Souter & Ewing, sounds like an end of the pier vaudeville act doesn't it but there is nothing funny about this pair.
'Wee holy Brian & big Butch Fergus have 'previous'
Souter spent a shed load of money when God told him to smite that homosexual mob and lost over clause 28, he seems to have taken against labour and Wendy Alexander ever since.
Big Butch Fergus, gilded son of the North East right wing Ewing dynasty of course showed a similar bent when he rushed to the defence of the Cowcaddens firefighters who famously showed their bigotry and disgraced the service by refusing to attend a Gay Pride event.
F Ewing is now involved in drugs with the SNP and has called in an organisation of Souters to advise him on what he should do.
My understanding is that his remit is to tackle the wider drug problem and not as some people have cruelly suggested to find a drug which will 'cure' homosexuality, still they can dream right ?
I wonder if wee Brian and big Fergus are talking to old holy Joe Devine ? Ewing, Souter and Devine eh ! a midfield trio to die for.
Fergus (a practiced lawyer) can prosecute them, old holy Joe can find them guilty in the eyes of the lord, and wee Brian can run them to hell in one of his coaches (at a concession fare) business is still business after all.
What does £500,000 get you nowadays ? according to Macwhirter of the Herald it gets you influence, it gets your feet under the table when politicians are forming policy, it's money well spent, if I were wee holy Souter I would be taking Macwhirter to task for such a scurrilous remark.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
This is completely disengenous, even by your standards.
Fergus Ewing, as Minister, consulted with a number of organisations who are involved in this issue. It is perfectly legitimate for Ministers to consult with voluntary groups and other stakeholders when drawing up policy.
That one of these groups happens to be funded by Brian Soutar, who also happens to be an SNP donor, is completely irrelevant.
Get your facts right next time, councillor.
"Fergus (a practiced lawyer) can prosecute them, old holy Joe can find them guilty in the eyes of the lord, and wee Brian can run them to hell in one of his coaches (at a concession fare) business is still business after all."
Alternatively, they could give them one way tickets to Cuba where Comrade Fidel will deal with them XPD.
Jimminy Terry, not only are Wendy's expenses again under scrutiny but she's joined in the box by Ms Godman, who apparently paid a lot of money to her son for overnighting in his Edinburgh flat, despite only living in Renfrew.
What with this and Alex being so far ahead in the polls that he's out of sight, you'd better start circling the wagons Big Man.
(Anonymous) 12:29
You protest too much, it’s a good story, showing up the hypocrisy of the SNP and I’m not the only one who picked up on it.
(Anonymous) 12:41
I know you have to cling to something when the SNP get caught out.
I would feel safer offending Castro’s revolution than offending Wee Holy Brian’s god, all things being equal.
(Macnasty) 15:46
Your confidence in the anti Labour press is quite touching and your wilful refusal to comment on what is actually going on quite revealing.
(Anonymous) 11:05
If losing jobs in your own industry causes you to leave the Labour Party, maybe you should never have joined.
I don’t believe in single issue politics, if I did I wouldn’t have stayed very long but, I’m still here 33 Yrs. Later and, I’ve lost more internal battles than I’ve won.
Kelly @ 4.20
Councillor, what 'is actually going on' is that Labour have a lame duck leader with a dodgy record on expenses and Ms Godman bought a flat - after renting it at an extremely high rate - from her son at a very advantageous price.
As her boy is currently serving time in the U.S.A, had she not bought it, the property could have have been seized by the courts in reparation for his misdeeds.
Is it any wonder Wee Alex is so far ahead in the polls - your lot make the Hamilton's look squeaky clean.
(Macnasty) 17/03/08
It’s just a pity that you and wee Alex (the spiv) are not in a position whereby you can dispense with ‘due process’ previous nationalist heroes have managed it and you still might get your chance.
Trump, Aviemore and Souter make the Hamilton’s look squeaky clean.
I assume the son overnighting in Edinburgh was not the one sent down for his part in Enron?
(RedWing) 12:37
I get the impression you are struggling to find the courage to say something here.
Here is a suggestion for you I.D. yourself and then say what you like about anyone, I will accept then that you are being honest.
Comments like this from someone who hides their I.D. is cowardice.
Terry:
I don't see why firefighters should be forced to attend a gay pride march. If they were refusing to put out a fire, that is different. And to be sent on diversity training? Ridiculous. As long as people don't threaten or attack homosexuals, they should be free to hold their disagreeable opinions.
(Rumbold) 15:13
It is part of a firefighter’s duties to attend public galas, open days, fetes etc. to spread the word about fire safety, they are a common enough site at such events.
This was a blatant refusal to obey a proper instruction and an act of bigotry and discrimination for which they were rightly disciplined.
What would you have to say if it had been a Black Parade, a Jewish Parade, a Christian Parade ? How about a Royal Occasion ?
If I ever need to ask myself why Nu Liebour is currently in complete and utter meltdown, throughout the length and breadth of this Island, all I have to do is click on Councillor Terry Kellys blog for the answer.
One sided bias, on each and every issue by a political dinosaur.
If Red Ken is currently 12 points behind in the race for Mays, London mayoral elections, even you Terry my old son, must fear for your overall future.
The SNP are about to end your reign, and not before time, says I.
Good job you were re-elected last year - or this year, you may just have gone.
But would you also expect them to hand out fire safety leaflets at a BNP rally if they objected on the grounds they did not agree with Nazism?
You may say that their actions were offensive but what has been lost is that with all the talk of "sensitivity" towards the gay community there was never a thought to the sensitivity of the firefighters. Are they not entitled to hold their own feelings and opinions? Are they not entitled to draw upon those feelings? And did their actions adversely cause harm to anyone else?
(Inallhonesty) 16:37
Hiding behind the name (Inallhonesty) and writing stuff like this proves irony is not dead.
(ShrekBall) 16:51
A tortured analogy, you’re no better than they are. Firefighters are not entitled to choose which instructions they obey and, the BNP is a diversion, a grasping at straws to hide your bigotry.
I do believe Fidel would have supported the firefighters....wouldn't he?
Terry;
(Inallhonesty) 16:37
"Hiding behind the name (Inallhonesty) and writing stuff like this proves irony is not dead".
The first stage of a sickening loss is outright denial.
It warms the cockles of my heart to see you there right now....
I have no bigotry towards Gays and if you knew the first thing about me you would realise how wrong you are.
The BNP is not a diversion. The question is valid. If the firefighters refused to attend a BNP rally to hand out leaflets in protest at the BNP politics would you be calling for them to be disciplined?
And is the feelings of the gay community more important than the personal beliefs of a few firefighters?
(Macnasty) 18/03/08
I don’t believe so
(Inallhonesty) 19/03/08
Including the word honesty is leading with your chin when you write stuff like that. You should wear a target.
(ShrekBall) 13:57
“I have no bigotry towards Gays” of course not you just make odious excuses for them.
Not only are you a bigot, you don’t have the courage to talk straight.
I make excuses for gays? I was not aware I had to.
I have spoken perfectly straight (so to speak). You object to the idea that a fireman can attempt to refuse to attend a parade that goes against their personal beliefs but when I asked you if you would demand those same people be forced to attend a BNP parade if they were out and out lefties you don't answer the question.
This is because you would indeed support their actions and we all know this, you just find it hard to be genuine because it exposes you as a hypocrite.
The reason you object to their attitude towards the gay community is because you have identified homosexuals as a valid victim group. Something the BNP are not.
Unlike you I do not assign all homosexuals generic character traits. Nor do I assign all women particular traits, or all men, or all tax accountants. I treat each person as an individual regardless of gender, orientation, race or even political beliefs. But I have to apply this to all people otherwise I am no better than you.
So if a group of people want to parade through Glasgow to promote their lifestyle I also support the right by others to refuse to attend because they don't agree with that lifestyle. If you stop one group from expressing themselves you have to stop all others.
If we start to say that one person's opinions or feelings are more valid than others then we create new classes of people in a pecking order and that can only lead to unrest and strife. Far from "promoting" the acceptance of homosexual culture the actions of the Brigade serves to highlight that the fireman is of lesser standing than the gay. And as a result this will actually do more to harm community relations.
Would you not agree?
(ShrekBall) 11:52
Bringing in the BNP is a diversion which allows you to make excuses for the bigotry of the firemen 'them'(pay attention)
Protesting against a political movement is perfectly valid whether it’s the BNP or any other political party or indeed any cause or movement, that is a protest against their ideas, what they preach, what they stand for.
Among those present at the Gay Pride march would have been people from many political persuasions, religions and causes.
These bigots refused to attend because of what they were i.e. Gay, not because of any political objection, get real here, it’s the equivalent of discriminating against someone because of their colour or race or creed, it was an act of blatant prejudice and a shameful episode for Strathclyde Fire Service.
You are a bigot just the same as them, just look at yourself, disgraceful.
So what you are essentially saying here is that you are not allowed to have an opinion on gay people?
OK, what if a Jewish fireman had refused to attend a rally in which the main speakers were Hamas?
And if we then turn to other legislation we find that part of their reason was that in previous marches the attendees made lewd remarks about the firefighters that made them uncomfortable. Should all workers not have the right to go about their jobs without being harassed?
"These bigots refused to attend because of what they were i.e. Gay, not because of any political objection, get real here, it’s the equivalent of discriminating against someone because of their colour or race or creed, it was an act of blatant prejudice and a shameful episode for Strathclyde Fire Service.
You are a bigot just the same as them, just look at yourself, disgraceful."
Let it be decreed that from this day forth Councillor Kelly will be known as Councillor Kettle.
Terry:
You have called Shrekball a bigot, which is unfair. Both he/she and I were wondering if you believed firefighters could refuse to attend leaflets at events which they disapproved of. The other question is whether such a strategy is effective anyway, as how many people carefully read through leaflets when attending gay pride marches?
Were the firefighters bigots? Yes. Should this have led to them being punished? No. An essential part of any free society has to be the ability to hold undesirable opinions without being punished by the state for holding said opinions. Unless the firefighters refused to save somebody from a fire, they should have been left alone.
(ShrekBall) 16:04
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if the speakers at an event are entitled to be there by law then refusing an instruction to attend would land the Jewish protestor in trouble, or the Hamas protestor if it were the other way round.
“Should all workers not have the right to go about their jobs without being harassed“ ?
Absolutely but you are getting sillier by the minute, refusing to attend because something might happen is clinging to straws, is the protestor a mind reader ?
Each time you comment on this you cement your reputation as a homophobic bigot.
(Jack McGurk) 16:55
I take it that whatever that means it’s not an argument and you have given up.
(Rumbold) 17:26
They are not entitled to decide which instructions they will follow and which they will not, whether the leaflet strategy is effective is completely irrelevant.
They were not punished for being bigots they were punished for refusing to carry out a proper instruction, albeit for bigoted reasons, one which they had done many times before at other occasions.
Their actions also displayed discrimination and brought the service into disrepute.
Use the acid test, what if it had been Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Protestants ?
Terry:
But can this really be classed as part of their normal duties? Why not get some civil servants doing it instead? As I have said before, I will defend the right of people to hold unpleasant opinions.
(Rumbold) 20/03/08
“But can this really be classed as part of their normal duties“ ?
Again, totally irrelevant.
Firefighters go round schools, fetes gala days etc. they always have done and it is part of their duties.
I don’t think active discrimination is the same as having unpleasant opinions and no one has that right.
Terry:
"I don’t think active discrimination is the same as having unpleasant opinions and no one has that right."
But surely it would have made sense to send firefighters who did not have a problem with the event? What about the feeling of the firefighters, who would have had to endure lewd comments?
(Rumbold) 16:02
“But surely it would have made sense to send firefighters who did not have a problem with the event”
Irrelevant yet again, if for instance you are a doctor, nurse or any other NHS employee due to carry out a legal abortion and it’s against your principals, you can’t refuse to take part with impunity, no matter how sincere you are.
No one can be allowed to discriminate against people going about their lawful business, that is what these firefighters did, these are the facts.
Kelly @ 5.05
Kelly, you are a fool.
The firefighters did NOT try to stop the march, so they did not discriminate against 'people going about their lawful business.
They simply declined to take part in it, as would 90+ percent of the population.
It may come as a shock to the tiny Kelly brain, but most people share my simple view: I dont try to force gay people to support my heterosexual beliefs and I dont expect them to try to force me to support their gayness.
To further stoke the Kelly fury, I deploy the same line on religion, colour, sexism, racism and Old Time versus Modern Dancing.
In summary, I have my beliefs, you have yours, now lets get on with things.
Terry:
"No one can be allowed to discriminate against people going about their lawful business, that is what these firefighters did, these are the facts."
But they weren't discriminating against the gay pride marchers, they just did not want to be there. If they had tried to stop the march, or the march needed fire cover, then that would have been another matter. As for abortions, I thought that doctors and nurses who object are not obliged to carry them out, which seems an acceptable compromise to me.
(Macnasty) 17:24
“The firefighters did NOT try to stop the march”
no one said they did, you are trying my patience, I said they refused to obey an instruction to attend the march.
The rest of this comment is a poor justification for your bigotry.
(Rumbold) 17:38
They refused to carry out an instruction to attend the march and do some PR work. They chose not to because they didn’t like who was going to be there, that for God’s sake is discrimination.
Kelly @ 8.16
Councillor, are you dense?
Anyone with one working brain cell can see that my point is: if the Firemen did not seek to stop the march, then they should not be accused of 'stopping people going about their lawful business.'
What they did was exercise freedom of choice and decide not to support it.
Now, is freedom of choice something else you're against?
By the by, loved your crack about 'trying my patience.' Didn't Hitler also have some success with it?
(Macnasty) 20:47
Perhaps we can settle this in a way that even you can understand, show me where I accused the firefighters of stopping the Gay marchers ’going about their lawful business’
See your comment @ 5.05.
Now shut up.
(Macnasty) 21/03/08
So you lose again, maybe you should shut up.
Kelly 11.14
Please get someone to read the final paragraph of your 5.05 post on 21st March to you.
Get them to read it slowly, perhaps with pictures to help you understand, then it's clear message just might impact on the Kelly brain.
(Macnasty) 18:59
This is the last time on this.
The Gay Pride marchers were entitled to expect a stall at their demo. Manned by the Fire Brigade, this did not appear because the firefighters who were instructed to do this refused to obey the instruction.
That was an act of discrimination and bigotry.
Post a Comment