We recently reported that a commentator on the ‘Aye Right’ podcast said that he would ‘happily take out English police officers crossing the border with a high powered rifle’. That person has now been charged by Police Scotland.
The podcast/videocast is hosted by ‘Aye Right Radio’, and say they aim to be “Bringing you the truth about independence”. The video attracted scorn from all sides of the political spectrum, uniting Scottish political figures in opposition to the comments.
After speaking to Chris McCall at the Daily Record (he also reported this story), I was informed by Chris that the man responsible for the remarks has been charged. I then asked Police Scotland for more information on this.
A Police Scotland spokesperson told me:
“A 52-year-old man has been charged in connection with making threatening remarks. A report will be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal and enquiries are ongoing.”
What happened?
A commentator on the ‘Aye Right’ podcast said that ‘there’s going to have to be a confrontation between Scotland and England’ involving the police and also that he would ‘happily take them out with a high powered rifle’ at the border.
The ‘Aye Right’ channel removed the video after we brought attention to it and replaced it with an edited version, however, we have a copy of the original video.
You can view it below. We have re-uploaded it under the purposes of ‘Fair Use’ for the reporting of current news events. The specific section we’ve been made aware of starts at 42 minutes in.
Visible are, from top left clockwise, Jimmy Hutton, Norrie Stewart, Stewart Lochhead and Phil Attridge.
https://youtu.be/Ff0GAhoc61Q?t=2540
The now charged commentator said that “there’s going to have to be a confrontation between Scotland and England anyway” and he didn’t care if it was violent.
“They’d have to bus up Greater Manchester Police, Greater Manchester Police are basically, having seen them, they’re basically a paramilitary organisation. They’d have to bus them up here to put us back in our box. Frankly, the minute the busses started coming over the border, I’d happily sit there with a high powered rifle and take them out.“
Blair McDougall of Scottish Labour said:
“Events in America show we shrug off this kind of craziness. This is a programme SNP parliamentarians engage with. They should make it clear nobody associated with this should be anywhere near the governing party in the Scottish Parliament.”
SNP sources we spoke to were keen to distance themselves from the remarks, with one describing it as “appalling”.
He was clearly being an idiot mouthing of to his own crowd. But words (however lacking in thought) in public have consequences and prosecution is the only way to make people take more account of their own words and actions.
Absolutely spot on Jonathan, it will hopefully be a spell inside without Irn Brw privileges!
Finally got round to watching that wee bit…. bloody hell. Looks like he’s basing his idea of Manchester police being para military on their treatment of the Glasgow Rangers fans rioting. Bad police…. bad bad police, imagine treating those lovable scamps like criminals.
There’s some high grade delusion going on right there.
Depends if you believe in freedom of speech I can’t stand Scottish nationalists but I would rather they be allowed to say what they want we all know he wasn’t serious
Oh I’m all for free speech (within reason) and I’m not sure where you’re going with that. I was drawing attention to the reason he seems to view the Manchester Police as para military, while its an assumption on my part the ’12 years’ ties in nicely with Glasgow Rangers fans visiting the city of Manchester in numbers. Then trashing it.
I’m laughing at his logic of describing the Manchester police as para military as opposed his ‘right’ to do so.
As you are the “UK Defence Journal” (not the “US Defence Journal”), I think you mean “fair dealing” rather than “fair use”.
Yes.
I’m uncomfortable with people being arrested for things they say, except perhaps in the most extreme of circumstances. The bloke’s clearly an idiot in a group of idiots, but aren’t we all at times. He’s clearly talking big to like minded people and getting carried away, but haven’t we all at times. I realise it’s a complicated issue, I suppose but I’m just not comfortable with it.
Correct, however, there is a world of difference between chewing the fat in a pub (remember those?) and publishing it for all to see/hear/read.
Would you publish your rants in the paper?
I agree with your concerns Jason. However, there is a big difference about what you brag about in a bar with your chums…and what you brag about on a public forum!
Ha, That’s a bit rich lol….. Troll
It certainly is a bit rich you clown….particularly your comments about female recruits deserving to be raped by their colleagues. If your prepared to say that on a public forum, what do say to your chums in private….not that you have any!
Yep, it does make a difference I agree. Very foolish and perhaps the arrest and what follows is the right thing to do. It just doesn’t sit well, if you know what I mean.
Yeah I’m with you on this
You may not issue threats of violence against anyone – unless you are Jo Brand.
I’m not sure that it was construed as a threat, but it certainly was pretty tasteless and unnecessary!
The deluded old fool should know that actions have consequences. I am sure the punishment will be light as he is just gobbing off. But if he does have a firearms license I hope it is removed.
Taking this off on a tangent Mike O but I don’t like how firearms are treated differently to other offences.
While this is an extra example I’m linking, it baffles me that someone can kill a person and try and hide it then get the jail for 5 years. He’s banned from driving for 11 years…. yup ELEVEN years. Not forbidden from ever driving again. There seems to be a lot more leeway for this kind of stuff, guess its because more people can relate to motoring offences.
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/crown-loses-appeal-over-hit-and-run-killers-sentence
No worries on tangents. I get what you are saying. If you use a vehicle or firearms (or anything really) with the intent to cause harm then I think it should be treated the same. I am not really sure but I think it comes down to intent. Most vehicle related deaths are unintentional even if the driver is intoxicated. Firearms offences are much more likely to have been committed with the intent to cause harm. But I think you are right that people can relate to motoring offences and even sympathise depending on the context.
Its very depressing. But comments like that do deserve some consequence. This group must by their activities be reasonably well spread, if not mainstream.
The SNP may not sanction some of its comments but clearly there is a some what fascist tendency in the independence movement as evinced by this lot. Certainly in SNP politics, from what I can see, the black shirts are out to do down the brown shirts.
The SNp have more than their share of idiots. Fools like these deserver jail for such murderous comments.
Just a sad bunch of no mate clowns! Not one missus or girlfriend between the lot of them. Perfect saddos to support the Fascist party.
Bunch of crusty old bitter unloveable men just doing what they do, they can be safely ignored without the state crushing their right to freedom of expression and allowing them to present themselves as martyrs
Old men? 52 years old is still spring chicken territory. I’m 72 in a couple of months and can assure all on this forum that I would won’t behave that badly when I get old! 🙂
..and I would won’t will work on my vocab..
Behaving badly, and getting away with it, is one of the few benefits of old age. Go for it…I certainly intend to!
Haha Herodotus 🙂 . I did however promise George…
Resources will be diverted at a time of continuing pressure on public services. Can anyone defend such stupidity?
My my we have certainly come far from “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Ah, progress. Why does it always have to resemble the rotting of corpse?
A wonderful saying Elliot, but as with all such catch phrases it does have it’s limitations.
No, it really doesn’t. You either have free speech even when it is uncomfortable, or you only have permitted speech and therefore hypocrisy and authoritarianism.
We can agree to disagree there. Cheers
When that phrase was coined ( C18th by Voltaire …I think ) there was no internet, no Facebook or twitter etc etc. Levels of literacy were low and much communication was limited to letters, pamphlets and books that few could afford and even fewer could even read. Today, every charlatan has access to the media and that raises problems of accountability. With freedoms, come responsibilities….newspapers are held accountable if they rabble rouse, so should Facebook and Twitter if they permit it! It is no longer acceptable to claim freedom of speech whilst inciting insurrection, whoever you are!
You do realize what you just said was essentially “freedom of speech was okay when it was the domain of the elite, but plebs having it is dangerous”. Here is the acceptable level of accountability, if no one wants to here them speak no one is forcing them to listen.
Also I realize insurrection is the media’s favorite word right now but it is getting over used and tiresome. Further I don’t agree with the SNP, but they don’t advocate insurrection, they advocate secession.
Well done…you have managed to misinterpret most of what I wrote. Who was it that said that we are two nations separated by the same language. Probably Mark Twain…but then, he seams to get the blame for most misquotes!
Exactly my thoughts Herodotus. Freedom of Speech is a man made construct and is no”God” given right. Maybe Elliot and I are on the same page. Without putting words in his mouth(!) one can either allow anyone to say anything and rely on the laws of the land to punish those who overstep the mark, or one can limit it upfront by curtailing its extremes. People cannot say in Public that they hate and want to kill Christians, for example. If we allow this then the damage is done so deal with the extremes. The vast majority of us understand what these extremes are so no one is restricting the essence of Free Speech
That’s pretty much how I view things and how the system operates in most liberal democracies. It is also a matter of balance and judgement. An Imam in his mosque or a president who has been given the bums-rush are potentially highly influential. They pose more of a threat than someone suffering from mental health issues that thinks he is Bob Marley. I think that Elliott wants to be a purist…and uphold ideals that have never really been put into practise when it mattered……ask Edward Snowden!
Back to the 1st Test in India….C4, God bless them, are televising it. Yes you heard right….test cricket back on terrestrial TV. Now that is an undeniable human right ?
Haha Herodotus. Here in the Colony of Natal, South Africa our sport is available on DSTV, a satellite pay channel. I haven’t watched much cricket of late-too busy trying to deal with life in the RSA 2021! I presume India are playing against our Marleybone Cricket Club? I shall tune in if I get a chance!
Enjoy.
Joe root has got his 100 and England are 251 for 2 on the first day. Of course live cricket is available from Rupert Murdoch (Sky Sports), but I have never knowingly put a penny (or a cent) in his direction.
251 for 2 is a nice start for any first day innings! I will take a look at the 2nd day on the moro. we are 2 hrs. ahead of GMT-would presume(without googling it) that India are about 3 hrs. ahead of us. Cheers
Elliot what’s your thoughts on Islamic Clerics publicly preaching Islamic fundamentalist views, inciting violence and death to western civilians and military personnel?
Does that fall under your “uncomfortable” freedom of speech?
That I despise them. However until someone actually commits a crime (i.e. plans and engages in a criminal conspiracy or participates in the crime itself) what I dislike doesn’t matter. Just as I despise the leftists who occasionally advocate for the death of landlords. Again words should not be a crime action should be.
Because I have enough foresight to see what happens when you start to regulate speech. What you want to be banned today will be the precedent to ban what you don’t.
Elliot speech has been regulated for centuries, try using blasphemy or speaking bad about your King/Queen in medieval times and see how far “freedom of speech” got you.
And in more modern times even since the birth of this supposed free speech it has always been regulated, fraud, hate speech, copyright, obscenity, defamation, false statements to police/court, classified information, terrorists threats, national security and plenty of other things are regulated, there has never been “freedom of speech”
And what I said in my first comment about the Cleric, they actually are committing a crime in the UK under the public order act 1986.
There is a debate to be had about politically-correct censorship, regulating speech on the basis of people’s feelings for example, which are very subjective, I don’t necessarily agree with, but the defence should never be freedom of speech, the argument should be had on a case by case basis using fair argument, facts, statistics, reason, logic and the sort of precedent that it may set.
The case here in the article is not politically-correct censorship, it’s a crime and although it’s very borderline taking it into context, why should people be allowed to go on public forums and talk about shooting Police with a rifle, who exactly is that benefitting and why should they have a right to say it? I’m intrigued to know just where in history this free speech utopia where words never have consequences actually exists.
I have little concern for how centuries ago my ancestors couldn’t tell the monarch to get bent. Oh wait they did.????
And your comment about Clerics is a terrible example as this man makes a statement in a video and is instantly arrested. How long did it take for any action to be taken against Choudary? Equality under the law is yet another principle that was broken here.
As for more modern laws regulating speech, with the exception of the oh so ephemeral “hate speech”, there is a clear and concise element to each offense.
Further as someone who actually worked in law enforcement. The jail would have been full of either fat, or skinny hair dyed refuse of the upper and middle class if we had arrested everyone with a “kill the police/cops/pigs placard.
Also if we only had beneficial speech nothing would be broadcast would be the weather and traffic report.
As did we, that’s why we are in a constitutional monarchy. But let’s not forget there is a reason why your flag is red, white and blue ????? ?
The cleric is a fair example in my opinion, until you can counter with why people should be allowed to say certain things without a comeback of a stupid meaningless umbrella of “free speech” then there is no room for debate here.
Monkeys can yell free speech, but unless you’re going to debate the matter at hand then what’s the point, I asked why you think people should be allowed to talk about killing police and why it should be protected under “free speech” and you failed to respond.
The idea that anyone has the right to say anything they want under some mystical ideal as “free speech” is pathetic and has never and will never exist.
I gave you my reason as someone who has worked in law enforcement. If I had arrested everyone who said/waived placards that said kill/maim/burn/@%&# the police/pigs/cops the jail would have been full with the refuse of the middle and upper class before the weekend. Then I wouldn’t have any room for the murderers, pedophiles, rapists and thieves. You know real criminals.
What I want to know is how come the English guy who pretends he’s a Scot never comments on topics like this ? I’d love to know if he is a fan of these type podcasts ?
???????????
Not entirely sure how this qualifies as news relating to UK defence, but it is a change from reading about a tanker squawking due to a faulty cabin light.
No one’s making you read it, Dave.
The better half is in greater Manchester police. Actually quite proud they think that about them. To be fair it is full of ex squads