I think bus gate warrior Alasdair Sutherland looks more formidable with a beard rather than clean-shaven.
It’s just an observation.
So I think he should regrow it.
After all, he spoke of the “fierce” legal battle lying ahead as he and his crew prepare to board the battleship that is Aberdeen City Council.
And it’s important to look the part; nothing wrong in sporting a viking vibe if fierceness is a requirement.
US paratroopers knew this as they prepared to drop behind enemy lines in France on the night before D-Day.
Many sported Mohican-style haircuts to appear more ferocious to the Germans.
I couldn’t figure out how the Nazis would be aware of this if the Americans had their helmets on, but maybe it was propaganda.
The idea came to me after seeing a picture of the clean-shaven lawyer in an article recently, accompanied by a past image of him sporting a beard.
Anyway, I digress as usual.
Aberdeen’s bus gates controversy is the issue in hand and an elaborate legal dance is under way before the combatants actually climb into a ring in the next few weeks for some initial sparring.
In the Court of Session, that is, which after a series of hearings could make a ruling on Mr Sutherland’s legal challenge before the end of the year.
He represents many businesses in the city whose trade has suffered since the council’s “experimental” traffic restrictions to ban cars on vital Aberdeen shopping routes – making them bus-only instead – were made permanent.
Mr Sutherland cuts an impressive figure as he plots to defeat the council; he also boasts an impressive CV.
He took the scalps of Inverness planners over their attempt to ban cars in the Highland capital.
I suggested some time before Mr Sutherland was approached by Aberdeen traders that there were striking similarities which went to the heart of local democratic processes and accountability of public servants.
Some can’t bear criticism of the council
Some sceptics pointed to only a modest percentage of Aberdeen citizens and businesses signing a petition against the gates or putting their hands in their pockets to support the crowd-funded legal appeal.
It doesn’t matter if one or 1,000 complain – as long as there is reasonable suspicion that serious injustice has occurred.
Some can’t bear any criticism of the council and, by association, the good name of the city – to a point where free speech is stifled.
I have a positive attitude generally, but I’m not one of those who wakes up singing All Things Bright and Beautiful every morning.
We have to be realistic and challenge where necessary in the public interest.
This process is in the council’s interests, too.
It’s a healthy way of testing if the council is still on the straight and narrow.
Who knows, but if the judge rules in the authority’s favour the damaging drip-drip effect of bus-gates criticism and intrigue is swept away; a new chapter can begin.
Nonetheless, there are too many serious unanswered questions about the implementation of the gates which only a court can examine forensically.
For example, using obscure experimental traffic orders without proper public consultation in advance; was it an appropriate use of regulatory power?
Was the council acting in cahoots with bus bosses and not in the public interest?
Aberdeen bus gates decision might be a close shave
Doubts remain about legal advice and possibly misleading claims that the council would face millions of debt from another inter-linked traffic scheme if it didn’t go ahead with the gates.
I’ve been emboldened by Mr Sutherland’s no-nonsense approach.
So much so that I decided to challenge two parking tickets I received recently.
Not from Aberdeen’s bus gates, but hundreds of miles away in England; it’s the same principle though.
After travelling from Scotland to visit a sick relative wasting away in a care home.
I’d been paying 24 hours at a time in a council car park next to the hotel.
What with all the running about, I forgot to feed the meter one night.
We dined out and fell into a blissful carefree sleep.
Until I awoke in horror the next morning and sprinted around to the car park wearing a jacket over my night shirt and shorts.
Too late: my windscreen was plastered with not one, but two tickets.
One from the night before and another before dawn from patrol officers – as I was in the land of nod.
Even a murderer is not charged twice over one body, for heaven’s sake.
Topping it all, one of the printed tickets recorded incorrectly that the offence happened in another council car park half a mile away.
My appeals are in and the judicial process underway.
They were following the letter of the law, but it felt unjust – lacking a sense of fair play or common sense.
Which brings us back to bus gates.
The outcome might be a close shave.
David Knight is the long-serving former deputy editor of The Press and Journal
Conversation