When They Decide to Get You 484

Alex Salmond’s jeopardy has caused me a dreadful shudder of recognition and empathy. I too was accused of hideous offences under a civil service disciplinary code and barred from taking any action to defend myself. I was not allowed to speak to anybody at all about the charges, and particularly not allowed to know the identity of my accusers, or to organise witnesses in my defence – which appears the exact procedure which Alex Salmond now, with absolute justice, complains of. These Civil Service disciplinary investigations are contrary to all rules of natural justice, and designed to facilitate executive stitch-ups, not to uncover the truth.

As with Alex Salmond, some of the accusations against me were hideous – offering visas in exchange for sex, for example. They were so hideous that the mental anguish of not being permitted to take any normal steps to defend myself caused me a mental breakdown. I know what Salmond must be feeling. I received psychiatric treatment in St Thomas’ Hospital for a condition called “learnt helplessness” – meaning it was the dreadful experience of having things done to me which I was not permitted to take any normal steps to counter, which caused my clinical depression.

The charges against me were entirely fake and entirely vexatious, even malicious, issued after I had objected to British complicity in torture in the “War on Terror”, which the government denied at the time, calling me a liar, though now admits. The charges were designed to destroy my reputation. You can read the full story in my book “Murder in Samarkand”, widely available in libraries. I believe it conveys the anguish that “learnt helplessness” can cause.

To be plain, I was told not to reveal the existence of the charges to anybody at all and specifically forbidden from contacting witnesses. Nevertheless the charges were such obvious nonsense they eventually collapsed and I was found not guilty of all eighteen charges – but found guilty of breaking the order to keep the charges secret, in organising my defence. Not keeping the charges secret is the only disciplinary offence of which I was ever convicted.

The extreme Kafkaesque nature of this is only increased by the fact that the government themselves had revealed the charges in the widest possible manner, by leaking them to the Daily Mail, in the effort to permanently ruin my reputation. A number of the charges were sexual, such as having a secret flat to entertain prostitutes – again, totally untrue, but great for the tabloids. The use of false sexual allegations to destroy threats to the political elite is routinely deployed – Alex Salmond joins Julian Assange, Tommy Sheridan (whose recent court victories against the Murdoch press went totally unreported), Scott Ritter and myself among recent victims of this tactic.

There is one important difference between Alex Salmond’s case and my own – I requested several times that my case be referred for police investigation but the FCO refused, whereas the Salmond allegations have been referred. The case of Michelle Thomson, the entirely innocent former MP whose career was deliberately destroyed by Police Scotland keeping an investigation open for years into simple matters that could have been cleared up in a week, makes this a limited comfort. I don’t doubt we will see years of this nonsense against Salmond before it is finally dismissed.

“Safe” members of the establishment elite can conduct the most blatant of crimes and never get prosecuted at all. The late Tessa Jowell engaged repeatedly and personally in blatant money laundering of crooked Berlusconi funds that would have had anyone but a senior politician locked up. Amber Rudd was a Director of a share ramping scheme that ripped off hundreds of investors. Michelle Mone is currently engaged in a Ponzi scheme badly disguised as a crypto-currency. None of those will be prosecuted.

I would suggest that the financial affairs of the vast majority of the wealthy and powerful would not stand up to close investigation and scrutiny. But in the normal course of events the powerful are shielded from such scrutiny. Paul Manafort’s financial dealings would have been actionable at any time in the last few decades. It is only when caught in the mass fishing expedition of the Mueller “Russiagate” investigation that he gets convicted – for matters nothing to do with the ostensible reason for the investigation. Which is not to say the convictions are a bad thing, just that if you scratch below the surface of any multi-millionaire or any friend of the powerful, you will be able to convict them. They should all be scratched, not just those whom other wealthy individuals regard as a threat to the political order.

Prosecution is not happening in the Manafort case from motives of preventing financial impropriety of the rich – 99.9% of that is overlooked, all the time. It is happening because for some reason the neo-conservative Establishment in the United States continue to see Donald Trump as a threat. What I do not understand is why they see Trump as a threat to Establishment interests, as he has given no indication he means to follow through on any of his anti-establishment or non-interventionist campaign rhetoric. The Establishment are not those who should feel threatened by Trump.

484 thoughts on “When They Decide to Get You

1 2 3 5
  • dutch

    Trump is the best friend Israel has had in the Whitehouse for years. Why would the neo-cons be after him?

        • Trowbridge H. Ford

          Former DCI John Brennen still believes it, and is drumming up support against Trump for being a traitor for trying to drain it when it comes to North Korea.

    • Cynicus

      Neo=Cons are globalist and interventionist.
      Trump is neither and represents a threat to the interests of those who are.

      • J

        So he says. So the story goes. The rate of bombs is apparently up to one every twelve minutes, which I understand is substantially more interventionist than his predecessor. Trump doing business in Russia is fairly global too. (Leaving aside the Russia-gate bullshit.)

        Do we see a pattern emerging?

        “However, we now know that Donald Trump’s administration puts all previous presidents to shame. The Pentagon’s numbers show that during George W. Bush’s eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, which is 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama’s time in office, his military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. And in Trump’s first year in office, he averaged 121 bombs dropped per day, for an annual total of 44,096.”


        • Reg

          This misses the point, whether Trumps administration drops more bombs does not indicate whether Trumps foreign policy is in line with long-standing US imperialist strategy, its too simplistic.
          Military intervention is after all just one means of furthering US imperial strategy.

          To get whether Trumps strategy (assuming he has one, which is uncertain) you have to look at long standing US imperialist strategy.

          The constants in US foreign policy are: the $ reserve status supported by the petrodollar. Maintaining the EU as a client kingdom via NATO using Russia as a existential threat, (whether real or imagined) to ensure the EU does not became a over-powerful trade competitor, Driving a wedge between China and Russia, to ensure that trade block does not eclipse US trade in goods and financial services. Maintaining the 3rd world in a subordinate position to extract raw materials as cheaply as possible via selective free trade arrangements benefiting the US via their control of the WTO and the use of debt, particularly $ denominated debt and the use of the US military to ‘help’ countries combating terrorism (often by terrorist groups previously or currently funded by the US) or the drugs trade (a drugs trade also supported by the US).

          Looked at it this way Trumps foreign is not fully in line with long standing imperialist strategy.
          Neocon/neoliberal imperialist foreign policy is very similar (although domestically they differ), Trumps foreign policy differs from both. Current US anti Russian policy is due not to Trump but to the establishments attacks on Trump.

          Trumps policy via Isrill is very similar to neoliberal/neocon policy, as is his policy with Saudi Arabia (with some differences).
          Where Trumps policy differs significantly is in Syria with the withdrawal of support for ISIS front groups. This reversal of policy of using Islamic extremists to destabilization the middle east is a serious disagreement with the neo-liberal/neocon establishment such as the US secret police and the Clinton’s. The other serious disagreement is on Europe and Russia, this is not a minor disagreement. This hinges on the $ reserve status the Euro and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

          With the collapse in the Soviet Union and the launch of the Euro the worry was (and is) the Euro replacing the $ as the reserve currency making it difficult for the US to finance its trade deficit with borrowing. A close trading relationship between the EU and Russia would be the end of $ reserve status, with the economies of the EU and Russia supplying what each other need for the EU to surpass the US as an economic power, particularly with the EU paying for Russian oil and gas with Euro. This is why long standing US strategy is to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. You could even regard the attacks on Yugoslavia by the Clinton administration as an attempt to weaken the Euro at its launch.

          The EU after all was a larger economy than the US before the last economic crisis, before its serious mismanagement with austerity stunted its recovery compared to the US. The UK as a member of the EU is central to this strategy in pushing for a more neo-liberal strategy and eastward expansion of the EU paving the way for eastward expansion of NATO.


          The other problem for the US establishment is in attacking both Russia and China at the same time undermines long standing US strategy in driving a wedge between Russia and China, (as Nixon did).

          This is why Obama came out for Remain, the UK being an agent for US interests, (which does not work if we leave).
          In even suggesting rapprochement with Russia and attacking the EU and tacit support for Brexit, Trump’s foreign policy is seriously out of line with US imperial interests, his policy would also mean the reduction of military build up and eastward expansion of NATO with serious financial implications for US arms sales. The US anti Russian strategy is really an coded attack on the EU, as Russia (being the 11th largest by GDP) is not a economic threat to the US, the EU is when in a close trading relationship with Russia.

          Undermining long standing US strategy to support the petrodollar by weakening the EU and the Euro by expanding NATO and driving a wedge between the EU and Russia and destabilizing the middle east with Islamic extremists makes Trumps some serious enemies in the US establishment and US military industrial complex. His policy is too unstable for their long term economic and imperial interests.

          • J

            If you squint hard enough, yes it is possible to see Trump as different. Open your eyes and you’ll see the factional interests which at war over their share of the cake, as you’ve partly described. Trump represents some of them. Clinton, others. Immaterial to the dead.

          • Reg

            No, this really misses the point, you have to understand them in their own terms.
            This painfully simplistic analysis shown here is a good part of the reason the left are so useless, as they project their own value systems on their enemies rather than understand their motivations and objectives in their own terms.
            You have to understand your enemies to beat them, you have to understand their differences to exploit them as they do to the left. You understand their differences, you can deal with them piecemeal.

            You do not have to regard Trump as your friend. But the establishment are at war with itself, this is a huge opportunity if the left has a thought between them and were not too busy virtue signalling for their status, to destroy the 3rd way neo-liberal New Democrats, before turning on the Republican establishment.

            Their are reasons why the Koch brothers fund the ‘resistance’ against Trump, and why Goldman Sachs support the Clinton’s. If you are a multinational bank such as Goldman Sachs, what you want is free movement of Capital, and the last thing you want is trade tariffs proposed by Trump. Have you got any idea how much money companies like Lockhead martin would lose with a US rapprochement with Russia?

            Hilary Clinton is certifiable, and her pushing the anti Russian agenda to cover up fraud in the DNC could easily end up in nuclear war, just imagine – and this is without her winning the presidency, just imagine if she had won?
            For those in power the difference is $Bns if not trillions, Stiglitz after all estimated the cost of the Iraq war as $3Tn.

            A more adult way to look at this, it is irrelevant whether you approve of Trump, is nuclear war more or less likely if Clinton had won? As she would of pushed NATO eastward, which is why I was pleased Trump won as Armageddon was more likely under Clinton, because she believes it, and was insane and self entitled enough to start a new cold war to further her political ambitions. Whereas it is all an act with Trump. If you had understood what I wrote, factional interests determine who and how many end up dead. The withdrawal of support from Isis front organizations will mean less of them, Clinton as president would of meant more. The encouragement of the far right in eastern Europe under Obama/Clinton(s) meant far more dead as the encouraged conflict in Yugoslavia, Georgia, and the Ukraine.

            One does not have to support Trump to understand these differences; a less simplistic analysis can recognize the destabilizing effects of recognizing Jerusalem, yet understand less of a likelihood of nuclear war is no small thing.
            There is no comparison between the dead caused by George W in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and Trump.
            If you have data from a reliable source indicating the number of civilian dead/year under Trump is higher, link to it.
            Try using that thing behind your eyes for things other than moralising.

            “U.S. Strikes Killed Nearly 500 Civilians in 2017, Pentagon Says”

            “Up to 15,000 people killed in invasion, claims thinktank” (invasion Iraq 2003)

      • dutch

        That doesn’t ring true. Neocons in the US have mainly been Likudnik Zionists. Interventionist principally in support of Israeli interests.

    • Dungroanin

      Ah ha ah ha ha ha – Not Hillary and Bill? Obama? Just look at their inner circles all the way back to their govenorships.
      Not the Bush’s? All establishment puppets who did as they were told to by Bibi and co. There is plenty of connections and proof if you are really interested. I don’t want to be accused of CT.
      Carter came close, but the last potus to not be caught up in the deep state ME collective was JFK.
      DJT may not be a shiny young Jack but he is equally not a professional whore of the bankers and MIC.
      Which other potus could have fired the head of the FBI and CIA and Sec of State amongst other dwellers of the traitorous swamp and lived?

      Trump called their bluff on Syria, the embassy issue, Korea…and keeps doing it. They have lost control of the narrative and if the gloves weren’t off before they certainly are now, infact looks like knuckledusters have been donned, while they break out the batons and worse weapons.
      The attack on Salmond is for obvious reasons: the same as the relentless barrage on JC personally.

      I think it is great that the deep state and the media whores, gatekeepers and damage limiters are forced out into the open – see them swarm! You know them by their actions.

      • Nick

        I don’t think you have to be a CT to see there is a vast web of corruption surrounding Hillary (and Bill and Bush), the Clinton Foundation, Obama and his administration.THE CIA of course, they’re everywhere. Dodgy dossiers, illegal FISA warrants, revolving doors between politics and business, sale of US uranium to Russia and so on.

        I suppose HRC made a lot of promises too which she now can’t keep.

        The way I look at it, we’ll find out one way or another soon enough.

        I’m not sure what (or who) Craig means by the establishment. Is that the respectable face of the “Deep State”? Is it monolithic?

    • Reg

      Neocons are not a homogeneous mass, in fact I really do not like the term as it obscures more than it illuminates as it is often misused.

      My understanding is this; this term is derived from liberalism also a much misunderstood term. Economic liberalism is the the first term primacy of market and the freedom to starve. Social liberalism is a much later offshoot from Gladstome where the market was imbued by rights for individuals. Neoclassical reaffirmed the primacy of the market but removed the emphasis on society as a whole contained in classical liberalism and reduced it all to consumer choice as a way of countering the rise of communism as Marxist theory is the the logical progression of classical economics of Adam Smith and Ricardo. Neoclassical economics was essentially rubbished by its failure in the 1929 crash, being superseded by Keynesian.

      Neo-liberalism was essentially a capitalist retrenchment against Keynesianism. Where a B* version of Keynisianism was assimilated by neoclassical theory. The important bit is this, neoconservatism is a reaction against neo-liberalism, and is a odd amalgam of neo-liberal/neoclassical theory and conservatism. The theory being that the pure market undermines social values such as respect for your family and country, neo-liberal ethos undermines social control of the lower orders. This split goes back to the Tory/Whig split, Tories were supporters of the king and the landed aristocracy, the Whigs from the civil war (later the liberals) were more mercantile/trade/manufacturing.

      Understanding the differences between neo-liberal and neoconservative and different arms of capitalism makes the hatred of Trump comprehensible from different parts of the US ruling class. Capitalism tends to monopoly speculative capitalism, and moves from productive to unproductive economy such as the finance sector as it is parasitic on the real economy. This is asset stripping, the poor the middle classes the manufacturing economy have all been striped, so where profit? So the two main arms of rentier capitalism are at war, the landlord class and the financier class. Trump a landlord represents neocon, landlord interests, Clinton represents globalist finance capitalism, neo-liberal interests. Bear in mind how many times Trump has gone bankrupt, to the banks, there is no love lost.

      In these large financial interests Israil is minor, apart from ensuring the destabilization of OPEC ensuring low oil prices.
      Neo-cons and neo-liberals have the same policy regarding Israil. Where the differences lie are Trump wants the primacy of Trade and manufacturing and the landlord class with protectionism, where as the Clinton’s neo-liberal agenda want the primacy of globalist free trade and finance. Even in the real economy some support the free market such as the Koch brothers campaigning against Trump.

      This is a squabble between different arms of Rentier capitalism over the division of the falling rate of profit

  • Iain

    It was time that the Civil Service swamp was drained many years ago. Why use nerve agents to destroy your political enemies when you can use the system to destroy often innocent people mentally and financially.

  • iain

    Very sorry to hear of your ordeal, Craig. That must have been horrendous to have to endure.
    But why do you think they have decided to go after Alec Salmond? Would it be because he does not toe the NeoCon establishment line on Russia, Syria et al, in the manner of his protege/successor?

    • Davie Hay

      It’s because the issue of Scotland’s independence is about to be front, right and centre again very shortly and this is an attempt to spike one of the biggest guns and create a schism in the Yes camp. No doubt Wings over Scotland will be having his comeuppance prepared as we speak…

    • Jo1

      Salmond said in May that he was ready to hit the campaign trail as soon as Nicola Sturgeon decided when the Indyref2 quest would begin.
      There are many in the SNP who have no time for Salmond (even although, without him, the Party would never have achieved that unheard of overall majority in the Scottish Parliament). There are others who still respect and admire him.
      What I find unacceptable in this case, and the many other similar cases, is this common theme where allegations suddenly arrive out of nowhere going back, in Salmond’s case, five years. It generally means it’s someone’s word against someone else’s and nothing is achieved other than the destruction of a reputation and character. We never actually get to the truth. Just lurid headlines and salivating journalists like the BBC’S awful Brian Taylor during his interview with Salmond today. Salmond kept his dignity which is more than I can say for tawdry Taylor.

      What’s peculiar is that some high-heid yin female at Holyrood, who is personally involved in the case, has today accused Salmond of “trying to gag” her. This is appalling given her role in the case and when she, officially, is not meant to be speaking publicly about it. That she’s publicly attacked him says a great deal. There will be a lot of anger about this and suspicion too. Sadly, there’s also much glee in the media. Fortunately, Salmond does not run from a fight. This could be a big one.

      • fiona mcrae

        well written, points well made. I also had my doubts about the amount of “information” this female was able to spout publically while Alex is in effect gagged. But he’s a clever man, he’s been around the block and he’s seen the utter depths of depravity that Westminster can sink to, he knows what’s coming, and if anyone can fight this off, it’s him. They’ve been waiting for the opportune moment to do this to him, and I totally agree with you, Indy 2 is ripe for growing, they know it, and they will try to discredit anyone, everyone, involved in it. It will be their downfall. Hell mend them.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Don’t see any need for this when the UK government does whatever it wants with troublemakers, killing them when it suits it, like the poor intelligence people on that Chinook helicopter at the Mull, or individuals like Dr. David Kelly, GCHQ hacker Gareth Williams, or Manchester Chief Constable Mike Todd: It’s so long that I won’t waste my time naming them.

    Trump is seen as a threat by the US establishment because he is not going along with its pretexts for getting rid of North Korea – what it calls treason. and may force it to carry out a dangerous, independent pre-emptive attack.

    • glenn_nl

      According to you, Trump was about to announce military action against NK many months back – remember?

      Since the US has been “getting rid of” NK for the last 70 years, why is there a sudden panic now because Trump isn’t doing it either?

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        I don’t think that the US has washed its hands about denuclesarizing North Korea by force. It’s still all up in the air, especially on a thread where Craig is being a bit paranoid about his treatment by the UK government when many others have been murdered.

  • Bill Marsh

    I find it somewhat ironic that Salmons is complaining about a government he has fought all his political life for.

    • Davie Hay

      It’s the civil service in Scotland. They serve the Scottish government but they are appointed by and answer to the UK government

        • Davie Hay

          “Civil service
          Scottish Government also includes a civil service that supports the Scottish ministers. According to 2012 reports, there are 16,000 civil servants working in core Scottish Government directorates and agencies.[15] The civil service is a matter reserved to the British parliament at Westminster (rather than devolved to Holyrood): Scottish Government civil servants work within the rules and customs of Her Majesty’s Civil Service, but serve the devolved administration rather than British government.[16]

          Permanent secretary
          Main article: Office of the Permanent Secretary (Scotland)
          The permanent secretary is the most senior Scottish civil servant, leads the strategic board, and supports the first minister and cabinet. The current permanent secretary is Leslie Evans, who assumed the post in July 2015.

          The permanent secretary is a member of Her Majesty’s Civil Service, and therefore takes part in the permanent secretaries management group of the Civil Service[17] and is answerable to the most senior civil servant in Britain”

          • Sharp Ears

            The UK’s senior civil servant is ill.

            Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood takes leave of absence for cancer treatment
            The UK’s most senior civil servant discovered he had the illness last year
            25 June 2018

            Sir Mark Sedwill is deputising, assisted by Manzoni ex BP and the Texas refinery explosion. Browne was on the panel that selected him.

            I saw a broadcast the other day where Manzoni was answering questions on Brexit. I looked up his antecedents. Staggering. Talk about gangsters-in-charge but no bar to his progress up the ladder to become CEO of the Civil Service where ‘ as of September 2015, Manzoni was paid a salary of between £230,000 and £234,999, making him one of the 328 most highly paid people in the British public sector at that time.’ More now surely? 🙂

            Therein lies the real power.


          • Jo1

            Leslie Evans is the woman who has today publicly accused Salmond of trying to “gag” her on the allegations about him. That she went public is an extraordinary breach on her part and one she should be challenged on as it suggests she is anything but impartial. She clearly has an agenda.

          • Jo1

            Yes, that’s right, she’s leading it. I think she breached protocol by attacking Salmond using that phraseology. He used the legal process to stop this going further without having seen the case against him. That seems reasonable to me. Her language however suggests she was seeking to damage him further and that’s a clear sign she has an agenda.

          • Charles Bostock

            I do wish people would stop coming out with silly expressions like “Her Majesty’s civil service – that says it all”.

            Now I would say that calling the civil service “Her Majesty’s” means that the civil service is the servant of the Head of State, who constitutionally in the UK is above party politics; which is another way of saying that the civil service is not at the service of any particular political party.

            I suspect, however, that “grafter” (surely a misnomer…?) has something else in mind. Would he care to tell readers exactly what “Her Majesty’s civil service” says to him? What is the “all” that the expression says?

  • Thepnr

    You write:
    ” I requested several times that my case be referred for police investigation but the FCO refused, whereas the Salmond allegations have been referred.”

    I’m not certain that the Salmond allegations have been referred as for as far as I know the only reference to the allegations having been reported to the police was by the Daily Record who broke the story. Other papers may then have followed suit but according to the statement by the Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans today I have doubts as to whether the allegations made against Alex Salmond have actually been brought to the attention of Police Scotland.

    “I informed Mr Salmond and the people involved on Wednesday, August 22 of my conclusions and that I was considering the public interest in making the fact of the complaints and investigation publically known.”


    She states that her intention was to make the complaints and investigation public and does not mention the police.

  • MJ

    What threat does Alex Salmond pose? He seems harmless enough. He even helped deliver the result of the independence referendum.

  • mike e

    ‘What I do not understand is why they see Trump as a threat to Establishment interests, as he has given no indication he means to follow through on any of his anti-establishment or non-interventionist campaign rhetoric’

    Or the press is refusing to talk about what is going on behind the scenes. For example, if John Huber was investigating Trump, then the press would be camped outside his house.

    • Dave

      Saying America First and Make America Great Again is thought crime and an inherent heresy to the Globalists!

  • Bill Reekie

    I will be disappointed if the Scottish Government has enabled this action by not questioning the Civil services new reporting / investigation procedures as they were developed. They don’t however appear to much different from the procedures you experienced some years ago. Very confusing. Nothing new there then.

    • Fiona McRae

      i look forward to watching that sting moment. He knows the establishment, he knows Westminster, he knows how low they will go to ‘get him’. They’ve been after him for nigh on 30 years. And ‘this’ is the best they can find? just shows you how clean he actually is, unlike most of the cesspit dwellers down in London town who attend WM, the true criminals, tax evaders, pedeophiles, and their ilk.

  • Muscleguy

    We can hope that Salmond’s attempt at a judicial review of the very similar if not identical strictures you suffered from results in change. They certainly do seem counter to any idea of natural justice, making the accused guilty before trial.

    Salmond hasn’t been in Holyrood for some time so why now? October is fast approaching and the Yoons are getting more and more scared of IndyRef2 and what the promised effects of Brexit will do.

    Tick tock John Bull, tick tock.

  • Tom

    I must say my first thought on seeing news of the accusation against Salmond was ‘he’s stepped out of line with the powers that be’. It seems to be the usual strategy to try to discredit people like Salmond and Corbyn who don’t toe the line. I am sorry to hear of your experiences, Craig.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    My understanding that the FBI had long ago opened a file on Manafort’s tax dodging but had shelved it as a low priority case. Only when Manafort teamed up with Trump was the file dusted off. Ironically Manafort is reputed to have sought the advice of “political rabbis” (possibly including Rodger Stone) prior to volunteering to work for Trump “for free”, and was told to stay clear as the Feds would start looking at the Ukrainian money trail again.

  • Sean Lamb

    ” What I do not understand is why they see Trump as a threat to Establishment interests”

    I think might be to do with the Swift Boat campaign hinted at in the Podesta emails and the Access Hollywood tape.

    The Access Hollywood tape – if you look at it even moderately closely – is fairly obvious fake. They have taken a genuine video and layered over an audio track at the beginning (with lots of continuity gaps in the video when the camera men outside the bus were chatting) and a piece of dialogue at the end (Billy Bush: “Give me my microphone”). Then add that to all the accusers who suddenly popped up in unison.

    Because it was a dirty trick so directly aimed at his self-image, it would be kind of hard to get him to overlook it. Hence the need to at least keep him off balance and dependent on reliable people like Bolton, Pence and Pompeo for advice. And hopefully shuffle him away from the levers of power as soon as possible.

  • James

    To Craig:
    I recall that in 2002 my British Council chum was “charged” with twelve bizarre “misdemeanours”, one of which was keeping a dirty bath tub.
    Not the place here to go into detail (that’s your prerogative) but it all sounds remarkably similar to treatment you faced when it all went sour. My friend, ironically, was called back from post to face these spurious allegations one week to the day after receiving his OBE.
    Subsequently, I knew one or two others in DS who had similar horror stories, but did not know of yours until I came across this blog quite recently. Were you in either Ankara or Belgrade between 1998 and 2002 at any time?
    Go well

  • Robert W

    This kind of attack goes on in institutional systems all the time. Until we ourselves are isolated as the scapegoat, the immoral bully or nest of bullies get away with gross injuries to people we may see or work with, and (until we ourselves are cast out) we do not realize that others we ‘know’ have been attacked and are suffering inside. They plod through the institution (the business, school, family, social group, political organization etc) or they leave, or they leave under a cloud, or worse – and in most cases they disappear from our thinking without us realizing they are the walking wounded. Usually we see the bully and bow down to the institution’s regime, but we pretend that is not the first stage of scapegoating. Graham Greene’s ‘The Comedians’ comes to mind as the novel that superbly lays out this pathology – so many of its characters have been wounded and so many pass like ships in the night among each other, unaware of the world wide web of scapegoating for which Haiti is but a delicate model of their times – and our times today.

  • Robert Graham

    I wonder how many people feel able to share what is after all private personal health issues ,The ill conceived prejudices preventing people being honest because of the obvious repercussions must prevent lots of folk speaking out , so thanks for your openness Craig .
    The item at hand has been reported on the BBCs website as Alex Salmond is taking the Scottish Government to court , not exactly correct , he is not taking Nicola Sturgeons government to court ,he is taking the civil service to court over its disciplinary procedures a big difference in public perception there , that no doubt the BBC are keen to make clear ” no laughing at the back now ” .
    A perfect time to deflect heat away from Mrs Mayhem and Corbyn who are in real difficulty with their respective problems , so a little entertaining sideshow must be wellcome by both right now , the involvement of the security services in providing information cant at this stage be discounted , it’s what they do and have successfully done in the past

    • Stu

      You had better tell Nicola because she sees it differently

      “Alex Salmond is now challenging the Scottish Government’s procedure in court. The Scottish Government refutes his criticisms of its process and will defend its position vigorously.”

  • Weechid

    I feel for you Craig and now for Alex Salmond. What the hell can we do and how can we get people to believe that the establishment are the complete an utter bastards that they are. Folk just accuse us of conspiracy theories if we try to state these facts. I really wish there was some way to rip up their cloak of invisibility and reveal their heinous crimes for all to see, leaving no doubt of their guilt.

  • Charles Bostock

    I’m rather confused – this post starts off with Alec Salmond, then rapidly moves on to a lot of Murray-biography, then goes on to safe members of the establishment elite and finally crosses the Atlantic to end up with Manafort and Trump.

    I realise that, once again, the net is being thrown as widely as possible – a common trick of Craig’s.

    I’ll not speculate on the reasons for casting such a wide net (I think most sceptics on here can work out why) but will confine myself to noting the following : Craig being unable to defend himself (as described) did not prevent him being found not guilty of all the original charges brought against him, Has Craig any reason to believe that this will not be the case also with Mr Salmond? In other words, does he doubt that justice will prevail, as it did in his case (re the original charges)?

    • james

      hey charles… you are so out to lunch and unable to appreciate what craig is saying.. i guess empathy isn’t your strong suit.. if this was to happen to you, i would be curious if afterwards you would have a different view?

      • Charles Bostock

        Thank you for that, James, but you misunderstand me completely. The key word is “empathy” (which you accuse me of being without – do we know each other, by the way?). Of course I would be pissed off if the same thing happened to me ( if I was innocent, of course). The problem with this post of Craig’s is precisely that it is too infused by empathy. The allegations against both Craig and Mr Salmond have inappropriate sexual conduct in common and that is why Craig seems so exercised. But the fact is that Craig was cleared of all the original charges, whereas this is not (yet, at least) the case with Mr Salmond. Hence the empathy, at this stage at least, might usefully have been reined in somewhat. Hope that clarifies and all the best to you.

        • james

          charles – thanks for your additional comments.. i think the idea is one is not guilty until proven to be.. at least that is the world i would like to live in.. in both examples it would seem an attempt to colour both characters in a negative light while giving them no recourse to challenge the details publicly is a type of injustice in itself.. for that i have empathy and for anyone who suffers this type of action from the state… i would prefer to live in a world where people are innocent until proven guilty and where people have the right to speak publicly if the charges against them are made public..

          this reminds me so much of the hypocritical nature of the uk and usa gov’t today.. the uk gov’t can claim russia is responsible for the skripal affair without anything concrete to back it up and both countries continue to levy sanctions in the absence of any proof… i am sure you can see the wrongness in this.. it is the same with how craig murray was treated and it is the very same with alex salmond here..apparently you just can’t see this.. all i can say is having faith in western gov’ts at this point in time is a real fools game… you are welcome to it, but i will not be condoning it…

          • Charles Bostock


            And thank you for yours!

            ” i would prefer to live in a world where people are innocent until proven guilty and where people have the right to speak publicly if the charges against them are made public.. ”

            I quite agree. Is there anything in my posts which says the opposite? But is it not Craig who implies that Mr Salmond is innocent, seemingly on the basis of his treatment (I have commented on his treatment in another post which you perhaps haven’t seen)?

          • james

            charles, i think the idea of innocence prior to conviction has to be upheld…as for craig and salmonds treatment – it does indeed imply the opposite! at present the justice system as practiced in the uk-usa is a type of punishment prior to any conviction… i think this is what craig has articulated well in his article and it still seems to me that you want to challenge this, or see it differently.. it was the same with bradley/chesea manning where they were kept in solitary confinement prior to any trial… mans inhumanity to man is not something to be taken lightly and i do believe the state has undue power compared to that of the individual citizen.. it is for this reason among others that i will side with those who are in the weaker position, especially in the absence of proof of any guilt…

    • SA

      As usual you are pretending to be naive. Remember that the accusations caused Craig great anguish and a breakdown, which he has been brave enough to admit. This is not really justice. Secondly Craig ended up losing his job and an end to his career, whilst those condoning the torture he opposed, went on unpunished to this day. This is a perversion of justice not justice.

    • Sharp Ears

      Such arrogance. It is Craig’s own blog and he can write what he damn well likes without your permission or your snide remarks.

      • Charles Bostock

        Of course he can write what he likes. And it must also be recorded that he is quite liberal in his approach to comments and virtually never tells people what they mustn’t write. Unlike some people one could mention….

    • Keith

      “…will confine myself …”.

      Yep, best you do that chum.

      Btw, is your End Of Year ‘Wow’ score based on the number of bites you get?

      Happy to help, times are tough 🙂

    • Clark

      Justice did NOT prevail, because the charges against Craig were a distraction, from the crimes of the UK and US governments’ collusion in torture.

      Yes, Craig was cleared, but the torture matter was “old news” by then. Which was precisely the sort of “damage limitation” that was intended in making false charges.

      • Nick

        Well put.Part threat/intimidation too. I can’t imagine how bad it was to be shafted by the organisation you’ve worked for and and believed in for years.

      • Charles Bostock

        Really? I believe the FCO brought charges against Craig BEFORE Craig went public.

        Which rather destroys your thesis, doesn’t it.

  • Charles Bostock

    Oh, this is interesting – from The Guardian (apologies for that):

    “It then emerged that Salmond had sought an interdict on Thursday against the Scottish government to stop it disclosing the harassment allegations. He later dropped that action and instead launched proceedings to have a judicial review of its handling of the claims.”

    So Mr Salmond wanted the allegations to be hushed up. Is that not the sort of behaviour widely condemned when, for example, randy footballers seek to suppress public reporting of misbehaviour they’re accused of?

    • defo

      Mud sticks, and persists. That’s why he’s been targeted, and why (as CM explains) AS would want to “suppress” it. As his brief no doubt advised.
      As per, the Headline is all that matters.
      You know all this fine and well H, but a job’s a job so….
      Carry on smearing 🙂
      Auntie is making hay today!

      • Charles Bostock

        But wouldn’t mud also stick to randy footballers (and that has never been said on here athough randy footballers have occasionally come up on here)?

      • Jo

        I suspect Craig could have been “got”.

        But Salmond seems totally random in timing.

        Just maybe he is a sexually inappropriate old git, wouldn’t be unusual for men in power, and the victim has finally found the courage and support to call him out.

        Not everything is a false flag or conspiracy.

        Just a thought.

    • Republicofscotland


      I see you omitted this bit from the Guardian, and why you didn’t link to it.

      “In his statement, Salmond indicated he had been in protracted and intense negotiation with Evans, and suggested he had sought to avoid taking formal action.”

      “He said: “The permanent secretary chose to deny me contact with any current civil servant, many of whom wished to give evidence on my behalf, and access to documentation to allow me to properly challenge the complaints, all of which I refute and some of which were patently ridiculous.”

      “Claiming the actions were grossly unfair, Salmond said he had launched the judicial review with reluctance: “The procedure as put into operation by the permanent secretary is grossly unfair and therefore inevitably will lead to prejudicial outcomes.”

      “He added: “[If] the court of session finds in my favour then the administration at the senior levels of the Scottish government will have the most serious questions to answer.”


  • Achnababan

    You are so right Craig. I tell all my students ‘scratch a millionaire and you’ll find a criminal’.

    Best to put up 2 fingers up to those civil servants – they know nought and care less. More power tae ye!

    • CanSpeccy

      “I tell all my students ‘scratch a millionaire and you’ll find a criminal’.

      I guess that’s why we have Antifa and BLM trying to tear the US apart: their teachers are idiots and no-nothings, driven by spite to lie inanely about anyone better off than their miserable selves.

      • Dom

        Your guess is wildly wrong and suggests a deeply reactionary mind, to put it mildly. Antifa exist to oppose marches by neo-Nazis; BLM exists to protest the cold-blooded murder of Black people by cops.

        • Anon1

          In a year,

          0.77 of every one million blacks in the US will be murdered by white people.

          54 of every one million blacks in the US will be murdered by black people.

          10 of every one million whites in the US will be murdered by black people.

          • glenn_nl

            Poverty among the black population in America is very much higher than their white counterparts, for historical reasons. The average wealth of white families is about 10 times that of black and Hispanic families, even with comparable levels of education. Increased crime among the poor with such high income disparity is not surprising.

          • Dungroanin

            Here doggy, come here, listen to this whistle goddam you mutt.

            Lets be having the links to all your ‘facts’

          • FranzB

            I found this quote from a channel 4 fact check.

            “As we found yesterday, 93 per cent of black victims were killed by blacks and 84 per cent of white victims were killed by whites.

            Alternative statistics from the FBI are more up to date but include many crimes where the killer’s race is not recorded. These numbers tell a similar story.”

            The statistics are from a 1980 – 2008 study, but as Channel 4 points out, more up to date statistics aren’t as rich. (“According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84 percent of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93 percent of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders.”)


            Surprised that anon1 is going on about race. I thought his bag was to show that immigration is a bad thing.

        • CanSpeccy

          Certainly not wrong about the vicious imbecility of people like Achababan.

          Did you know the average wage in London is now near a thousand quid a week, which means that hundreds of thousands of people in London could save a million quid out of their salary over a period of years, even without adding to it through investment.

          Some people devote their lives to warping the minds of students, others devote their time to getting money through various useful forms of employment.

      • Disinterested Bystander

        You’re a Canadian blogger complaining about two minority political groupings in the USA on a British website with an article about a Scottish politician. You’ve come to the wrong place pal. Try Guido Fawkes’ website for your ramblings. You’d be in your element over there.

        • CanSpeccy

          You mean you can’t actually think of any argument to justify the silliness of those here, including sadly on this occasion, Craig Murray, who say that anyone who has accumulated any wealth must be a criminal. In fact, as Samuel Johnson wisely remarked:

          “There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money.”

          As for Guido Fawke’s Website, where from your familiarity with it we can assume you must hang out, I’ve never heard of it,

  • james

    thanks craig.. the uk is one messed up country, but as you note – the mueller investigation is being used in a similar manner with regard to manafort… you are absolutely correct – “the financial affairs of the vast majority of the wealthy and powerful would not stand up to close investigation and scrutiny. ” witch hunts are popular these days…

  • Jo1

    I’m not comfortable with your assertion on the Christine Thomson case. Ms Thomson’s business was absolutely a party to various mortgage applications made in their name for properties being purchased by them. The solicitor acting on their behalf and following their instructions took the fall and was struck off. Ms Thomson and her colleagues simply weren’t charged.
    The full details concerning the extent to which Ms Thomson’s company misled mortgage lenders concerning loans they applied for are online. There are also documents signed by Ms Thomson recording her instructions to the solicitor.
    I worked in the mortgage industry for six years. There are solicitors who will follow a lender’s instructions to the letter but there are others who will agree, for a fee, to bend the rules. Ms Thomson’s guy was one such solicitor and he’d already been caught doing it previously. Which was why the Disciplinary Committee finally struck him off when the thirteen cases involving Ms Thomson and her partners came to their attention. The details of those mortgage applications are all on the Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s website. The documents are too. The solicitor took the fall because he was meant to spot that Ms Thomson’s instructions breached the terms of the mortgage offers he completed on, and instead, he looked the other way. That doesn’t make Ms Thomson innocent, it makes her lucky to have avoided being charged along with her partners.

      • Jo1

        Yes, I beg your pardon. I meant Michelle Thomson, not Christine.
        I’m aware she was not charged. That may imply innocence for those who did not study the case brought against the solicitor who acted on her behalf and who complied with her instructions in thirteen cases. Instructions which breached the mortgage offer conditions and which therefore failed to comply with the lender’s requirements. As I said in the earlier post, the findings are all there on the Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal website along with the relevant documents. The transactions involved “back to back” purchases which lenders were not made aware of in the mortgage applications signed by Ms Thomson and her partners. The profits made from all of these were forwarded straight to Ms Thomson’s company bank account by the solicitor. Again, the documentation is all there.
        So, yes, I accept she wasn’t charged but the evidence on the relevant website shows that innocent she was not! It’s all there in the detail. That’s why I see no parallel between her case and Salmond’s situation.

    • craig Post author

      Declaration of interest – I believe I was very slightly acquainted with the solicitor in question at university.
      I understand what you are saying. But the case was presented by the media as poor people being paid below market value for properties by a rapacious landlord. In fact, that was not at all the case. The allegation was rather that the sellers were paid the market price, but that a subsequent transaction was set up in which the property was re-sold for an artificially inflated value, in effect to the same party now selling, in order to gain mortgage funds. If true, the mortgage company would have suffered only in the sense that their security on the mortgage was less than they had supposed.
      The problem with that scenario is that there should have been a mortgage valuation on which the mortgage company acted, and any inflated price would have been revealed by that valuation.
      The more fundamental problem in the case of Michelle Thomson is that no evidence of her doing anything wrong was ever adduced and she was never questioned, let alone charged.

  • james

    who cooks these types of charges up anyway? is this something theresa may would oversee? chatham house? salem witch hunt ancestors? who cooks this stuff up?

    • Dungroanin

      The modern Inquisitions.

      Consisting of spooks, PR and MSM high priests who are employed in the service of the global robber barons (often ‘led’ by the same – that is why they are so crap!)

    • Charles Bostock


      “who cooks these types of charges up anyway? is this something theresa may would oversee? chatham house? salem witch hunt ancestors? who cooks this stuff up?

      Who cooked up the charges against Greville Janner? Against Edward Heath? Against Harvey Weinstein? Against numerous other people who have been found guilty of inappropriate sexual behaviour?

      The answer, as any fule no, would seem to be the people who claim to have been the victims of that inappropriate sexual behaviour.

      Not difficult to understand, surely?

  • Charles Bostock

    It seems to me that every public body (and that includes the civil service) has its own mechanisms – rules and procedures – for handling (in the widest sense) and investigating allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour….or, indeed, other forms of professional misconduct. Now, one might accuse some of those rules and procedures of being against the rules of natural justice, but it seems unlikely (I may be wrong) that anyone who has worked for a public body can say that he or she did not know what they were. Are they not part, so to speak, of the contract of employment?

    I also find that when Craig says that ” I don’t doubt we will see years of this nonsense(ie, the police keeping an investigation running for several years) against Salmond before it is finally dismissed” he is in fact saying that Mr Salmond is innocent. It would be interesting to learn from Craig how he knows Mr Salmond is innocent. Craig may very well hope and believe that the accusations are nonsense (as most of us probably do) but I find it difficult to believe that he is in a better position at this stage to assert Mr Salmon’s innocence than I am, or than any other member of the general public is for that matter (very willing to be proved wrong here, of course).

    • joeblogs

      Another barmy comment from CB, obtuse as ever:
      “I also find that when Craig says that ” I don’t doubt we will see years of this nonsense(ie, the police keeping an investigation running for several years) against Salmond before it is finally dismissed”” he is in fact saying that Mr Salmond is innocent. It would be interesting to learn from Craig how he knows Mr Salmond is innocent.”

      Maybe CB is unfamiliar with UK law, or does not live in the UK.
      We are all innocent of any charge until proven guilty – and the burden of that proof lies with the prosecution. Therefore, Mr. Salmond, presently, is innocent. And this is how Mr. Murray knows Mr. Salmond is innocent – the law says so.

      I don’t think we have quite reached that point of a totalitarian administration where someone is ‘oublietted’ on the say-so of a faceless mandarin, just yet. Perhaps standards are different in CB’s country – how does CB know Mr. Salmond is guilty, as he seems to imply? A very efficient secret police network, presumably.

      • Charles Bostock

        @ Joeblogs

        Your reply is really a symphony of silliness, a minuet of misinformation. an arpeggio of anger.

        1) “Therefore, Mr. Salmond, presently, is innocent. And this is how Mr. Murray knows Mr. Salmond is innocent – the law says so.”

        Of course he is innocent until proved guilty, ie innocently presently (as you say) – have I said the contrary? But how does that basic principle of law justify Craig’s confident assertion that Mr Salmond will actually be found innocent at the end of the process? It is not on the basis of disapproving of the investigation mechanism or the leaking of the existence of that investigation that anyone can find Mr Salmond either innocent or guilty.

        2) More generally, a commenter’s country of residence is irrelevant. Were it relevant, there should be far fewer comments on here, for example, about Israel/Palestine because 99% of the commenters on Israel/Palestine have never been to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, never mind being resident in any of those territories.


          • Charles Bostock

            You are very wise to do so because your “case” (well, not really a case” – more of a snort of anger) has been demolished. Try harder next time 🙂

    • MaryPaul

      the rules governing sexual misconduct, being applied to Alex Salmond, appear to have been introduced retrospective to his time in office and the disciplinary procedures being used seem to have been set up in December 2017. In case which he will have be unaware of either at the time of the alleged offences.

      • Jo1

        All true MaryPaul.

        The new code was introduced at the end of last year.

        That said, even for cases arising after its introduction, there are issues. Civil Servants lead these investigations. For an ordinary Civil Servant they would be interviewed by a manager (and have representation present) and be told of the allegations made. They would be told who had made the allegations too and they would also be asked if anyone else could be called as a witness. If they named anyone then those people would be interviewed too.

        Salmond’s case has been very different. The woman leading it who goes by the male spelling of the name Leslie Evans, hasn’t allowed any involvement of his witnesses for him. She also went to the Scottish media today claiming that Salmond had tried to “gag” her by seeking some sort of injunction to stall the process when, in fact, he wanted recognition that he wasn’t being allowed to properly defend himself!

      • Charles Bostock

        Mary Paul

        You appear to be well informed, so perhaps you could help out further.

        Are you saying that at the time of the alleged offences, there were no rules governing sexual misconduct, or are you saying that there were rules but not the same rules as at present (the rules you say were introduced retrospectively)?

        While awaiting your clarifications, I will limit myself to offering my opinion that inappropriate sexual behaviour should not occur – and not be tolerated in any organisation whether or not there are formal rules against it in that organisation. People should have the manners and self-restraint not to abuse their position vis a vis female colleagues.

  • Chris Abbott

    Passing reference to “Saint” Tessa Jowell, and quite an old article re her on off husband. I’ve always thought the chain Blair-Jowell-Mills-Berlusconi to be interesting, not least financially.

    • James

      When I was in Beijing in 2003, Tessa Howell was humorously referred to as “The Minister for Shopping”, due to her unnecessarily numerous trips to China, during which she spent at least half her time trawling through markets and nascent shopping malls, buying up treasure at knock down prices.
      I remember seeing her on BBC News at Ten sporting an impressive pearl necklace and handbag she’d bought a few days earlier. I knew this, as I’d been roped in by the Ambo’s wife to accompany her on one of these shopping sprees. I think she was getting a bit fed up with the Minister, who was, as I recall, a slightly humourless bore.

  • Anon1

    Because it is a liberal establishment and Trump represents a catastrophic and potentially terminal threat to the established liberal order. He is an absolute disaster for globalism, free-movement of labour and mass-immigration, identity politics and political correctness. All the things you support in other words.

  • Sharp Ears

    Alex Salmond’s most recent RT programme was broadcast yesterday. Very interesting.

    Alex Salmond asks ‘What now for Catalonia?’
    In this final part of his series from Barcelona, Alex meets some of Catalonia’s leading poets and journalists and delves further into the independence issue with Professor Carles Boix, of Princeton University.
    The Alex Salmond Show broadcasts every Thursday on RT International at 07:30, 18:30 and 23:30 (GMT) on SKY 511 and FREEVIEW 113.

    The two previous ones on Catalonia were:

    Alex Salmond meets three of the world’s leading economists…
    Continuing a three-part series on Catalonia, Alex Salmond speaks to three of the world’s leading economists who have intervened in the Catalan constitutional debate. They give their views on the economics of an independent Catalonia, the…
    Aug 16, 2018

    Alex Salmond’s exclusive interview with Catalonia’s new President
    President of Catalonia, Quim Torra, explores the terms of a possible breakthrough in negotiations with new Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, in an exclusive interview with Alex Salmond.
    Aug 9, 2018

  • Anon1


    How do you know they are false, Craig? You may well have been innocent, but you don’t know Alex Salmond is.

    • Kempe

      Of course they’re false. Alex is one of the good guys. If had been a senior Tory we’d be on the fourth page of demands to string him up on the nearest lamp post.

    • Charles Bostock

      Exactly. The flaw in Craig’s post – and I’n certain it wasn’t a mere oversight – is that Craig is drawing an analogy between his case and that of Salmond and using that anaolgy to pronounce Salmond innocent.

      Craig was found innocent but that does not mean that Salmond is.

  • Barbara Brown

    I was accused of fiddling my travel expenses. I had never claimed travel expenses as I don’t drive. My lawyer kept this up his sleeve as long as he could. My accuser lost her job. However I think they are going for Mr Salmond as he is not afraid to speak up and he has a large media following on the radio and Russia Today. That makes him a threat as he can’t be bought.

1 2 3 5

Comments are closed.