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.
I don’t understand the personal attacks upon the the interviewer, Kay Burley. She is simply performing her prescribed duties, which are always to support the political establishment and to serve as a conduit for their propaganda. It’s a tough job to fulfill when confronted by someone as smart, well-informed and intrepid as Craig Murray. Burley was simply overmatched, but that would be the case with almost any other robotic TV newsperson.
You are a polite and thoughtful gentleman. Thank you.
Hello Mr Murray,
My initial thoughts before reading yours, that the interviewer did display a rather uncalled for disrespectful tone. As if interviewing someone with opposing views and taking them personally, particularly when coming to Sky’s defence. I assumed someone there had taken great offence over your comments regarding film cutting. It was noticeable this aspect being singled this out by the hard work made over the simple and obvious to all matter of film editing. You were not asked to be brief being told there was plenty of time. I assume your interview would also be edited. The excuse for not using the interview is even more ambiguous as any so called boring bits could also be edited.
At no time did I fault your manner or your interesting interview whatsoever.
I hope this offers some reassurance, if I can be of further assistance please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Russell Davies.
I was impressed by your good behaviour ion the face of considerable provocation. Interesting interview. (Well you were interesting the interviewer was annoying)
Can I get some help totting up the laws, regulations, protocols and procedures that have been traduced or circumvented since the Skripals were allegedly found on a park bench in Salisbury. I’ll start.
1. Government commenting on an ongoing police investigation.
2. Transfer of that investigation to the Met.
3. Misrepresentation of the Skripals–their status and situation–at court process to get permission to extract their blood.
4. Misrepresentation to the court of UK’s consular obligations.
5. Refusal to grant consular access.
6. Leaving consular access up to Yulia Skripal’s wishes–as conveyed by hospital or British authorities–in contravention of consular agreements.
7. Denying relatives, friends or “carers” access to the Skripals in hospital, in convention of the hospital trust’s charter.
8. Apparently denying Yulia Skripal independent access to a telephone.
9. Invoking and somehow enforcing an apparently extra-legal secrecy / confidentiality provision through the OPCW.
10. Circumventing OPCW procedures for timely intervention and information sharing with the accused party.
11. Apparently conducting undeclared research at Porton Down on nerve agents related to Novichoks.
You should also listen to George Galloway of April 6th. Esp. after 58 minutes into that show he lists a whole slew of oddities. I think it’s a good project to make a grand list. Do however take care not to make it too tall with all kinds of presumptious and conspiratist articles.
bj,
Thanks for this. You wouldn’t happen to have a more direct pointer to the Galloway clip of April 6th?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCeIsITSw2w
Just listen to all of it, there are many remarks passim, but esp. in the many minutes after 57min.
Here’s one of my own:
Never closed borders and airports to catch perpetrators.
Destroying evidence: dinner table; animals (how sad).
Salisbury Hospital apparently is not equipped to handle cases like the Skripals(!)
Brought up by a gentleman in that show: the quantity of ‘poison’ on the door handle apparently was dilluted by rain; but how then did the restaurant table became so contaminated that it had to be destroyed.
You ask too many difficult questions at the same time….LOL Be aware that only 250 police officers work 7/7 and 24/24 on this case.
It’s just a matter of time and they’ll find a few different answer for any question.
Add to this, from a devastating piece published at the Saker:
If, as Bojo claimed, the UK had foreknowledge of Russia’s possession of these substances and failed to disclose it to the OPCW, this puts the “UK in breach of articles: VII 3.; VIII A 1., 40., 44.; IX 2., 8., 9., of the Chemical Warfare Convention to which the UK was a signatory effective April 29 1997.”
The shame of state stenography masking as journalism ever deepens.
Can’t help quoting at length, but do read the series of eight essays on this “Curious Incident” at The Saker:
http://thesaker.is/a-curious-incident-part-viii/
” A unique feature of the CWC is its incorporation of the ‘challenge inspection’, whereby any State Party in doubt about another State Party’s compliance can request the Director-General to send an inspection team. Under the CWC’s ‘challenge inspection’ procedure, States Parties have committed themselves to the principle of ‘any time, anywhere’ inspections with no right of refusal. Such inspection can proceed in confidence and not arouse public attention.
Why was this action not taken at the time you first obtained knowledge of another party acting in violation of the CWC?
Why did you wait until an alleged attack was attempted before you raised concerns over information the Foreign Secretary now claims to have had available to him years previously?
Why has the UK still not proceeded with a Challenge Inspection as of this date?”
Silly plebian, laws are for the likes of us, our betters in their ivory towers don’t have to take any notice of them
Congratulations on your calm and equanimity while being rudely and repeatedly interrupted.
All Sky need to do to justify the interviewer’s assertions is to put the unedited, 35-question Portland Down interview online.
I would thank you further for your good work but I have to choose a ribbon for my hair…
What a terrible interviewing technique. If she thought that she got “one up” on Craig Murray, she was very much mistaken. No wonder they made sure the interview did not go online as it would have showed her up.
We all know that the MSM pick and choose what they broadcast…BBC and ITV definitely the worst, but I expected somewhat better from Sky.
Great stuff Craig thank you.
If there’s only one positive outcome from this atrocity it is that it has exposed the real, and potentially the most damaging, enemy of us ordinary plebs; the establishment media and their bought and paid for “journalists” including (alas) the Guardian (with its constant attack on Corbyn), goes without saying the Boris Broadcasting Cooperation and the extreme Right wing Murdoch/Dacre cabal. We’re firmly in post-truth, Orwellian dystopian territory.
I suspect as we speak their intrepid reporters are concocting another “outrageous” smear on Corbyn should things get even more difficult in the upcoming weeks as fewer and fewer people believe their bullshit.
Too conspiratorial? perhaps, but definitely within reason methinks.
You got your book in shot for a very long time. Add ‘as seen on TV’ to the next printing!
Kay Burley
What a laughable degenerate washed up rude presstitute
She certainly came across that way, didn’t she? Well said. She was wholly unprofessional.
I would just like to thank you for all you are doing. The world at present is so full of lies and people interested more than interesting that your behaviour shines like a beacon to us all… rather flowery language but insufficient given the risks you are taking. I really hope you have friends watching your back 🙂
Kay Burley, an absolute joke of an interviewer.she is very good on delivering for sky and the government on any agenda they choose to give her..she is a muppet, sorry puppet, sorry on reflection I was right the first time.
Kay asking about accusations of Sky bias is irrelevant and clearly either an attempt to railroad the interview or pure ignorance about the job she was hired to do. This interview is NOT about her or SKY. That she was allowed to go off on such a tangent shows her sky bosses think this sort of obfuscation has anything whatsoever to do with trying to get to the truth.
RT UK has a piece about this:
‘Plan to make me look foolish failed’ – Craig Murray to RT on Skripal interview for Sky News
https://www.rt.com/uk/423488-murray-sky-interview-failed/
Craig says:
“I think the plan was to try and make me look foolish with the aggressive interviewing, but that didn’t work. I think that’s why they then buried it.”
Couldn’t sum it up better than that.
I agree.
If you feel the need to lower yourself to Ms Burley’s level…..ask her how her Poundland shares are doing these days…..heeheehee…..bet she forgot in an interview in some ragmag she proudly stated how they were a sure fire ‘winner’ to go up……and how she took the plunge into them and invested heavily…..my how we laughed on the Bulletin Boards at her being suckered into another pump and dump
I suspect the reason your interview was not broadcast was probably due to the fact that clearly the interviewer had become somewhat agitated and frustrated: to the point of embarrassment – letting her emotions run away with herself, while, at all times you remained calm, focused and dignified and clearly not giving her the answers she was desperately attempting to lead you and/or make you fall into.
About her bit with camera’s needing a track and a tripod mounted on a dolly and track, because they are big things, as she said. That maybe so in a studio, but not when they go out on location – not these days, with digital video cameras. I know a bit about that, because I have worked in the film industry.
Hi Craig, having watched that interview, I just wish that our Politicians were more like you. Then I could hold them in a high regard as I do you.
She always was a condescending c**. Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDYalpZhG_8 on you tube when Chris Bryant tears into her and calls her a bit dim.
Nasty, aggressive interviewer. Yes, she should go and chose a ribbon for her hair.
I thought you did very well, Craig, you were affable and considered in everything you said. She clearly became flustered at not being able to make you say anything you didn’t want to and/or that might make you look like a conspiracy nut that might be used against you at a later date. A major if not the main purpose of the interview was to get you to retract your comment that the Portland Down interview might have been spliced or changed in any way, which might have been seen to have compromised Sky’s journalistic integrity although as you pointed out, in having to reduce a 35 question interview to 3’46” a certain amount of editing, in good faith, would have been necessary. They didn’t get what they wanted out of the interview but it wasn’t boring IMHO.
Right on cue Boris Johnson’s friends in Syria are claiming another gas attack.
Warning, the pictures are uncomfortable
https://twitter.com/StratSentinel/status/982716613161111552
I can’t say if the pictures are authentic or not, but if they are, that isn’t chlorine
Like all the sarin attacks in Syria, they always affect the civilian hostages of the jihadists, never the jihadists.
Kay Burley managed to be extremely condescending and annoying and she also comes off as such in her twitter messages.
She has brought her employer in disrepute by this unprofessional interview and I very much understand that they would bury this clip.
One of the main things here for me is that Sky News has a much longer 35 question interview which must last for at least 15 min. There is a clear public interest in the release of the entire interview. This would also clear up the question of whether or not the cuts and edits were properly done and maintained the sense of both questions and answers,
thank you craig for showing this interview. what a rude and obnoxious person kay burley is ! i was happy to see you were able to remain courteous and in good humour – it is more than i could have done. congratulations.
i’m happy to say i don’t watch sky news so it will not be any effort for me to not see this person again.
It’s not contempt they feel towards you, it’s anger. Your honesty holds a mirror to them where they see themselves as they are: lying, despicable. People like you tower above them and make them feel ugly and small. In Fench, it’s called “mauvaise conscience” (when your guilty conscience makes you turn aggressive).
There is nothing a psychopath hates more than a clean person. What they will do is either 1) try to convince the person he is just like them (lying and corrupt just as they are but in another way, for instance a “Kremlin stooge”), 2) try to bribe or seduce the person to make him one of them, or if both previous attempts fail, 3) try and destroy him (which thankfully they can’t always do).
Anyway, I do admire your honesty and courage. They are a pack of hyenas.
Good to hear someone being rational. Theresa May assumed instantly that Russia was to blame and there could be no other possible culprit. This was many days before Porton Down had even had a chance to test the substance which is in itself very suspect.We all know Putin is a nasty piece of work with a track record that makes him a prime subject for suspicion but this still does not amount to proof of his guilt in this case. We have to question what he would hope to gain from the attempted murder of a retired agent living in UK. I can think of plenty of other nations with the capability and motivation to produce a nerve agent in order to frame the Russians and cause international friction.
The haste to accuse and rule out all options, despite there being no firm evidence, with the aggressive and premature gesture of expelling Russian ambassadors is extremely unwise. Furthermore roping in Trump, who is itching for a fight with anyone and everyone and no doubt relishing an excuse to show off just how ‘bigglier’ he can react, and getting many (not all) European allies to swallow the UK bias has really escalated tensions. Propaganda is being put out by known liars on both sides and it’s currently down to one’s word against the other.
Yes, Putin might be responsible but equally he might not. If this was any standard criminal investigation nobody would have been sentenced until after the court case.
I think the journalist’s orders were to keep talking – even obvious shit-talk – in order to deny you much time to speak.
Here’s a statement issued yesterday, April 6, 2018 by The Vets:
PUBLIC STATEMENT
As you’ve probably heard in the public domain, Mr Skripal is one of our clients. Today, the government has revealed two guinea pigs belonging to Mr Skripal died and his cat was put down after the unfortunate nerve agent attack on Mr Skripal.
We contacted the police straightaway upon hearing the news that Mr Skripal had been admitted to hospital, and a number of times afterwards, to make them aware of Mr Skripal’s pets and their needs.
We contacted Porton Down – in case the animals may have been taken into quarantine. We also offered to take care of Mr Skripal’s pets in his absence. We were never contacted by the police or Porton Down in return regarding Mr Skripal’s pets.
As you can appreciate, we’re bound by UK Data Protection Regulations (soon the GDPR). In addition, client confidentiality is of the utmost importance to us.
We cannot and will not give out any details about our clients or their animals – no matter who you are.
We are also not able to speculate on the cause of death of any of the animals – should this have occurred.
It’s a tragic situation and an incredibly difficult case, with high risks to the general public and all involved.
We trust that everyone that was involved was doing their compassionate best, in very challenging circumstances. However, we remain very sad at the suffering of Mr Skripal, his daughter Yulia and their beloved pets – to whom they were devoted.
We have no further information available than is available in the public domain.
Please do not call us, email us or turn up at our practice or homes in the hope to obtain further information. Many thanks!
The Vets Salisbury
https://www.facebook.com/thevetssalisbury/posts/1599229670125442
In response to this, a local posted:
“I work near their house its taken till this week to ask us if we saw anything unusual that weekend …if it takes that long to question people they see every day then the animals weren’t even considered by them …it’s so good of you to offer help … bless poor pets :(”
What sort of investigation waits one month before asking those in the vicinity what was witnessed?
Craig, you are obvious not familar with Burley’s body of work! Not a strange / untypical performance, for her, in the least, I’m afraid. Classic example of Kate’s own imitable style and approach to “journalism”. Possibly the worst exponent of the trade ever to disgrace the airwaves..
The broadcast interview of the PD chief was just as you say. The cut, once pointed out, is as plain as the nose on your face. The sky lady was quite out of order in her approach and attitude. Totally unprofessional!