Well done for speaking out and defending the rights to freedom of
speech, Aamer Anwar.

In 2002 I was taken to the Court of Session by the Woodland Trust for
describing their killing of deer to protect their trees as XXXXXXXXX
It turned out they had killed 200 of them. They wanted to shut me up.

At an interim hearing Lord Johnston, during which time I was defending
myself , smirked at me and looking across at the  Woodland Trust's QC
said, "well, they're pests anyway". At that point I knew I'd lost the
argument but didn't know at that time his listed interest in the Who's
Who was shooting. It seems prejudice is high on the agenda of the
judiciary.

With this type of justice in Scotland we need more lawyers like Aamer 
Anwar.

I understand Lord Johnston kicked the bucket a short time ago.  

Justice might be the better for his passing.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>Well done for speaking out and defending the rights to freedom of
>speech, Aamer Anwar.
>
>In 2002 I was taken to the Court of Session by the Woodland Trust for
>describing their killing of deer to protect their trees as XXXXXXXXX
>It turned out they had killed 200 of them. They wanted to shut me up.
>
It appears that, despite your protestations to the contrary, they 
succeeded, otherwise why the "XXXXXXXXX" instead of the word(s) you had 
used and to which they objected?

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:05:02 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>Well done for speaking out and defending the rights to freedom of
>>speech, Aamer Anwar.
>>
>>In 2002 I was taken to the Court of Session by the Woodland Trust for
>>describing their killing of deer to protect their trees as XXXXXXXXX
>>It turned out they had killed 200 of them. They wanted to shut me up.
>>
>It appears that, despite your protestations to the contrary, they 
>succeeded, otherwise why the "XXXXXXXXX" instead of the word(s) you had 
>used and to which they objected?

It's all on Google and I stand by everything I said.  
  
Have a look if you don't believe me :-))


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:05:02 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>Well done for speaking out and defending the rights to freedom of
>>>speech, Aamer Anwar.
>>>
>>>In 2002 I was taken to the Court of Session by the Woodland Trust for
>>>describing their killing of deer to protect their trees as XXXXXXXXX
>>>It turned out they had killed 200 of them. They wanted to shut me up.
>>>
>>It appears that, despite your protestations to the contrary, they
>>succeeded, otherwise why the "XXXXXXXXX" instead of the word(s) you had
>>used and to which they objected?
>
>It's all on Google and I stand by everything I said.
>
>Have a look if you don't believe me :-))
>
Maybe, but my question related to this particular post in which your use 
of "XXXXXXXXX" suggests that you are still bound by the injunction 
against you and therefore that they did succeed.

-- 
Malcolm

"Malcolm"  wrote in message 
news:7gy5gveMv2aIFwOF@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article , 
> amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:05:02 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>Well done for speaking out and defending the rights to freedom of
>>>>speech, Aamer Anwar.
>>>>
>>>>In 2002 I was taken to the Court of Session by the Woodland Trust for
>>>>describing their killing of deer to protect their trees as XXXXXXXXX
>>>>It turned out they had killed 200 of them. They wanted to shut me up.
>>>>
>>>It appears that, despite your protestations to the contrary, they
>>>succeeded, otherwise why the "XXXXXXXXX" instead of the word(s) you had
>>>used and to which they objected?
>>
>>It's all on Google and I stand by everything I said.
>>
>>Have a look if you don't believe me :-))
>>
> Maybe, but my question related to this particular post in which your use 
> of "XXXXXXXXX" suggests that you are still bound by the injunction against 
> you and therefore that they did succeed.
>

Yes, they did succeed, and the full majesty of the law prohibits Angus from 
using the word 'slaughter' to describe the WT's killing of deer.