Lynsey Hamill, Gestapo Director

 This story in the National

reports

"An initiative by the Scottish Parliament has employed two members of staff – one a former police inspector – to trawl the social media accounts of 69 MSPs who signed up to the review.

The pair found 23,507 posts considered abusive in 2024-25, but which did not reach the required level to be considered criminal.

In the most recent year, 257 posts were referred to Police Scotland – down from 461 the previous year – with one case proceeding to court.

The Scottish Parliament’s monitoring software searches social media for threatening and abusive language and can refer the posts to police if required.

A briefing sent to MSPs by Holyrood’s director of operations and digital, Lynsey Hamill, said: “Whilst it is too early to draw any firm conclusions on trends and success of the scheme when comparing data from the pilot year and year one, we can see the scale of online abuse of MSPs is now readily apparent and growing."

Lynsey Hamill - Gestapo Director

This then would appear to be the Director of Gestapo Operations at the Scottish Parliament -

Lynsey Hamill - Linked-In 

Director Hamill was quoted in December 2024 by Holyrood's story - Man convicted for threatening MSP after new parliament monitoring scheme introduced helpfully explaining that Holyrood's very own Gestapo was -

".. launched in response to a review of the personal security provision for MSPs and staff undertaken by the SPCB following the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess in 2021."

I wonder if Director Hamill is aware of the circumstances of Sir David's murder? Perhaps she could learn something from Wikipedia - David Amess - Murder?

"On 15 October 2021, Amess was fatally stabbed at his constituency surgery at Belfairs Methodist Church Hall in Leigh-on-Sea. Amess's murder was later declared a "terrorist incident" by the Metropolitan Police. The investigation, led by Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Command, explored "a potential motivation linked to Islamist extremism".

The killer, Ali Harbi Ali, a British citizen of Somali descent, was arrested at the scene, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order. A post-mortem examination determined Amess died from multiple stab wounds to the chest."

Unsurprisingly, Sir David did not die from reading multiple abusive tweets on his digital device, but from being stabbed by an Islamic terrorist.

To secure MPs and MSPs from being murdered then security staff would be better directed to search people for knives at constituency surgeries etc. than waste time searching for abusive, maybe, but harmless social media posts.

Directing "information security analysts" to search for abusive social media posts but not for knives at constituency surgeries is disgracefully incompetent misdirection and any director responsible for such misdirection of staff should be dismissed.

Lynsey Hamill should be sacked from the employment of the Scottish Parliament if MSPs are to be kept safe. Hamill's incompetence is a risk to security and her assault on the freedom to post on social media represents a fascist threat to the freedom of expression which is the lifeblood of the democracy of Scotland. Sack Hamill immediately!

Motion to recuse Sheriff Lesley Johnston

I have today emailed Aberdeen Sheriff Court asking that a document for my defence be lodged, as quoted below.

IN THE SHERIFF COURT OF GRAMPIAN, HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS

AT
ABERDEEN

MOTION FOR THE ACCUSED

in

Procurator Fiscal, ABERDEEN

against

ALASTAIR PETER DOW, B.Sc.(Hons)

SCS Ref: SCS/2025-003979
Local Ref: ABE/2025-000145
PF Ref: AB25000403-001
Police Ref: PSSECR53W1224
SCRO No: S129419/83N

Date  lodged -  10th June 2025
Lodged by the accused representing himself

MOTION FOR THE ACCUSED

RECUSE LESLEY JOHNSTON

The Accused moves the court to recuse Sheriff Lesley Johnston from this case for the reason that she has demonstrated herself to the defence to be irreversibly prejudiced and incapable of judging this case fairly and professionally, violating her oath of office in the process, as detailed in this document.

DOCUMENT CONTENTS         PAGE
TITLE PAGE 1
MOTION FOR THE ACCUSED 2
RECUSE LESLEY JOHNSTON         2
DOCUMENT CONTENTS 2
EMAIL OF 25th MARCH 2025 3
EMAIL OF 4th JUNE 2025         5
EXTRACT OF CRIMINAL MINUTE 6
ROLE OF A JUDGE 9
OATH         9
VIOLATION OF OATH         10
DID NOT WELL SERVE              10
NOT DONE RIGHT              10
LAWS DISREGARDED                11
USAGE DISREGARDED         11
FEAR                 11
FAVOUR                12
ILL WILL              12
LESLEY JOHNSTON 14

EMAIL OF 25th MARCH 2025

Within hours of the hearing of 25th March 2025 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court, intended as a diet of debate on the document lodged by the defence - the “Minute for the Accused” - the Accused emailed the court’s Criminal Team, as quoted below, edited only to correct misspellings.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Copy of the case minutes for PF v Alastair Peter Dow - Sheriff Johnston's opinion for the record please

At today's (25th March 2025) diet of debate in Court 3 of Aberdeen Sheriff Court presided over by Sheriff Johnston, she stated her decision at the end of the hearing but she was speaking too quickly for me to note down what she was saying and I missed most of it, though I did note that she erroneously didn't sustain my objection.

Sheriff Johnston did explain that her decision would be noted in the minutes, the record of the case and that I could ask the sheriff clerk's office for a copy of those case minutes, which is what I am asking for in this email. Even if Sheriff Johnston's decision was completely wrong it is still of interest to me as to what actually she wrote into the case record.

I have to note that I was not impressed by Sheriff Johnston's handling of the debate diet, where she made some rather gross errors in my opinion.

Sheriff Johnston didn't want to hear me speak the word "Paki" whose use is at the heart of this case. She seemed to be prejudiced about my use of the word "Paki" in court, even when I made it clear I meant the word to refer to Pakistanis, the Pakistani diaspora or Pakistan as the case may be. The word "Paki" per se seemed to jar with her sensibilities regardless of what I meant by the word.

Sheriff Johnston insisted that facts referred to in my "Minute for the Accused" could not be considered at this stage of the proceedings which didn't seem to mesh with Sheriff Foulis's previous decision to invite me to submit an Application by Minute which, as far as I can see from the legislation, which I can quote even if I am not a lawyer, is supposed to be an application in a form which consists of a statement of facts as well as the other items.

See Act of ACT OF SEDERUNT (SHERIFF COURT ORDINARY CAUSE RULES) 1993 No.1956 (S.223)

SCHEDULE 1, Initiation and progress of causes, 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1956/made
CHAPTER 14 APPLICATIONS BY MINUTE
Form of minute
14.2. A minute to which this Chapter applies shall contain-
(a) a crave;
(b) where appropriate, a condescendence in the form of a statement of facts supporting the crave; and
(c) where appropriate, pleas-in-law.

A prejudiced sheriff and a sheriff who is not interested in the relevant facts of a case is not a good sheriff, sorry, so I don't want Sheriff Johnston to have any more dealings with this case if that is possible?

Today's was a very unsatisfactory hearing which I don't think advanced the cause of justice one iota.

Please can the Sheriff Clerk's Office kindly email me a copy of Sheriff Johnston's decision for the record as requested.
Yours sincerely
(Alastair) Peter Dow
Etc.

EMAIL OF 4th JUNE 2025

Some 9 weeks later, after the Accused sent a reminder email to Aberdeen Sheriff Court, a reply was finally received -

Good Afternoon
Thank you for your email below.  Firstly can I apologise for not responding timeously this was an oversight on my part, any I apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you.  Normally the court does not provide copy of court minutes whilst a case is ongoing.  However, on this occasion I have been advised that Sheriff Johnston consented to you being given a copy of the minute of proceedings for 25th March 2025.  Accordingly I attach an extract copy of the minute
Regards, John Bywalec, Sheriff Clerk Depute, Aberdeen Sheriff Court

attaching a PDF file with the “Extract of Criminal Minute” as follows.

EXTRACT OF CRIMINAL MINUTE

It is the defence’s submission that the above reproduced “Extract of Criminal Minute” is mendaciously misleading as to the misconduct of the hearing of 25th March 2025 by Sheriff Johnston, as follows

With regard to - 

“ready to proceed with the accused’s minute”

- the Accused made several points as regards readiness to proceed at the outset and received responses from Sheriff Johnston which negatively impacted on the defence’s readiness to proceed with Sheriff Johnston presiding in court

1. The Accused intimated to Sheriff Johnston that it would take him about 45 minutes to read aloud through the 23 pages of the Accused’s print-out version of the “Minute for the Accused” which was the subject of the debate diet - to which Sheriff Johnston responded that she was not going to allow the Accused to do this.
   
   
2. The Accused intimated to Sheriff Johnston that the original digital version of the “Minute for the Accused” contains links to supportive online content which the Accused would like to be able to display in court and whilst the court did have a large video monitor mounted on the court room wall, there was no provision in court that day for the Accused to use a device such as a laptop computer to cast or otherwise display the online content on the monitor, suggesting that a further debate diet or diets should be arranged to allow for this - to which Sheriff Johnston responded that she was not going to allow this.
   
   
3. When the Accused first addressed the central issue of this case - uttering the word “Paki” used as a shortened form of the word “Pakistani” - Sheriff Johnston said that she was not going to allow the Accused to speak “that word” in her court and that she insisted that the Accused refer indirectly to that word as “the word”. The Accused intimated to Sheriff Johnston that she appeared to be prejudiced about the Accused’s use of the word “Paki” and so prejudiced against the defence’s arguments at the outset and therefore the Accused would be asking for Sheriff Johnston to be recused from this case. Regardless, Sheriff Johnston continued to brush the defence’s objections aside in the deluded belief and insistence that the defence was “ready to proceed” whereas in reality the defence cannot ever be ready to be railroaded by a prejudiced Sheriff such as Lesley Johnston hastily proceeding towards an unjust conclusion.

So the “Extract of Criminal Minute”, mendaciously misleads the reader by failing to note that although the Accused persevered by attempting to represent the defence arguments despite the disabling and unfair restrictions placed upon the defence by Sheriff Johnston, the defence will never be ready nor consent to Sheriff Johnston playing any further part in these proceedings.

With regard to -

“having heard from the accused in person”

- actually, that’s somewhat misleading too because the court was not allowed to hear the Accused narrating for 45 minutes or so to present the content of the “Minute for the Accused” for a more careful consideration than Sheriff Johnston’s private, in-chambers reading.

With regard to -

“there is nothing in the accused’s minute or submissions which goes to the question, in law, as to whether the charges are competent and/or relevant” 

- this is misleading because the minute contains facts about the Accused’s usage of the word “Paki” and Sheriff Johnston insisted in court that “the facts could not be considered at this stage of the proceedings” so despite her protestations that she had already read the “Minute for the Accused” she had apparently not really considered the relevant facts contained therein nor would she allow the narration and concurrent consideration of the facts during the hearing.

This motion to recuse arises because the defence understands that Sheriff Johnston had at the outset, with extreme prejudice, decided that, regardless of the facts of this case, she was determined to reject the defence’s pleas and was simply railroading through the proceedings, unwilling or incapable of giving a fair hearing and/or exercising professional judgement of this case.

With regard to -

“The essence of the accused’s position is that the use of a particular term in his alleged X/twitter posts is not a racist term in the context in which it is used, and cannot amount in law to him having acted in a racially aggravated manner which caused or intended to cause alarm or distress to a person.”

- this obfuscates the essence of the Accused’s position by omitting to record the fact that the “particular term” is “Paki” and “the context in which it is used” is as a shortened form of the longer word “Pakistani”.

So the reader of the “Extract of Criminal Minute” is left none-the-wiser as to what the crux of this case actually is? Tip-toeing around the decisively important fact of the case to suit the snowflake sensibilities of Sheriff Johnston does not make for a clear and accurate record.

With regard to -

“The Sheriff having also intimated to the accused that this is not a matter relating to the competency or relevancy of the charges.”

- She is plain wrong about that because the complaints, the arrest, the charges, the prosecution and the proceedings are founded solely on the erroneous assumption or suspicion that the Accused’s use of the word “Paki” is “racist” or is prima facie evidence of “acting in a racially aggravated manner”, when in reality his use of the word “Paki” is demonstrably no such thing.

This assumption or suspicion is shown to be erroneous by the facts of this case, by the Accused’s non-racist usage of the word “Paki”. The Accused is a non-racist, indeed he is an anti-racist while simultaneously being a political critic of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Pakistanis, so he has cause in his political activism to use the word “Paki” as a shortened form of the word “Pakistani”.

The facts of the matter being as they are accurately stated in the “Minute for the Accused”, it is not competent nor relevant to proceed with any spurious complaint, false arrest, malicious prosecution or objectionable court proceedings founded solely on such an erroneous assumption or suspicion because his act complained about - tweeting with the word “Paki” - is not a crime.

The same objection in law would be made to a complaint about someone using the word “Aussie”, short for Australian, who was then arrested, prosecuted and appeared in court proceedings on the sole foundation that it was erroneously assumed or suspected by police, prosecutors, court officials and sheriffs that the use of the word “Aussie” is “racist” or is prima facie evidence of “acting in a racially aggravated manner”.

It is not a crime to use the word “Paki” as short for “Pakistani” for the same legal reason that it is not a crime to use the word “Aussie” as short for “Australian”. It is neither competent nor relevant to proceed with an objectionable prosecution of an act which is not a crime.

The legality of an act relates precisely to the competency and relevancy of proceedings to prosecute charges founded on the pretext of that legal act, in that it is always incompetent and irrelevant for criminal courts to prosecute a legal act.

ROLE OF A JUDGE

"The role of a judge is to interpret and apply the law without bias or prejudice." - Judiciary of Scotland, website.

OATH

Lesley Johnston's judicial oath -

“I, Lesley Johnston, do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of Sheriff, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

VIOLATION OF OATH

Lesley Johnston has violated her oath of office, by not well and truly serving in the office of Sheriff, by doing wrong to Accused, by disregarding the laws and usages of Scotland, in fear of Pakistanis, showing favour to Pakistanis and revealing her ill will to the Accused and to the Scots and to the others whom the Accused’s political activism serves.

DID NOT WELL SERVE

Was anyone “well and truly served” by Lesley Johnston at that court hearing on 25th March 2025? The defence says that probably she did not serve anyone well but certainly she did a grave disservice to justice in the Scottish Courts, a disservice to the Scots, to the patronage of Saint Andrew and to our Lord Jesus Christ.

If such a disservice to the Scots was treacherously also a service to some other, then who might Lesley Johnston serve? The antiChrist or some other deceiver or false prophet? The Islamic prophet Mohammed, perhaps? Is she a closet Muslim or just one of Islam’s useful idiots - a dupe who does wrong to non-Muslims seeking to curry favour with Muslims?

NOT DONE RIGHT

Lesley Johnston has not done right to the Accused in Aberdeen Sheriff Court on 25th March 2025.

She did wrongfully not allow the Accused a fair hearing on that day and she demonstrated prejudice, bias and an unwillingness to hear the defence arguments at the outset of the so-called “hearing”, or rather non-hearing because she refused to hear the accused narrate for 45 minutes from the 23 pages of his print-out copy of his lodged document “Minute for the Accused” which was the subject of the debate diet.

She did wrongfully refuse to order that a further debate diet be scheduled with facilitation for the defence to display in court the supportive online content linked to from the original digital version of the “Minute for the Accused”.

With extreme prejudice, she did wrongfully repel the Accused's preliminary pleas and she did wrongfully refuse the Accused's crave to dismiss the prosecution's objectionable complaint against him and the proceedings thereon.

LAWS DISREGARDED

Lesley Johnston disregarded The Human Rights Act 1998

Lesley Johnston disregarded The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

USAGE DISREGARDED

Lesley Johnston disregarded the usage of the social media site X, formerly Twitter, where the customary practice is to entrust efficient moderation of the content of posts and the enforcement of site rules to the site’s owners and managers and where the police state should not overreach to interfere undemocratically with the right to freedom of expression.

FEAR

Lesley Johnston did wrong to the accused while she appeared to fear the following -

• She feared Pakistani Humza Yousaf MSP, former First Minister

• She feared Pakistani Kaukab Stewart MSP, Scottish Govt. Minister

• She feared the Scottish National Party, the governing political party in the Scottish Parliament, of which Yousaf & Stewart and many other Pakistanis are members

• Her fears of Yousaf & Stewart were relevant because both Pakistanis are named in the malicious and false charges against the Accused

• She feared Pakistani Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar

• She feared Pakistani solicitor advocate Aamer Anwar

• Her fears of Aisha & Aamer Anwar were relevant because relevant facts about both Pakistanis are detailed in the “Minute for the Accused” which she would not allow to be narrated for the defence

• She feared risking the displeasure of those Pakistanis if she does right by the Accused

• She feared the repercussions to her from displeased and disappointed Pakistanis should she fail to pander to this objectionable prosecution

FAVOUR

Lesley Johnston did wrong to the accused while she appeared to favour the following

• She favoured the Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen and the fiscal depute who is prosecuting this case in court

• She favoured the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Pakistanis

• She favoured Humza Yousaf, Kaukab Stewart, Aamer Anwar, Aisha Anwar, notable members of the Pakistani diaspora in Scotland, relevant facts about whom are detailed in the “Minute for the Accused”.

• She favoured Muslims.

ILL WILL

The Accused in the course of his political and social activism, including posting on social media, acts with good will to defend all manner of people, including the best of Pakistanis, such as Malala Yousafsai, who are the victims of Pakistani-organised violent acts of ill will.

When the Accused’s acts of goodwill, such as tweeting with the word “Paki”, are arrested, prosecuted or restricted this amounts to an act of ill will by the police and courts against those whom the Accused’s acts of goodwill towards are intended to defend.

By her prejudiced decisions in this case, Lesley Johnston has revealed her ill will to the Accused and to anyone else who uses the word "Paki" as a shortened form of the word "Pakistani", for brevity, to use a larger font size for a heading, to use otherwise as seems convenient for the purposes of clear political communication without fear or favour or to assert the legal human right of freedom of expression when it is challenged.

• She revealed ill will to the Accused’s goodwill political and social activism in Scotland

• She revealed ill will to the victims of Pakistani-organised crime & Muslim terrorism

• She revealed ill will to the victims of Pakistani-organised drug dealing & gang violence.

• She revealed ill will to the Scots, well served by the Accused’s goodwill activism of 45 years.

• She revealed ill will to educated women, gays and non-Muslims who suffer cruel and murderous acts at the hands of Islamists enforcing barbaric Sharia law.

• She revealed ill will to all manner of persons who are defended by the Accused.

LESLEY JOHNSTON

A footnote about Lesley Johnston’s legal career.

SOLICITOR ADVOCATE

“Lesley Johnston is a graduate of the University of Aberdeen (LLB (Hons) in 2007); the University of Edinburgh (Diploma in Legal Practice in 2008); and the University of Glasgow (LLM (By Research) in 2014). She qualified as a solicitor with Anderson Strathern in 2010, where she was latterly an Associate in the litigation department. Between 2013 and 2015 she was the Law Clerk to the Lord President, returning to Anderson Strathern on completion of her post. In 2016 she qualified as a Solicitor Advocate and in the same year joined Kennedys, where she was latterly a Senior Associate. Between 2017 and 2021 she also sat as a Legal Member of the First-tier Tribunal (Housing and Property Chamber).”

SHERIFF

“In 2021, Johnston was appointed as a Summary Sheriff resident in Aberdeen Sheriff Court.

On September 30, 2024, the King appointed Johnston, to the office of sheriff, on the recommendation of the First Minister John Swinney who made his recommendation for appointment on the basis of a report by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.”

Judicial Office of Scotland oblivious to Lesley Johnston's snowflake prejudice

Of course I complained to the Judicial Office of Scotland about Sheriff Johnston's prejudice and disregard of the facts but they didn't uphold my complaint so I shall be asking for a review of that decision by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Mr James Mollison.

The Judicial Office for Scotland in their email of 10 April 2025 to me claim that my "complaint falls to be dismissed under rule 8(3)(b): is about a judicial decision" of the "Complaints About the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2024."

However, my complaint was not about a "judicial" decision but a prejudicial decision, that is to say, an exercise of prejudice, not judgement, on the part of Lesley Johnston, who was clearly prejudiced against any utterance by me certainly (and possibly by anyone else) in her court of the word "Paki" regardless of the facts of the context in which I use the word, as I explained in brief in my email of complaint to the Judicial Office for Scotland 28 March 2025 and I quote -

"Sheriff Johnston didn't want to hear me speak the word "Paki" whose use is at the heart of this case - the crux of the matter. She seemed to be prejudiced about my use of the word "Paki" in court, even when I made it clear I meant the word as a shortened form to refer to Pakistanis, the Pakistani diaspora or Pakistan as the case may be. The word "Paki" per se seemed to jar with her sensibilities regardless of what I meant by the word.

Her response to my use of the word "Paki" seemed Pavlovian, as if she was behaving in a conditioned manner, conditioned to censor any utterance of the word regardless of the context.

Sheriff Johnston insisted that the facts referred to in my "Minute for the Accused" could not be considered at this stage of the proceedings which didn't seem to mesh with Sheriff Foulis's previous decision of 25th February to invite me to submit an Application by Minute which, as far as I can see from the legislation, which I can quote even if I am not a lawyer but a scientist, is supposed to be an application in a form which consists of a statement of facts as well as the other items.

See Act of ACT OF SEDERUNT (SHERIFF COURT ORDINARY CAUSE RULES) 1993 No.1956 (S.223)SCHEDULE 1, Initiation and progress of causes, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1956/made
CHAPTER 14 APPLICATIONS BY MINUTE

Form of minute
14.2. A minute to which this Chapter applies shall contain-
(a) a crave;
(b) where appropriate, a condescendence in the form of a statement of facts supporting the crave; and
(c) where appropriate, pleas-in-law.

Although Sheriff Johnston claimed to have read my "Minute for the Accused" before the hearing, she didn't seem to display any understanding or appreciation of my usage of the word "Paki", as detailed in the document and she wouldn't allow me to read through it which would have taken about 45 minutes - apparently much too long for a Sheriff who had already made her mind up after a quick read through on her own, before the hearing.

A prejudiced sheriff and a sheriff who is not interested in the relevant facts of a case is not a good sheriff, in my opinion, sorry, so I don't want Sheriff Johnston to have any more dealings with this case if that is possible?

March 25th was a very unsatisfactory hearing which I don't think advanced the cause of justice one iota."

The Judicial Office for Scotland's email shows the Judicial Office misapplying the rules.

Lesley Johnston in not allowing me to read through my Application by Minute, wilfully disregarding the relevant facts of the case, did misconduct the proceedings.

Since Lesley Johnston was personally presiding over the court hearing then her misconduct of the proceedings amounts to her personal misconduct too.

When my use of the word "Paki" is the crux of the case then it is wholly wrong-headed for the Judicial Office for Scotland to claim -

"The Sheriff is entitled to limit the use of certain language that could be considered offensive within the courtroom if she saw fit to do so".

WRONG!

My point is there was NO "consideration" of my language by Sheriff Johnston. The only person in the court room who had carefully considered my use of the word "Paki" was me. No-one else there was allowed by Lesley Johnstone to hear my carefully prepared Application by Minute for precisely such a consideration of my use of language.

Lesley Johnston did not "consider", but merely exercised her prejudice. She did NOT consider the facts of my usage of the word "Paki". She simply didn't want to hear the word "Paki" uttered in her court precisely to prevent detailed consideration by the court of the facts as to how I am using the word "Paki" in court and on-line.

Lesley Johnston didn't know and she didn't want to learn the relevant facts for the appropriate considered judgement of crux of the case. She set her face against any fair consideration of my language when she decided not to allow me to read from my Application by Minute.

Lesley Johnston decided on the basis of her prejudice about the word "Paki" which she had before she unjustly censored me because she did not want to "hear" nor "consider" what any judicially-minded Sheriff was duty-bound to hear and to consider.

In a court of law, my use of the word "Paki" is protected by the law of human rights and freedom of expression, but Sheriff Johnston was NOT applying the law to the facts in a judicial fashion but simply exercising her prejudice about the word injudiciously.

In a court of law, NO Sheriff is "entitled" to disregard the law and the relevant facts of a case.

That's where the Judicial Office for Scotland is entirely wrong in their "The Sheriff is entitled .." statement as they apply it to Lesley Johnston somehow being "entitled" to limit my use of the word "Paki" within the courtroom.

Not in a court of law where I have the presumption of innocence and I am attempting to defend my own use of the word "Paki" in a case where the use of that word is the central matter at issue - the crux - does Lesley Johnston, nor any other Sheriff, have any such "entitlement" to presume the offensiveness of my words without knowledge of the facts of how I use the word.

This is a quote from my Application by Minute

SNOWFLAKE

Fact. "Snowflake" is a derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have

an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly emotional, easily offended,

and unable to deal with opposing opinions.

See - “Snowflake (slang)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)

It is time for me to write something derogatory about Lesley Johnston. In my opinion, she is a snowflake solicitor with an unwarranted sense of her own entitlement to censor and otherwise to do wrong to the Scots and for her to continue to sit on the bench of any Scottish court is a state of affairs which shames the Scottish Governments within the United Kingdom which put her there and/or keep her there.

It is my view that Lesley Johnston should be removed from the bench so that she can instead find another job where her snowflake prejudices are no impediment to satisfactory performance in the job.

The reviewer should find that my complaint about Lesley Johnston has not been properly handled by the Judicial Office of Scotland.

Sheriff Lesley Johnston presiding - prejudiced and disregarding the facts

 At today's (25th March 2025) diet of debate in Court 3 of Aberdeen Sheriff Court presided over by Sheriff Johnston, she stated her decision at the end of the hearing but she was speaking too quickly for me to note down what she was saying and I missed most of it, though I did note that she erroneously didn't sustain my objection.

Sheriff Johnston did explain that her decision would be noted in the minutes, the record of the case and that I could ask the sheriff clerk's office for a copy of those case minutes, which I did, later, by email. Even if Sheriff Johnston's decision was completely wrong it is still of interest to me as to what actually she wrote into the case record.

I have to note that I was not impressed by Sheriff Johnston's handling of the debate diet, where she made some rather gross errors in my opinion.

Sheriff Johnston didn't want to hear me speak the word "Paki" whose use is at the heart of this case - the crux of the matter. She seemed to be prejudiced about my use of the word "Paki" in court, even when I made it clear I meant the word as a shortened form to refer to Pakistanis, the Pakistani diaspora or Pakistan as the case may be. The word "Paki" per se seemed to jar with her sensibilities regardless of what I meant by the word.

Her response to my use of the word "Paki" seemed Pavlovian, as if she was behaving in a conditioned manner, conditioned to censor any utterance of the word regardless of the context. 

Sheriff Johnston insisted that the facts referred to in my "Minute for the Accused" could not be considered at this stage of the proceedings which didn't seem to mesh with Sheriff Foulis's previous decision to invite me to submit an Application by Minute which, as far as I can see from the legislation, which I can quote even if I am not a lawyer, is supposed to be an application in a form which consists of a statement of facts as well as the other items.

See Act of ACT OF SEDERUNT (SHERIFF COURT ORDINARY CAUSE RULES) 1993 No.1956 (S.223)
SCHEDULE 1, Initiation and progress of causes,
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1956/made

CHAPTER 14 APPLICATIONS BY MINUTE
Form of minute
14.2. A minute to which this Chapter applies shall contain-
(a) a crave;
(b) where appropriate, a condescendence in the form of a statement of facts supporting the crave; and
(c) where appropriate, pleas-in-law.

Although Sheriff Johnston claimed to have read my "Minute for the Accused" before the hearing, she didn't seem to display any understanding or appreciation of my usage of the word "Paki", as detailed in the document and she wouldn't allow me to read through it which would have taken about 45 minutes - apparently much too long for a Sheriff who had already made her mind up after a quick read through on her own, before the hearing.

A prejudiced sheriff and a sheriff who is not interested in the relevant facts of a case is not a good sheriff, in my opinion, sorry, so I don't want Sheriff Johnston to have any more dealings with this case if that is possible?

Today's was a very unsatisfactory hearing which I don't think advanced the cause of justice one iota.

DISCLOSED - Yousaf & Stewart made NO statements to police. Warrant granted by Sheriff Kevin McCarron.

Today, I was finally allowed a 2nd session of access to the case papers disclosing the following.

WITNESS STATEMENTS (and I quote)

Witness 2 - Kaukab Stewart. Witness is the Minister for Equalities of Scotland. No statement has been obtained from the witness.

Witness 4 - Humza Yousaf. Witness is the former first minister of Scotland. He is now a member of the Scottish Parliament. No witness statement has been taken.

EVIDENTIAL SEARCH WARRANT

Sheriff Kevin McCarron, Sheriff of Lothian and Borders, granted the warrant craved by the petition of procurator fiscal depute Ewan Wilson-McKay on the 16th December 2024.

The petition says that my tweets on X were reported to the police by "persons employed by the Scottish Parliament."

WITNESS STATEMENT (and I quote)

Witness 1 - Darren Steadwood. STATEMENT "My name is Darren Steadwood and I am employed at the Scottish Parliament as an Information Security Analyst. I have worked in the role since June 2024. My duties include monitoring the social media accounts of Members of the Scottish Parliament for posts and messages which are offensive, threatening or motivated by hate. In order to carry out this role, I use a software tool called COSAIN, which proactively searches social media platforms for key words or phrases within posts, based on parameters set by me. I then read the posts, make my own assessment and if I deem it to be necessary, report the post to the police."

So it looks like the Scottish Parliament has set up its own parliamentary Gestapo / Stasi unit to hunt down Scots tweeting adversely about any MSP to have us taken political prisoners.

So MSPs don't have to lift a finger or make any statement or complaint to police about anyone but nevertheless the police state will get busy automatically rounding up Scots like me for daring to express an "offensive" opinion on X.

Silly me, everyone should know not to offend the Gestapo / Stasi in a fascist police state whose head of state is Not-My-King Charlie-boy.😒

UPDATE 21st June 2025

The National news website reports

"An initiative by the Scottish Parliament has employed two members of staff – one a former police inspector – to trawl the social media accounts of 69 MSPs who signed up to the review. ..

 A briefing sent to MSPs by Holyrood’s director of operations and digital, Lynsey Hamill, said: “Whilst it is too early to draw any firm conclusions on trends and success of the scheme when comparing data from the pilot year and year one, we can see the scale of online abuse of MSPs is now readily apparent and growing."

My "Minute for the accused"

I've just emailed in to Aberdeen Sheriff Court my "Minute for the accused", reproduced below, with a view to having it lodged tomorrow 10th March 2025 with the court's case papers.

Not sure why they call it a "minute"? Maybe because it only takes them a minute to decide it is TOO LONG DID NOT READ? 😀

IN THE SHERIFF COURT OF GRAMPIAN, HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS

AT

ABERDEEN

MINUTE FOR THE ACCUSED

in

Procurator Fiscal, ABERDEEN

against

ALASTAIR PETER DOW, B.Sc.(Hons)

SCS Ref: SCS/2025-003979

Local Ref: ABE/2025-000145

PF Ref: AB25000403-001

Police Ref: PSSECR53W1224

SCRO No: S129419/83N

Date lodged - 10th March 2025

Lodged by the accused representing himself

CONTENTS 

• MINUTE FOR THE ACCUSED 
• CRAVE 
• STATEMENT OF FACTS 
• THE ACCUSED 
• MEANINGS 
• X (TWITTER) 
• ISLAMIC TERROR 
• DEROGATING 
• TERROR TARGETS 
• SECRET PAKISTAN 
• PAKI POWER GRAB 
• DECLARATION 
• PLEAS-IN-LAW 

CRAVE

The procurator fiscal depute's complaint is against certain of the accused's published posts on X (the social media site formerly known as Twitter) using the accused's account "@_Peter_Dow", as identified by uncontroversial evidence of the accused's posts which have included the word "Paki".

The charges falsely and maliciously allege that the accused acted in a "racially aggravated manner", while the accused insists that he meant the word "Paki" as short for "Pakistani" without intending any racist connotation.

The accused's complained-about posts on X should be understood in the context of the relevant facts as stated below and as otherwise presented to the court via links to online content - facts about Islamic terrorism and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, facts about the Pakistani diaspora (including members of the Scottish Parliament Humza Yousaf & Kaukab Stewart) and facts about other Muslims.

The accused’s complained-about posts on X are adversarial posts in the nature of the cut and thrust of democratic political debate about how the government should better defend the people from Islamic terrorism, from Muslim violence against women and girls etc..

The accused's posts on X are adequately moderated by X site rule administrators requiring no such anti-democratic interference by the police, prosecutors and the courts.

The accused has cause to defend his human rights, his freedom of expression and our democracy in Scotland against the procurator fiscal depute's prosecution.

At the first diet of the case on the 15th January 2025, before Sheriff Wark, the accused objected to the competency and relevancy of the complaint and the proceedings thereon, according to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 144, subsection (4) before pleading “NOT GUILTY” to the charge.

At an intermediate diet of the case on 25th February 2025, before Sheriff Foulis, the accused applied for leave of the court, on cause shown, to object under the same Section 144, but under subsection (5), this being a “future diet”, not the first diet.

The Sheriff suggested that the accused could withdraw his plea of “NOT GUILTY” which he did. The Sheriff further suggested that the accused could lodge a minute such as this for debate at the next diet which the accused agreed to do.

The accused craves the court on cause shown in this minute to grant leave to object to the competency and relevancy of the complaint and the proceedings thereon, according to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 144, subsection (5).

The accused further craves the court to dismiss the prosecution’s objectionable complaint and the proceedings thereon, according to justice.

CONDESCENDENCE SUPPORTING THE CRAVE

STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE ACCUSED

Fact. The accused is a scientist.
See the photographic evidence of the accused's science qualifications - graduating from the University of Edinburgh with a degree of Bachelor of Science.



See - The accused's blog post listing links to some of the accused's published science posts. 

Fact. One of the accused's science posts is titled -
"Submission to the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry", See - https://peterdow.wordpress.com/2023/09/01/submission-to-the-scottish-covid-19-inquiry/

from which this quote -
"From 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022, I was a scientist living in Aberdeen, Scotland and publishing my science advice on the internet which, if followed, could have saved many lives from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Before, during and since that period, the incompetent institutions of the UK, including the devolved Scottish Government and its institutions, had ignored, did ignore and still do ignore my advice and that of many other scientists.

I have even been taken political prisoner and repeatedly threatened with such for doing my duty to promote my high quality scientific advice as more worthy of consideration than the prejudices of UK officialdom, such as police officers, judges and government ministers."

So 10,000 Scots died unnecessarily because the Scottish Government would rather prosecute a scientist than follow the science.

Fact. The accused is a human rights defender.
The accused featured in a chapter of the Scottish-produced human rights documentary, "The New Ten Commandments" which premiered at the Edinburgh International Film Festival in 2008 and was later broadcast on BBC 2 Scotland.
See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Ten_Commandments
View that 10-minute chapter as a YouTube video titled "Scottish republican socialist Peter Dow, author and protester"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=789SkK7uwiY

Fact. The accused is not a racist.
See production - photographic evidence of the accused's socialising with black friends and acquaintances.

MEANINGS

Fact. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a country, not a "race". Pakistani is a nationality / national identity, not a "race". Islam is a religion, not a "race".
The accused's criticisms of Pakistan, Pakistanis, the Pakistani diaspora, Islam or Muslims do not feature unscientific notions of "race" in any shape or form.

'PAKI' IN PROSE
Fact. The etymology of the word "Paki" was as a clipping or shortened form of the word "Pakistani", with no change of meaning. Originally there was no racist connotation to the use of the word.
See - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Paki#Etymology

Fact. Many nationalities have clipped forms - "Brit" is a shorter word for "Briton", "Aussie" is short for "Australian", "Argie" is short for Argentinian, "Jap" for "Japanese" and so on.
Finding or adducing any such use of the shortened form of a nationality is not prima facie evidence of racism nor of acting in a racially aggravated manner and is not a proper basis upon which to found a competent arrest, warrant or prosecution.

“PAKI” JUST MEANS PAKISTANI
Fact. The accused insists that by his use of the word "Paki" in X posts, here and elsewhere, he just means "Pakistani" or "Pakistani diaspora" or "Pakistan" as the case may be. The accused is not a racist so does not use that word nor any other word as a racist slur.
The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and so the accused’s use of the word "Paki" must be presumed to be without racist intent until proved otherwise.

At trial it would be up to the prosecution to adduce a sufficiency of evidence to prove a racist intention but since there is no prima facie evidence whatsoever of racism on the accused's part, the charge of "racially aggravated" cannot stick to the accused, as far as a Scottish court of law is concerned, though a Pakistani lynch mob may take exception to any innocent use of the word “Paki”.

BRITISH, PAKI AND PROUD
Fact. In 2005, the BBC aired a documentary called "British, Paki and Proud". "The BBC programme followed the use of the term 'Paki' over the decades. Although it was deemed acceptable in mainstream television coverage in the seventies and early eighties, for many British Asians today it remains a totally unacceptable form of racist abuse."
See -”'Proud of the word "Paki"?'” https://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/features/2005/03/paki.shtml
The accused is of an older generation which watched television in the 1970s and early 80s. Our generation was not and we are not a "racist" generation.

We did not and we do not use the word "Paki" as a form of racist abuse against British Asians who were welcomed to our shores after arriving legally.

British Asians picking an anti-racist fight with a non-racist such as the accused for correctly using the word “Paki” to mean “Pakistani”, would be barking up the wrong tree.

Stand up to racism, of course, but do so intelligently, not by lashing out at the accused on a misconceived pretext.

SNOWFLAKE
Fact. "Snowflake" is a derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.
See - “Snowflake (slang)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)
This complaint has an unwarranted sense of entitlement to misrepresent what the accused means by “Paki”, cites witnesses who are overly emotional and easily offended by the accused’s insignificant posts on X and who are unable to deal democratically with the accused’s opposing opinion.

X (TWITTER)

X DOESN'T BAN "PAKI"
Fact. X site rules do not ban the use of the word "Paki", though X offers a facility for any user to "mute" any word or phrase so that posts with that word or phrase are not presented for reading to the user who has so muted the word or phrase.
See - https://help.x.com/en/using-x/advanced-x-mute-options

X also allows any user the ability to mute or similarly "block" all posts from "@_Peter_Dow" or from any other user so that none of the muted or blocked user's posts are presented to the user who has muted or blocked the other user.
See - https://help.x.com/en/using-x/x-mute

Further, X offers a "report" facility for users to report posts to X site administrators which potentially may have violated X site rules and terms of service, for examination and for X to consider appropriate moderation action.
See - https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/x-report-violation

Therefore X offers several good and efficient options for any user who doesn't want to read any more of the accused's "@_Peter_Dow" posts or indeed any posts using the word "Paki".

Viewing the X site is entirely voluntary and anyone is free not to visit and read the X site at all.

As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, don't go into the kitchen.

Dramatic and malicious complaints to the police about the accused’s posts on X waste the time of the police, the courts and the accused, without any cause to do so.

ISLAMIC TERROR

Fact. Islamic terrorism has killed people in the UK and world-wide.
See "Islamic terrorism” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

MUSLIM VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & GIRLS
Fact. After the Iranian Islamic revolution, in 1983, 10 Bahai women were executed in Shiraz, Iran - hanged after refusing to renounce their non-Muslim faith.
Such is the "glory of Islam" for which Muslims fight.
See - “Executed Women Haunt, Inspire Iranian Baha'is 40 Years Later”
https://www.voanews.com/a/executed-women-haunt-inspire-iranian-bahais-40-years-on-/7146282.html

Fact. The Yazidi genocide was perpetrated by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) between 2014 and 2017. It was characterized by massacres, genocidal rape, and forced conversions to Islam.
See - “Yazidi genocide - Violence against Yazidi women and girls” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi_genocide#Violence_against_Yazidi_women_and_girls

Fact. In 2016, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) burned 19 caged Yazidi women to death in Mosul for 'refusing to have sex with fighters'. See - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-burn-19-yazidi-women-to-death-in-mosul-for-refusing-to-have-sex-with-isis-militants-a7066956.html

Fact. Islamic terrorists have struck in Scotland, for example the Glasgow airport Islamic terrorist attack in 2007
See - “2007 Glasgow Airport attack” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_Airport_attack

MUSLIMS KILL SCOTS GIRL
Fact. Islamic terrorists have killed Scots outside of Scotland, for example the murder of Eilidh MacLeod, a 14-year-old girl from Scotland - one of 22 innocent people killed by an Islamist terrorist suicide bomb attack at the Manchester Arena in 2017.
See - “Manchester Arena Inquiry Bomb tore mother of victim's world apart” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58711302

DEROGATING

Fact. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has twice been suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations - the first time from 18 October 1999 to 22 May 2004 and the second time from 22 November 2007 to 22 May 2008 - both times as Pakistan suffered under the Musharraf dictatorship.

Suspension from the Commonwealth is a derogation from full membership. Suspending Pakistan was a derogating act but the Commonwealth was not acting in a "racially aggravated manner", nor could any prosecutor for Pakistan have competently charged the Commonwealth with such an erroneous charge.

See - “Suspension from the Commonwealth of Nations” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_from_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

Fact. In October 2024, there was a call from Human Rights Non-Governmental Organisations to Suspend Pakistan from the Commonwealth Over Blasphemy Laws & Human Rights Violations.

See - “Call to Suspend Pakistan from the Commonwealth Over Blasphemy Laws & Human Rights Violations” https://eutoday.net/call-to-suspend-pakistan-from-the-commonwealth-over-blasphemy-laws-human-rights-violations/

& “Open Letter to the Commonwealth Secretariat” https://eutoday.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Open-letter-to-the-Commonwealth-Secretariat.pdf
Suspension is a derogating act but these human rights NGOs do not call for action "in a racially aggravated manner" as prosecutors for Pakistan could maliciously allege in a Pakistani court or even perhaps in a Scottish court misgoverned by or for the Pakistani diaspora, where any prosecutorial nonsense such as this can be mouthed at the tax-payers’ expense.

What a nightmare it would be for human rights NGOs to be prosecuted in Scotland falsely charged for seeking to suspend Pakistan from the Commonwealth in an allegedly "racially aggravated manner".

TERROR TARGETS

FORMER PAKI PM BHUTTO ASSASSINATED
Fact. In 2007, after a political rally in Rawalpindi, former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. The Salafi jihadist militant group al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, although the involvement of the Pakistani Taliban and rogue elements of the intelligence services were also widely suspected.
See - “Benazir Bhutto - Assassination”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Assassination:_December_2007
Musharraf may have had a hand in Bhutto's assassination too.

PRIZE-WINNER MALALA SHOT
Fact. In October 2012, the Taliban shot Malala Yousafzai, a 15-year old girl targeted for her prize-winning female education rights activism in the Swat Valley, Pakistan. She survived with brain damage after treatment in England where she stayed to continue her education at Oxford University.
See - “Malala Yousafzai - Murder attempt” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai#Murder_attempt
& “Malala Yousafzai - Free Pakistan” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngAIoxzIBzM

Pakistan's brightest and best like Benazir Bhutto and Malala Yousafzai are targeted by Islamic terrorists for the glory of Islam, which is a constitutional obligation for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan too.
As far as the accused is concerned, Malala is very welcome to Britain as are other Pakistani and Afghani refugees who are fleeing from Taliban terror and violence.

Refugees are welcome here but the accused does not welcome random Muslim migrants who bring Islamic terror and violence with them to our country.

PAKI PULL-FACTOR
Fact. The UK is home to the largest Pakistani community in Europe, with the population of British Pakistanis exceeding 1.6 million based on the 2021 Census, including 72 thousand in Scotland, outnumbering Gaelic speakers in Scotland.
See - "British Pakistanis" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pakistanis
British Pakistanis are not, by and large, refugees from the Islamic terrorism of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan but are mostly a Muslim migrant community from which Islamic terrorist organisations world-wide can recruit new terrorists.

PAKI HELL
Fact: The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has long advised Britons against travel to Pakistan, except in limited circumstances such as the Pakistani diaspora visiting family or avoiding particularly dangerous areas etc.
See - “Pakistan travel advice” - https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/pakistan
Nowhere and no-one in the Islamic hellhole of Pakistan is truly safe from terror.

PAKIS BASH GAYS
Fact. Islam is a homophobic religion and Pakistan is a homophobic country.
See - “LGBTQ People and Islam” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_people_and_Islam#Criminalization
& “LGBTQ rights in Pakistan” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Pakistan

QC MISLED INTO PAKI PERIL
Fact: In March 2012, Paul McBride QC travelled to Pakistan accompanied by Aamer Anwar where Mr McBride died suddenly with claims from the Pakistani authorities that his death was "not suspicious" / "of natural causes", but without the scrutiny of an independent forensic science autopsy after the sudden death of a homosexual, non-Muslim, British man in a homophobic Islamic country after meeting with Pakistani army officials who were secretly at war with the UK.
See - “Paul McBride death - QC refused medical aid days before death” https://www.scotsman.com/news/paul-mcbride-death-qc-refused-medical-aid-days-before-death-1640565
Since Pakistanis try to kill Pakistan’s own brightest and best then we can assume that they would have no compunction against killing Scotland’s brightest and best either.

PAKI PLAYACTOR
Fact. Aamer Anwar appeared grief-stricken at Paul McBride's Christian funeral.
Was Mr Anwar virtue-signalling that the Pakistani diaspora was not to blame for misleading a gay, non-Pakistani, non-Muslim British citizen into a trap laid for him by bigoted, belligerent Pakistanis? If so, Mr Anwar’s performance deserves a BAFTA.

See - “Funeral of Paul McBride QC” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n915m8iLLWo

SECRET PAKISTAN

PAKIS PRESSURED TO PERMIT WAR ON TERROR
Fact. Following an Islamic terrorist attack on the United States of America in 2001, the UK military joined American allies in a coalition to wage a war on terror, hunting down the Islamic terrorist organisation responsible who were based in Afghanistan. The preferred land supply route to Afghanistan was via Pakistan which was permitted after the US pressured Pakistan not to dare to obstruct US military operations.
See "War in Afghanistan (2001 - 2021)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)

THE TALIBAN KILLED BRITISH SOLDIERS
Fact. Hundreds of British soldiers were killed and many more were injured by the Islamic terrorist Taliban attacks in Afghanistan.
See - “British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan_since_2001

Western intelligence discovered that Pakistan was secretly aiding the Taliban to kill our soldiers while deceptively seeming to cooperate with the coalition forces.

The Afghan war is over. Our soldiers fought and died for a most worthy cause for which we are grateful. We will remember them.

We should also remember the treachery of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and beware the lies of Pakistan’s diplomats.

PAKIS PLEA FOR FOREIGN AID
Fact. Pakistan has received a lot of undeserved foreign aid. The United Kingdom pledged £665 million to Pakistan from 2009 to 2013. Between 2014 and 2019, Pakistan was the largest recipient of direct UK foreign development aid.
See - “Foreign aid to Pakistan - United Kingdom” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#United_Kingdom

While Pakistan accepted the UK’s aid, Pakistan supported the Taliban to kill British soldiers and Pakistan invested in its own nuclear weapons.
See - “Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Other poorer countries lost out on foreign aid because so much foreign aid was being wasted on such an ungrateful, greedy and treacherous country as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

PERFIDIOUS PAKIS
Fact. For decades, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has secretly sponsored Islamic terrorist organisations including the Taliban. Pakistan's government denies its responsibility for Taliban attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan but top Western intelligence officers and diplomats discount such Pakistani denials, describing Pakistan as playing a double game - having superficially supported coalition forces in Afghanistan while actually opposing the coalition via secret support for the Taliban.

In 2011, the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden was hunted down by the CIA and US special forces and killed in Pakistan where he was found in a safe house close to the Pakistani military academy in Abbottabad. The hunt for Bin Laden had to be covertly organised by the US and all progress kept secret from the Pakistani authorities who were not trusted not to tip off Bin Laden as the hunt closed in on his location.

See - "Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

See the BBC's documentary "Secret Pakistan" first broadcast in 2011

Secret Pakistan introduction 2 minutes
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nBDDEenx_HnAl2S8sOEaQIrTJ6juHHST/view?usp=drive_link

Secret Pakistan - Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) 1 hour
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16pbPPlYZRw-norbJy5IsukjFku8vz8mz/view?usp=drive_link

Secret Pakistan - Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) 1 hour
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1etXXPpBSaUlhtNXj_6LvFzfoBTLVMyC4/view?usp=drive_link

PAKI POWER GRAB

PAKI POLITICIANS
Fact. There are dozens of British Pakistanis who are notable in politics. Wikipedia lists more than 60, including 5 current and former members of the Scottish Parliament.
See - "List of British Pakistanis - Politics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Pakistanis#Politics
SNP Pakistani politicians tend to self-identify as "Scottish" Pakistanis.

PAKI MINISTER PUSHES PAKI DEALS
Fact. In 2013, Scottish Government External Affairs Minister and Scottish Pakistani Humza Yousaf visited Pakistan to praise Scotland's Pakistani diaspora and to develop a closer relationship between Scotland and Pakistan.
See - “Building links with Pakistan” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/building-links-with-pakistan
As Scottish soldiers in Afghanistan were still being killed by Pakistani-sponsored terrorists, the Taliban, "a closer relationship" may have emerged between Scottish drug dealers and Pakistani organised crime, trafficking heroin and arms, making a killing in Scotland.

PAKIS TRIPLED SCOTLAND’S DRUG DEATHS
Fact. The problem of drug deaths in Scotland got decidedly worse in the years after Yousaf's official Scottish Government ministerial visit to Pakistan in 2013.
Drug deaths in Scotland rose to a peak in 2020 of triple the death rate of any other country in Europe, after Yousaf's appointment in 2018 as the Scottish Government's Justice Secretary responsible for enforcing drug laws. Coincidence? Aye, right.
See - “Scotland’s drug deaths still worst in Europe” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y5ll3ler7o

Fact. January 2025: The brother-in-law of former First Minister Humza Yousaf is to stand trial after he was charged with extortion and the supply of class A drugs.
See - https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14237667/humza-yousaf-brother-in-law-trial-plunge-death-dundee/

MUSLIM MOB RULE IN GLASGOW
Fact. In May 2021, a Muslim-led crowd in Kenmure Street, Glasgow surrounded police to blockade a UK Home Office immigration removal van. After an extended stand-off, during which Aamer Anwar arrived to negotiate with police, an agreement allowed the 2 detained men to be escorted to a nearby mosque, with crowds following them, where they were let go.
See - “Kenmure Street protests” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenmure_Street_protests
& See "Protest in Kenmure Street, Glasgow | The Firm | BBC Scotland"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT9LX224R_Y

This potentially dangerous standoff was resolved peacefully if not strictly lawfully nor by the book but what is next to be decided by Muslim-mob-rule in Glasgow?

The accused shoulders a political duty to serve democratically by social media posts and otherwise with a view to helping to ensure that neither Glasgow, nor elsewhere in this country, ever suffers a Muslim mob to lynch someone, Pakistani-style, for "blasphemy", "adultery" or any other non-crime act which may offend a Muslim mob’s sensibilities.

PAKI IS MORE EQUAL THAN OTHER SCOTS
Fact. Kaukab Stewart is a Pakistani who was born in Pakistan according to the Scottish Government's Equalities Minister webpage.
See - “Minister for equalities” https://www.gov.scot/about/who-runs-government/cabinet-and-ministers/minister-for-equalities/
Kaukab Stewart is free to post on X without fear of arrest and prosecution for freely expressing herself, as are other ministers of the Scottish Government but the accused is apparently not afforded an equal human right of freedom of expression by the police and the prosecutors who are misgoverned by the Scottish Government. Some Scots are "more equal" than others it seems.

PAKI LIES
Fact. In August 2021, Kaukab Stewart lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament congratulating Pakistan on its independence. See - https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/votes-and-motions-search/S6M-00856

The Pakistani diaspora misleads us about the Islamic Republic's terrorism & dependency on foreign aid, to hide the terrible truth that typically when Muslims left Pakistan it was not to get away from Islam - but so that their Muslim descendants could ruin other countries for the glory of Islam, just as Islam ruined Pakistan.

This motion by Kaukab Stewart congratulating Pakistan is a pack of Pakistani lies, painting a ridiculously rosy picture of a terribly misgoverned country whose Islamic imperialism is a menace to the free world.



The accused finds it naive and perverse for the Scottish Government to appoint a Scottish Pakistani, Kaukab Stewart, as Equalities Minister expecting her successfully to lead the defence of women and girls against horrific Muslim violence.

As a defender of women's human rights, the accused opposes the appointment of Kaukab Stewart as Equalities minister because she is so fulsome in her praise of Pakistan regardless of Pakistan's role in sponsoring the Taliban's violence against women and girls.

Stewart disgracefully ignores Pakistan's failure to defend Pakistani & Afghani women and girls from Muslim violence and so Scots should expect her to excuse her own failure to defend women and girls from Muslim violence too.

The accused will not give any Pakistani, least of all a Scottish Pakistani Government minister, a free pass for failing to defend women and girls from Islamic terrorism, Sharia law or Muslim lynch mobs.

Stewart should resign or be sacked as a Scottish government minister, in the accused's humble political opinion.

PRINCIPAL PAKI
Fact. “I am thankful to Allah for my success" said Pakistani-born Aisha Anwar in 2023 when interviewed after her first appointment as Sheriff Principal in 2020.
See - “Aisha Anwar: Scotland’s first female Sheriff Principal(Judge) of Pakistani origin” https://enn.aimsinternational.co.uk/aisha-anwar/
So that's now Scots in 1/6th of Scotland's Sheriffdoms subject to the misfortune of Pakistani / Muslim misrule, on appeal. 1/6th was quite the coup for Pakistan considering that Pakistanis only number about 1/75th of Scotland’s population (1/40th of Britain's population).

PAKI PROMOTED
Fact. In March 2023 Aisha Anwar was appointed Sheriff Principal of Glasgow and Strathkelvin from her previous post of Sheriff Principal of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway.
See - “Sheriff Principal Anwar - Law Society of Scotland” https://www.lawscot.org.uk/people/sheriff-principal-anwar/
Weegies beware.

PAKI FIRST MINISTER
Fact. In March 2023, Humza Yousaf stood for election as leader of the SNP and he won. SNP MSPs elected Yousaf to be sworn in as First Minister of Scotland by the Supreme Court of Scotland where Yousaf was accompanied by Aamer Anwar.
The accused published a criticism of Mr Yousaf's unsuitability for the political leadership of Scotland.
See - the accused's blog post "SNP Leadership Election"..
https://peterdow.wordpress.com/2023/02/21/snp-leadership-election/
The accused emailed a PDF of this blog post to police and a print-out of the same was included in the prosecutions' case papers, when disclosed to the accused.

PAKI PRIME MINISTER MEETS PAKI FM
Fact. In 2023, the then First Minister of Scotland, Humza Yousaf, was interviewed by Pakistani journalists after meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister in London. Mr Yousaf was recorded thanking Pakistanis who had congratulated him on his election as First Minister, stating that Pakistan was his fatherland and his motherland and stating that he saw himself as "... Pakistani too".

See the accused's video "It's not "racist" to call Humza Yousaf a "Paki"-

PAKI FM PROVISIONS HAMAS TERROR
Fact. In 2023, after Islamic terrorists had invaded Israel from Gaza killing nearly 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, the Pakistani First Minister of Scotland, Humza Yousaf, rewarded the Islamic terrorism by paying a total of £750,000 to Hamas-run Gaza via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
Hamas can easily divert UNRWA dual-use supplies as materiel for Islamic terrorism.
See - “October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel
& “Funds sent to Gaza: FOI release” https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202300386454/
Scots were roped into funding Islamic terrorism against our will.

DECLARATION

Fact. In March 2023, the accused penned this declaration, inspired by the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320.

DECLARATION OF SCOTLAND

For as long as but a hundred of us remain alive,

never will we on any conditions

be brought under Muslim rule.

It is in truth not for glory, nor riches nor honours

that we are fighting,

but for freedom – for that alone,

which no honest man gives up but with life itself

28th March 2023

Scots cannot be expected to submit to Muslim-rule, which is neither impartial nor capable of maintaining authority, nor can Muslim-rule be trusted not to interfere with any democratic debate between Scots especially when debating the deadly dangers of Islamic terrorism supported by Islamic countries such as Pakistan.

That is one very good reason why the accused did oppose the election of Humza Yousaf as First Minister of Scotland, why the accused does oppose the appointment of Kaukab Stewart as a Minister of the Scottish Government and why the accused also opposes the appointment of Aisha Anwar as a Sheriff Principal.

The accused would likewise oppose the appointment of any other Muslim to any other ministerial or judicial office in Scotland. The accused also advises tactical voting to defeat the Muslim candidate in any election.

PLEAS-IN-LAW

No prima facie evidence of any crime

The procurator fiscal depute in adducing the accused's use of the word "Paki" with uncontroversial evidence has not thereby produced prima facie evidence of the accused acting in a racially aggravated manner. Neither arrest nor prosecution is lawful without prima facie evidence of a crime having been committed.

Violation of the accused's human right to freedom of expression

The accused's human right to freedom of expression is protected in law - the Human Rights Act 1998.

Therefore the accused expects a court of law to protect him from the procurator fiscal depute's spurious, vexatious and / or malicious prosecution which violates his human right of freedom of expression.

For use of the word "Paki" not to be protected by human rights legislation, specifically the Human Rights Act 1998, SCHEDULE 1, Article 10 "Freedom of expression", the prosecution would require to prove - stretching credibility to bursting point - that the outlawing of the word "Paki" is "necessary in a democratic society".

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

See - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

On the contrary, it is necessary in a democratic society not to outlaw this word or that word to suit the prejudices of snowflake complainers.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act (1995) - Section 144

Leave of the court to object on cause shown to the competency and relevancy of the fiscal depute’s complaint and proceedings thereon is craved to be granted under the procedure legislated for in Section 144, subsections (4) & (5) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act (1995) as amended, quoted below.

“(4) Any objection to the competency or relevancy of a summary complaint or the proceedings thereon, or any denial that the accused is the person charged by the police with the offence shall be stated before the accused pleads to the charge or any plea is tendered on his behalf.

(5) No objection or denial such as is mentioned in subsection (4) above shall be allowed to be stated or issued at any future diet in the case except with the leave of the court, which may be granted only on cause shown.”

See - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/46/section/144

---