Declaration of Dumfries

Declaration of Dumfries Covering stories and bringing you facts that local newspapers lack the courage and integrity to give. Exposing corruption and the MYTH of authority. Truth.

Controversy courted. Whistleblowers welcome. Declaration of Dumfries. Rights. Sovereignty.

Playing the Trump CardUpdate: Could Council cageyness be a sign of things to come?Declaration of DumfriesNov 15, 2025(Su...
15/11/2025

Playing the Trump Card
Update: Could Council cageyness be a sign of things to come?
Declaration of Dumfries
Nov 15, 2025

(Substack link in comments.)

Perhaps we’ve underestimated Dumfries & Galloway Council.

Perhaps they’re acting the fool instead of simply being one.

In a further response to our complaint, DGC repeated their claim that the proposed Whitesands Project anti-flooding works will not alienate Common Good assets. The short reply from the Information Governance Team read:

‘As noted in our response, The Council has not appropriated any land, nor has it determined to do so in relation to the Whitesands Project and therefore the provisions of s.75(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 do not apply.’

Maybe they are correct that—

- The Whitesands (parking area ➡️ flood defence)
- The Greensands (open space ➡️ parking area)
- Dock Park (open space ➡️ flood defence)
- Public conveniences (existing facility ➡️ demolished)

— do not count as appropriation, disposal or alienation, thereby avoiding the requirement to seek court permission under section 75(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973?

Or perhaps there’s more to the Council’s doubling down on absurdity than meets the eye. Do they have inside knowledge that the the project is likely to be voted down at the next full meeting on 11th December, thereby escaping any requirement to hold their maladministration to account?

As things stand, a ‘No’ vote is looking like the least troublesome outcome for the council’s chief solicitor Vlad Valiente, so perhaps they’ve caught wind that their ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card will be played.

Or perhaps they’re just a bunch of jokers.

DoD

Right of Reply: Contact [email protected] with additional or alternative information. Anonymity guaranteed.

The Silence After the StormA Farmer’s Heartbreak as Hundreds of Ostriches CulledDeclaration of DumfriesNov 13, 2025Guest...
13/11/2025

The Silence After the Storm
A Farmer’s Heartbreak as Hundreds of Ostriches Culled
Declaration of Dumfries
Nov 13, 2025

Guest article by Mairi Allan (Link to Substack in comments)

It was a sad day for Canada after the needless slaughter of beautiful, healthy ostriches on a farm in British Columbia. May the nation learn from this tragedy, and may these innocent souls rest peacefully.

After a year-long fight, the Supreme Court of Canada announced it would not hear Universal Ostrich Farms vs. Canada Food Inspection Agency. So, the authorities took it upon themselves to enter the farm and slay over 300 healthy animals.

A year-long saga has come to a grim end after “professional marksmen” were hired and opened fire on 330 ostriches, in what opponents of the cull branded a “massacre.”

Canadian health authorities used snipers to cull the ostriches on a farm in British Columbia over avian flu concerns, ending a year-long effort to save the birds by the farm’s owners and supporters, who claimed the animals were healthy.

The saga of Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, BC, had become a cause célèbre in right-wing and anti-government circles online, and had even attracted the attention of members of Donald Trump’s administration, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed on Friday that it had culled the birds, which had been corralled into a makeshift enclosure of hay bales. Gunshots rang out on Thursday night, hours after the Supreme Court of Canada announced it would not hear an appeal of the cull by the farm’s owners.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) kept members of the public at bay, as shouts of “Stop!” and “Murderers!” rang out while the cull of the quarantined animals proceeded.

“You’ll have to ask your children, ‘Why, Daddy, why did you kill the ostriches?’” one woman screamed at the marksmen. “Will you tell them you were ‘just following orders’?”

The farm’s owners had sought leave to appeal the August 21 decision by the Federal Court of Appeal but were denied by the country’s highest court.

The CFIA first issued the cull order in December last year after an alleged outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) resulted in the deaths of 69 birds.

Supporters insisted the remaining animals were healthy and might even hold potential for disease research — a claim echoed by Mr. Kennedy, who weighed in on the case in May, urging the Canadian government to reconsider.

Katie Pasitney, the spokesperson for Universal Ostrich Farms, told CNN that the cull was “traumatising.”

“There’s nothing professional or humane about putting almost 330 birds in a square pen in the dark of night and shooting at them,” she said.

Hundreds of beating hearts gone. This is a battle over life versus death — of animals that were never tested and posed no threat to anyone — just the wickedness of man showing his power and lack of respect for what life means.

The fields will now be silent and empty. This is traumatic for everyone invested in the ostriches and what they symbolised. As I write this, I’m so sorry for those beautiful birds, and for the cruelty of humans.

Over 800 shots were fired. That means it took multiple shots to kill each of these approximately 300-pound, beautiful animals. They panicked; they suffered. Their owners were left helpless and traumatised by each sound that rang out in the night. Ostriches are not easy to kill. They are giant, prehistoric creatures — the fastest animals on two legs — and when spooked, they run blindly with their wings outstretched.

What happened to the ostriches was not just wrong; it was violence against innocence. It was cruelty done with coldness, and that kind of cruelty shakes the spirit.

People are not crying “just for the birds.” They are crying for everything this cruelty symbolises: the betrayal of trust in a country they once believed was fair; the violation of people who loved and cared deeply for those creatures; the sickness of systems that have forgotten compassion; the realisation that something precious — humanity — is being eroded at an alarming rate.

We cannot let them die in vain. It’s ironic that this dreadful event happened on Remembrance Day weekend, when we bow our heads in respect to honour the men of courage who died to give us the right to live in our country. And yet there are people with no morals who would walk into a field of animals and murder them the way they did.

What if that was a field of dogs? These snipers should’ve quit their jobs before doing that. They say they had a job to do so they could afford to feed their children. Their children need a parent with morals more than they need food.

Flanders Fields are full of men with morals, courage, and integrity — men who are spinning in their graves, watching these pathetic individuals do what they did in a free country where they were fully free to just walk away and have the courage to say, “I’m not going to do this.” But they chose to do it regardless.

Shame on you, Heath MacDonald (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food). Shame on you, Marjorie Michel (Minister of Health). And shame on you, Mark Carney (Prime Minister). It’s a shame on all of humanity, really. Those birds knew love, safety, routine, and gentleness. They had relationships, memories, and bonds. They trusted the hands that fed and touched them. And in their last hours, they were surrounded not by love, but by terror.

By Mairi Allan

DoD

Right of Reply: Contact [email protected] with additional or alternative information. Anonymity guaranteed.

Your Shot!DoD sets ball rolling for maladministration case with SPSODeclaration of DumfriesNov 09, 2025(Link to Substack...
09/11/2025

Your Shot!
DoD sets ball rolling for maladministration case with SPSO
Declaration of Dumfries
Nov 09, 2025

(Link to Substack in comments)

Dumfries & Galloway Council have given an interesting response to a formal complaint regarding their failure to adhere to section 75(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, with regards to Common Good assets affected by the proposed Whitesands Project.

DGC’s Governance and HR asserted:

“The Council has not appropriated any land, nor has it determined to do so in relation to the Whitesands Project and therefore the provisions of s.75(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 do not apply.”

Complaint “not upheld”—imagine our shock! You wouldn’t believe how silly we felt, thinking that demolishing inalienable common good buildings and turning inalienable green space into a car park could be considered as disposal, appropriation or alienation, thereby triggering s75(2). Thank goodness DGC is here to keep us right.

Their assertion does, however, seem to be at odds with the definition given in the Scottish Land Commission’s report on Common Good:

“Appropriation is when the local authority uses the land for something other than its current purpose”

But what would they know.

Governance and HR has now been asked to clarify their response and state for the record that, with respect to the proposed Whitesands Project, neither (a) appropriation, nor (b) disposal is taking place with any of the common good assets affected, whilst being reminded of s.2 of the False Oaths (Scotland) Act 1933.

Depending upon their response, we have the option of escalating the matter to stage two of the council’s complaints procedure, with a possible case for maladministration with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman thereafter.

We shall keep you posted.

DoD

Right of Reply: Contact [email protected] with additional or alternative information. Anonymity guaranteed.

Flashback: If We Were So RacistDoD interviews organiser of Dumfries anti-racism eventFrom MPs fibbing in parliament and ...
08/11/2025

Flashback:

If We Were So Racist

DoD interviews organiser of Dumfries anti-racism event

From MPs fibbing in parliament and fiddling their expenses, all the way to flat-out lies justifying regime-change operations causing the deaths of millions, few would deny that the so-called powers-that-be are often disingenuous

Link in comments.

Flashback as we reestablish DoD website
05/11/2025

Flashback as we reestablish DoD website

Esoteric musings from a guest writer and healer. I was suddenly hit by a bolt of energy, supreme love and bliss coursed through my consciousness. With it came powerful words “My Lord is comin…

27/10/2025

UPDATE (3/3)

Dear FOI,

This morning I issued a follow-up email to Vlad Valiente, DGC's Monitoring Officer, which, amongst other things, stated:

"The people of Dumfries, whose Common Good land is being appropriated—against the wishes of many—deserve to know why the Council has exempted itself from due process. If those reasons cannot be adequately justified to the public forthwith, they will in due course have to be explained in open court, before a Sheriff, at a hearing the public may attend—meaning that they will be given the opportunity to hear that reasoning in any case. As such, there can be no argument for withholding that reasoning from the very people whose land is at stake."

With this in mind, I would like to add the following to my request for internal review:

4. Given that the council's reasons for exempting itself from due process will ultimately have to be explained in a public forum anyway, I can see no reason for withholding that information. Therefore, I ask that the council drops its exception under P.I.T. and provides their justification for avoiding section 75(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

This will help to avoid any unnecessary time and expense in taking the matter to court.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Sutherland

27/10/2025

UPDATE (2/3)

Dear Dumfries and Galloway Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

With regards to the response to Q2, I appreciate that you are applying the P.I.T. on this occasion; however, I do believe that I am entitled to ask for the following:

1. The date(s) of the internal correspondence to/from legal services, including date of the decision that s.75(2) was unnecessary.

2. The names of the council officer(s) involved, both in the legal department and the council officer(s) who contacted them.

3. The name and position of the council solicitor responsible for the decision.

If the officers involved were not of a high enough level to be named in FOI, please provide their job title + department.

Yours faithfully,

Mike Sutherland

Address

Burns Statue
Dumfries
DG11DE

Website

https://declarationofdumfries.substack.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Declaration of Dumfries posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Declaration of Dumfries:

Share