Assange Judge’s Husband Runs Security Firm With Ex Head of MI6 1235


“Security Intelligence Consultancy” SC Strategy Ltd has only three directors. One is the husband of the judge in yesterday’s Assange ruling. One is the former Head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett, who is synonymous with crooked security operations and personally wrote the notorious dossier of lies on Iraqi WMD, thus causing the subsequent deaths of millions of people. One is Lord Carlile, who was notably close to protected Establishment paedophiles Greville Janner and Cyril Smith. Is the British Establishment not endlessly fascinating?

The corporate media has published no information about “Lady” Arbuthnot’s background and sinister links at all, despite the fact it is uniformly carrying her jibes at Assange as a major story. There can be no clearer example of the fact that it is the corporate media which, deliberately and systematically, spreads fake news, while bloggers get out the actual facts via social media.

Directors of SC Strategy Ltd from Companies House Register

To anyone to whom British corruption is not axiomatic, it appears pretty rum that the judge in the Assange case is married to a government parliamentarian and close to the security services.

“Lady” Arbuthnot’s Husband

There is some interesting background in the Mirror here. The taxpayer paid £1,200 in restaurant bills for “Lady” Arbuthnot and her husband in one long weekend jaunt to Turkey alone.

If anybody thinks the Assange case had anything to do with justice, they are very mistaken. Please read my analysis of “Lady” Arbuthnot’s judgement here.


1,235 thoughts on “Assange Judge’s Husband Runs Security Firm With Ex Head of MI6

1 2 3 11
    • J

      I mean, is it usual for these gigs to run for exactly one year? (And then your wife helps to suppress free speech for the state.)

  • John Spencer-Davis

    You surely would not be so crass as to suggest that Lady Arbuthnot’s personal connections would in any way influence the objectivity of her judgement!

    • Squeeth

      Good heavens no, the possibility of a potential conflict or conflict of interest is nonexistent; she’s one of us!

  • Martinned

    This is what, in the online conspiracy theory business, they call character assassination. The rest of us call it ad hominem. When there is no legally sound criticism possible of the judgement, attack the judge instead.

    (And, for the record, the judgement was at times a bit intemperate in tone, but legally unassailable.)

    • John

      (And, for the record, the judgement was at times a bit intemperate in tone, but legally unassailable.)

      Pomposity becomes you! But if you really were a lawyer (that anyone wanted to pay), would you have time to write all this shite?

      • Martinned

        I think you’ve worked out why I don’t have a successful career at the bar: procrastination…

        (Well, that and a few other things which we’ll save for another day.)

        • John

          Please do tell. Are you disbarred? What for?

          Or are you simply employed by the security services (foreign or domestic) or their shills, to troll sites like this in order to undermine the only open fora for uncensored news and comment?

          • Noonereally

            Wonder why he didn’t comment on the previous article, which goes into the legals in some depth. BTW it’s judgment not judgement.

          • Martinned

            You mean the article where about half the comments are mine, because it’s me talking to about 50 others at the same time? That one? Or indeed the previous 50 articles on this blog about the Assange case, where I explained time and again why the UN working group opinion is not a judgement but an opinion (and an embarrassingly wrong one at that), why being sent to Sweden would have made it easier for Assange to resist extradition to the US, not harder, etc. That?

          • Noonereally

            @martinned I have read your comments on the diplomatic passport, but I haven’t found the one where you said that Assange’s chances of fighting extradition would be higher in Sweden. Could I trouble you for a precis and/or a link?

          • Martinned

            @Noonereally: I didn’t say his chances would be better in Sweden – I don’t know nearly enough about Swedish law to say. I just said that, if Assange were to be sent to Sweden under an EAW, Sweden would need consent from the UK before extraditing him to a 3rd country. And that means, as far as I can see, that extradition to the US could be litigated both in Sweden and in the UK. (And all he’d need is to win in one of them.)

            EAW framework decision, art. 28(4):
            4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law.

            http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002F0584

          • Dunbar MsGillicutty

            ROFL at being sent to sweden helping resist extradition. Sweden was used as a transition-point for sending people to be tortured in Egypt during the Bush years. Anyone who would take their legal system seriously on this matter is a complete buffoon. Martinned is clearly a paid shill. Anyone who would claim the US won’t spirit people away has ignored the last 2 decades of black sites and “extraordinary rendition”. If he is in fact a barred legal professional, he would be well aware of that fact. Which leads to the conclusion that he is just a lying sack of shit.

          • Kempe

            ” Sweden was used as a transition-point for sending people to be tortured in Egypt ”

            That was rendition not extradition, it happened once I believe but anyway the Swedes were so appalled they banned the practice.

          • knuckles

            Take note everyone, be reassured, Kempe has just informed us all that rendition flights through Sweden are banned. Banned……..

            This means it no longer happens…………because it has been banned.

            That is how this world works, right Kempe?

            Would you possibly have a link to a channel 4 ‘fact check’ to confirm this…………much appreciated.

          • Shapiemau

            Yes I agree John,
            What I still do not get is the fact that the US a corporation and has requested this at all European ‘government’ costs. What did Julian do? Well he just sent what he had to print! And print what exactly – corruption at its highest levels in a corporation that had and still is deceiving people globally that it exists as a government??? There are big stories and none bigger than what Assange and co have uncovered and made people aware.

          • knuk

            Yep Kempe because the usually process is to announce rendition flights over the intercom in the departure lounge. Everyone knows that, don’t they? You are not naive at all. It must be true, I read it in the mail………..have a cookie.

            The US is also currently trying to ‘stabilize’ the Middle East and is extremely concerned with people there having access to the democratic process…….free and fair elections………also in the mail…..

          • Noonereally

            @squeeth did you even click on the link you posted? I quote: “In American English, judgement is generally considered a misspelling of judgment for all uses of the word, notwithstanding individual preferences. In British popular usage, judgment was traditionally the preferred form, but judgement has gained ground over the last couple of centuries and is now *nearly as common* as judgment. Pay no attention to the myth, widely repeated on the web, that judgement is the original spelling and that judgment is a 19th-century American invention. This is simply untrue, as shown by an abundance of readily available evidence anyone can view online. When it comes to legal contexts, English reference sources say varying things. Most seem to agree that *judgment is preferred in legal contexts even in British English*, and some say that American and British English differ in their strict legal meanings of judgment. Bryan Garner, in his Modern American Usage, says judgment in American English refers to “the final decisive act of a court in defining the rights of the parties,” whereas, he writes, the word in British English refers to a judicial opinion. We find nothing to contradict this, though there are many English reference sources that do not mention a legal/nonlegal distinction or an American/British distinction.” (my emphasis) Anyway you can see for yourself at bailii.org which spelling is used by the courts of England and Wales.

    • Republicofscotland

      I don’t recall, you complaining when Julian Assange’s character was/is dragged through the mud by the western media.

      But then again like many Martinned you see what you want to see eh?

      • Martinned

        I don’t mind character assassination if it is in addition to sound argument. But if someone tries to use it as an alternative, I might take the liberty of pointing that out.

          • Republicofscotland

            Martinned, you’re a great believer in the UN and its qualities, what do you make of the UN ruling that Assange is/was under arbitary detention?

          • Martinned

            There was no such “ruling”, if by ruling you mean something akin to a legally binding judgement. There was a working group opinion. (They’ve been slapped down in the past for pretending their opinions were legally binding.) The Opinion was ridiculous for the reasons set out in the Chief Magistrate’s judgement (par. 17-40), as well as in the Dissenting Opinion annexed to the Working Group’s Opinion, and I have yet to see an international law scholar who thinks it has any merit.

            3. In fact, Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the Embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest. Indeed, fugitives are often self-confined within the places where they evade arrest and detention. This could be some premises, as in Mr. Assange’s situation, or the territory of the State that does not recognise the arrest warrant. However, these territories and premises of self-confinement cannot be considered as places of detention for the purposes of the mandate of the Working Group.

          • Republicofscotland

            A United Nations panel concluded in 2016 that Assange was under arbitrary detention, is the correct term I think, and you’re correct their judgement isn’t legally binding. Neverless, the panel concluded that Assange was/is under arbitrary detention.

            Of course the UN headquarters is in New York, and the US has a very big say on all matters within the UN, including this one.

            Speculation you might say, well yes, but the US has form, when it comes swaying opinions within the UN.

            It is rumoured that there is a sealed US indictment ordering his arrest. Who’d bet against its existence?

          • Martinned

            So what if there’s an indictment in the US? All Assange has to do is walk out of the embassy, surrender himself to the court, serve the one month (or whatever) prison sentence they’ll give him for bail jumping, and travel to whichever country he thinks is least likely to send him to the US. The fact that he prefers his present accommodation is on him.

          • Republicofscotland

            If that were the case, I’m sure Mr Assange would’ve served the time by now and boarded a flight possibly to Ecuador by now.

            However, I doubt very much that Mr Assange would ever reach Heathrow airport, he knows fine well, that he’d be detained and spirited away to the US.

          • Martinned

            If that’s what he believes, he was welcome to try to prove it. Since he didn’t try, I can only assume he has no actual evidence of that suspicion.

          • Martinned

            Sure, but he didn’t seem particularly keen to try to prove that he’d be “detained and spirited away”, presumably because that’s a preposterous idea.

          • Noonereally

            Why preposterous? There’s a warrant for his arrest, and once arrested he could be extradited, could he not? Or the preposterous bit that they would grab him *before* he got to Heathrow rather than at passport control?

          • Republicofscotland

            He doesn’t have too, the US has form, Abu Omar for instance, was snatched and tortured, and held for four years without trial.

            Twenty-three, American’s were convicted in absentia in Italy over the illegal snatch.

            Meanwhile 54 countries participated in the CIA’s rendition programme including the Five Eyes countries.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/02/05/a-staggering-map-of-the-54-countries-that-reportedly-participated-in-the-cias-rendition-program/?utm_term=.dfc8f655c79f

            So you can understand Mr Assange’s reluctance to leave the Ecuadorian embassy.

          • Shapiemau

            Not sure, as from the British stand point there is absolutely no evidence of wrong doing from this man whatsoever. A class act by our legal system and one we all need to take note of. Because this is breaching human rights of all proportions and yet the guilty still roam freely.

          • fred

            “Because this is breaching human rights of all proportions and yet the guilty still roam freely.”

            Well no, as a rule the guilty don’t roam freely they go to court and are tried, people who manage to wangle a stay in a national embassy are very rare indeed and given the nature of Mr Assange’s business one has to wonder if there wasn’t an element of blackmail involved.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ecuador

          • Martinned

            Not sure, as from the British stand point there is absolutely no evidence of wrong doing from this man whatsoever.

            You mean other than that he’s plainly guilty of absconding contrary to s. 6 of the Bail Act 1976?

  • Sharp Ears

    One of his other interests is in Neuro Bio Ltd. What do they do?
    A growth area – Neuro-Bio is a biotechnology company developing novel therapeutics and biomarkers for neurodegenerative disorders.

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08580518/officers

    Based Culham Science Centre, owned by the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Other companies based there are listed here.
    http://www.culham.org.uk/directory/

    One there I recognize, LGC Forensics Ltd. The privatised forensic service. One of the pathologists involved in the Dr Kelly case had a connection. I see that they have sold the forensics sector to Eurofins in 2017.
    https://www.lgcgroup.com/about-us/media-room/latest-news/2017/eurofins-to-reinforce-its-forensic-services-portfo/#.WoQ-RmdLH4Y.

    • Sharp Ears

      I have a good serach engine on my e-mail. There was something in the back of my mind about Scarlett and Chertoff, Bush’s head of ‘Homeland Security’.

      This e-mail came from a friend in the legal world and is dated 2nd October 2012.

      ‘LGC is common to both the Williams and Kelly cases….
      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/forensic-scientist-who-investigated-death-241932
      Chairman of LGC is Graham Love who is also a Principal of the Chertoff Group….
      http://www.lgc.co.uk/about_lgc/key_people/the_board/graham_love.aspx
      http://chertoffgroup.com/team.php

      Also part of the Chertoff Group are Dr John Reid and Sir John Scarlett who is on the Board of Advisors.
      http://chertoffgroup.com/board-of-advisors.php

      Small world is it not?! Full of such lovable characters.’

      The Williams reference is to Gareth Williams and Kelly to Dr David Kelly of course.

      Cui bono? Chertoff has benefitted greatly from the expansion of airline security since the underpants bomber scare. That patsy was allowed on the plane by the security at Schiphol which was Israeli run. That was witnessed by an American lawyer and his wife who gave witness on a You Tube carried by a US news network at the time.

      What followed? A crackdown.

      … No liquids to be carried….. Shoes searched….. Full body X ray scanners and the rest.

      The Chertoff Group operates in the provision of equipment and security in those areas.

      I have not tested the links in that e-mail. They might be dead five years on.

  • Sharp Ears

    Scarlett. That’s a name and face that one cannot forget.

    https://rusi.org/people/scarlett-kcmg-obe

    At Morgan Stanley now, a nice little earner, and Statoil.

    All bases are covered:
    ‘Since leaving SIS, he has become a Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley. Sir John is Chairman of the Strategy Advisory Council at Statoil ASA. He is an Advisor to Swiss Re and Chairman of SC Strategy Ltd. He is a Director of Times Newspaper Holdings, Vice Chairman at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and as Co-Chair of the Global Advisory Council at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC. He is Chairman of the Bletchley Park Trust. Other Trusteeships include the Royal Medical Foundation of Epsom College and Friends of the French Institute in the United Kingdom. In 2017, Sir John was appointed a member of the State Honours Committee.’

    Wot? No peerage?

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Given that most members of the Establishment – by definition – are part of the same networks (see also under ‘revolving door’) this revelation does not shock me as much as the discovery that it is possible to blue £1200 in a weekend in Turkish restaurants. They must have been getting royally ripped off!

  • lysias

    In the U.S. legal system, a party to a case can move for a judge to recuse him or herself on the grounds that the judge cannot enjoy an appearance of impartiality. If the judge refuses, that can be appealed.

    Any equivalent in the UK system?

  • nevermind

    @Craig
    Was just commenting on your FB online version of this story and my computer was thrown out.
    Once I signed back on the story disappeared. Are you aware that they are interfering with your publications?

  • Leonard Young

    Bail Act 1976:

    Negligent or non-deliberate failure to attend causing delay and/or interference with the administration of justice: Band C fine or community order.

    Deliberate failure to attend causing delay and/or interference with the administration of justice: 14 days custody to Low level community order to 10 weeks custody.

    Can anyone find a single case in recent legal history where anyone has ever been jailed for jumping bail in a case where the prosecution eventually dropped the allegations?

    This decision is clearly a travesty. Why did Assange’s barrister not mention Arbuthnot’s connections during the appeal? Surely this is a fundamental conflict of interest.

    • Martinned

      I don’t have access to a good legal database, so someone else will have to answer the last question. (Although I do have this case of negligent failure to attend due to having overslept, where the defendant was charged even though he was only 30 minutes late: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2757.htmll)

      However, I would note that presumably Assange is not charged with negligent failure to attend, but rather absconding under s. 6, which carries a maximum sentence of 3 months/12 months. (Eg. this case where someone got 9 months: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/2724.htm.)

      • Leonard Young

        “However, I would note that presumably Assange is not charged with negligent failure to attend, but rather absconding under s. 6, which carries a maximum sentence of 3 months/12 months. (Eg. this case where someone got 9 months: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/2724.htm.)”

        Yes but in the case you refer to the defendant admitted the financial deception. ie: the cutting of bail was on the basis that the allegations stuck. In Assange’s case the allegations were DROPPED. The two cases bear no comparison.

        • Martinned

          I know. Like I said, I don’t have access to the kind of legal database you’d need to try to find a proper comparison. This is just something that popped up in Bailii when I searched for absconding cases.

  • John

    Is that the same Lord Carlile who is shelled out on the BBC as some sort of ‘honest broker’ independent arbiter on legal/security matters?

    The same Lord Carlile who is/was appointed by Parliament to oversee probity and fair play in respect of the security state’s dirty dealings?

    The same Lord Carlile who is millking hundreds of £k for consulting and directing a grubby little brothel of a company “offering clients strategic advice on UK policy and regulation”?

    Whit a hoor o’ country GB is

  • reel guid

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Corbyn tells Scots “You’ll Brexit
    If it’s not how you voted, screw you”.

    • Squeeth

      Pity you failed to get the vote out during the referendum; you should have let the rest of us vote on the structure of our own country, Scotland would have been out with a 10:1 majority.

      • reel guid

        That is the ace card the indy movement has. The Scottish Parliament can withhold consent to Scotland leaving the EU, which would derail Brexit. The millions of hardline Brexiteers will be hopping mad and demand Westminster agrees to a Section 30 Order for an independence referendum. Westminster runs scared of this group and will agree to indyref2.

        • Martinned

          The Scottish Parliament can withhold consent to Scotland leaving the EU, which would derail Brexit.

          No it wouldn’t. If the Scottish Parliament withheld consent, the Tories would shrug and do their Brexit anyway. They don’t care about the Sewel convention.

          (And, in their defence, the convention expressly says that ignoring the Scottish parliament’s wishes is something that Westminster won’t *normally* do. And it is hard to imagine a situation less normal than this Brexit mess.)

          • reel guid

            Westminster playing, as the political scientists call it, constitutional hardball will finish the union.

          • Martinned

            I don’t think the Scots have the stones for it, even assuming that they could somehow convince the government in London to let them have a second indyref.

          • reel guid

            Martinned

            The Scottish Parliament has approved a second independence referendum. The SNP government therefore has a mandate to hold one and doesn’t need a UK PM to sign a Section 30.

            Westminster couldn’t do a Rajoy and declare a unilaterally held indyref illegal. The most they could do would be to insist on a rerun held after Westminster agreement to a Section 30 Order. And they would have to anyway since England’s Brexiteer hordes would demand that their precious Brexit be not delayed or derailed.

          • Martinned

            You’re right, there’s a plausible argument that the Scottish Government could hold a second independence referendum without permission from London. But they won’t.

            (And not just because they haven’t got the courage, also because Catalunya shows what kind of mess you get into if you try to do a declaration of independence that’s both lawful and unilateral. One of those has to give.)

          • reel guid

            Catalan independence is illegal under the Spanish constitution. Unfair and undemocratic. But true. Seeing as the constitution was drawn up by Francoists.

            Scottish independence is not illegal under the British constitution, otherwise there would have been no Edinburgh Agreement in 2012.

            As for the SNP and the Scottish Greens not having the bottle for indyref2. Don’t allow the Guardian and the Telegraph to form your opinions about what’s going on here in Scotland.

          • Martinned

            Of course unilateral Scottish independence is illegal under the UK constitution. It would offend against the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, for one. In fact, one of the great theoretical questions of UK/English constitutional law is whether countries like Canada and Australia are really independent at all. The only way to make Scotland independent, as far as UK law goes, is to enact a Westminster statute to that effect, similar to the Australia Act (1986), the Canada Act (1982) and, before that, the Ireland Act (1949).

          • reel guid

            The Sewel Convention was put on a statutory footing in the first two sections of the Scotland Act 2016. It’s no longer simply a convention. You talk of it in a pre-2016 and outdated context.

          • Martinned

            The fact that the Sewel Convention is laid down in s. 2 of the Scotland Act (2016) – which is what I was quoting, by the way – makes no difference whatsoever, as the Supreme Court has held in Miller. It’s still a convention.

            148. As the Advocate General submitted, by such provisions, the UK Parliament is not seeking to convert the Sewel Convention into a rule which can be interpreted, let alone enforced, by the courts; rather, it is recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention, and is effectively declaring that it is a permanent feature of the relevant devolution settlement. That follows from the nature of the content, and is acknowledged by the words (“it is recognised” and “will not normally”), of the relevant subsection. We would have expected UK Parliament to have used other words if it were seeking to convert a convention into a legal rule justiciable by the courts.

            149. In the Scotland Act 2016, the recognition of the Sewel Convention occurs alongside the provision in section 1 of that Act. That section, by inserting section 63A into the Scotland Act 1998, makes the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish government a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements, signifies the commitment of the UK Parliament and government to those devolved institutions, and declares that those institutions are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum. This context supports our view that the purpose of the legislative recognition of the convention was to entrench it as a convention.

            150. The Lord Advocate and the Counsel General for Wales were correct to acknowledge that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly did not have a legal veto on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. Nor in our view has the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, our answer to the second question in para 126 above is that the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly is not a legal requirement before the relevant Act of the UK Parliament is passed.

            151. In reaching this conclusion we do not underestimate the importance of constitutional conventions, some of which play a fundamental role in the operation of our constitution. The Sewel Convention has an important role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. But the policing of its scope and the manner of its operation does not lie within the constitutional remit of the judiciary, which is to protect the rule of law.

            http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/5.html

          • reel guid

            Yes the UK government got the result it wanted in December 2016 from the Supreme Court. But the May government’s argument that Sewel is political and has no legal basis despite being on the statute books did raise eyebrows among the Supreme Court Justices.

          • Martinned

            What can I say? Conventions are a weird animal. In any event, even though I’m as much in favour of a properly federal UK as the next person, I’d have to admit that Brexit is pretty much exactly why Lord Sewel and, in 2016, Parliament put the “normally” caveat in.

          • Muscleguy

            @Martinned
            The Union is based on the Treaty of Union. A UDI therefore need be no more than the Scottish Government/parliament declaring said Treaty to be void.

            Also since Scotland has its own legal system can you please point to where in Scottish Law a UDI is made illegal? Note there is in effect no such thing as UK law. So your objection is moot.

            Note too that the unified Scottish police force (no divide and rule possible, oh dear) answers to the Scottish Parliament, not Westminster.

            So, what can Westminster do if we do abrogate the Treaty and go UDI? Send in the army? Which for one would probably result in armed police facing off against squaddies to protect the public surrounding Holyrood. I would be there like a shot to put my body on the line to protect my country.

            Note Scottish battalions would be too suspect to deploy which means an English regiment. If you cannot see the massive offence to the Scottish public that would be you are ignorant. The country would rise in response and we would damn well simply stop paying taxes to Wastemonster, who would rely on Polis Scotland to arrest us.

            So, your assertion in all practical purposes is moot and your ignorance about the relevant and effective legal system operating does you no credit.

  • Sean O' Maoeldomaigh

    Ireland’s supreme court has declined to extradite a company director wanted for fraud to London because by the time he finishes his prison sentence the UK will have left the EU. The UK authorities issued a European arrest warrant , the standard procedure that normally guarantees swift delivery within the EU .The Irish supreme court ruled that his case should be referred to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to resolve the issue. The argument was If returned to the UK, the court noted, he would “continue to be imprisoned in the United Kingdom beyond 29 March, 2019, when the United Kingdom will withdraw from the European Union” and from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court wants to know if an EU state must refuse to surrender an EU citizen to the UK if that person will remain imprisoned .This has implications for the UK’s efforts to extradite citizens not just from Ireland but also from other EU states, and it may also affect other areas of law. This will be an interesting case whatever the judgement.

    • Martinned

      Ireland’s supreme court has declined to extradite a company director wanted for fraud to London because by the time he finishes his prison sentence the UK will have left the EU.

      Well, no, they haven’t. At least not yet. They asked a question to the ECJ in Luxembourg. Depending on the answer, they will either decline to surrender him or not.

  • Resident Dissident

    If we want to try a bit of character assassination by association perhaps we might dwell on those who are paid by RT/Putin for their work – or is that all ok?

      • joel

        Dont you know? Putin is a deeply threatening expansionist empire-builder. He’s already got two overseas military bases. If he’s not closely watched and constantly demonized he’ll very quickly surpass America’s 900-odd, and may even start nuking and chemical weaponing millions of innocent men, women, children and elderly people, US-style.

    • knuckles

      Good point, well made resident dissident………………………………………

      Do you know resident does Putin produce the RT news before or after his ‘cyber warfare’ hacking campaigns? What a multi-talented guy, eh? I hear he makes good pancakes too.

    • craig Post author

      I am not sure who you mean. You have previously asked me how much I get paid for my occasional appearances on RT, and I have told you I get nothing. Others do get paid, but why it is worse to get paid by RT than by Murdoch or the British state I cannot understand.

  • BrianFujisan

    Jullian would of course, be better off in Prison..he would get Exercise..a wee bit of air and sun…Horendous Form of Torture By the Establishment Nasties

    But i fear he has no choice .. He would end up in the U.S..and treated worse than Chelsea Manning

    Craig’s Points are going out with R.T –

    ” Former British Ambassador Craig Murray posted the judge’s connection on his website and accused the media of spreading fake news for not pointing out the connection.

    “If anybody thinks the Assange case had anything to do with justice, they are very mistaken,” Murray wrote.

    Judge who upheld Julian Assange’s warrant questioned over links to security services

    https://www.rt.com/uk/418820-wikileaks-julian-assange-judge/

      • Republicofscotland

        Yet not one British media outlet or newspaper feels the same way, not one, establishment indeed.

          • Republicofscotland

            It was Oscar Wilde who said.

            “In old days men had the rack. Now they have the Press.”

            The Fourth Estate in Britain at least, vehmently backs the establishment narrative. That’s why the warrant will not be quashed.

          • reel guid

            Ros

            Also good is Mark Twain’s quip.

            “If you don’t read a newspaper you’re uninformed. If you read a newspaper you’re ill informed”.

          • Republicofscotland

            Good one reel guid.

            On the next page I posted a link showing that newspaper sales are in serious decline, as for your ill informed quote. Well it would appear more folk buy the Daily Star, than the Telegraph.

            I suppose it depends what information your want to look at . ?

            Are there even any words in the Star.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    I had obviously read about Craig Murray before, because I bought his book Murder in Samakand, and I read it in the first week of the holiday with my wife and kids and kid’s friend on an island in The Indian Ocean, when the weather was exceedingly stormy until we got transferred to a couple of beach huts on the same island – and we all went chasing sharks underwater – I have the videos of that too.. (in HD)

    But when I got home, I read on his blog this bloke called Craig Murray, had been summoned to appear at the House of Commons in Westminster to give evidence with regards to UK Government complicity in Torture. I read his blog in the morning, and I was about to leave, get the train up to Westminster, with my passport, driving licence and all ID, and he asked…This will be broadcast live from the house of commons feed – can anyone record it. I thought I might be able to, but didn’t know how to do it. It was a really strange broadcast feed, and I had about an hour to work out a way of almost scraping it off the screen. I thought I might have just about got it working, but had no time to test it…I just did it – and it worked. I have still never met Craig Murray. I have no idea who the judge is, but he looks the spittin image of my Brother-In-Law, and has similar mannerisms – except his voice is slightly posher.

    “Craig Murray – Torture 1 of 7”

    tonyopmoc
    Published on 28 Apr 2009
    Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Provides Evidence on UK Government Complicity in Torture.
    http://www.parliament.uk
    UN Convention Against Torture
    Joint Committee on Human Rights

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9spgagSHI

    Tony

    • Maxwell

      I’m sure I read something of yours on this thread linking to an Off-Guardian.org article, but I can’t find it, and as I didn’t click on it at the time it is frustrating me. Was it on another thread?

  • Paul Barbara

    Whilst ostensibly OT, this really is what Craig is realising – ‘Freedom Rider: U.S. Escalates Syrian War’:
    https://blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-us-escalates-syrian-war

    When I was in the States in 1959, youths used to play ‘Chicken’, driving their cars head-on towards each other, till one swerved away.
    Needless to say, on occasion, it went wrong.

    Now, we have the ‘President’ (sic) and the PTB doing the same in Syria.
    Such a thing! Perhaps a certain ME country (which should remain nameless) thinks it will remain unscathed?
    Again, such a thing!
    Armageddon, already!

  • giyane

    The man behind this biased judge has no hair or sun-tan on his head, no muscles or posture in his thighs, is wearing black socks and black walking shoes, long sleeves and cufflinks. This might explain why he failed to impress the good people of Cynon in South Wales. The tree behind the man has died.

  • mike

    BBC, today: “The Eastern Ghouta has been under siege since 2013. It is a strategically important area, lying on the outskirts of Syria’s capital, Damascus – which can be hit by rockets fired by rebels in the nearby enclave.”

    Indeed it can be hit by rockets!! In fact, it often is, most recently last week, when a school was hit, killing two pupils.

    But don’t expect neocon soft power to tell you that.

      • knuk

        And yet you continue to loyally support the perpetrators of such crimes.

        Hang your head in shame Martinned. Your unshakable support for Al Nusra/Al Qaida/FSA/Al Sham in Syria against a secular, democratically elected government is disgusting.

        • knuk

          Here you go Martinned;

          Syria #Hama Al-Suqaylabiyah / Suqailabiya – #السقيلبيه –
          Today Touching scene full of the songs of wedding to receive the body of the martyred hero Abdel-Maseeh Dergham Razzouk
          #ISISHunters #ISIS_Hunters – Eastern Orthodox Christian #ValentinesDay2018 #ValentinesDay #Christian

          https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/963955196022882309%5D

          CHRISTIAN. Fighting for the future of his country, Syria, with the SAA. Killed by the US Air force holding Syria’s eastern oilfield as spoils of war.

          You keep defending those Sharia law imposing extremists though. Good job.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Martinned February 15, 2018 at 11:19
            So who are you cheering on – the West’s proxy headchoppers?

  • reel guid

    The Scottish Tory leadership has headed east to avoid questions about the Brexit impact assessment report.

    Hong Kong Hooey a.k.a. Davie Mundell is currently being wined and dined in Kowloon.

    Ruth Davidson has scooted to Afghanistan where she reckons it’s safer to be for her – politically speaking – than in Edinburgh right now.

    So the leadership have taken their broken promises east, just as Tory support in Scotland goes south.

  • Martinned

    Meanwhile, in other “British judges are all corrupt Tories”-news, the High Court has granted permission for judicial review against Ofcom for its finding that Fox would make a “fit and proper” owner of Sky. I just can’t seem to figure out why, since Ofcom’s opinion was already made irrelevant by the Secretary of State’s decision to refer the “fit and proper” issue to the CMA. Anyone?

    • nevermind

      Would that ^ be diverting the thread? or stating the obvious?

      In any case, this is O/T, a kind message from Neil Clark which hopefully many here have supported.
      ‘I’d just wanted to write to say thank you so much for your very kind donation to my crowd fund against O.Kamm. It is hugely appreciated. We are in for a very long fight. He has until Thursday to submit his defence so every penny is crucial. Shall keep you posted on developments.’

      Just to say good luck to Neil in his awful libel case with an awful O.K., anybody who still has a few pennies left after last month annual bills, please send him some money/support. Thanks

1 2 3 11

Comments are closed.