The End of the Affair 918

At the High Court today the following joint statement was agreed.

On 29 April 2016, Jake Wallis Simons and Craig Murray appeared together on Sky News to debate anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom. Following that debate, Dr Wallis Simons issued libel proceedings against Mr Murray. Dr Wallis Simons and Mr Murray have now settled these proceedings.

By this statement, Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite. They are both pleased to have resolved this dispute amicably.

I am genuinely happy with this outcome, which would never have been remotely possible without the incredible 5,000 plus people who donated to my defence fund and enabled me to be represented by a top legal team. It continues to be my view that the libel laws are appalling – had I lost the case I was very definitely looking at a cost of £350,000 plus.

I am also very grateful to the band of readers of this blog who arrived to support me, and in the end saw very little. When invited to open the case the other side immediately asked for an adjournment to discuss a settlement. The hour of delay which followed was occupied on our side almost entirely by my agonising over whether it was morally acceptable for me to agree this statement and use the defence fund to pay my lawyers, or whether those who donated did so in the expectation I would fight the case whatever.

There were a number of supporters at hand who had donated, many of whom were personally previously unknown to me, and the opinions I could canvass were unanimously that this was a good result and a good use of their money.

Having agreed to settle in this way, I have arrived at this following decision. If anybody who donated feels they have been unduly sold out, please let me know through the contact button above and your donation will be refunded to you.

When we started the defence fund, our “realistic” projection was a total of £12,000. That we eventually raised over £100,000 is astonishing. Equally astonishing, but in a bad way, is that my own legal team’s cost almost amounts to that – I will publish full accounts in due course. After all is settled and refunds issued to those who wish, if anything is left over I propose to split it between Andy Wightman’s defence fund and Neil Clark’s case against Oliver Kamm. Again please do let me know if you object. It’s actually your money not mine.

I did not realise how this has been weighing me down, until the threat has been lifted today. I have never claimed to be entirely without fault, and I would ask you to refrain from any comment here which detracts from the amicable spirit of the joint statement. It is a time for celebration not recrimination, and please confine any rudeness to remarks about me.

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>

918 thoughts on “The End of the Affair

1 15 16 17
  • mike

    A weak, mortally wounded Prime Minister throws the dogs a bone in an attempt to look strong and determined.

    Theresa May’s desperate deployment of the ‘Blame Russia’ meme proves that it’s nothing more than neocon strategizing. Reds Under the Bed redux has a number of applications: as distraction from the ongoing shitness of the economy, to cover one’s own deficiencies as a leader (maybe she’s been speaking to Killary) and to feed into the general sense of permanent crisis to which an ever-stronger surveillance state is the only solution.

    • Sharp Ears

      Yes indeed.

      It will be interesting to read Monbiot’s and Kamm’s reactions to the sad news. if any.

      We’re not genocide deniers. We just want to uncover the truth about Rwanda and Srebrenica
      Herman and Peterson


      PS Keep going Neil Clark.

    • glenn_nl

      His book Manufacturing Consent is just as relevant today as when he and Chomsky wrote it in the 1980s. Another one of the greats gone.

      • John Spencer-Davis

        Here’s his own take on that smear. Chomsky, interview with James Peck, 1983.

        “The right to lie in the service of power is guarded with considerable vigor and passion. This becomes evident whenever anyone takes the trouble to demonstrate that charges against some official enemy are inaccurate or, sometimes, pure invention. The immediate reaction among the commissars is that the person is an apologist for the real crimes of official enemies. The case of Cambodia is a striking example. That the Khmer Rouge were guilty of gruesome atrocities was doubted by no one, apart from a few marginal Maoist sects. It is also true, and easily documented, that Western propaganda seized upon these crimes with great relish, exploiting them to provide a retrospective justification for Western atrocities, and since standards are nonexistent in such a noble cause, they also produced a record of fabrication and deceit that is quite remarkable. Demonstration of this fact, and fact it is, elicited enormous outrage, along with a stream of new and quite spectacular lies, as Edward Herman and I, among others, have documented. The point is that the right to lie in the service of the state was being challenged, and that is an unspeakable crime. Similarly, anyone who points out that some charge against Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, or some other official enemy is dubious or false will immediately be labeled an apologist for real or alleged crimes, a useful technique to ensure that rational standards will not be imposed on the commissars and that there will be no impediment to their loyal service to power. The critic typically has little access to the media, and the personal consequences for the critic are sufficiently annoying to deter many from taking this course, particularly because some journals — the New Republic, for example — sink to the ultimate level of dishonesty and cowardice, regularly refusing to permit even the right of response to slanders they publish. Hence the sacred right to lie is likely to be preserved without too serious a threat. But matters might be different if unreliable sectors of the public were admitted into the arena of discussion and debate.”

  • Republicofscotland

    Just like the Americans, the Spanish say they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that Russia was behind the Catalan vote, meanwhile as some have already said Theresa May is blaming Russia for everything and anything, to deflect, from the shambles that her government has become.

    Meanwhile back in Spain last week Jean-Claude Junker was given an award at the University of Salamanca, at which Rajoy attended.

    Junker called nationalism, and separatists a poison that hinders Europe.

    Puigdemont, wil get no help from Junker.

    However not all EU officials are blanking Puigdemont.

    • reel guid


      So if he doesn’t like small countries, which larger neighbour does the Luxemburger Junker want his small nation of 590 000 people and 998 square miles to be swallowed by? Germany, Netherlands, France or Belgium. You choose Jean-Claude.

        • reel guid

          Self-determination leading to independence almost always involves smaller countries gaining independence from larger polities. So of course Junker was talking about smaller nations, even if he didn’t use the phrase. And since he’s a national of a small independent country he is an utter hypocrite to deny to others the freedom his country enjoys.

          He also enjoys the company of Francoists.

      • Republicofscotland

        reel guid.

        Junker has made his position crystal clear on Catalonia, I very much hope it backfires on him come the December election.

        If the yes camp wins, Junker may have to change his stance, and accept a Catalonia as a independent nation.

        Of course Rajoy may not accept that outcome and trigger Article 155 again, that in itself would put Junker in a difficult position, support a democratically elected Catalonia, or turn a blind eye to Spain’s oppressive actions.

  • Gary

    I think he had far more to lose in this case than you did and, ultimately, made the right choice in deciding to offer to adjourn and settle. It must have been a relief to you and you can walk away with your head held high.

    • Sharp Ears

      ‘He’ is busy on his Twitter. x20 in the last 24 hrs.

      Jake Wallis Simons Verified Account
      @ JakeWSimons
      Associate Global Editor, Daily Mail Online. Spectator, Sky News, BBC Radio 4. Tweeting personally. Writing fifth novel.

      Q. What is an Associate Global Editor?

  • Dave Llewellyn

    Craig Am really glad that you got a sort of result. It was probably worth it to be able to retain your online presence It would have been a master stroke for the enemy to be able to shut you down completely and I personally am glad that they didn’t. Sometimes you have to take a bit of pain to give you a tactical advantage. Hopefully that sick feeling in your stomach is gone and you can sleep better at night.

  • Max Parry

    Re: “After all is settled and refunds issued to those who wish, if anything is left over I propose to split it between Andy Wightman’s defence fund and Neil Clark’s case against Oliver Kamm. Again please do let me know if you object. It’s actually your money not mine.”

    I do not know enough about either of these cases to justify providing support. I will seek to remedy my ignorance in the next few days. Please hold off donating my share until you receive an update from me. If you need to act before I send you an update please donate my share to the Willow Foundation,, a charity founded by a Scottish goalkeeper!

1 15 16 17

Comments are closed.