Skip to content or view screen version

Paul Cruickshank vs Peterhead court

scott Pattinson | 27.01.2015 19:00 | Afghanistan | Analysis | Terror War

Court staff attempt to prosecute mr paul Cruickshank of Peterhead on the grounds of abusive behaviour and attempt to ignore his basic rights in non funding of institutional terrorism

Today mr Cruickshank was asked to explain his alleged behaviour at the Peterhead court office after two members of the court testified stating that mr Cruickshank used abusive and derogatory language.

The aforementioned person stated on record he did swear at them because these establishment figures refused to uphold magna carta in supporting illegal wars and the funding of illegal wars by our government. At points in the trial Isla Ritchie found mr Cruickshank's questioning funny, especially when he mentioned that paying tax is a crime under international law due to the uk government backing the false wars in the middle east.

She went on by stating that this was purely opinion, when in fact if you understand international law that this is not the case. Ms Ritchie went on by stating that the defendant had used strong language at her in the terms of "fucking tart" and " fuck off". Mr Cruickshank accepted swearing at her but denied called her a "fucking tart"

During the trial the fiscal put forward video evidence of mr Cruickshank entering and leaving the office. But in saying this the video evidence was largely inappropriate as it didn't document anything particular relevant in his case against the defendant. Also he brought in a witness by the name of Barbara Anne borwick. This particular witness had very little recollection of what occurred. In a effort the fiscal attempted to put words in her mouth. This effort on his part did eventually result in the witness agreeing with him and putting no thought into her statement.

Constable james will later gave testimony as he was called to the scene regardless of the fact that mr Cruickshank had long since departed the building. In his statement officer will also tried to state that funding terrorism was mr Cruickshank's opinion. Yet if this officer really wanted to uphold the law then the uk government should be arrested for war crimes.

The prosecution closed their argument by stating mr Cruickshank's actions caused alarm, distress and intimidation. They had little or no interest in the illegalities of paying tax, the murders and rape of thousands of innocents in a war that has been engineered by powerful lobby groups and multinational corporations. In doing so they had no regard as to why mr Cruickshank got passionate and angry. This shows that human empathy towards the endless waste of human life wasn't relevant in this trial. This trial was a clear attempt to stop mr Cruickshank from expressing himself in a meaningful way.

The judge in her final ruling was sympathetic towards mr Cruickshank and understood why he was emotionally involved in a very important issue. She later said that he was a reasonable person and that the documents he had supplied to the court that had detailed international law as irrefutable. Her comments were both pleasing and inspiring to the defendant who was later given 100 hours of community service.

scott Pattinson
- e-mail:
- Homepage: