Feb 232012
 

What a week it’s been for Old Susannah. The pizza party that never was,  PR wars and public accusaltion of criminal activity.  Where to start? And where is it all going? By Suzanne Kelly.

According to the Press & Journal of 21 February, Tom Smith of ACSEF claims to be the victim of internet ‘bullying… harassment… intimidation’ and so on.  The nature of the claims are not spelled out, but allegations are made of an ‘objectionable’ image (no, not one of the ‘concept’ drawings of the Granite Web), e-mail hacking and receipt of abusive emails.

Smith has called in the police.  It seems those he accuses of this broad spectrum collection of attacks are the broader spectrum of people opposed to building in Union Terrace Gardens.

Hacking is illegal.  Threatening is illegal.  When it comes to posting threatening remarks on internet sites, the law still applies.   But we are in a democracy which prides itself on centuries of press freedoms. 

The British Isles may truly be called the birthplace of political satire, a recognised and legitimate weapon of the press, often the only means of attacking people of wealth and power who might otherwise escape scrutiny.

The press has been filled with accounts of the nefarious activities in days not long past at News International.  Police have been bribed; phones of murder victims have been hacked, private correspondence has been intercepted.   The offenses are both shocking and illegal.   Elsewhere online,  threats are issued back and forth; the cloak of anonymity is often mis-used for the benefit of the coward or the manipulative.   As unpleasant as some online banter may be, not all of it is illegal by a wide margin:  the P&J know this extremely well.

If Mr Tom Smith and/or his family have had any bona fide threats (whether electronic or not), or if Mr Smith has been illegally hacked, then I will be the first to defend his rights and demand an enquiry.  (Note:  did you know that council officials can get court orders to snoop on residents for a variety of reasons?  If not, you know now).

However, there are several issues arising from this Press & Journal story which need to be dissected.

From the P&J, the blur between the allegedly illegal and the legal is as blurry as the specific details of the City Garden Project itself.

The timing of this claim comes close to the end of the referendum voting period – Mr Smith seems in the article in question to be making a blanket-bombing attack on all those who oppose the plans to build over Union Terrace Gardens.  I can assure Mr Smith that there was never a looser or more informal federation of people opposed to the City Gardens Project.

Why do he and the P&J feel the need to group political parties, grass-roots movements, students, OAPS, rich and poor into a single entity that is apparently illegally attacking him?

I am keen to hear the specifics of the accusation.  Perhaps Mr Smith is accustomed in his very many roles (1. ACSEF Chairman, 2. City Gardens Project Management Board, 3. City Gardens  Implementation Team Chair,  4. City Gardens Project Advisory Group, and  5. Director of Aberdeen City Gardens Trust) to only being treated with deference.  In social network sites; on newspaper comment pages, there is no automatic right to be treated politely.

Not everyone uses genteel language; one person’s foul language is another’s common vernacular.  What is the specific nature of the abuse(s) being claimed?  From the P&J, the blur between the allegedly illegal and the legal is as blurry as the specific details of the City Garden Project itself.

It is refreshing as well as amusing in the extreme to see the Press & Journal showing such concern to those ‘bullied and/or intimidated’ via internet:  readers of its online comments will be familiar with the abusive, bullying, personal, crude tactics of two of its most prolific, rarely censored anonymous posters, Jock W and the even more notorious Sasha M.

Months ago Sasha M made comments about me which were libellous in my (and my legal advisor’s opinion).  I complained and considered whether or not to sue; the editor of the P&J called me and agreed to take the posts off.  As I reported at the time, the editor told me that since ‘you skate pretty close to the edge yourself, you have to be able to take it as well.’

I reminded him that I write a satirical column, and that if Sasha M writes something about me which appears on a site owned and controlled by the P&J, purporting to be a place for comments on news stories, Sasha’s postings  had better be true. (I suggested ridiculing my overly-large nose; that at least would have a grain of truth in it:  but Sasha had claimed two libels against me which were  published on the Press & Journal’s website as if they were factual.  They were not, and as such I considered them illegal).

But now it is time to look at the Press & Journal. Today’s article is a very odd creature.

I have been sent occasional searing, blistering  emails by those I have satirised.  My satirical subjects have been politicians who have voted to slash benefits, close schools, destroy greenbelt land, and who have been convicted of criminal acts.

I see my small satirical column as my only weapon against a public/private power structure  that, in my opinion, seems to wants to suck as much out of the taxpayer and give them as little in return as possible, while commissioning portraits of themselves, attending concerts and other events.

My writing is certainly not to everyone’s taste – but I am using the legal, accepted, platform called satire.  If I have successfully drawn attention to any injustice and/or incestuous public/private sector overlaps, then I’ve succeeded.  But in any event, I stay within the law, and will continue to write as long as I can find a reader.

But now it is time to look at the Press & Journal. Today’s article is a very odd creature.  It voices Mr Smith’s complaints – but it mixes illegal activity such as hacking and threats with totally legal (if undesired) activity such as online posts.  It stops short of accusing anyone of libel, but it hints at it.  What is the P&J actually trying to say is the subject of the police investigation?  Are the police roping together all internet items which offend Mr Smith – legal and illegal?  The P&J certainly seems to be doing so.

For quite some time P&J editorial staff have been aware of the over-the-top, racist, nationalistic, insulting behaviour (in the opinion of many) of some of its posters.  Mike Shepherd is only one target of Jock, Sasha and their vitriolic crew.  Mike and the others have not gone to the police as far as I know, but by Mr Smith’s standards they certainly would be within their rights to do so.  In reviewing randomly the writing of Jock and Sasha, I’ve come across highly offensive, possibly illegal posts including:-

*  references to ‘incomers’ in less than flattering contexts, which certainly sound nationalistic and insular and to some degree threatening to me

*  references to specific politicians such as Lewis MacDonald which are extremely insulting

* stereotyping of anyone suspected of left-leaning politics

*  a remark from Sasha:  ‘let’s kill off these protestors once and for all…’  not kill off the protest – but the actual people – the protestors.

*  Jock W invokes the Nazis in an insult directed towards Mike Shepherd  – Jock references ‘Goebbels’ and alludes to ‘Chemical Ali’ by way of typing ‘Comical Ali’.

Nazi related insults?  Threats to kill protestors?  What has been allowed on the Press & Journal online editions for all these past months? 

They are surely responsible for posts put on their website.  A feeble addition of links whereby readers can ask for a quote to be ‘reported’ is by no means a substitute for the responsibility the P&J have as the owners of this website.  I have had scores of people tell me they used these links to complain, all to no avail.

Clearly the P&J need to look at their own house.

The real point here though is that the Press & Journal knowingly allows this type of comment to go on, refuses to police its own comments pages, and yet has the gall to support Mr Smith in his complaints that people are being intimidating and bullying to him online, mixing illegal and legal activity in what seems like a very crude attempt to smear anyone who stands up against the City Gardens Project or those who support it.

A kind word to Aberdeen Journals:  things are changing.  Your circulation and profit margin are apparently not what they once were.  People are saying openly that you seem blatantly biased towards any hype the pro CGP teams throw at you.  Have you gone too far this time?  Just a thought.

I welcome any police investigation into any illegal activities – threatening people, hacking and so on.  Our police will be well aware of guidelines protecting free expression, satire and online comments.

One recent complaint I had threatened me with legal action and the Scottish Football Association (!)

If any attempt is made to curb, censor or halt normal rights of the individual, then this small writer through to the NUJ and all responsible news agencies will be there to safeguard our journalistic rights and day-to-day free expression.

In point of fact I am trying to make up my mind:  should I stand up to Sasha M and launch a suit against him and/or the Press & Journal now after all (don’t worry – I still have screen shots of Sasha’s remarks about me – in an item about the Lord Provost giving away expensive gifts which I neither commented on nor had any involvement with whatsoever)?

This could stop any further written threats to ‘kill protestors’ or nationalistic rhetoric about ‘incomers’.  For that matter – I thought the garden ramps project was to encourage newcomers to the area?  With Sasha’s rants against newcomers, this will indeed be hard work.

Back to my legal, online writing.  For every piece of fact I have written about, I can assure my detractors that I will have a source, and that source will be doubly – if not triply – backed up.  I have in the main while writing received many letters of support (for which I am sincerely grateful).

One recent complaint I had threatened me with legal action and the Scottish Football Association (!) if I did not print a retraction of my article.  Instead my source material was reviewed, not only fully vindicating my assertions, but also paving the way to printing further details the complainant may not have wanted publicised.

Finally, here is a nice way to illustrate these points, which I will call The Casablanca Gambit.

Classic Film readers will remember dialogue from the iconic (the word is well used in this case) film, ‘Casablanca’.  The Chief of Police in Casablanca, Captain Renault, has been ordered by Nazis to close Rick’s Cafe by any means.  This is what transpires:

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
Captain Renault: [aloud] Everybody out at once!

I leave it to you to decide who in this current Aberdeen drama are the Nazis, who is Rick, and who is Renault.  (I wonder if the P&J may wish to reconsider its position, or if it will continue to collect its winnings while it can).

Jan 112012
 

Old Susannah tries to get to grips with the newspapers, the actual news, and council-speak.  By Suzanne Kelly.

Tally Ho!  The highlight of this past week was undoubtedly going to the Wildly Unprepared show at the Belmont on Wednesday night.
The atmosphere was terrific, and the place was standing room only.

Adam Leel hosted the show last night and the improv acts were Tom McGinn, Andrew McDonald, Robert Starr, Fraser Taylor, Mark Wilson and Roderick Mackenzie. The stand-up comedians were James Mcintosh and Marc Christie.
They’re doing it all again next Wednesday at 9pm, same venue – the Belmont’s downstairs bar.  If you want a seat, then come early. 

There was a little audience participation, elements of ‘Whose Line is it Anyway?’, stand up, some great improv, and genuine, topical laughs. 

One of the comedians did some whale jokes.  I fell for them hook, line and sinker, and thought ‘Cod, this guy’s great’ – and I’m not just saying that for the halibut, as most puns just give me a haddock.  Eel go far.  So if you thought ACSEF and the Lib Dems had a monopoly on wild, unpredictable humour in this town, think again.

Sadly, I seem to have upset that nice Neil Fletcher again. I sent all of the City’s councillors some questions in anticipation of the May elections (more on these soon).

While he’s most put out at my behaviour (without his spelling out what I did) and has sent me some fascinating emails (which are causing quite a few chuckles with my lawyers and friends), I’ll say nothing about that just now.

Neil’s undoubtedly upset at John Stewart’s taking off for Manchester soon.  This of course leaves the coveted post of leader of the Lib Dems open to speculation.

The Press & Journal have named two vibrant and dynamic, forward-thinking, intelligent potential pretenders to the title:  Aileen ‘Ho’Malone and Kate Dean. So I understand that Neil’s upset, and if he seems to be a wee bit miserable, this is obviously out of character, and we quite understand.

But anonymous, mysterious men dominate this week’s news.  The first mystery which Old Susannah can’t get her head around is this – a headless corpse (the head was nearby) was found at the grounds of a psychiatric hospital in Bristol.  And what have the police issued as their statement?

“An Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said the death did not appear to be suspicious.

I guess it must have been one of those natural causes beheadings, or just your average beheading accident.  With police work like that, we can all rest our heads on our pillows at night with complete confidence.

Pseudonym:   (noun) an assumed name used to conceal identity.

Old Susannah had originally intended to write under the pseudonym ‘Old Susannah’ – not because I was afraid of people knowing how much I admire the council, but so that people who’d been complaining to me of rights and wrongs up and down Aberdeen could do so without endangering their anonymity.  (In fact it was all the info coming to me that started this little column going in the first place).

As it turned out, the first column came out with my name on it by mistake, but it’s all worked out fine – people are still sending me tales of woe from inside the fortress of doom (aka the Townhouse).

But what of those people who hide behind a pseudonym when posting opinions on line or commenting in chatrooms in such a way as to inflame rather than inform or debate like grown-ups?  We need level heads, brilliant minds and peacemakers.  What we’ve got is… ‘Sasha M.’

For any of you who might visit the Press & Journal’s online presence you’ll note the comments at the end of articles.  Whether the subject is Union Terrace Gardens or the use of Common Good money to buy expensive pens for visiting dignitaries, ‘Sasha M –  mystery man (or woman) – stands head and shoulders above the rest for informed, intelligent opinions, gently delivered:

His winning ways are earning him swarms of devotees.  Here are some samples of his words of wisdom:

On the subject of expensive gifts bought from the common good fund as gifts for dignitaries:

 “I’m sure there is more going into the Common Good Fund than is coming out of it, or at the very least it is break even with growth to maintain the cash value in line with inflation. So what is the problem?” 

The fact that the Common Good Fund is worth millions less than it was some 10 years ago doesn’t hamper Sasha M’s wit or writing style, nor the fact that the City is keen to lease or give so much of it away.  Sadly some wet blanket had this to say on the same thread:-

“Neil (Fletcher) – Civic dignity went out of the window last year with the Lord Provost’s poorly judged casting vote on Union Terrace Gardens. Shameful…..On a lighter note, I wonder if the parties concerned use freebie Cartier pens to sign over the lease? They might as well take the mick to the max, so to speak!” – harvey freshwater 

Join in the fun on this old thread at:

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2471577

A cynic might say that the back-and-forth on these postings is much more entertaining than the Press & Journal, and the worst sceptics think that Sasha M might even be an invention of the press – but you just don’t get writers like him (or her) without years of study of language, logic and the arts.

Other examples of his or her way with words include :-

“..grow up for god’s sake,”

and regarding TIF funding / UTG:

“Well if ever there was an example of why we shouldn’t ask the public about this, Michty Me [another poster]  has just shown that the public don’t understand the issues and public opinion is worthless because it is not fully informed.”

Quite right, too!  If Sasha is a councillor, then their constituents might like to know Sasha’s views on the public’s opinions.  Sasha’s other posts clearly show a great interest in real estate matters, if no knowledge of heritage, democracy and the rights of the electorate.

Some people think Sasha could be Kate Dean, or a higher power from a parallel universe – the jury’s out.  Sasha also decided to make some posts telling the world that I got ‘inebriated’ at Brew Dog (never happened, ever) and that when I forgot a poll tax payment I had  ‘ broken the law’.  The P&J decided there was no substance in these posts, so off they came with an apology.

But like every other person in Aberdeen, I am dying to know who this crusader for truth and justice against all those pesky ‘lefties’ as Sasha calls such riff-raff is.  Will the real Sasha M please step forward?  We’d like to know.  Sasha, if you’re out there, why not come clean on your identity?  The fans are waiting.

 Referendum:   (noun) form of balloting to determine policy or a specific issue.

A referendum is when a government asks the people what it wants, before continuing to proceed with doing what the vast majority of the public don’t want.  Hooray!  We’re going to have a referendum on Union Terrace Gardens!  Of course, it is not totally binding, and as history has shown, where there is a Wood, there is a way.

I’d like to think the referendum’s results will be accepted by the City.  I still don’t understand how my original vote on UTG, sent by postcard seems not to have been listed on the (massive) spreadsheets of comments received.  I used the word ‘preposterous’ believe it or not to describe the scheme –but this word cannot be found on the list of comments, and it remains unclear whether or not my vote was ever counted.

Then again, at least I wasn’t one of the people who seemingly had their votes against building in UTG changed to a vote in favour – this apparently happened to many online voters – when adding a comment seemed to have made the vote into a favourable one.

I guess we’ll leave it there for now.  Concerning FOI requests, the clock’s still ticking on the deadline for Aberdeen to hand over its list of properties sold to Milne – they have another 10 days as of the time of writing.  And my request to find out what Common Good Lands are held?  It’s past due, and I’ve received this useful comment:

“… once an applicant has requested a review on the basis of lateness, any response provided constitutes the review outcome, and the applicant will have no further opportunities to seek a review of the response at local authority level.”

So if I ask the City to tell me why it’s late (again) answering a FOI request, ‘any response provided constitutes the review outcome.’   Sorry, but it’s going to take someone of Sasha M’s intelligence to tell Old Susannah what that means.  ‘Do What Now??’ is the phrase that springs to mind.

Next week:  More Freedom of Information capers.