accused up on these false charges with no consequences to his legal career. If so, good luck with that, Wallace.
SHERIFF IAN WALLACE PRESIDING
Ian Wallace studied at the University of Glasgow and the Free University of Berlin. He graduated with first class honours in Scots Law and German Language. He started his traineeship with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 2003. He then worked as a Procurator Fiscal Depute in Dumfries, Edinburgh, and Crown Office. In 2014, he qualified as a Solicitor Advocate and was appointed an Advocate Depute. He was appointed as a Summary Sheriff in 2018. He was appointed as a Sheriff in 2021.
The defence could not find a photograph of Ian Wallace online to reproduce here, unfortunately. Photographs of judges and prosecutors should be published for the purpose of holding those who misrule us accountable.
So given that the defence’s preliminary pleas and objections to this Gestapo-style arrest, charges and undemocratic prosecution have been so cursorily overruled and the prosecution’s case not been lawfully dismissed at an earlier diet but rather indulged firstly by Sheriff Johnston and then by Sheriff Wallace, somewhat in the manner of a Nazi political show-trial, the defence has substituted here the photograph of an infamous Nazi judge, Roland Freisler.
The defence assumes that Sheriff Wallace would not wish his court to suffer any further comparison with a Nazi court nor he with Freisler, an enemy of justice who was fortuitously killed when his Berlin court building was bombed by the US Air Force in 1945. His Nazi colleagues faced justice at a Nuremberg tribunal.
The defence presumes that Sheriff Wallace was educated about how the Nazis perverted the German legal system and so the defence asks that he not allow Aberdeen Sheriff Court to be likewise perverted as this prosecution intends.
PLEAS IN LAW
The motion to recall witness Darren Steadwood to this Sheriff Court trial is craved with reference to the legal power for the presiding judge which is specified in Section 263 (5) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
“(5) In any trial, on the motion of either party, the presiding judge may permit a witness who has been examined to be recalled.”
Date lodged - 26th August 2025 Lodged by the accused representing himself
DOCUMENT CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
DOCUMENT CONTENTS
REBUTTAL FOR THE ACCUSED
SCOTSMAN HYPOCRITE
WITNESS STATEMENT
AGAINST MUSLIMS
MADRID BOMBING
AFGHANISTAN
KRISS DONALD R.I.P.
CELTIC’S LAWYER R.I.P.
PAKISTAN
PAKI FIRST MINISTER
PAKIS BY NAME
POLITICAL BASTARDS
SPAIN EXPELS MUSLIMS
THE HEART OF A PAKI
MUSLIMS KILL WOMEN
MUSLIMS KILL GAYS
CAUSE OF FREEDOM
UNRELIABLE WITNESS
REBUTTAL FOR THE ACCUSED
This document for the defence is produced to rebut the Crown witnesses David Fernandez, showing the unreliability of his witness statement to the police.
Precisely why this man, 1-in-a-million using X in Scotland, from 100+ miles away, should be the only non-official to bear false witness against the Accused in this case is still something of a mystery.
The other witnesses are police officers and one witness is a Scottish Parliament official - whereas Fernandez doesn’t seem to be getting paid a salary to fit the Accused up on a false charge but has volunteered himself to give a statement to the police and has thereby catapulted himself into the prosecution team.
The Accused had not heard of Fernandez before his witness statement was disclosed to the defence but subsequently, doing due diligence, the defence has researched Fernandez online.
"Politicians have a right to speak and mix with crowds without the risk of violence, threats or intimidation."
- David Fernandez
So wrote David Fernandez for the Scotsman published in July 2024 - just a few months after Fernandez had complained to the police about the Accused’s posts on X, which complaint of his incited the police to the violence of smashing the Accused’s Aberdeen flat door in to take the Accused political prisoner for the purpose of threatening the Accused’s freedom of expression with arrest, charge and prosecution which intimidates the Accused from doing his political and social duty of care for the people as is any citizen’s right and duty in a democratic society.
It seems that Fernandez is quite the hypocrite - on the one hand writing a letter to the Scotsman seemingly supporting democratic rights for politicians while on the other hand doing the exact opposite by complaining to the police to deny democratic rights for the Accused, a political and social activist, so that the Accused is hampered from his duties of public service.
Fernandez’s witness statement shows him to be a shameless hypocrite, a liar and a fascist-wolf in liberal-sheep's clothing, a man who is evidentially an inciter of undemocratic police state violence, threats and intimidation against someone whose views he doesn’t agree with.
WITNESS STATEMENT
“Place, date & time: Witness home address 14-04-2024 at 15:12:00
I am the above person and reside at the given address.
I first noticed posts on Twitter in March last year made by a user - Peter Dow making comments against Muslims.”
- David Fernandez
AGAINST MUSLIMS
Making informed comments against Muslims is what the Accused has a duty to do but why wouldn’t Fernandez make informed comments against Muslims himself when there is good reason to do so?
Will Fernandez comment against the Muslim Madrid-train-bombers now?
Is Fernandez informed about the Al-Qaeda Muslim terrorist organisation claiming responsibility and inspiring the Madrid train bombings? Will he comment against Al-Qaeda Muslims now?
Is it “racist” to comment against Muslim terrorists? It’s not “racist”, is it?
"Of the 35 Spanish deaths," (in Afghanistan) "17 died in August 2005 when the Eurocopter Cougar helicopter they were travelling in crashed, 13 were killed in separate attacks by insurgents, two died from natural causes, and two died in vehicle accidents. Another 62 died in a 2003 Yak-42 plane crash in Turkey on their way back to Spain from Afghanistan."
"KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Thousands of people watched as a woman, cowering beneath a pale blue all-enveloping burqa, was shot and killed today in the first public execution of a woman in Kabul since the Taliban religious army took control three years ago.”
Is Fernandez informed that the Taliban Muslims have executed women in a sports stadium for public entertainment? Will Fernandez now comment against Taliban Muslims? Is it “racist” to comment against Taliban Muslims? It’s not “racist”, is it?
Would Fernandez comment against Muslims ever being allowed to execute Scottish women at the football grounds or other sports stadiums of Scotland?
Would Fernandez comment against the horror of Muslims ever staging a public execution of any Scot for the entertainment of a Muslim crowd? Is it “racist” to comment against Muslims executing our loved ones? It’s not “racist” is it?
The Pakistani murderers dumped Kriss Donald’s body on the Clyde walkway behind Celtic’s Barrowfield training ground before some of the killer gang fled to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Will Fernandez now comment against those Pakistani gangsters who killed Kriss Donald?
Is it “racist” to comment against Pakistani gangsters? It’s not “racist”, is it?
Is it “racist” to comment against those Pakistanis who failed in their duty to keep a Scottish visitor of goodwill to Pakistan safe and well? It’s not “racist” is it?
PAKISTAN
Is Fernandez informed about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan having officially but secretly hosted a military safehouse for Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he was hunted down by the CIA and killed by the U.S. Special Forces? (The BBC’s Panorama documentary “Secret Pakistan” (2011) reveals Pakistan’s culpability. VIDEO 4.9.1. TRANSCRIPT 4.9.2)
Will Fernandez comment against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan now? Is it “racist” to comment against Muslim countries like Pakistan which are state sponsors of Islamic terrorism? It’s not “racist”, is it?
PAKI FIRST MINISTER
“He started to post a lot when the First Minister, Humza Yousaf was elected.
He would say derogatory comments about the first minister.
"HE IS A PAKI BASTARD.”
- David Fernandez”
The Accused uses the word “Paki” as short for “Pakistani” which nationality Humza Yousaf claims he is.
See the Accused's video "It's not "racist" to call Humza Yousaf a "Paki"-
The left-hand side of the above page of “Paki”-names & handles is reproduced magnified below.
Are dozens, maybe hundreds of people on X using “racist” language by calling themselves “Paki” (short for “Pakistani” presumably)?
They are not using “racist” language about themselves, are they?
It’s not “racist” for us to call them by the same name - “Paki” - that they gave themselves, is it?
POLITICAL BASTARDS
The accused is a politically discerning Scot, demanding a high standard of legitimacy for those appointed to the job of First Minister of Scotland but the Accused was particularly disappointed as far as Mr Yousaf was concerned, preferring to describe him as the “First Muslim” than as a legitimate “First Minister”.
The Accused writing for his blog has questioned the legitimacy of a succession of First Ministers of Scotland, of course in robust criticism of their outrageous misgovernment of policing and justice, but also in economics criticism of the failure of Mr Yousaf and Mr Swinney to secure adequate Scottish Government borrowing powers to grow the Scottish economy.
Humza Yousaf and Shona Robison agreed to a bad deal Fiscal Framework Agreement with the UK government on 2nd August 2023, wrecking the Scottish economy and impoverishing Scots.
The word “bastard” is posted a lot on X - a dozen times every minute may be typical. (Yawn.) The word “bastard” is unexceptional on X; the exception is when someone foolishly complains to the police about the use of the word on X.
SPAIN EXPELS MUSLIMS
HE AND ALL THE PAKIS SHOULD BE DEPORTED."
He also said "CLOSE THE MOSQUES AND MAKE ISLAM A CRIME"
- David Fernandez.
That reads like Fernandez has partially misquoted the Accused’s posts. The following accurate quotes of the Accused’s posts on X put the record straight.
Will Fernandez comment about the expulsion of Muslims from Spain?
Was Spain “racist” to expel the Muslims? Spain wasn’t a “racist” country for expelling the Muslims, was it?
Spain isn’t a “racist” country for not inviting or allowing the descendants of the expelled Muslims to return to Spain, is it?
I have tried reporting these comments to Twitter but it does not seem to have done anything about it.
- David Fernandez.
X did not do anything about Fernandez’s reports of the Accused’s comments because the accused’s comments do not break any of the X site’s rules or terms of service.
Fernandez is the one who is negligent in “not seeming to have done anything” proportionate, such as using X’s feature to mute or block the accused’s account “@_Peter_Dow” so that no more of the Accused’s “@_Peter_Dow” posts would be presented to Fernandez while scrolling X.
THE HEART OF A PAKI
“On the 24th of March he said "BORN INTO ISLAM, RAISED AS A MUSLIM, THE HEART OF A PAKI".
- David Fernandez.
"I felt like I had to call the police to inform them because he is saying these kinds of things everyday.”
- David Fernandez.
While a million Scots on X haven’t felt any such compulsion to complain to the police about any of the accused’s 10K posts on X.
“I feel offended by all the comments that he is making.”
- David Fernandez.
Fernandez seems to be an easily offended reader who refuses to choose the easy and democratic way to deal with his hurt feelings - for example, by muting or blocking the “@_Peter_Dow” account on X.
“Snowflake” is a term for someone with a tendency to have an emotional meltdown and who makes vexatious complaints for no good reason, which word “snowflake” does seem to fit Fernandez’s meltdown in this case very aptly.
"I am David Fernandez, and this is my statement in relation to the events of today provided to PC Spence on 16:12(pm) 30/6/2024.
On Sunday 30th June about 1300 hours I have been scrolling X as a guest."
- David Fernandez.
It is not possible to scroll X as a guest. X will always prompt you to log in with your @ handle and password so that X provides you with a custom service, allowing you to scroll through only those posts which have been pre-filtered as per your settings telling X which other accounts you have previously muted or blocked because you don’t want to read posts made from that muted or blocked account again.
“I came across a post from Peter Dow https://x.com/_Peter_Dow that was posted on June 27th ...”
- David Fernandez.
So Fernandez had still not muted or blocked the “@_Peter_Dow” account so while scrolling X, Fernandez was inviting the possibility to scroll a post of “@_Peter_Dow” into view.
“... that makes reference to Aberdeen's ballot paper stating with the caption.
CHOOSE YOUR SURRENDER MONKEY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ONE OF THEM THAT WILL FIGHT FOR YOU UNLESS YOU ARE A MUSLIM WHO WANTS TO KILL WOMEN & GAYS FOR GOING AGAINST TRADITIONAL ISLAMIC VALUES. PAKIS OUT.”
“That really alarmed me as I know it is not a one off from this person. I know this person resides at 21 Hollybank Place, Aberdeen.”
- David Fernandez.
The evidence of Muslims killing women and gays should be alarming. It would be morally improper to be relaxed or indifferent about such barbaric cruelty.
But it would be inappropriate to be alarmed about the Accused’s actions or to fault the Accused in any way for dutifully commenting about this matter of genuine humanitarian concern.
If Fernandez is inappropriately “really alarmed” by the Accused’s comments then that is not the Accused’s problem, X’s problem, the police’s problem or the courts’ problem.
Fernandez’s irrational alarm is a problem for himself to deal with.
The Accused, X managers, the police, the courts all have better things to do than make a fuss over Fernandez’s irrational and unreliable witness statement.
Commenting and disagreeing with each other about the relative merits of candidates for election, as the Accused has quite properly done, is a vital part of a thriving democracy in action but is no reason for alarm.
Whereas Fernandez complaining to the police about the Accused for commenting democratically about the candidates in an election is Fernandez inciting a fascist police state attack against the democratic process.
Inciting fascism, attacking democracy is what the dictator Franco did in Spain before Fernandez was born.
Why has Fernandez aped the bad example of the old fascist Spain? Why does Fernandez not wisely follow the good example of the new democratic Spain?
CAUSE OF FREEDOM
Fernandez should learn right from wrong from The Scots Who Fought Franco - volunteers in the Spanish Civil War fighting for democracy and for the Spanish republic - fighting against the fascist dictator Franco.
The cause of freedom and anti-fascism has long been Scotland’s greatest cause. Today, Scots support the people of Ukraine resisting the fascist invasion of the Putin-misled Russian military.
Scots will dismiss Fernandez’s suggestion that the accused or anyone should ever not be allowed to discuss the relative merits of the candidates online and the policies of the parties etc. at election time.
To censor online debate around an election would be to rig that election to be even more in favour of the candidates already advantaged by support in the BBC and other mass media.
UNRELIABLE WITNESS
"I have had my statement read back to me and confirm it is true and accurate.
I can identify the accused."
- David Fernandez.
This document has rebutted Fernandez’s witness statement to confirm that whilst the Accused’s posts were indeed as quoted by the defence above and similarly on other occasions, Fernandez’s complaint about those posts is unnecessary, dramatic, dishonest and malicious.
This concludes the defence’s rebuttal of the Crown’s unreliable witness David Fernandez.
