An Extremely Boring Video. Do Not Watch It. 502

I have managed to get hold of a copy, which you can see here, of my lengthy interview with Sky News about the Skripals yesterday, which Sky refused to put online because they allege I was boring. With the warning you might therefore be very bored, you may watch it if you wish.

Kay Burley then appeared to suggest in reply to persistent questioning from Teymoor Nabili that Sky News could not put the interview online as they did not record it and do not hold a copy, which is plainly untrue (and would be illegal under their broadcast license).

My perspective on the interview itself was that the interviewer became aggressive and sarcastic, increasingly shrill as the apparent effort to discredit me was not going well, and resorting eventually to asking about any old extraneous matter but the Skripals. I strongly suspect it was not me being boring, but the strange performance by Kay Burley, which motivated Sky to bury the interview.

But you must judge for yourself.

It is my policy when invited by journalists, to give considered and courteous answers to the particular questions which they ask. This is as opposed to what politicians do, which is to spout pre-prepared soundbites irrespective of what they are asked.

I appreciate that mine is a very old-fashioned approach, and may lead you to be frustrated about areas I did not cover. I also make no attempt to look slick or sound glib. I realise in this modern age that may not be good PR, but my belief remains that in the long term people will see me as a polite and thoughtful old gentleman, and feel less disposed to share the obvious contempt towards me of the media and politician classes.

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>

502 thoughts on “An Extremely Boring Video. Do Not Watch It.

1 8 9 10 11
  • mdroy

    Kay Burley is a nasty piece of work.
    A radio talk-show host once criticised Frank Lampard for trying to kick his ex-wife out of a flat he owned. Kay invited him on to Sky TV, and brought out the strange fact that his show had gone out on the anniversary of Frank’s mother’s death.
    “well I didn’t know that”
    “well perhaps you should have done”
    “well who knows that – do you know that”
    “yes I have it in my desk diary” with very disapproving look, cut.

    What she failed to point out is her ex-husband is Frank Lampard’s agent.
    pure private vendetta
    (I tell this as a big Chelsea and Lampard fan)

  • Stephen Bourne

    Dear Mr Murray
    You are indeed not a trained TV presenter or Journalist.
    However your composure whilst being verbally assaulted by this vile individual from Sky is deserving of recognition.
    Kay Burleys attitude, body language and behaviour left me with no other opinion than to see her as the worst example of her profession.
    You certainly were not slick and polished for TV but I found your politeness and stoic attitude towards this pathetic biased journalist refreshing.
    Very disappointed that Sky cut this article but can plainly see why as Kay’s throwing the dummy out looked very unprofessional.

  • Laurence Hipkiss

    The problem is that modern presenters think they are more important than the experts and guests they are interviewing. These presenters ask lengthy questions and then constantly interrupt the guest without giving them adequate time for a reasonable response. They behave like some small dog snapping at the heels of the guests. If anything it’s this behaviour from the likes of Burley that I find boring.

  • mdroy

    Not sure if it has been made clear – Gary Aitkenhead is of the DSTL, not Porton Down as presented by Sky and the other press.
    DSTL control’s half a dozen research centres.
    Aitkenhead is CEO of DSTL
    He joined from the private sector only in Dec 2017
    DSTL is in Sevenoalks, 103 miles form Porton Down
    He is from the Telecom sector – mostly Motorola and has been on the commercial side since 2003.
    Curious they couldn’t get anyone actually from Porton Down
    And curious that the press failed to pick up on that.

  • Dominic Berry

    Hang your head in shame Craig. You horrible bully, you!
    Poor Kay Burley. Poor Sky News. They are the innocent victims, the desperate underdogs, in a heroic war to save democratic freed speech in Britain from, well, Craig Murray and his evil media empire.

    Well I remember (in my dim and distant memory), when Cameron was about to award a BSkyB contract to Murdoch and they would have been given domination of all media which would have left the competition in the bin. Only the Milly Dowler scandal knocked it off before they could sign it off.

    But now they’re being viciously bullied by the likes of you, Craig. Yes, you. And you’ve hurt her haven’t you? You’ve hurt her feelings. You know that, don’t you? You’re like the emotional abuser. Of Sky News. We’re all disappointed. (Where’s my champagne..?)

  • Peter B

    My take on the interview was that the critical piece for the presenter was to get you to concede their point about their interview with the chief of Porton Down.

    I suspect you’ll see that clip used elsewhere in their reporting, brutally edited down. as part of a story on the larger credibility of Porton Down even to its staunchest critics or somesuch.

    That said, fuck ’em. I’m happy to have found your website, and everyone in my family was bemused when the BBC aired a clip of the Porton Down head backing away from Boris Johnson’s statements. I was hooting and hollering, and (we live in the US) I needed to try to explain to them what the context was for that statement.

    • Stonky

      Now who on earth could have see that coming?

      Yet again, “Butcher” Assad makes stupid, pointless, reckless and counterproductive use of chemical weapons at exactly the moment that is least opportune for him and most opportune for the Western alliance ranged against him.

      Who on earth could have seen that coming?

      • Stonky

        With a “barrel bomb” naturally. And women and children are “foaming at the mouth”. Pictures and everything.

        • Mochyn69

          And the Fiddlers are off to America with new identities courtesy of the CIA.

          Who’d have thought it???

      • Sean Lamb

        Its a good question and I will give my opinion. I never believe in crisis actors and in my view the anti-neocon left badly discredits itself when they run with the “Oh they are just all faking” line. Technically it might be possible to fake it, but unfortunately that is not what I think is happening here.

        We know what Jihadists did in Iraq under the American occupation when they were out gunned. They just sent car bomb after car bomb into crowded civilian markets, mercilessly killing innocents because they could no long match American armor and fire-power.

        Pretty much the same has happened. Civilians, women and children have been herded into a cellar being told that they will be safe here. And then someone chucked one of these in

        This is not a normal military munition of sarin and it isn’t being deployed in a normal military way. It is transported into Syria in a form that can be shoved down rocket tubes and fired into hostage civilians areas. Or in this case just thrown into a cellar where women and children are hiding

      • SA

        Let me put it this way. The SG has nothing to gain from using chlorine to kill 40 civilians and use primitive barrel bombs when they have reduced the East Ghouta pocket to 25% of what it used to be and now consists only of the town of Douma. The SG knows very well about the red flags and red lines and is therefore unlikely to use CW when they have the firepower and are surrounding this area. On the other hand the surrounded rebels have everything to gain from staging an attack on the hostage civilian population whom they have repeatedly used as human shields and this is just another form so as to invite outside intervention in a desperate situation because they know they can’t win and prolonging the battle will only lead to more civilian loss of life. This is best explained her:

      • Felneymike

        LOL, there’s footage of the ISIS Medical Corps (sorry, “White Helmets”) all perfectly still and silent, posing with a dirty and uninjured guy “buried” in some rubble, which goes on for about a minute until somebody calls “action”, and all of a sudden he’s screaming and they’re struggling to “pull him out”.

    • H Thomas

      Need to work out possible motives. To me, with motives, Russia appears well down the list, a way long way down the list, Doctor Watsons.

  • Rob

    the broadcast version at 3mins50 secs does contain an edit between the 2 bits you mentioned, she was wrong to claim otherwise. the full version shows those questions were contiguous but hasn’t been edited to basically trim the time down, there’s nothing sinister about it but it’s true to say it was edited and the edit made it look disjointed. perhaps they put this longer version on their website after the accusation of the edit of the broadcast version?

    8 mins 10 secs in

    • Grant Roxburgh

      But even this isn’t the FULL version of the interview as there is still a very clear cut / edit at 04mins 19 sec!

    • Grant Roxburgh

      and quite telling, I think, that the question that was edited out was “it is possible that it was manufactured elsewhere?”

    • Dungroanin

      Andrew Sparrow after giving Craig and His book a shout out that day then got a bit churlish below the line by saying, about Burleys interview:-

      “As I write, Kay Burley on Sky is just tying him in knots over his claim that the Sky interview with Gary Aitkenhead was doctored.”

      Looks like the knots where not so hard for Houdini Murray to escape from.

  • Tim Hoy

    I found it far from boring. Thank you. I’d have had difficulty in remaining polite if I’d been interrogated that way. Wel done. And I agree. Let’s have a general election NOW.

  • StephenC

    Good that you secured an interview with a large tv company like this. Watched it. You answered her questions with respect and knowledge and said when you didnt know the facts. The interviewer had an aggressive tone which can easily make people switch into a defensive stance. You should be proud of your performance.

  • Konrad E. Wolter

    What a bitch !

    Typical “Brainwashing Journalism”
    Keep it coming Craig, you hit the nail right on his head.

  • Tom

    Her attitude sums up most of the mainstream media. When the message doesn’t suit their agenda or conventional thinking, they dismiss it is boring or irrelevant or not of concern to the public.
    Thank you for taking the trouble to put your point across.

  • Konrad E. Wolter

    “I appreciate that mine is a very old-fashioned approach, and may lead you to be frustrated about areas I did not cover. I also make no attempt to look slick or sound glib. I realise in this modern age that may not be good PR, but my belief remains that in the long term people will see me as a polite and thoughtful old gentleman, and feel less disposed to share the obvious contempt towards me of the media and politician classes.”


  • Clint

    Craig, may I say how well you handled that interview (As I’m sure you’re accustomed to when interviewers do not agree with you!). I have followed you for a while now (Not as sheepish as it may sound!) and find you to be an honest individual who holds morals and truth to high regard, which as you know appears to be a rare thing these days, especially amongst the political elite and richest 1% or so. You are probably a threat to our current Governments’ agenda which is why I feel you may be on the end of such a campaign to silence you, your truth and quest for proper explanations is not what the powers that be want, they want their versions / stories to be believed without question sadly, and when questioned people are made out to be trouble makers. I see this with various other public figures who are fighting a battle to be heard and for what…Trying to get to the truth! I have so much respect for you for continuing the way you do against such barriers. Anyway, I will cease to bore you and wish you all the very best in what you do, I actually anticipate your next blogs / comments with a fair degree of excitement, so I personally find you far from boring! Take care and Kindest Regards, Clint.

  • David Collins

    Kate Burley came across as ill informed, repetitive, unable to grasp Craig’s intelligent and gentle responses and not that bright.

  • Tony

    Craig mate , you nailed it man.
    Under those circumstances you demonstrated the patience of a saint.

  • Dr. Brian Everill

    Personally, I think the lady who interviewed Murray was something of a moron. She seemed to be desperately attempting to undermine him for some reason, as though she had an alternative agenda? Maybe the interview was set up in an attempt to discredit him in some way, for some reason? Either way, Sky is a pretty awful channel for news at the best of times, and one would be well advised to avoid it if one wished to stay informed with anything like what might be unbiased, informed, facts?

  • Mark

    Actua;;y it was to the point and conscise. Most importantly it was based on actual facts. Very refreshing. Thanks

  • Thorvid

    I guess the truth about a subject isn’t “that interesting” IF it dosn’t fit your prescribed narrative and you unwilling and unable to even acknowledge the existence of any kind of alternative view of this ever changing story.

    As per normal we see the MSM failing to report, attempting to discredit and write of as irrelevant any one who questions the Government approved narrative as treacherous ‘Kremlin Stooges’. Some of the things Mr Murray brought up, i have to say i had already been wondering about. (And if i can see these problems with the story, than ANYONE applying critical thought should be able to!) These points all need to be taken seriously and CREADABLE answers provided.

    What happened to ‘due dalliance’, ‘legal process’ and following ‘domestic and international law’? These only apply when we say they do, case in point in a recent Sky Paper review, when reviewing the recent outrage at the arrest on suspicion of murder of a home intruder, the commentators rightly in my view said the outrage was unjustified as the correct legal/investigative process of charge->investigate->drop/prosecute->Guilty/Innocent?->sentence had taken place and after an investigation it was found excessive force was not used, and the charges were drop.

    Perfect! So they know how it’s meant to work, they just don’t see then need to apply it to every case.

    Because the very next item to be discussed was of the Skripals case, were it was agreed that Russia did it, and Russia should admit it, take there punishment and stop playing games with fake stories designed to cause maximum confusion?!!!? Investigation be dammed, real evidence? Ha we don’t need that, we know they did it look at there past form!!

    The hypocrisy is stunning, how on earth do these people think they have any credibility, honesty, integrity, believably or trust? Mr Murray please keep up the great great work of pointing out all the issues and problems with the official narrative, we need you and the others who are able to stand up and attempt to keep out government honest and truthful, and you deserve and need our support.

  • Nathan

    What a nasty piece of work this woman is. Her body language was very uncomfortable to see. So defensive too, a little over defensive you might say…

    • H Thomas

      She is not that bright. I find her insufferable in her dimness. And that thing she does when interviewing, suddenly firing a question out of step. Infuriating in tone.

  • Mary N Jones

    Interesting and nuanced answers and a measured response to a journalist who was obviously trying to get you to say something provocative or inflammatory. I cannot help thinking that the notes in front of the interviewer probably had little tips about what she or the channel wanted to get you to say. This style of interviewing is very prevalent these days- albeit this is a fairly extreme example. It is almost as if the tv channels think their viewers are too thick or have too short an attention span to handle complex answers; as if they find the subject uninteresting unless it is controversial or can be rendered in bullet points.

    Do you come across as boring? No- I don’t think so; a lot of academics, scientists, doctors, economists and diplomats etc. give similarly considered answers in their t.v. interviews. If someone is too long-wonded, they usually just trim the interview down to a couple of questions, anyway, to screen. I think it’s more that you didn’t give them the answers they wanted to hear to tell the story they wanted to push. Irritating and unprofessional interviewer in my opinion….

  • H Thomas

    Kay Burley ruined this interview, maybe deliberately, maybe not. Wonder if she has at least an O-level/GCSE in General Science. And don’t “Sorry buddy” me! How disrespectful. Made perfect sense to me. I’m with you, and Corbyn, as the majority of people from the streets in the UK and elsewhere, it seems.

  • H Thomas

    Furthermore, I think we have got to factor in CA-Tory Party close connections and Brexit rubbish diversionary tactics by the government spinners with all this. Thar be smoke sar! Where’s my mirror?

  • H Thomas

    Last comment, with this Ukraine-Crimea-Russia “love” triangle, didn’t a very large majority of Crimea’s population want it to become part of Russia? I think they had been asking for a referendum on it for years, but were constantly refused by Ukraine Kiev, and discouraged by the EU and “others”?

  • Alasdair McNeil Church

    Solidarity from another thoughtful old gentleman who is getting increasingly angry…

  • Gregg Brain

    I rather suspect that the length of this interview is because Mr Murray may well have insisted on its being broadcast unedited, as a condition for giving it. If so, well done. I’d also make a couple of other points, for those bored enough to read them.

    1. Kay makes the same stand that we’ve seen from the UK Government – “You must accept what I’m saying, without evidence”, in regard to Sky’s interview of Gary Aitkenhead, CEO of Porton Down. Without seeing the unedited interview, we have no way of determining the truth of her statement that two cameras were used, and the answers unedited.

    2. I have, unfortunately, a lot of experience with being interviewed, on a matter which was at the time world news. This includes interviews both in the studios of the national broadcaster, and ‘outside broadcasts’. The number of times I was EVER interviewed with more than one camera in use by the interviewer? Zero. The number of times they moved the camera, and asked the same questions again, or different ones, just for a variation in angle? dozens.

1 8 9 10 11

Comments are closed.