Jan 072016
 

Paul Johnston Martin FordWith thanks to Martin Ford and Paul Johnston.

Two Aberdeenshire councillors are dismissing Mr Donald Trump’s latest threat to cancel investment in his Scottish golf courses. Mr Trump was reacting to the petition calling on the Westminster government to ban him from the UK signed by over 570,000 people.

Democratic Independent and Green councillors Paul Johnston and Martin Ford are questioning the likelihood of the investment going ahead whether Mr Trump is banned from the UK or not.

Said Cllr Martin Ford,

“Mr Trump has been promising hundreds of millions of pounds worth of investment in Aberdeenshire for ten years. He has also been threatening not to make the investment ever since he announced it.

“Mr Trump routinely uses threats to try to get his own way, to attempt to exert leverage over Aberdeenshire Council or Scottish Government decisions.

“Back in 2007, Mr Trump’s threat not to invest if he didn’t get everything he wanted clearly had the Council and the Scottish Government dancing to his tune.

“Surely, no-one is going to fall for this meaningless threat now. After ten years of promising an investment that has yet to materialise, the sensible working assumption has to be it’s not going to happen. The rational response to Mr Trump’s pronouncements is to ignore them.”

On Wednesday (6 January), Mr Trump said he would not invest £500 million in his Menie development nor £200 million at Turnberry if he was banned from the UK by the UK government. In 2007, Mr Trump promised to invest £1 billion at Menie – a claim repeated regularly over the following years. Mr Trump’s actual spend at Menie is believed to be less than £30 million.

Last year, Mr Trump announced his intention to apply for planning permission for housing and other further development at Menie. No corresponding planning applications have been submitted.

Cllr Paul Johnston said:

“We should deal in facts, not Mr Trump’s media comments. Mr Trump has invested less than £30 million at Menie and makes an operating loss on the course. All else is speculation.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Jan 072016
 

With thanks to Kenneth Hutchison, Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford MP

Eilidh Whiteford, Parliament [2015]feat

Banff and Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford

Banff and Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford has called for the UK Government to reconsider its position on cutting in-work incentives for the low-paid.

In a speech to the House of Commons on Wednesday, Dr Whiteford called on the Government to re-think the proposed cuts scheduled for April. The Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that there will be more losers than winners under the proposed cuts, and the Resolution Foundation estimates that working families with children on Universal Credit will be, on average, £1300 pounds a year worse off by 2020.

The IFS estimate that overall, 2.6 million families across the UK will be worse off by an average of £1600 a year.

Speaking after the debate, Dr Whiteford said:

“While the Government’s U-turn on cutting tax credits was very welcome, it was, as I noted in my speech, a stay of execution given the reductions to the Work Allowance under Universal Credit, scheduled for this April.

“The Government has sold Universal Credit on the basis that work should pay for those in employment. Indeed, Universal Credit was sold as a simplified system which would give families real incentives to find work, and keep work. The reality, however, is that by cutting the Work Allowance, the Government is once again heaping the costs of austerity onto low paid families.

“In a country where the minimum wage remains significantly below what could reasonably be described as a living wage, some form of welfare remains necessary for those undertaking low-paid work. By cutting the Work Allowance the Government is imposing an eye-watering level  of marginal taxation on people in low paid jobs, and making it harder than ever for those in low income households to break out of the poverty trap.

“If the Government was serious about making work pay, if they were serious about boosting the UK’s productivity, if they actually wanted to help people get on, they would be increasing the work allowance – not reducing it.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Jan 062016
 

trump106featWith thanks to Suzanne Kelly.

Hate speech and prejudice take a beating as Parliament’s Petitions Committee schedules 18 January for a debate on a proposed Donald Trump UK ban for hate speech. An unprecedented 580,000 people have signed an online petition started by Aberdeen Voice contributor Suzanne Kelly.

At 10,000 signatures the government made a response which can be found on the petition website.

Kelly welcomed the strongly-worded response, and replied to it as follows:

“I welcome the Government’s affirmation that it rejects attempts to create division, and that coming to the UK is a privilege which can be denied to those who seek to harm our society and who do not share our basic values.

“Much has happened since the petition was lodged on 28 November. When Trump came out with the astonishing statement in early December that Muslims should be barred from entering the US, it justified the need for this petition. At the time of writing, 567,000 people are asking for the ban.

“Freedom of any kind comes with responsibility; this includes free speech. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to engage in hate. Words can wound and can be a rallying cry to violence. If anyone doubts that speech can cause harm, reflect on how many physical fights start with verbal provocation, and how much harm is caused by verbal bullying in schools and in domestic situations.

“The reality of hate speech’s ability to incite violent acts is why the UK’s laws have stopped some 80 individuals from entering the UK to date. Trump has never, as far as I know, apologised for any of his verbal attacks.

“I am not someone known for wanting to ban one thing or another. Over the years I have fought to stop books and artwork being banned. However, there is a saying- ‘your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins’. In other words, freedom is not freedom to cause harm to others, and from the facts I personally conclude Donald Trump’s words are demonstrably causing harm. I do not see how the government can do other but ban his future entry.

“An educated person may laugh off Trump’s diatribes, and wonder why any action is needed. Unfortunately not everyone who hears prejudicial, hate-inciting speech stops to question or analyse what they hear. 

“Our government believes hate speech is illegal, witness the many who have been barred UK entry. Most of these banned people were hardly household names, so how much more weight might hate speech carry when it comes from someone who is a television personality, and would-be US president? 

“Trump has money, celebrity and influence. We know that people listen to celebrities; our advertising industry spends millions of pounds on sponsorship because of it. Donald Trump’s fame is helping to spread his hate-filled rhetoric.

“If the UK government needs evidence that Donald Trump’s hate speech can encourage violence, sadly this can be provided.

“The New York Times and other media have documented the surge in violence in America directed at Muslims since the tragic ISIS / fundamentalist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino [1] – and since some high-profile politicians have used these incidents as fuel for hate speech which can escalate problems. Some respected academics are greatly concerned by this trend [2].

“There are cases which link Donald Trump’s influence directly to violence. Californian William Celli attempted to make a pipe bomb with the intention of attacking Muslims. Celli is a huge Trump supporter. Celli said he would ‘Follow Trump to the end of the world.[3]’ The end of the world might well be where they wish to take us. But I for one am not intending to follow them there.

“As I said, my petition predates Donald Trump’s remarks about Muslims; here is the story of a man I had in mind when lodging it: A homeless Hispanic man was attacked in Boston by men who openly say that they were inspired by the words of Donald J Trump.[4] They beat the man with metal poles. They broke his nose. “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported,” is what one of the accused said to the police.

“There is no further proof required that hate speech carries consequences and that Donald Trump’s hate speech has directly caused violence.

“George Osborne made a statement to the effect we will not ban Donald Trump. I think the decision is not his alone, and his premature words call for comment. Osborne may feel that “The best way to defeat nonsense like this is to engage in robust and democratic debate, and to make it clear his views are not welcome.[5]” – but that is little comfort to victims of Trump’s hate speech.

“I doubt anyone willing to hit another person with a metal pole because they are homeless and Hispanic is open to persuasion by ‘robust and democratic debate’. Perhaps Mr Osborne wants to change the laws on hate speech that saw the previous bans; but at this point in time, banning Mr Trump is the government’s clear responsibility.

“It will take more than a few harsh paragraphs from the UK’s Prime Minister to send the right message. We need to ban Donald Trump from bringing his violence-inspiring vitriol here.

“Donald Trump is also widely – chillingly – promoting the idea of killing people whose relatives are involved in terrorism. His own words testify why he should be banned from the UK: “…with the terrorists, you have to take out their families.[6]” He did not say they need to be arrested and tried by a recognised court; he said ‘you’ have to ‘take out their families’. It is remarkable a would-be president has such little knowledge and/or respect for international law and conventions.

“Does his statement sound like an incitement to murder? I believe there are those for whom this message could well have violent repercussions. I note that have not heard Trump call for ‘taking out’ the family of Celli, the would-be terrorist pipe bomber who intended to target Muslims. What kind of message shall the UK send back to Trump for his rallying cry for executions?

“If Mr Trump had said he wanted to ban anyone with links to militant violent organisations including ISIS, then that would have been a fairy reasonable statement. But he placed every single Muslim into a group which he says needs to be barred from US entry and monitored. He is perhaps the highest-profile promoter of Islamophobia there is in the entire world.

“As a brief aside, anyone who preaches hate and violence, whatever their reason or religion, is an enemy of the stability which the world desperately needs now. There are serious global issues that require international cooperation, understanding and attention; we cannot allow anyone, even Mr Trump, to fan the flames of hatred. I hope his supporters will think again.

“In 2007 there were between 2 to 7 million Muslims citizens or residents of the United States. What the United Kingdom does with regard to my petition is not just about one man, Donald Trump; it will be sending a message to Trump’s targets, his opponents and his supporters.

“I do hope the UK government will consider all of the repercussions of Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim statements, as well as all of the sexist, racist, and nationalistic remarks he continues to make. The United Kingdom has in this petition an opportunity to say that anyone, even a billionaire, cannot mock people with disabilities, cannot disrespect women or label all Mexicans as drug dealers and rapists and call for them to be walled into Mexico, and still be welcome here.

“Many people will be watching this debate closely. Those who oppose banning Trump will need to explain their decision – not to me – but to 567,000 United Kingdom citizens. Banning Trump may well make us more secure; it would also send a message that there is not one law for the powerful, and another for the poor.

“In opening this petition I ran the risk of being ridiculed, but I have found that half a million people feel as I do. Groups have organised events and other petitions to show support for people being persecuted because of their faith. It is reassuring to see people from different backgrounds coming together to denounce hate speech.

“I am well aware how many problems and how much hatred exists around the world. I am also aware that within living memory an accomplished speaker’s words took the entire world to war and millions died as a result. No one thought that man would get into power. Donald Trump wants to be arguably the most powerful man in the world. If there is a chance that Trump could get into power, then the trajectory of his hate speech and its stated aims cannot be laughed off or dismissed as simple ‘free speech’.

“If the UK government is serious about its stated aims, then this is arguably the strongest, most clear-cut case for banning it has ever had before it. Please side with the half a million strong who make this request as a small step towards a more tolerant and peaceful United Kingdom – and a less hate-filled world.

“I thank the Petitions Committee; the administrators of the petition, the Home Office and the Government for considering this petition; I do not see how this request, made by so many, backed by fact and precedent, can do anything except succeed.”

Sources/links:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/us/politics/crimes-against-muslim-americans-and-mosques-rise-sharply.html?_r=0
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/12/hate-speech-is-going-mainstream/
[3] http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/william-celli-arrested-explosives-muslims
[4] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/a-trump-inspired-hate-crime-in-boston/401906/
[5] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/09/petition-calling-for-donald-trump-to-be-banned-from-uk-signed-by-85000
[6] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-isis-you-have-take-out-their-families

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Oct 292015
 

Eilidh Whiteford, Parliament [2015]featWith thanks to Kenny Hutchison, Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford MP.

UK Government cuts to tax credits are set to hit thousands of Banff and Buchan residents, new figures revealed today.

The Children’s Society, which campaigns on behalf of children and young people, revealed on Friday that 4,000 children in 2,400 households in the constituency will lose out as a result of cuts to tax credits available to families in work.

The Children’s Society also revealed serious concerns related to the UK Government’s intention to re-define what constitutes ‘child poverty’.

The Government’s proposals include measures to remove any reference to income from the Child Poverty Act 2010, which legally obliges UK Governments to act against child poverty.

Following on from the publication of the figures, Dr Whiteford said:

“The Children’s Society figures illustrate the scale of the damage this measure will do – not only to my own constituents, but across the whole of the UK.

“Even the Tories’ Scottish leader disagrees with these cuts. The Scottish parliament is united in its opposition – and yet, we find ourselves, once again, at the mercy of a Government with no regard for the negative consequences of its attacks on the poor.

“As if that wasn’t bad enough, the UK Government plans to cover up these consequences, by re-defining what constitutes child poverty. It’s simply astonishing – but sadly, not surprising.”

More info relating to the proposals to re-define what constitutes child poverty can be accessed here.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Oct 222015
 

Dr Whiteford speaks at ConferenceWith thanks to Kenneth Hutchison, Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford MP.

SNP Conference has condemned the Tory Government’s Welfare Reform and Work Bill and backed fresh plans to oppose the measures in both Holyrood and Westminster as research shows the cumulative cost of the measures in the bill by the next General Election will be £3.2 billion.

The Tory cuts to welfare benefits will disproportionately impact on the lowest income households with the most severely affected being those at the bottom of the income scale; women and households with children.

Moving the motion, Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP, the SNP’s Westminster spokesperson on social justice said:

“I have research which shows that the cost of the welfare and work bill to Scotland’s low income families will be £3.2 billion by 2020/21. In 2020/21 the annual cut will reach £900 million every year.

“And as the measures in this bill only accounts for 86% of the cuts announced by the Chancellor in his summer budget we can see that by the time of the next general election Scotland will be facing over £1 billion welfare cuts each and every year.

“Over half a million children live in families that rely on tax credits to make ends meet. 350,000 of those children will feel the impact of Tory cuts as they strip away much needed tax credits from over 200,000 low income working families across Scotland.

“Children will be pushed into poverty by the austerity driven Tories who choose ideology over humanity. It’s no wonder that they are changing the definition of child poverty to remove working households from the equation. They know their policies will make child poverty spiral not reduce.”

Speaking in the debate, Alex Neil MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights, attacked David Cameron on imposing cuts to benefits, cuts to tax credits, sanctions, and driving hundreds of thousands in the UK into poverty saying:

“No-one believes the Tories about their so called living wage, and the SNP will continue to fight for a real living wage for all people.

“We should have all the powers over social security, it should not be in the hands of the Tories. With those powers, we will use them to the maximum within the resources available.  We will also give dignity and respect to those who rely on social security to get by.

“The Scottish Government will not sweep poverty under the carpet and we will always protect our values and the vulnerable.”

Social Justice Secretary Alex Neil also confirmed one of the first acts of an SNP Scottish Government would be to scrap the so called ’84 day’ rule.

The rule under the UK Government prevents families with a seriously ill or disabled child from receiving Disability Living Allowance and Carer’s Allowance payments once they have been hospitalised or received medical treatment for same condition for more than 84 days.

Alex Neil said this disgraceful rule would be abolished as a matter of principle as soon as new welfare powers are devolved from Westminster to Holyrood.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Sep 182015
 

With thanks to Gavin Mowat, Constituency Assistant to Christian Allard MSP.

Christian Allard MSP debating at the Scottish Parliament

Christian Allard MSP debating at the Scottish Parliament

Whilst debating the Global Refugee Crisis today, Christian Allard MSP has highlighted that our Word Choice Matters.

Speaking today in the Scottish Parliament, he encouraged accuracy in terminology used and commended those who are currently discussing the Refugee Crisis with appropriate terms.

The North East MSP has recognised that when discussing the Refugee Crisis there must be clarity between the terms ‘Migrant’ and ‘Refugee’.

Christian Allard MSP explains that by ensuring the separation of the two terms it will protect the refugees from implications that the ‘M’ word can carry and, we can support the current crisis through truthful, informative discussions.

The North East MSP recognises that there has been a positive change of tone surrounding the situation but continues to urge that we all must continue to watch our language.

SNP MSP Christian Allard said:

“The damaging effects of using an incorrect term is very relevant and will influence our own perception and attitude towards refugees. Accuracy is key, Word Choice Matters.”

“The careless use of our words won’t help, calling people names is not the solution, helping them is.”

“They are not migrants …I am a migrant and I am no refugee.”

“Let’s remember where we all come from because, in Scotland’s Story, we are all worth the same.”

Commenting on the difference between migrants and refugees, a spokesman for EUHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) said:

“Yes, there is a difference, and it does matter.

“The two terms have distinct and different meanings, and confusing them leads to problems for both populations”

Note: A video of the debate will be available on the Scottish Parliament website in due course.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Aug 102015
 
Christian Allard MSP at the Scottish Parliament

Christian Allard MSP at the Scottish Parliament.

With thanks to Lee Robb, Caseworker to Christian Allard MSP.

Home Office planned changes to working visas could see a number of NHS Grampian staff sent back to their home countries.

This comes after North East SNP MSP, Christian Allard, requested information from NHS Grampian on what the UK Government’s proposed changes to the current Tier 2 Visa system would mean for the local health service.

The proposals mean that, non-EU citizens who earn less-than £35,000 per annum, could find they do not qualify for a UK working visa. NHS Grampian counted 10 staff members who fall into this category – including nursing staff.

The Royal College of Nursing have projected that such changes could cost NHS Scotland 3,365 nurses.

Commenting, Christian Allard said:

“People who come to this country and contribute, in the way that NHS nurses do, should not be treated like second-class citizens.

“The prospect of losing NHS Scotland staff as a result of the Conservative government’s planned changes is totally unacceptable. This will have an effect everywhere, including here in the North East.

“NHS staff play a vital role in delivering our health service. Their experience and dedication cannot be allowed to fall victim to a backwards agenda from the UK Government.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Jul 242015
 

Eilidh Whiteford, Parliament [2015]

Banff & Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford outside Parliament.

With thanks to Paul Robertson.

Banff & Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford has slammed plans to give Members of the UK Parliament a 10% pay increase, saying the plans are “wholly inappropriate.”

The proposed increase comes following the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s review of members’ salaries. The consultation closed on June 30, and SNP members have highlighted the unfairness of the raise at a time when most public sector workers are only receiving a 1% increase.

The matter is complicated by the fact that IPSA is independent of parliamentary control, and that MPs cannot refuse the proposed increase.

IPSA has a legal duty to pay the increase into the bank accounts of MPs, but Eilidh Whiteford, who is also the SNP’s Westminster Spokesperson on Social Justice, has today said she has alternative plans for the extra money.

Eilidh said:

“After a budget that will cut the incomes of those in low paid work, and in light of the ongoing public sector pay freeze, an increase in MP’s pay is wholly inappropriate. If it goes ahead, I will be increasing my donations to good causes.”

“Members receive a generous wage already, and how IPSA can justify a 10% increase at this point in time is beyond comprehension.”

Westminster SNP Leader Angus Robertson MP added:

“Now is a time of austerity and huge financial difficulties for far too many people. It is not right for MPs to have a pay-rise in these circumstances.

“As IPSA has gone ahead with these changes, I think it would be right to use the funds to support good causes.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Mar 202015
 

Eilidh Whiteford, Parliament With thanks to Paul Robertson.

New figures from the House of Commons Library have revealed Eilidh Whiteford to be one of Scotland’s hardest working Members of Parliament.

The SNP MP for Banff & Buchan ranks 9th out of 59 Scottish MPs for contributions to debates – making over 500 speeches and interventions since her election in 2010.

In the period 2010-2015, Eilidh has also asked over 700 parliamentary questions.

The statistics put the Banff & Buchan MP’s parliamentary contributions well ahead of some high-profile Scottish MPs including the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the former Chancellor Alistair Darling and LibDem MP Charles Kennedy.

Commenting, Eilidh said: “When I was elected in 2010, I promised to work my socks off for my constituents and that is what I have done to the best of my ability. I have spoken in a lot of debates and I have asked a lot of questions of this ConDem UK Government but that is exactly what Banff & Buchan needs and expects.”

“Banff & Buchan is a diverse community and I have spoken on issues from farming and fishing to broadband and support for the vulnerable.
​Being the MP for Banff & Buchan these last 5 years has been an immense privilege which I am keen to continue.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Dec 192014
 

Eilidh WhitefordBy Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP.

Last Friday the House of Commons passed an historic piece of legislation, to enshrine in law the promise made over forty years ago to commit 0.7% of our Gross National Income to international development.

I know this is an issue close to the hearts of many constituents, who make their own generous contributions to charities working overseas, and want to see the UK government play its part by meeting its responsibilities as part of the global community.

Although development assistance is a tiny proportion of our budget, it has a big impact on the lives of people affected by natural disasters and wars, and can have a transformative effect on those living in poor countries.

Overseas aid from this country has provided clean water and sanitation for over 43 million people.

10 million children have gone to school who otherwise would not have had an education, and 3.6 million women have given birth safely, supported by a qualified midwife or other medical professional. UK aid has also been instrumental in promoting economic development in poorer countries – indeed, some which have grown to such an extent they have become important new trading partners for us.

Although the introduction of the Bill was a manifesto commitment of all the major parties in 2010, it was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill by former Scottish Secretary Michael Moore. I was disappointed that a few MPs, who opposed the Bill (despite standing on a manifesto supporting it), tried to kill the Bill using some of Westminster’s more arcane parliamentary procedures to scupper it.

It’s enormously frustrating that our democracy is open to such shenanigans. Luckily, the Bill survived and was carried by an overwhelming majority of those present, but the outcome could have been very different.

Our aid money also supports developing countries to build open, transparent and accountable democratic systems of government. Maybe it’s time we paid a bit more attention to our own advice.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]