Save Craig Murray 352

UPDATE 07/09 12:00 The Craig Murray defence fund has just sailed serenely past £50,000 in electronic donations in almost precisely 24 hours, even before any of the cheques have arrived. It is a perfect illustration of the grossly disproportionate threat to freedom of speech that is the English libel system, that this is not sufficient and we have to persevere with the appeal.

2,080 people have donated an average of £24. The largest single donation is £4,000. There are also hundreds of £3 and £5 donations which do really add up. I am absolutely stunned by the outpouring of kindness I have experienced – though in fairness I should mention the significant minority who say they are motivated by despisal of the Daily Mail.

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding £40,000 in damages and the High Court has approved over £100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons’ lawyer. I may become liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with bankruptcy.

Mr Wallis Simons boasts on his website:

In 2015, I published a series of articles exposing Jeremy Corbyn’s links with anti-Semitic figures, and this led to what is now known as the “Labour anti-Semitism scandal.”

It was my Sky TV appearance on this subject which led to this libel action against me.

It is my view that English libel law remains an international disgrace, a device by which the wealthy and those with wealthy backers, and only they, can stifle freedom of speech. Contempt of Court laws – with a penalty of two years imprisonment – even prevent poor defendants like me from putting their case openly before the public in order to appeal for a public defence fund. I am extremely limited in what I can tell you.

How can it cost just one party six times the average annual national wage to litigate a five minute TV broadcast? The libel system, with its in-built advantage to the wealthy and those backed by the wealthy, is a complete disgrace. Andy Wightman, the brilliant Scottish land reform campaigner, has been going through the same Hell.

I find I am obliged to beg you for funds to help me defend the case. I need to ask every single person who reads this blog to find it in their heart to make at least some contribution, as much as you can afford. The scale of this thing is such that I need to ask those of you who are comfortably off to make a far larger donation than you might normally consider. In practice we are going to need to include some four figure donations to make the ludicrous amounts required. But every single penny mounts up and please do give something.

If you have ever enjoyed this blog – join the fight. If you dislike this blog but support freedom of speech – join the fight. If you support the right to defend Palestine without being labelled ant-Semitic – join the fight. If you despised the anti-Corbyn media campaign – join the fight. If the Daily Mail sickens you – join the fight.

Every donation, no matter how small, will be gratefully received. The case will be heard in the High Court on 7 November. In the event of victory, after costs are met (even a costs award does not cover all actual costs) excess donations will be returned pro-rata unless you specify they should be applied to the future of maintaining the blog.

This is a question not only of the continued existence of this blog, but of the future well-being of my young family. It is unfair on you for me to place all of that in your hands, but that is the situation into which I am forced.

UPDATE 06/09 20:00 In just 8 hours we have received £21,790 in donations to the fighting fund. This is a fantastic start. 836 individuals have donated, making the average donation £26. The largest donation received is £1,000 and the smallest are £3. I am incredibly humbled and grateful that we are starting to have a chance. There have been so many kind messages, of which “you cast a lot of bread upon the waters helping others, Craig” made me greet for a bit. I have particularly enjoyed those from people who declare they agree with almost nothing I say but support free speech! About 60% of donations are from Scotland, but so far we have 22 different countries.

I really cannot express my gratitude enough.

On a practical point, a number of people have said they are not members of Paypal so could not donate. After clicking on “Donate”, just below and left of the “Log In” button is a small “continue” link which enables you to pay by card without logging in. For those who prefer not to pay online, you can send a cheque made out to me to Craig Murray, 89/14 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8BA. As regular readers know, it is a matter of pride to me that I never hide my address. A surprising number of people have asked for a Bitcoin option and we are working on it.

I found this interview by the lawyer who is suing me to be particularly interesting. I may say no more than that without danger of contempt of court.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

352 thoughts on “Save Craig Murray

1 7 8 9
  • SA

    Interview with IT about the lawyer is very interesting but even more so are the few comments made.
    Keep up the good work. It may be an opportunity here to address the wider issue of the Libel Laws. Would a petition say through 38 degrees or even parliament website be useful?

  • Sharp Ears

    I keep thinking his name is Mr Jake Wallis Simpson. That conjures up a strange image.

    Ridicule is a good weapon.

    • Ian Fantom

      I was calling him Jake the Fake after he had published a disgraceful article on the Mail Online about our Keep Talking meeting of November 2016, in which he had tried to entrap Piers Corbyn over the Holocaust, which had nothing to do with Piers or with the meeting. I made representation and the article was spiked in The Daily Mail paper edition, but he published it on the web version. Piers had stated at the beginning of his talk that if the press got at him it would be to denigrate his brother, Jeremy. That’s exactly what happened.

  • Sharp Ears

    ..and not featuring in the list of donors to Craig.

    PS. I am sure he/she/it popped up in another recent thread.

  • Jack Shae

    Libel laws have changed with the Defamation Act 2013, which came into force on the 1 January 2014. It’s now considerably harder for a claimant to bring an action of defamation.Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 has a new provision of “serious harm”. A statement will not be considered defamatory unless it has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant’s reputation. This section raises the bar and sets an additional hurdle for a claimant to overcome. It also offers protection for those publishing material on a matter of public interest where they reasonably believe that it is in the public interest. There has been a massive decline in litigation as a result and, as regards “Harm” , two important cases , Lachaux v Independent Print ([2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)) and Cooke v MGN (2014), in the latter case, The judge, Bean J, said that “serious harm” indicates that a higher threshold of reputational harm is required than under the previous law, under which the threshold was that the statement: “substantially effects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards claimant”

    • Ba'al Zevul

      “serious harm” indicates that a higher threshold of reputational harm is required than under the previous law, under which the threshold was that the statement: “substantially effects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards claimant”

      That looks helpful. If ‘harm’ is to be the deciding factor then perhaps we should be inviting Simons to lavish dinners at which his praises are sung, literally, to the music of Handel, with words I will be happy to provide. To qualify as ‘people’, I suppose this would have to be two or more events; then this would demonstrate that the attitude of other people had been substantially altered in a beneficial manner towards the claimant, making the claim absurd.

      Actually, it shouldn’t be too hard to show that the attitude of other people remained more or less neutral, or even benevolent. Of the very few people who know Simons from the hole in the elephant’s bottom, I’d guess that most are supportive of the same causes as he. And will be cheering on their doughty hero as he slays the dragon of Craig. I know these things. I’m a dragon.

  • M.J.

    I found the Sky interview on another website. If I understand correctly, Simons quoted your blog as saying that Israel claims tribal superiority over the rest of the world. You called that a lie and denied that you had said any such thing. He is now suing you.

    Unfortunately it seems to me that you did make such a statement in a past blog ( Therefore, it appears that you made a mistake and put yourself in the wrong.

    As a non-lawyer, I suggest you apologise to Simons and offer to settle out of court.

  • Carlyle Moulton

    There is something wrong with the system of donating by Paypal.

    I keep going round in circles responding again and again to the not a robot question, I never actually get to Paypal.

    Regards, Carl.

  • Cedric Knight

    Your May ’16 blog: “I cannot find the Guardian article [referenced by Haaretz] anywhere online”. It’s here:
    (The Wayback Machine archives things from the Guardian variously under and IMHO it’s a good, honest piece and it appears the adult Simons would not put Israel’s interests ahead of Britain’s, consciously at least.

    On the substantive issue, making libel threats for offhand remarks is IMHO not the way journalists should behave, and I’m hoping the lawyers get as little as possible.

  • Brianfujisan

    IT IS A WAR CRIME.. because propaganda is used to PROVOKE WAR sustain war, to turn other people, declared to be the enemy, into beings that need to be killed. It robs them of their humanity, of their kinship with us, their desires and dreams, and makes them into vermin to be destroyed with ease and even joy in the killing. It turns us into salivating monsters calling for death of the other and cheering when the bombs explode; turns us all into the Hilary Clinton lunatic who cackled like some satanic demon as she watched a great man cut to pieces before her eyes.

    I could give Hundreds Thousands, of examples of how the propaganda is being used. The New York Times, BBC, CNN, CBC and the rest of the western media are full of it every day and every day worse than the day before, against Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria Venezuela, all the known targets. We all sense that the intensity if it is increasing, the vitriol becoming more hysterical and absurd with every headline.

    The journalists who write these propaganda pieces and the presenters who read them on television are among the worst of criminals as they sit there looking attractive, with their fake smiles and fake concern, while taking lots of money to lie to our faces every day. It takes a very low person to sit there and lie to their fellow citizens so easily. It takes someone who has no sense of morality whatsoever. One could say they are sociopaths. But criminals they are and they deserve to be in the dock with the leaders that hand them the scripts they read so willingly.

    Sue Daily Mail for war Crimes Craig Cos it’s Facts

  • Andrew Smith

    Craig, keep up the good work of speaking the truth about Israel and their distorting control.

  • Iain

    I remember reading about Evelyn Waugh’s exploitation of the English libel law. He viewed it, quite dispassionately, as a free-entry lottery which he might win, and examined newspapers and other publications with a view to prosecution. Eventually he found one mention of him which seemed a likely case: he wasn’t upset or offended by it at all, but took it to court and won some money.

  • George Brennan

    Wallis Simons and his quest for victimhood

    Before Corbyn, antisemitism was said by Wallis Simons to be on the march, not because of Labour party members, but because of Muslims. On 3 dec 2014 Wallis walked thru London expecting to be attacked by muslims. The result was disappointing to him, something to be explained by British tolerance rather than muslim tolerance. He makes the claim that 95 per cent of hate crimes in London were anti-Semitic. This is surprising because Pew research shows that the British are four times as likely to speak adversely of muslims as of Jews (only seven per cent). That is what one might expect. I cannot find the source of his claim

    “Yesterday, a new report commissioned by the Mayor of London revealed that 95 per cent of hate crimes against faith groups in the capital – which have surged by 23 per cent compared to last year – were anti-Semitic.
    And it’s not just the case in London. In July, a rabbi was attacked by four Muslim teenagers outside a Jewish boarding school in Gateshead. In Belfast, the windows of the city’s only synagogue were smashed on two consecutive nights; in Manchester, a Jewish cemetery was defaced with swastikas.”

    “Yesterday” would be the 2nd Dec 2014. But he cannot mean this:

    because it does not mention anti semiticism.

    No doubt he has drawn upon this partisan document published in August:

    But even here I cannot find a source of his claim. Can anyone?

  • Françoise Pinteaux-Jones

    Happy to donate. It is not just Craig who is being attacked here but, thorough him, anybody who still has the audacity to criticise Israel.
    Will share in fb.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Françoise Pinteaux-Jones September 8, 2017 at 14:17
      You don’t so much need audacity (though that helps), as to belabour the case of the USS LIberty, which Israel tried to sink with no survivors.
      Read ‘Operation Cyanide’ by Peter Hounam, and watch the BBC documentary ‘Dead In The Water’ :
      Then hammer it across every which way; if the majority of Americans knew what went down (in collaboration with LBJ) Israel could kiss goodbye to their US support, AIPAC & B’nai B’rith & Co. or no AIPAC & B’nai B’rith & Co.
      This year was the 50th Anniversary of Israel’s murderous, treacherous, War Criminal attack on the virtually unarmed American spy ship the USS Liberty.
      And to prove beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that LBJ was in cahoots with Israel, there has yet to be a proper investigation.
      There is beaucoup evidence of Israel’s knowledge the ship was an American ship, and personal testimony from Ephraim Evron that LBJ said they ((‘…the two most important men in Washington’ would give the Congress ‘another ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ incident’ (the ‘Gulf of Tonkin ‘incident has now been exposed as a lie, to allow LBJ to massively ramp up the ‘war’ in Vietnam)’
      Blood Brothers in Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (the object was to blame Egypt and the US would nuke them), LBJ and Ephraim ‘Eppie’ Evron, are doubtless in the tender care of Satan, along with the likes of Hitler and Stalin.
      Perhaps Wallis Simons & Co. would like to sue me???? Be my guest, as Fats Domino would say:
      Or eat sh*t, ass*ole.

  • Bobm

    Nothing, here, for four Hours.
    Or my suggestion of a Part 36 offer to this nobody?

  • Phil E

    Good luck with the legal lottery and I have put in a £100 despite your view that English Brexit voters like me are racist, which I am sure many of us are not. You also think we are stupid which my donation probably proves but some of the English still believe in fair play and free speech and you will most assuredly have our support. Thank you for your writings and views which I enjoy immensely and expect to continue to do so. If you are successful in your defence feel free to keep my donation towards your blog expenses and writing your Culloden book which I am looking forward to.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Phil E September 8, 2017 at 21:10
      I also voted Brexit, and I’m not a racist. I am totally agin the NWO ‘One World Government’ Gulag that Craig (in all his wisdom in other respects) seems totally oblivious of. And the EU is a massive part of that jigsaw.

      • SA

        Theoretically the EU is part of the so called’World Government’ but it could also be a foil for US hegemony in the West if it plays an independent part. It is always simple to analyse the status quo and condemn it but much more difficult to produce a viable alternative.
        I feel that the EU project with its massive affiliation with NATO as a negative aspect myself and I voted remain. The problem is that changing one thing does not change the underlying system which will continue to operate without us and possibly with the consequence of making us more vulnerable and also a stronger domination by the US.
        The great thing I found about Corbyn is that he intends to change the system in some ways, hence his appeal but also the ferocity of attack on him.

        • nevermind

          Well said SA. Now that the EU is galvanising and it is reforming after Brexit, the formation of a third/fourth pillar as a balance between the main protagonists is something the more and more polarising world can very much do with.

  • Tom

    Good luck, Craig. I have donated to your appeal.
    The UK libel laws are designed to frighten the public into remaining silent, while allowing the powerful to have their behaviour and views left unquestioned.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Craig – As attention inevitably moves on from this thread, would it not be a good idea to put a linked ‘Donations’ insert on the framing page?

    Nevermind – I’d like to see any evidence you may have that the EU intends to reform after Brexit, whatever pious undertakings it may be making right now. Just been listening to Varoufakis, who makes a credible case for staying in in order to reform it, but I think he badly misjudges our corporate rulers’ enthusiasm for reforms…at the very end of the interview he appears to acknowledge that Greece is in its present 1930’s (his word) -style depression because it didn’t stand up to the EU, and the UK shouldn’t emulate it.

    • nevermind

      Ba’al, Diem25 is but one indicator that the people of Europe want change and the Commission knows this. I am reading varoufakis at present and can agree with much of what he says, indeed I was in Greece that year, ears to the ground and it was as split as we are on Brexit, the poor knew and did not want to join, but the rest is history.
      The EU commissioners and 27 are treading a fine line between wanting to damage Britain and treading on the own economic outlook and profits of large companies.
      These companies have workers on their boards and hence are in step with many unions, who in turn want to see a change to the unaccountability and ad hock decision making that has made mistakes in the past.
      Politically they are also uncertain what the increasing popularity of people like Frau von Storch and Victor Urban will do to the perception of the general public.
      There have been strong Green voices speaking up for change, ending the appointment of EU Commissioners in favour of electing them on their merits, after a fair campaign, during EU elections, ensuring that all the top EU jobs are elected.
      There are debates as to the length of their tenure, for continuity and stability is one argument, but others say that they should be newly elected to sap corruption.

      Positive discussions we as a country never endeavoured to be part of, only taking the trade advantages and working them the best way possible, but never really in the centre working for a different more democratic outcome.
      It should have be a central pillar of our EU portfolios to change its undemocratic character. Corporate bonds between Commission and industrial intent then, mainly continental bonds, which are currently getting very tight, would not have liked change.
      I think now they could almost be in favour of changing the equation at the top. Europe is changing into a more obstinate, but also intensely aware administration, they know that their past practises have no favours with many voters and that their decisions making is not necessarily in its peoples best interest.

  • Rani Sharma

    Have you tried getting Private Eye on the case? (Apologies if you have – been too busy to read it of late). Also, it would be helpful if you could add a PayPal button for donations (i.e. you will need a PayPal account, which is free).

    • Rani Sharma

      I can see the PayPal button on the donate page, but I was initially put off because it didn’t appear on the main page. Mea culpa.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    I regret to say that there are links to the D**ly M**l in this piece, which illuminates Simons’ agenda-driven reporting: (original, without links to supporting material) (unedited, but with live links to supporting material)

    British newspaper the Daily Mail last week published an “exclusive” on claims that the EU is “funding illegal West Bank building projects”, a reference to Palestinian structures built without a permit from Israeli occupation authorities….
    …The article contends that in helping Palestinians build structures “unauthorised” by Israel, the EU is “acting illegally”….
    …The main legal opinion cited by the Mail comes from Alan Baker who, journalist Jake Wallis Simons omits to mention, is himself an Israeli settler. His resume includes working for the legalisation of unauthorised outposts, and sitting on the occupation-denying Levy Committee. Baker attacks the EU on the basis they are a “signatory” to the Oslo Accords, yet only last month argued Israel should declare the Oslo Accords “no longer valid”.

  • Glyn Oliver

    Hello Craig,

    I will propose that Southampton Palestine Solidarity Campaign make a donation to your worthy cause.

    What are the bank details for a donation?

  • Mark Elf


    I have donated and tweeted to support your case. It’s a minor point maybe but if you put your landmark updates on this page, say each time you raise another £10k, it will make for more effective tweeting. Today, I tweeted this page to announce, £75k raised, £75K required. This page only mentions £50k and the page where the £75k is announced mentions something like £14.8 billion in the top of the post. If you post your updates to this page, the tweet will tally with the bit of the post that people will see with the tweet. N’est pas?

    Sorry if that makes more work

    Best wishes

1 7 8 9

Comments are closed.