Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Scottish Republican Socialist - Video & Website |
Posted by: PeterDow 18-Mar-2010, 06:32 AM |
Hi I am a newbie here. I thought I would introduce myself in the Politics forum because I have authored a Scottish and international politics website which I call the "Scottish National Standard Bearer" website and the address is http://scot.tk http://scot.tk You might like to view this profile video. 'The Right to Freedom of Assembly' (directed by David Graham Scott) is a 10 minute chapter of a longer film documentary titled 'The New Ten Commandments' which is about human rights from a Scottish perspective which was broadcast on BBC2 Scotland in December 2008. 'The Right to Freedom of Assembly' has been re-titled 'Scottish republican socialist Peter Dow, author and protestor' for upload to YouTube. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=789SkK7uwiY I also administer the For Freedom Forums - for robust political debate, inspired by Scots, open to all. http://figh.tk http://figh.tk I hope you find something of interest in some of that and if you have any questions of course I will try to answer. |
Posted by: Patch 18-Mar-2010, 09:12 AM |
Something in your links is causing my IE browser to shut down to protect my system. It could just be a minor glitch. I have a keen interest in Scotland and read the Edinburgh Evening News on a regular basis of sorts. Slàinte, Patch |
Posted by: Camac 18-Mar-2010, 09:14 AM |
Patch; Take a close look at this man's uniform. Smacks of the SA. Camac |
Posted by: Patch 18-Mar-2010, 09:37 AM |
Camac I did note that. I was interested in viewing the information on his web page but My IE browser detected malicious content and shut down my system. I may try it on 2000 Professional with a Netscape browser or on Linux. I will also try cleaning my IE browser. Slàinte, Patch |
Posted by: Camac 18-Mar-2010, 09:39 AM |
Patch; It might be a good idea to stay away from this guy and his site. How did he get on here? Camac. |
Posted by: Patch 18-Mar-2010, 10:20 AM |
I found nothing wrong with my browser so it was not my computer. That alone for me is reason to stay away. I read the Edinburgh Evening News on a fairly regular basis and have not heard of this guy. That means little as I just scan for articles of interest. I will see what I can find about his ideas from others. Maybe my friends there can tell me something of his ideas. Slàinte, Patch |
Posted by: Camac 18-Mar-2010, 10:32 AM |
Patch; There a number of site for this guy o Google including UTube. Methinks it would be best if he weren't allowed on this Forum as the comments made are full of filth. Camac. |
Posted by: Patch 18-Mar-2010, 12:22 PM |
I take it you were able to access the site(s). Slàinte, Patch |
Posted by: Camac 18-Mar-2010, 12:46 PM |
Patch; I got to it through Google under Peter Dow. He has a talk forum and the language is typical of working class Glaswegians. He seems to expound the the lowest denomiator amougst people. I know Freedom of speach and all that but there are limits. He is a so called Scottish Republican and an anti Monarch. I'm all for Scottish Independece but within the Commonwealth and retain the monarch as head of state. Hey the system works so why change it. Elizabeth is just not Queen of the UK, she is Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a bunch more countries, can't remember them all. Camac |
Posted by: Patch 18-Mar-2010, 03:41 PM |
On Scot. sovereignty I must disagree. If the majority of the people want their independence and self government They should have it. Scotland was an independent country that was taken over by england and though I doubt they will fight again, observing major changes in the world map because of the economic times would not be a great shock. Those I communicate with in Scotland today feel they would have been better off on their own and still would be. I am not impressed with the UK as we invested a FORTUNE in their defense during WW2 and a good amount in WW1 and they failed to pay us back. Only a couple of the poorest countries ever did. I have good friends in the UK also and most feel that the Monarchy is an antiquated expense that could be eliminated. As always, it is their country to do with as they choose. I am concerned with this one. Slàinte, Patch |
Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 18-Mar-2010, 03:58 PM |
Guys, this Peter Dow fellow got on another website I frequent and stirred trouble. He is bad news and should be ignored. I would recommend to Admin that he be kicked off. |
Posted by: Camac 18-Mar-2010, 04:18 PM |
CarolinaScotsman; I most heartily agree. Even before I looked up his site the uniform raised hackles. Camac |
Posted by: Patch 18-Mar-2010, 05:34 PM | ||
I would guess he has to do something first and so for he has posted his information. If we do not reply, I suspect nothing happens. So far the discussion has been about what we found, not his subject matter. After my browser shut down because of the link, I had no interest in going back. I guess we just wait and see what happens. Slàinte, Patch |
Posted by: PeterDow 19-Mar-2010, 05:15 PM | ||
Sorry everyone if I am so slow to reply but the email notification of Patch's reply got put in my spam folder and I have just noticed it. No other notifications were sent to other replies because I did not respond to the first notification. Hopefully, it will be OK now. Hi Patch. Is that the .tk links which are not working for you, scot.tk and figh.tk? You could try these two links instead which use scot.cz.cc links. scot.cz.cc http://scot.cz.cc http://scot.cz.cc/forfreeset.htm Any luck with those? If not you could try via forscots.co.cc forscots.co.cc http://forscots.co.cc http://forscots.co.cc/forfreeset.htm I use IE7 myself so it sounds like you maybe have some kind of additional optional feature installed with your browser some kind of "Site Advisor"/"Net Nanny"/Filter running as well maybe? Are you accessing the internet from a public internet connection - from a library, a college, university or workplace? Such places often have internet censorship imposed but the just buy in a program from a supplier and they have no idea what they are blocking and what they aren't blocking. Someone in management said - "Filter the internet!" So they do. If you are working from a normal PC with unrestricted access to the internet then maybe it is something that you installed for "safer browsing". There is NO good reason to block my site, but sometimes sites are blocked without any good reason ever being involved. For example, there are many websites at the ".tk" address, of all kind. If one site there is a bad site then it might have given all the ".tk" sites a bad reputation which is quite unfair. Patch, it would be helpful me to if you would let me know
|
Posted by: PeterDow 19-Mar-2010, 05:31 PM | ||||
Hi Carmac. I don't wear a "uniform" because my outfit is not uniformly the same as anyone else's. My outfit is a one-of-a-kind design which I have made distinctive so as to try to NOT confuse with anyone's uniform, the SA or anyone else's. Sorry if I have not managed to avoid confusing you but it was not deliberate.
|
Posted by: Camac 19-Mar-2010, 05:39 PM |
Peter Dow; You are Sir the complete antithesis of eveything I believe in I would appreciate that you do not adress any of your postings to me. CAMAC |
Posted by: PeterDow 19-Mar-2010, 06:15 PM | ||
Well some comments on the internet made ABOUT me are full of filth certainly. Isn't it fair to read and to listen to what I have got to say about myself first? If someone made a filthy comment about you Camac - should you be not allowed in this forum? No, of course you should be allowed and so should I. Also my For Freedom Forums are for ROBUST political debate which means strong language is allowed to be used sometimes. Not always - they are very intellectual forums but strong language can be used from time to time without anyone getting banned. A proper political forum SHOULD allow people to use strong language about things they feel strongly about. If strong language and the people who use strong language is banned from a forum - then that forum isn't a proper political forum, just a kid-on "political forum" in name only. Perhaps people who never like strong language think it is more important to be polite about stupid, dangerous fools in charge of things who get the Scots and other Celts killed because of their stupidity? I think a person would have to be living in a protected bubble if no-one has ever made that person so angry with their stupidity or evil that that person thought it appropriate to use strong language about those who had made him or her so angry. I have to write about very stupid, dangerous and lethal people in charge all the time in politics so it is natural that I use strong language from time to time but that does not make my criticisms wrong, just difficult to hear for some sensitive people maybe. Well what is worse do you think?
I know what I think is worse. Let's have an example. Supposing the people had been able to swear on TV about the Queen and the police giving a firearms certificate to Thomas Hamilton who therefore was allowed to keep guns he later used to kill the children at the Dunblane Primary School Massacre. The Dunblane Primary School Children - 16 of whom and their teacher were shot dead in Dunblane, Scotland. Supposing people BEFORE THE MASSACRE those citizens who had big concerns about Hamilton had been allowed to shout and swear at the Queen and her police for allowing guns in the hands of a man they did not trust. Suppose they had been allowed to shout and to swear so much, at the police station, on TV and in public meetings that this embarrassed the police and they could not just ban them like you would like to ban me. Supposing they were allowed to show EXACTLY how angry they were with the stupid people the Queen allows in charge of the Scots? Supposing Scotland was a free country and we were allowed to be angry at stupidity and we were allowed to show it, by shouting and swearing at the stupid police when they do something stupid? I think the police would be so embarrassed that they would be forced to do a better job and save some lives. What we have now is a polite silence as the Queen, her ministers and her police get innocent people killed. I think it is worth allowing strong language if that means we can embarrass the stupid people into not being in charge of things all the time. If we had that freedom to be angry and show it, those children would be alive today and many others would have been saved who have also been killed because those who knew better had to be polite and respectful as their good advice was ignored. As it is, the Dunblane Primary School children are dead, because no-one is allowed to get angry about the stupidity which runs Scotland. That is why so many people are being killed today for one reason or another. The good Scottish clever thinkers and writers are still being banned from public life here in Scotland, same as you want me banned from this forum. http://scot.tk/queensroyaldisasters.htm http://scot.tk/dunblane.htm |
Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 19-Mar-2010, 07:02 PM | ||
One wonders why you find it necessary to register your site in either Tokelau, New Zealand or the Czech Republic. Why not a UK or a simple com domain? |
Posted by: englishmix 19-Mar-2010, 07:51 PM |
Mr. Peter Dow, you crazy ole sod! What a surprise to see you posting here! I caught a couple video link posts from you on Facebook when I was active there, and you made me laugh till me nearly soiled me britches. I mean, you indeed are mostly antithetical to all of what I believe - but I can't help but take you as comedy. I will check out your links to see if you still have that ole touch. Of course, there are some things that aren't funny at all - like that mascacre you described above. Regards, Englishmix (as in mixed up englishman who prefers Scotland) and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Bilbo Baggins the Halfing, "Fellowship of the Ring" by Tolkein |
Posted by: Camac 20-Mar-2010, 08:23 AM |
englishmix; As my Mother would say with her thick Scottish brogue Mr. Dow is "Bluidy Glaikit ( def:-stupid, sensless, silly). He claims to be a Scottish Republican, Nationalist, Socialist or what ever trapsing around in a lookalike Strumabteilung (Storm Trooper) uniform ranting against the Monarchy yet is photographed holding the Royal Standard of Scotland not the Saltire. Credibility just shot to hell. Camac. |
Posted by: MacEoghainn 20-Mar-2010, 09:06 AM |
Thought I'd throw my two cents in. I don't know Mr. Dow nor do I know his politics. As an American of Scottish ancestry (and English, Welsh, Irish, German, Swiss, French...even a couple Canadians ) the question of Scottish independence is of but a passing interest to me (to find an ancestor of mine born in Scotland I have to go back at least 6 generations, and there is always at least one Ulster Scot standing between me and that ancestor). I still haven't figured out, if Scotland becomes an independent nation, how they won't have to take the Royal family with them. As far as I can tell the Windsor/Hanover claim to the monarchy is through the Stewart/Stuart line of succession. I tried to watch his youtube dissertation but I became bored and stopped watching. What I do know is that unless and/or until he violates the TOS of this forum and the CR.net website he has as much right as any of us to express his position on any political subject, even if some or all of us oppose those positions. What I do know is that for this forum to be anything other than a shouting contest between the various sides then any and all personal and/or ad hominem attacks need to be kept to an absolute minimum (or cease all together). |
Posted by: Camac 20-Mar-2010, 09:27 AM |
Mace; I agree with what you say but I am saying that from what I have read of the comments made on his site (so called robust political debate) is not the type that we should tolerate. He can express his opinions but keep it with in the bounds of proper decorum. You are correct about the Monarchy in that the claim goes through the Stuart line hence back to the Bruce. Camac. |
Posted by: Patch 20-Mar-2010, 07:32 PM |
Camac When I read the introduction to this unmoderated forum, I understood that it was "enter at your own risk." I figured that my many years dealing with and being involved in politics toughened my skin enough that I would survive it and I have. Some people seem to have a thinner skin though and maybe this is not the place for them. You have stood up well in my observation. I personally believe that we can live with the lack of decorum. We definitely have that lack in the US. I have also observed it in my visits to your country and to Mexico. I suspect it is a world wide thing today. I just ignore what I feel is not relevant or lacks decorum. I recommend that approach highly. If anyone believes that politics has any decorum or is genteel certainly knows little about the "game." There are many types of political persuasions and world wide they get along for the most part, though sometimes just by ignoring each other. Slàinte, Patch |
Posted by: Camac 20-Mar-2010, 08:10 PM |
Patch; Politics is a rough and dirty game but up hear it does have some rules mainly pertaining to language. If one has to revert to crude and invective language to make a point then the point is weak and not worth while. Camac |
Posted by: Patch 20-Mar-2010, 09:29 PM |
Here foul language and deeds fill the halls of govt. I suspect more goes on in your country than meets the eye. It CERTAINLY does here. There is so much going on in DC now that it would be shocking if the public was aware of it. I suspect most is being saved for political fodder in Nov. Remember when the Nixon tapes came out? The public was shocked by his language. I was not nor was any one else dealing with govt at the time. We had already heard about it during his first term. The two candidates in the last presidential election were about equal in their use of foul language and it was terrible. I think it is a hoot when a politician slips in polite/mixed company. When they use foul language with regularity they WILL slip up. I am not so sure that even Queen Elizabeth could avoid some foul language when the press picked up on Phillip's indiscretions with Diana and the affair with his aged mistress. Especially the correspondence with his mistress that was made public. Then the rumors that abounded with Diana's tragic death. From what I hear from my English friends, that matter has not been put completely to rest in the minds of some in England. Surely a cause for further stressful moments for the Queen. In these times, deeds concern me more than language. Foul language is usually a sign of a small mind and a poor command of the language. Maybe to some extent a cry for attention. Whether we like it or not, I expect it will continue. Slàinte, Patch |