Tuesday, May 22, 2007



Given that the SSP now no longer have ANY MSPs and therefore do not have the money from these MSPs I am wondering if they will survive for very long? They will have lost at least £140,000 a year (at least according to their own admission, half of the MSPs salary went towards the parties coffers). So it will be interesting to see if they are able to survive without it, don't get me wrong I am not suggesting that I want them to fail but given the likes of Ms Kane and others previously spouting the nonsense that they didn't take the whole allowance it will certainly be interesting to see if they can continue without it.


red mist said...

we're still here..still watching and working on behalf of working people..somebody has to do it and Labour deserted them long ago

George Dutton said...

You could be right about this one Rayleen. The SSP have never gone in for Corruption and Bribery like your party NEW Labour has to survive. They say crime doesn't pay, it has for NEW Labour so far?. When do think the court case will be? who will be charged? when will they who will be charged start spilling their guts about what really goes on in your party?. Bet you don`t put this post on and take me on Rayleen,LOL.

Rayleen Kelly said...

REDMIST: Interesting comment, one of the reasons I wrote this was to see if you would respond. What you fail to realise is that electorally your arguments dont hold water, although that is hardly suprising.

Rayleen Kelly said...

George, I have no problem with publishing your comment it is interesting to say the least and I will come back to it but I am Blogging from my mobile so it is a little limiting but thanks for dropping by.

red mist said...

I would have responded to many more of your comments if you hadn't censored them out. I have responded to some of yours on my own blog.

When you speak of survival you seem to be unable to contemplate this in any but parliamentary and electoral terms. We were and are a party of the streets; we can highlight issues as easily out of office as we can in office, in fact in many cases we can be more effective free from the restraints of conventional politics and the rules which the powerful have made for the purpose of preventing effective challenges. You, even out of office, will have to observe these rules, but we don't. We had no part in making them, they lack legitimacy and we will not be bound by them.
If labour can break agreements and cheat and lie for their own purposes then we will be here to protect our own.

Rayleen Kelly said...

GEORGE: They prefer lying in court, as Red Mist has so obviously suggested the SSP didn't make the laws therefore they don't apply to them!

Rayleen Kelly said...

RED MIST: Interesting as I have suggested to George you seem to be suggesting that you had nothing to do with the setting of laws therefore you don't have to ahere to them, that must explain the Sheridan Court debacle.

I am constrained by nothing anymore except deceny something you seem to have lost a long time ago.

Rayleen Kelly said...

RED MIST: For the sake of my other readers you have suggested that I have censored comments of yours, this is not the case.

Rayleen Kelly said...

George: Firstly what you commented on was not in the article so we are pretty much talking about what I want to talk about given that it is my blog! Don't like it get your own!

On the second point the job hunt is great thanks for asking.

Rayleen Kelly said...

George: Have deleted your comment as I do not promote other websites that I don't agree with and I did not have time to read this feel free to re post and I will try and get round to reading it tomorrow.

George Dutton said...

The web site you deleted is an article in the Independent given by NEW Labours Alan Simpson MP. Just thought you and others might like to read it. I have posted it again as you suggest.


As for...

"what I want to talk about given that it is my blog!"

I was under the impression it was about party funding?. Sorry I did not realize you only wanted to talk about the SSP party funding.

red mist said...

Rayleen, How can you be so deliberately deceptive. I said nothing about not obeying laws, I didn't even mention laws. We participated in election of the lawmakers so obviously, like everyone else, we have to live with the results. What we are not bound by are the petty rules and parliamentary procedures which constrain proper full debate and gag protest. Your suggestion that I am indecent is offensive, but since I am in the business of offending I can't really complain can I? You will have to abide by the rules because you want to be re-elected and that means being re-selected.

As for the suggestion that you censored my post, look at my blog entry for 31st March 2007 entitled 'Councillors Severance Pay:A Message To Rayleen' which is a comment on your topic which I copied to my own blog because I suspected you would not publish it. I was right.

As for the Sheridan debacle, so far he is £200,000 ahead although I suspect he will not stay that way. The people who gave evidence and stayed in the SSP maintain that they told the truth, and I believe them. They are decent people. As for lying in court, when will you be kicking the firestarter out of the Lords? Matching jailbird for jailbird is not the way you should go, since our jailbirds tend to go to jail for protecting people and not for trying to burn them to death in hotels.

Rayleen Kelly said...

George: I can see how the title of 'SSP Survival' would confuse you, did you notice that NO other party was mentioned? I have published your comment having read the article it is the typical nonsense you would expect from this source, you only have to lok at who is quoted at the bottom to figure that out.

Rayleen Kelly said...

Red Mist: I know you are able to keep it short look at your orginal comment! Laws and the SSP feel they are exempt: see blatant disregard for the laws by the SSP at Faslane, deliberately putting the Police Officers and others in harms way in order to get their faces in the press.

As for not posting your comments you are lying but this is no less than I expect. I am not sure of the procedure for kicking someone out of the lords - no doubt you will attempt to enlighten us- you seem to be suggesting that once someone has been convicted of a crime they should not be able to hold public office again? That does not bode well for the SSP ex MSPs next selection.

As for the SSP members breaking laws to protect people, that is complete and utter nonosense it was to get themselves in the paper, there were SNP and Labour members present at Faslane and they were not involved in getting themselves arrested or breaking laws deliberately it was about raising the profile of a Political Party whilst attacking the most vulnerable in society by taking away the Police support from our communities.

George Dutton said...

I thought that with the issue of party funding a hugh one at the moment and you wanting to talk about the SSP funding "if they will survive" it was natural to assume that you would want an open discussion about it all. I was wrong.

As for the SSP funding their party the way they do they are an inspiration and TOTAL credit to decency and set a standard that is sadly missing in all other parties with the exception of Solidarity who also only take HALF their wage for themselves. It is indeed very kind of you to have pointed that out to those who do not know this FACT.

Rayleen Kelly said...

George: Did no one teach you to read the question?

The SSP and Solidarity MSPs were LYING when they said they only took half of the wage, they took the whole amount what they see fit to do with it once they recieve it is up to them but they took the whole amount, don't get sucked down that road.

The SSP amd Solidarity are not what you think they are maybe you should dig a little deeper say having a look at the Sheridan affiar and the way they conducted themselves, they try and bully people into their views and that just doesn't work.

George Dutton said...

"The SSP and Solidarity MSPs were LYING when they said they only took half of the wage,"

They were not lying they only take half their wage, they give the other half to their party. I can see no lie there Rayleen.

You wish to make it something else something it is not.

I will ask you this WHEN did they say that they only take half their wage and LEAVE the rest in the source it came from??? for is that not what you are saying?. They never did say that. They only take half their wage nothing else they never lied.

George Dutton said...

"On the second point the job hunt is great thanks for asking."

Thats nice to hear.

I have to say that a lot of people are having a go at people like you getting payments if you don`t get elected again. That is very unfair. I agree if the payments are too high but even one years wage is in my opinion not a lot and is fair.

Rayleen Kelly said...

George: They lied they said and you have repeated it ..'we only take half of the MSP allowance' what they do with the other half is up to them but they took it and therefore they lied.

I could take my whole wage and then give half to a charity of my choice but I would still be taking my whole wage it is the same thing and it doesn't matter how much spin you try and put on it the electorate and the readers of this blog know different.

George Dutton said...

SORRY still cannot see your point. They said they only take half their wage and that was NOT a lie.

We must I fear disagree on this one.

red mist said...

You accuse me of lying—do you think that I was prescient enough to post my comment in April only so that when the opportunity arose in May I could say ‘Aye you did’? – that’s absurd. After my comment I offered no further contributions to your site because I knew that I had been censored. The only reason I returned was that you more or less invited me in your SSP posting: -

‘One of the reasons I wrote this was to see if you would respond’

How many police officers were harmed in the arrests at Faslane, because to the best of my knowledge none of our MSPs were charged with an offence? Their arrest was never justified in a court of law. They were simply removed and detained without any subsequent proof of any offence being offered. If the press found that citizens being arrested simply on the say so of police and not being brought before a judge interesting, then I agree with them. If I remember rightly they did the same thing to an 80 year old woman last week, did she just want to get her face in the papers. Who were the others put in harm’s way? If you remember, at the time we needed more press coverage like a hole in the head. As for breaking laws, what happened to the presumption of innocence in Labour’s police state—no trial, no offence, and no guilt.

Rosie Kane’s imprisonment was for non-payment of a fine following a protest against Labour’s weapons of mass murder not at Faslane, but in Edinburgh

Once someone commits a serious offence they should be obliged to present themselves to the electorate like anyone else, after they have served their sentence, they should not be allowed to hold an unelected position of privilege imposing laws on others. As for how to remove them, that is a matter for the Queen advised by the Prime minister, but neither the present or future one will, I suspect, want to upset an old pal (crony).

Many people have been arrested on demonstrations, among them Nelson Mandela, Peter Thatchell, Lord Soper, and many other principled protesters. And before you say it, I do not regard our protests as being of the same level of importance, but they are a lot closer in nature than trying to burn down a hotel to protest at the bar’s being shut. It isn’t about personal or party publicity, it is about raising the profile of your cause, the press doesn’t care about the activities of the people who knit for the troops even although their work is very important, but if they were arrested, who knows, that might be a story?

Rayleen Kelly said...

Red Mist: I have no idea what you would and wouldn't do in terms of writing comments or why you would accuse me of censoring you when I haven't. As for it being absurd having read the rest of your comment it sounds as though this is a concept you are well aquainted with.

Ms Kane still went out of her way (as I believe did Ms Curran) to get herself arrested. Police are in danger of being assaulted hence the gear they wear when they are policing Faslane, I won't do your homework for you if you want to know how many have been assaulted or hurt in these duties put in a freedom of information request to Strathclyde Police.

As for assumption of guilt pretty cut and dry when you see the coverage on STV, although everyone deserves a fair trial I believe they were not charged as it would have cost more to charge them and this would have been a waste of money (not like they pay the fines anyway)if the 80 year old woman you talk about went out of her way to get arrested it is my belief she was wrong as well, although it did not receive the same amount of coverage as Ms Curran and Kane so maybe that tells you all you need to know.

You do yourself no favours by implying (despite your later comment) that the SSP are in the same league as Nelson Mandela and don't get me started on the SSP's blatant and disgusting use of the families of injured and dead service men to get their names in the paper and prove their point. I didn't agree with sending the troups to Iraq but unlike your party I don't think that pulling them out now and leaving the innocent people of Iraq is the best way forward.

For your information this topic is now closed no more comments will be posted this article was published a week ago try looking at the more recent ones.


Please note all postings on this blog are of a personal nature and do not reflect the opinions of either Renfrewshire Council, the Scottish Labour Party or Renfrewshire Labour Group. NB No annonymous comments will be published on this blog if you have something to say have the courage to identify yourself.