My email from 2014. Andrew Shanks (HM Witch-hunter) -v- Alastair Peter Dow
Nearly 2 years ago, (on the 9th November 2014) I sent an email to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which set out in great detail my response to the first charge made against me by Aberdeen Procurator Fiscal's Office, by Andrew Shanks, in July 2014, when I had been raided and arrested by police regarding my tweets.
Subsequently the prosecutors replaced the first charge with others, but my political defence to any and all charges arising from my political tweets would be much the same, so that's why I think it appropriate now to publish that email in full.
Subject: Andrew Shanks (Her Majesty's Witch-hunter) -v- Alastair Peter Dow.
c/o Procurator Fiscal's Office Aberdeen
Dear Mr Shanks,
I write personally to reply in detail to your petition of 28th July 2014 wherein you libel a charge and accusations against me, for the purpose of prosecuting me in the Sheriff Court at Aberdeen for posting political comments on the Twitter social networking site.
It is not in the public interest to prosecute anyone for their political tweets - such an oppressive prosecution can only be the result of what may be described as a "politically-motivated witch-hunt" by my political opponents.
In whose political interest then does your prosecution petition serve, if not the public interest?
The answer is that your petition serves the political interest of, in your own words from your own petition, "Her Majesty the Queen" - specifically, the Queen's political interest to sustain her monarchy against the political opponents of monarchy, such as myself, a republican.
Your petition justifies my nickname for you, Mr Shanks, of "Her Majesty's Witch-hunter".
Your petition serves the Queen's interest and the Queen's interest alone undemocratically to silence republican political criticism of the monarchy.
It is in the Queen's own selfish interest to prosecute me for expressing my republican political opposition to monarchy here in Scotland.
But such a prosecution would not be in the public interest.
One may serve the public interest or one may serve the Queen's interest.
Either one puts the public interest before the Queen's interest, as I do in my political activities ...
... or one puts the Queen's interest before the public interest, as your petition does.
Whilst it is a worthy declared aim to seek to serve the public interest, you merely claiming that your petition is in the public interest does not make it self-evidently so.
The point which your petition misses is that the two conflicting interests - the public interest versus the Queen's interest - should not be confused with each other nor conflated together in error as your petition does.
Your error arose because your education was deficient to that which is required for appropriate and efficient decision-making in the public interest.
The responsible course of action for you now is to undertake a course of study to remedy those deficiencies in your education which I have identified.
The irresponsible and reckless action for you now would be to proceed on the basis of your petition - in ignorance of, oblivious to, or in denial of the inherent contradiction at the heart of your petition.
To assist with their education all of those in Scotland who wish to serve the public interest, I am pleased to present the study resource of my internet publication of "The Scottish National Standard Bearer website" at the web address SCOT.TK
Detailed in some 50 plus web-pages, the Scottish National Standard Bearer website explains how the Queen and the officials of the kingdom with allegiance to her have historically denied democratic political freedom in Scotland, resulting in a consequential damning record of severe damage to the public interest, including tragic deaths, disasters and missed economic opportunities, all of which were avoidable had only democratic political freedom been defended by officials rather than denied.
As a solution to the deleterious effects of monarchist officialdom's oppressive acts against the public interest, I recommend in my Scottish National Standard Bearer website urgent political action with the aim of disentangling the monarchy from the constitution of Scotland to establish a republican form of democratic government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The political issue which my website addresses is the habitual yet inappropriate criminalisation by the police of socially-responsible political activity.
Police and prosecutors in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK act against political activity be that communication by the distribution of leaflets, by hand, by post, publishing of pamphlets and books, displaying of posters, carrying of flags, protesting, public speaking, shouting, using a megaphone, marching and now in recent years, use of the internet - politics in all its forms.
Typically, "socially responsible political activities" may be directed towards the worthy aims of personal or community health, safety, improved terms and conditions of employment at work, or with respect to desirable changes to the delivery of private or public services, changes to government decisions, policy and regulations, election of candidates, legal, political and constitution reform or other political matters.
It follows therefore that if and when such socially responsible political activity is criminalised then it is most likely that the politically intended benefits to society are frustrated, with possibly highly damaging, dangerous and tragic consequences.
It should also be mentioned that a similar process can occur in the civil courts where political activity can be interdicted against and a breach of interdict can be treated as contempt of court and effectively criminal punishments imposed.
To give an example which I have studied in detail, when the police issued Thomas Hamilton with a fire arms certificate, which allowed him to keep guns with which he later killed the children at the Dunblane Primary School Massacre, there was the ever-present deterrent of the likely criminalisation of the needed political action with a view to taking Hamilton's guns from him to prevent a tragedy.
Thus political activists did not have the freedom they needed to pre-empt the massacre and save lives.
Concerns about Hamilton could not be published in newspapers because of the fear of a defamation action by Hamilton which could lead to a financial loss in court damages awarded to Hamilton against any newspaper which could not prove the fears about him having guns were proved to the satisfaction of the judge.
Anyone protesting the police's decision to grant Hamilton a fire-arms certificate could have been arrested, prosecuted and punished for a breach of the peace.
There was not enough political freedom to save the lives of the Dunblane children because of the habitual inappropriate criminalisation of socially-responsible political activity which deterred live-saving political action.
I have published further examples of avoidable deaths, disasters and missed economic opportunities and a detailed examination of the harm to society caused by the denial of political freedom in my Scottish National Standard Bearer website at SCOT.TK and the For Freedom Forums for bravehearted debate at FIGH.TK
I sincerely recommend that all staff at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should read my website and forum so that you all may begin to learn how the kingdom's habitual criminalisation of socially responsible political activities has had and is having profoundly anti-social consequences for the people of Scotland.
My website argues that Scotland would be better governed with a democratically elected president as head of state, empowered and obligated to insist that police and prosecution services must have leadership, policies and performance which never criminalises socially-responsible political activity.
Mr Shanks, in Scottish history misguided state officials in jobs like the one you are employed to do have routinely denied political freedom oppressively, harming the public interest in so doing.
Officials like you can harm the public interest because the constitutional monarchy has never placed constitutional obstructions in the way of officialdom arresting, prosecuting, jailing and even martyring politically outspoken men and women whose conscience would not allow them to remain silent.
The written constitution of a democratic republic, however, should, in addition to abolishing any place for a monarchy, solemnly task the democratically elected president as head of state with the constitutional authority and duty to halt politically oppressive prosecutions like the one your petition has initiated, setting free the accused innocent men and women to continue to serve politically the public interest as viewed by the light of their own conscience.
This is what it means for the president of a democratic republic to swear an oath to the best of his or her ability to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of a democratic republic - the duty is to preserve, protect and defend those human rights and those civil and political freedoms of the people enshrined within the text of that constitution.
Your "summary of evidence" text identifies that my website refers to my "anti-monarchist" views but your summary neglects to mention that my website explains in detail my positive pro-republican political views.
Republicans are not merely anti-monarchy and anti-kingdoms but are by definition positively pro-elected-presidents and pro-republics.
It is like a good prosecutor is not merely anti-criminal but is positively pro the victims of crime.
Incidentally, you have not identified any victim of my tweets. Who exactly has been harmed by my tweets?
I do not think you can imagine that the Queen has been a victim of my tweets? How have my tweets harmed the Queen? In no way whatsoever.
Or perhaps you think the police who knocked down my door, took my computer equipment, handcuffed me, took me to a police station and held me in custody for more than 24 hours are the victims of my tweets? Such a claim would be absurd because it is I who am the victim of the police's violent actions.
The police did not merely threaten violence against me. The police did violent acts against me.
If the police are victims of a waste of police time then they only have to blame their own foolish police commanders who authorised this over-the-top response to a couple of political tweets.
Your "summary of evidence" neglected even to mention the many constructive proposals detailed in my website with a view to the establishment of a modern Republic of Scotland to modernise the outdated and dysfunctional Kingdom of Scotland.
Republicans propose that elected presidents replace monarchs as heads of states.
In your "summary of evidence" which extends on to a third page of text, for you never to mention once that I have republican political views is not only careless it is misleading to any reader of your summary.
Even in the very brief text Twitter allows for the description of my @peterdow twitter account, I highlighted that I am republican, a "republican socialist" if I remember to quote accurately.
So considering that the police investigation has not even recorded my republican political affiliation then it suggests that the substantial deployment of police manpower employed - at my count: 4 detective constables, 1 detective sergeant, 1 inspector, 4 additional constables to search my flat and 1 police photographer - has failed utterly to detect and to report the blatantly obvious relevant facts in this matter which are the published facts about my republican politics which I have gone to great lengths to publish in detail on the internet for all to read and which facts are not to be found by an intrusive heavy-handed top-to-bottom search of my home!
One does not efficiently detect the full facts about an author's politics by focusing on a small number of tweets and then rushing to arrest that author and to seize that author's computer.
The police have failed to detect at the earliest stage of their investigation that which only a bunch of fools could fail to detect, that I am a republican author.
It should be part of the basic education of any police officer that the political views of republicans are in part defined by an opposition to monarchy and that as surely as a dog will bark, a republican will surely from time to time express anti-monarchist views.
Arresting republicans for expressing their anti-monarchist views is as absurd as arresting Christian preachers for expressing their anti-sin views.
As would it be absurd to prosecute the producers and distributors of the South Park cartoon which features the Queen committing suicide.
South Park 'kills the Queen'
An episode of South Park featuring the Queen committing suicide is provoking outrage. But if the show is famous for anything, it's for going too far.
If one wishes only ever to listen to views of the monarchy which are only respectful and deferential views then one can tune into the reports of the royal correspondents which are broadcast by the BBC, ITV, Sky and other TV broadcasters.
However if one wishes to be sure never to read disrespectful views of the monarchy then one should never read the tweets of a self-declared republican such as myself because therein one must expect to read views of the monarchy which are very far from respectful.
If one can't handle the heat then one should not go into the kitchen.
Neither should one wander into a kitchen, misunderstand the heat therein and then foolishly call the fire-brigade because the fire brigade has better things to do than to attend to the heat of a kitchen.
As do the police have better things to do than attend to political tweets.
Your "summary of evidence" refers to the earliest stage of the police investigation as as "intelligence received by Police Scotland".
However, it is apparent to me that the raw information received about my tweets has not been handled in anything remotely approaching an intelligent manner by Police Scotland.
On the contrary, the police officers involved have plodded through their protocols and established procedures routinely, somewhat hastily, forcefully and destructively, devoid of the influence of any intelligent senior operational command of the police.
The actions of the police and the conditions for bail imposed by the Sheriff Court are violations of my human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically those human rights described in ECHR articles such as
Article 5 - liberty and security
Article 8 - privacy
Article 9 - conscience and religion
Article 10 - expression
Article 11 - association
Article 14 - discrimination
To add to those police and bail condition violations of my human rights, you propose what would amount to a show trial of myself, a republican, for my anti-Queen comments, in the court of a Sheriff who has given an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
Assuming the Sheriff has not recanted his or her oath of allegiance to the Queen, such a Queen's Sheriff cannot be impartial while presiding over a case where the Queen's interest is at issue.
Since the Sheriff would not be impartial it follows that the trial cannot be fair. It could only be a show trial.
So you propose no less than a kangaroo court where my anti-Queen comments are to be given a show trial before a Queen's Sheriff presiding in a Queen's court.
In a Queen's court, the expectation must be that the Queen's interests will be given a prejudicial priority by a Queen's Sheriff and the scales of justice weighed heavily against any party whose interests are opposed to the Queen's interest.
My interests in defending against your charges certainly are opposed to the Queen's interest. So my interests cannot be given a fair trial in a Queen's court.
There is a public interest to have political freedom which is also opposed to the Queen's interest to suppress political criticism of the Queen and her officials. So this public interest cannot be given a fair trial in a Queen's court either.
A fair trial of your petition and my defence to your charge can only be had in a court which is not a Queen's court.
Therefore if you wish to insist on prosecuting your charge against me, I have a human right under the ECHR to be afforded a fair trial before a court other than the Sheriff Court, a court which must not be a Queen's court and which must be seen to be impartial.
I would be prepared to come to another genuinely impartial court so that justice may be carried out.
I would be prepared to respect the judgement of a genuinely impartial court, though as with all defendants, I would reserve my rights to appeal any judgement which was against my interests or against the public interest to a superior genuinely impartial court.
However, I expect, Mr Shanks, that you may be a one-trick pony, meaning that you either prosecute in the Queen's courts or you do not prosecute at all. That being so, I would suggest that you drop your charge against me or pass the matter to your superiors for their consideration.
The Lord Advocate has at times been heard in the Scottish Parliament so if the Lord Advocate or his deputy wishes to take your charge against me to Holyrood, I would be prepared to attend a court or committee established at Holyrood comprised of Members of the Scottish Parliament for trial when requested to do so.
Whilst MSPs too are pressured into swearing the oath of allegiance to the Queen, I would be prepared to accept at face value any statement by an MSP that his or her true loyalty is to their constituents whatever oath they may have given to the Queen.
Such a statement of putting the interest of constituents first and foremost before any Queen's interest would, in my view, qualify an MSP to sit in judgement on any matter where the Queen's interest is a consideration.
Another genuinely impartial court for consideration would be the European Court of Human Rights.
Otherwise if your petition is dealt with by the Sheriff Court, there would be a violation of my human rights described in the ECHR articles such as
Article 6 - fair trial
Article 13 - effective remedy
Having made the case against the impartiality of the Sheriff Court in this case, I do wish nevertheless to record my thanks for the bail, if not the conditions for bail, which was granted to me by the Sheriff and my thanks also to Mr McLeod, my solicitor for applying for bail on my behalf.
I value my freedom above all so I would not willingly remain in police custody or inside HM prison in preference to seeking bail from the Sheriff Court.
Indeed it was not until my release by Aberdeen Sheriff Court on bail that there was demonstrated any official behaviour in this matter which was informed by "intelligence", unless one counts my own intelligently stoical approach during the police raid and my arrest and imprisonment.
Since I have gotten onto the subject of "intelligence" it perhaps is appropriate at this stage of my reply to introduce myself as someone blessed with higher intelligence than many.
Mine seems to be the type of intelligence which is not always apparent to all considering the scrapes with the police and courts I have got myself into over the years.
Being so blessed with higher intelligence, I feel a moral obligation to volunteer myself for political leadership duties where I think that I can make a difference for the better.
Considering the trials and tribulations it seems I must on occasion endure as a consequence of my leadership activities, the misunderstanding of which is the bane of my life, sometimes higher intelligence does not seem to be an unqualified blessing but nevertheless I would not choose to have been born any other way nor would I seek to avoid my obligations to society to lead when the leadership which is needed appears to be in short supply.
Specifically, I cannot in all good conscience fail to offer my leadership in opposition to the monarchy and in support of the better republican alternatives.