The Long Dark Night of the Soul 485

As many of you will already know, I was excluded from the public gallery of the Alex Salmond trial yesterday. Inside the High Court, in the queue to enter the courtroom, I was suddenly taken aside by the police and told I was barred. The prosecution had made an application to the judge for an order for my removal which the judge had agreed, over a “possible contempt of court.”

I asked the police – who were very pleasant – if they could tell me where the possible contempt lay, but they had no information. Later I phoned the court and was eventually phoned back by the clerk of the court, who was also very pleasant, but he could not tell me where the possible contempt lay either. He could however tell me I was excluded for the duration of the case, not just for the day.

I have to say that I find this process very unsatisfactory. To be excluded from a public trial on the basis of something I have “possibly” done, when nobody will even specify what it is I have “possibly” done, seems to me a very strange proceeding. I can only assume that it is something I have written on this blog as there has been no incident or disturbance of any kind inside the courtroom. But if the judge is genuinely concerned that something I have written is so wrong as to necessitate my exclusion, you would expect there would be a real desire for the court to ask me to amend or remove that wrong thing. But as nobody will even tell me what that wrong thing might “possibly” be, it seems only reasonable to conclude that they are not genuinely concerned, in a legal sense, about something I have written.

I will state openly that if the court asked me to remove or change anything I have written, I would certainly do that. But they have not asked me. They have just chucked me out without explanation. I do not find that satisfactory. It also seems to me very strange indeed, and quite contrary to natural justice, that the prosecution and the judge were formally discussing in secret a motion for my exclusion, while I was standing right outside their door. I was not given a hearing, allowed to be present, or even told it was happening. They knew I was there because the police then came straight to me. That seems to me contrary to all principles of natural justice. I am not a terrorist who needed to be secretly surveilled and dealt with in camera while excluded.

I do not doubt the judge may have the legal powers to do this. But the law is then wrong. Not to mention that this behaviour is extremely discourteous – she should at least have called me in and told me why. That would have taken a minute. And I then could also have removed any material she wished.

All of which – and the threat of prosecution for contempt which carries a maximum sentence of two years in jail – is very unpleasant. But what is far worse is the terrible feeling of helplessness that has resulted. I have scarcely slept at all this night, and it really was a dark night of the soul. Having seen the crushing power of the state operate against both Julian Assange and Alex Salmond in the last month has been dreadful. It is of course, at a philosophical level, the state’s use and abuse of its monopoly of violence, including the violent enforcement of deprivation of liberty. I am excluded from the court by the state’s monopoly of violence, as I would discover very soon if I attempted to re-enter. I find the violence of the state, and its enforcement by officialdom, a more brutal and horrible thing than personal violence, which I abhor. It has kept me awake, in a sea of desolation, to think that how Julian and Alex feel tonight must be a million times worse than I am feeling, which is bad enough.

But it is also the helplessness. In both the Assange and Salmond cases, I felt strongly that by bringing the full and detailed facts of the court proceedings into the light, I was at least doing something for truth and honesty. The detailed accounts I could write in each instance presented a picture that was entirely different to the selective and horribly skewed view of the proceedings being fed to the populace by the state and corporate media. Even if my accounts reached only a few thousand people, a world where a few thousand people know the truth is better than a world of absolute darkness, by a factor of infinity.

Being deprived of that ability at least to hold a little candle in the darkness, at least to bear quiet witness to the truth, has just left me also in darkness. That is where I have been all night, unsleeping, fevered and restless. And today I shall not be in court.

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]


Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

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>

485 thoughts on “The Long Dark Night of the Soul

1 2 3 8
  • Rhys Jaggar

    It is important that you name the Counsel for the Prosecution.

    It is imperative that everyone has the chance to know who the unprincipled scumbag is, so that they can inform them in choice words that their commitment to uphold principles of law and natural justice fall rather short of that shown by Mick Jagger to fidelity within marriage.

    I would certainly never give such a ratarse professional work and I would hope that thousands would feel similar to me.

    The best way to counter such people is to shun them entirely: deny them professional custom, refuse to speak to them at public/social gatherings; actively turn away from them if they approach you.

    You know: all those non-violent extremely assertive forms of shunning.

    See how they get on with that sort of behaviour……..I am sure they have lots of unprincipled greasy pole climbers to surround themselves with. At least as long as the current SNP administration occupies Holyrood………

    • John A

      The more I see of the current situation with Assange, Manning and Salmond, the fixing of Saunders – who won every primary which had paper ballots counted in public and lost all the ones with electronic voting machines, not to mention closing voting venues at the last minute in areas where Saunders would have got most votes, the more I think this entire coronavirus is about an exercise in controlling the population and keeping them sheeplike.

    • Tom Welsh

      Unfortunately, Rhys, those who enjoy the favour of government are relieved of the need to seek popularity or employment. The central function of government is to take wealth away from those who produce it and give it to those who do not.

      Why solicit payment, when you can demand it at gunpoint?

      • don marr

        An extremely right-wing position!
        Life’s not fair.
        Redistribution is always required.

  • Margaret

    Whatever happened to that old adage “Justice must not only be done, justice must be seen to be done”.

    • DunGroanin

      It is superseded by that other old adage –

      The Law is an Ass.

      And now it has been seen to be so in both proceedings – the judges have been to shown to be unblindfolded and partisan.

  • Minority Of One

    I am left wondering, is our court system really so different from that in current day Russia or the early days of Nazi Germany?

      • David

        Russia is and will always remain, quite corrupt.
        Russian citizens know this, and they are aware of how much reliance to put on events and tales.

        UK is skilled at hiding its corruption, and the citizens are just not aware.

        • Tom Welsh

          “Russia is and will always remain, quite corrupt”.

          Your dogmatism is showing, David. (And perhaps racism…?)

          It seems unlikely that you know enough about Russia today to be able to assert credibly that all of it is “quite corrupt”.

          But it is utterly impossible that you should be able to predict the future.

          • Minority Of One

            There have been plenty of books detailing Russian corruption within the Russian mafia state over the last 20 years or so, probably the best still Anna Politkovskaya’s “Putin’s Russia”, published in 2004.
            Shortly after I read her book, I saw her speak at the Edinburgh Book Festival. At that time, many business folks, politicians (e.g. Galina Vasilyevna Starovoytova, assassinated Nov 2008), lawyers and journalists were dying, often by a bullet in the back of the head.
            When I saw Anna, and having read her book, I could not help but think she was a dead person walking, and indeed she was assassinated shortly after, in Oct 2006.
            Martin Sixsmith’s “Putin’s Oil: The Yukos Affair and the Struggle for Russia” (2010) is also a very eye-opening read, about how the courts were used not only to crush Mikhail Khodorkovsky but also quite a few of Yukos’ employees.
            There are many decent books to choose from.
            Having said that, I am not sure that the USA is that much different. “The American Trap” (2019) by Fabienne Larouche and Michel Trudeau details similar shenanigans in the USA.

          • Minority Of One

            >>Galina Vasilyevna Starovoytova, assassinated Nov 2008

            Galina Vasilyevna Starovoytova, assassinated Nov 1998

            I was in St Petersburg in Dec 1998 and went to visit her grave.

          • Deepgreenpuddock

            you obviously know bugger all about what happens in Russia. Business is carried out by institutional bribery. The income of officials is largely made up of bribes.

        • David

          I met “Mr Big” in a Kazakh town centre, ages ago. An accidental relative brought me along unknowingly to bump up their case for owning bus-service number ninety nine. I did not participate in the ritual, just observed it. I neither was for the bus permit, nor against it. I had seen things like this desrcibed in the fictional world of Ian Rankin’s “Rebus” and I guess an analogue would be that this was “Big Ger” Cafferty. Before I met Mr Big, was frisked by the ‘muscle’ before getting into his sumptous palace/office in a remote northern town, close to Siberia. I don’t think I was offered tea. I remain shocked to have so openly met a “fictional” character or rôle.

          My Russian friends (I have many, as I do American friends, and UKUSA wonks) are the one who gave me the phrase “Russia has always been corrupt, currently is, and always will be” but the important take-away from this comment sub-thread has been missed, Russian people know about all of their governments lying and trickery. UK people do not (that’s actually reinforced by Craig’s post above on the AS trial political Blacklist)

          I’m not trying to push awareness on the British folk, that’s their matter…I’m just mentioning it as I respond in a short way to a previous comment that did nudge anti-russian sentiment. I’m not nudging partial ideas, I’m advising the way it is. Everyone still has a complete right to their own opinion, however wacky.

          • Minority Of One

            >> I respond in a short way to a previous comment that did nudge anti-russian sentiment

            I presume you mean my comment re the Russian courts. Given that my wife is a Russian citizen I could hardly be more pro Russian. Just like here in the UK, it is the elite I have an issue with, and their cronies in the security / legal systems (in Russia and here most people in the security / legal systems are probably decent folks, but that is not the point).

            >>Russian people know about all of their governments lying and trickery. UK people do not
            A lot of Russians do not, and they don’t care. Life got better for most Russians after Putin took charge – it could hardly have got much worse under Yeltsin and the oligarchs. Putin is still very popular, for now.
            I agree with your comment on UK people. I find it disheartening that so many people think Russia has a dodgy government and main stream media, but we do not. If it were not for Craig I would not know about all the shenanigans regarding Julian Assange, which make me think we are in a situation not dissimilar to the early years of Nazi Germany. The most worrying aspect for me is the cahoots of the entire Mainstream media.

  • kit bee

    Take heart Craig- you have done your best.
    It would have been great to hear from you the Defence summing up but that is not to be.
    The Jury will hear it and I am sure that the prosecution case will be demolished.

    Beyond Reasonable Doubt?- NEVER.

  • Tom kane

    Craig, it’s more than a little candle you have brought to us. We have a gigantic debt of gratitude to you.

    I don’t know if you know the story of the Mahabharata… The great Indian epic of the unnecessary war between two sets of cousins which eventually involved the whole world. Some bad stuff took place, and the central diplomatic/warrior hero Krishna, after achieving victory for dharma… The righteous code of life… Was cursed by the mother of slain warriors, that everything he had done would crumble, and be degraded in time. His family, his friends, his life, his achievements.

    He accepted it… But his final word was a light would be saved. And that it would be enough for mankind.

    This little candle is fabulous, Craig. Sleep well, stay safe, and thank you. You are a star.

  • Neil

    Is there anyone else there in Edinburgh who could take over Craig’s reporting role? I doubt they’d be as good as Craig, but something is better than nothing…

    • Tom Welsh

      I have an insidious suspicion that anyone who published their account of the trial in this blog would quickly find themselves excluded.

      • Blue Dotterel

        Actually, I am wondering why the defence can’t find a means to report the trial to the public, either with their own “press” in the gallery or publically consious citizens.

  • Rod

    Although I can’t fully comprehend how you feel I have certainly glimpsed similar feelings myself. You have my huge respect. Without even beginning to go into your reporting as a whole, your last post gave me incredibly important insights into this case.

  • John

    I think you are a very brave man Craig for your balanced reporting in the face of deep state hostility. I am both with you and happy to support your efforts. YNWA

  • Pat M

    Craig, firstly, thank you for the light you shine. You do more good than you know, and those of us out in the darkness of the smoke and lies of government look to you for guidance and understanding. Please don’t get disheartened.

    Secondly, as you are not now in court, could you cast your expert eye over the Coronavirus bill and tell us what you think? This bill is one of the most alarming things I have read in a while, especially the section on the postponement of elections and referendums. I think that Dominic Cumming has taken the bill he intended for the implementation of Brexit and stuck ‘Coronavirus’ at the top. Can you tell us from this bill if independence referendums would be included in the criteria set out? Sorry to increase your work load, but we need to understand what this bill means very quickly.

  • Craig Evans


    Is it not possible to challenge this ban even if you miss the rest of the trial, surly this act cannot go unchallenged?

  • Neil


    Is there any means or way or mechanism to make a formal appeal/application to the judge to have the decision reversed? Or reviewed by a higher judge?

  • Kula

    Craig, time to look after yourself and your family. The paedos are desperate and Salmond is in their crosshairs. You must be doing something right if they feel the need to silence you.

  • David

    You have done, and are doing, fantastic work Craig, greatly appreciated by a huge number of people.
    Stay strong, open the blinds, there’s lovely sunlight out there: let it wash over and replenish you, and let your family and friends renourish your spirits.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    Feel free to sign this, one and all…

    Title: ‘Excluding Craig Murray from the Alex Salmond trial courthouse is unacceptable’

    Petition to James Wolffe QC (senior Law Officer in Scotland) and Nicola Sturgeon MSP

    • Frans is operating their server with a US IP-Adress. is a US based entity. Even if we assume to be operated independently from it, the US is a policestate that has abondoned their citizens civil rights by cancelling their right of privacy. Data you send there will be automatically sucked up and profiled by NSA. You can’t tell when and where these will use the files they got on you against you. To enter any petition with means handing over your name and emailadress over to those people for granted. I don’t think this is a good idea. US is the wrong place. Go find a petition platform that operates in a country that has a minimum policy of data protection.

    • nevermind

      something wrong already with the petition, its sending you round in circles, tried three times. but thanks anyway Rhys. I think sending the bikers round the court for an hour will be heard and seen, should that be possible.

    • Brianfujisan

      Cheers Rhys

      The petition seems to be working now, it was 122 before I tried it and 123 after.

  • Phil E

    Clearly power can’t abide the light of truth and transparency. Freedom of speech is shown to be a hollow sham. Justice is not blind, it has both eyes open to protect itself from those exposing its shady secret trials.

    I wonder if it has occurred to the judge, prosecution and alphabetic witnesses that through their use of secrecy they have tarred all decent women involved in the SNP and Scottish civil service with the same brush

    My sympathies to you Craig, the tribulations of an honest, caring man.

  • Graham A Fordyce

    For so long as you make contributions like this, Mr Murray, you have my support.
    None of us has a monopoly on the ‘truth’ and each of us is fallible. What we all share, however, is a sense of belonging, in which we each have an equal share and opportunity to contribute. It is this freedom which shapes us all and produces the kind of society we ultimately inhabit. If any one of us is somehow excluded from that, then all of us are diminished.
    Your contribution is important in my humble view. I don’t claim you are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in anything you say or write. I claim that you care, which is far more important. You bring to the table a different perspective, which makes us think and rightly question the perspective of others. Your thoughtful analysis of issues and events reminds me of a daily mantra which goes through my head: every human relationship is an exercise in control. The most successful relationships share control because they want to.
    I have applied that law to what happened to you yesterday.
    I had difficulty signing up through Paypal but now see your account details. You will shortly have my subscription, Mr Murray, along with my thanks. Good luck to you.

  • Fredi

    I’d hazard a guess, the court has decided that detail you have made public recently makes it easy for people to identify one/some of the prosecution witnesses.

      • Tom Welsh

        “If that were true, then why would they not tell me that and ask me to delete it?”

        A most telling point.

        Indeed, if any prejudicial statements had been published in this blog or elsewhere, surely the first concern of the authorities would be to remove it from public view.

        Yet, while leaving everything already published for the world to read, they have prevented Mr Murray from writing other things in future – whose nature they cannot possibly know.

        It is obviously Mr Murray himself and his honesty that they cannot bear.

      • rayH

        I do not think that the problem is with anything that has been published so far. This is a preemptive strike to suppress a detailed publication and analysis of most of the evidence in the future, even after the trial concludes. This is seemingly a political trial. Therefore the verdict is less important than the impression given to the electorate during the political careers of the principal actors.

        It may be that the prosecution are afraid that the jury should read this blog and find attention drawn to evidence cogent to the defence case. The restrictions while the complainants gave evidence may have been at least as much to prevent too great attention being given to weaknesses in the prosecution case as to protect a reporrter from the danger of contempt.

        Even in normal criminal trials it is often difficult for the public to comprehend a jury’s decision from the MSM description of the case. No doubt in twenty years or more someone with access to all of the records, including that not presented to the court, will boost their pension with a book that will only be read by a few political historians.

      • Grum

        With respect, despite your excellent coverage of the previous day, there was one part of your report that *might* be considered as being able to identify one of the complaints, and I suspect that this might have just given the prosecution enough of an excuse to have you removed. I’d think that no reason was given in order not to draw attention to it – no-one else in the comments seems to have noticed it, and I’m not going to point it out here.

      • Joey Grimlock

        Craig, saying you are far more likely to identify a woman via another article and then directing people to that article is also, technically contempt.

  • Karen A Donald

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke.
    You tell the truth and call out the lies and don’t allow the evil to go unchecked and undocumented. But the British establishment simply can’t allow that to happen. They rely on the state MSM and their billionaire friends to keep the people brainwashed enough to allow the wrong they do to go unnoticed and to quell the peasants from revolt if they ever found out.
    Just remember you have done your best. And we are forever in your debt for it.
    You are the truth. You are the good. They can’t have that. So you have been silenced. Again. But you can’t keep a good man down. And you can’t keep the truth from coming out.
    It will be over to the jury. I’m sure Alex will be acquitted.
    Do not give up. Sleep well. Good conquers evil. Always.

  • Graham Ennis

    I am utterly appalled. But not surprised, at all. So now, in the kingdom of Scotland, under its separate ancient law system, We have FIAT law, where they make it up as they go along. In a case involving a first minister, a former first minister, cabinet officers, the principle secretary, etc, we now have a simple ruling, without your presence, in secret, and silence. Even the Nazis gave a hearing to people. This ruling is in my opinion not legal. If you actually had made a contempt of court, you would be in Barlinnie by now. You are not. So a “Possible” contempt, which is “Not proven”, and therefore does not exist, can be used to exclude you, even though there are no visible grounds whatsoever.

    This is utterly authoritarian. It violates international law. We now have an Alice in Wonderland court, that makes it up as it goes along, and sends messages via the police. No actual written notice whatsoever. This is also a legal violation. You are entitled to a written issue of cause and legal ruling. where is it? … demand it. It is your right. No physical legal ruling served on you, then that is not valid. It is “outwith” the written law. Invalid. The only power the judge has is to have you arrested by the Court Bailiffs, and brought before her, or issue a request for you to appear, if you do not. You are entitled to counsel. You are entitled to a written issue of her ruling. (which has no physical existence). etc etc. I could go on. My urgent advice is to get thee to the court, today, ask to see the judge, (since it is a matter involving you, you have right) and also ask to be granted full written copies of the whole matter. LASTLY, YOU WERE NOT PROPERLY “SERVED”. Telling a police officer to prevent you from the court, without proper legal procedure, is unlawful. Please print this out and show the defence team and Salmond himself. Salmond is entitled to recuse from the trial if he is not given an open public trial. Excluding reporters is not legal, unless they have actually committed an offence of contempt. etc etc. this has to be widely reported and discussed. In the meantime, if I was not in virus lockdown, I would be winging north to support you. Be strong. Thousands are with you. Graham.

    • nevermind

      Well spoken Graham Ennis, Craig has been mauled by a Westmonstrr cabal that has infected Scottish law like a virus, ehem.
      Is there anybody here active in the AUOB movement willing to mobilise a demonstration? A drive by of thousands of motorbikes in support of Craig could happen in hours if it was announced.

      My heart goes out to you Craig, try and get some sleep, you have shone a light into the dark recesses of Scotlands political machinations, thank you.

  • Squeeth

    You’re missing the point, you have been excluded on a possibility. There is no point in examining your conduct because it doesn’t matter. This is a pretext for a gag not the upholding of a law. Fcuck ’em the fascist pigs.

  • Billy Bones

    A poor judgement by Lady Dorrian. It appears she too has succumbed to the political pressures surrounding this case and she has erred on the side of timidity.

    But Craig you are the man who told Elizabeth Windsor, straight to her face, that you were a Scottish Republican.

    I salute you, sir. Your courage is a beacon of hope to us all. Now please get some sleep.

  • vic rodrick

    I think this sentence is wot done it: “After today’s evidence we can say that either several of those women must be lying, or a variety of other direct witnesses, female and male, must be lying.” The jurors must judge the credibility and reliability of witnesses and your aside could be seen as potentially “unfairly influencing” them, which constitutes contempt of court.

    • Graham Harris Graham

      I agree with Vic, although any half wit in court could reach the same obvious conclusion.

      Maybe the prosecution’s tactic isn’t to use logic though & instead rely on in-built bias, hyperbole & innuendo. It certainly works for the tabloids.

      We can only guess how many in a jury read British tabloids in order to quietly digest over a latte & toasted almond croissant on the sea view veranda, their unbiased, scientific, data driven, peer reviewed accounts of juicy celebrity gossip.

      • Vivian O'Blivion

        Their justification for refusing access to the Press pack was that your “just a blogger”, “not a proper journalist”. They haven’t backed down from this position (as evidenced by your position in the Public gallery). If they deign to communicate with you, they accept your credibility as a legitimate journalist (and by extension open the gate to “Citizen journalists” as a whole (whether amateur or remunerated)).

        • Tom Welsh

          ‘Their justification for refusing access to the Press pack was that your “just a blogger”, “not a proper journalist”’.

          In other words: “Because your income and future are not dependent on a corporation which in turn we control, we cannot be sure that you will not publish things which we do not wish to be published. Even if they are true. (Indeed, precisely because they are true)”.

      • Fredi

        Perhaps if they ask you to delete that particular bit they’d be highlighting exactly what they didn’t like and that in itself the would create more interest in the subject and defeat the whole point of their treatment of you.Maybe they’ll tell you after the trial.

        Whether all this is technically ‘legal’ is another matter, but as you have often said they have the monopoly of force when it comes down to it.

      • Squeeth

        If the people who disappeared you give their reasons you can challenge them. I bet they’ll wait until it’s all over before saying so it won’t matter. Let’s hope the Jury stays true.

    • Patrick Roden

      Good point Vic, but if what you say is true, why hasn’t the MSM had the same treatment as Craig?
      Craig hasn’t been contacting the Jury directly, so the most that any ‘complaint’ directed at him could say, is that there’s an outside chance that some member or members of the jury might have read this (or other) parts of his blog and been ‘influenced’ by it.

      If this is their argument, then how isn’t the way the press have been reporting the trial, not have the far more likely potential to influence members of the jury?

      If ‘unfairly influencing’ the trial through ‘fairly reporting’ what they have seen and making ‘fair comment’ results in possible contempt of court, then it is worth looking over the MSM coverage of the trial as evidence that the clerk of court has made selective and potentially provable ‘one sided’ decisions during this trial, that could themselves have a bearing on the outcome of the proceedings.

      Is the Scottish legal system completely corrupt? We need to get to the bottom of this!

    • Tom Welsh

      ‘I think this sentence is wot done it: “After today’s evidence we can say that either several of those women must be lying, or a variety of other direct witnesses, female and male, must be lying.”’

      But vic, surely that is merely an opinion of Mr Murray’s. Can an opinion be prejudicial? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and the jury would hardly feel obliged to agree with Mr Murray’s.

  • Patricia

    The ‘totalitarian tiptoe’ has now become a brisk march I’m afraid Craig. You are a warrior, not a worrier my friend and you will win in the end.

  • Stephen C

    Many thanks for your determination to shed light on the Assange and now Salmond hearings. With them excluding you it shows you are getting to them. It is appalling that they can exclude you based on what they decide, but as you have shown at other times, the state defends itself.
    Looks like you are feeling low now, but there are many of us who appreciate what you have done and what you will do in the future. Keep it up!

  • Graham Harris Graham

    Your expulsion is not surprising because I’m amazed they let you in at all.

    With the knowing compliance of the print & broadcast media, the last thing the British State wanted was some independent enthusiast for the truth to be poking his nose into the court.

    It only took a few days of you revealing lengthy defence testimony for them to conclude that their version, the correctly skewed for public consumption one, was in danger of being undermined. Now the media can resume it’s farcical, one sided, salacious narrative & hope that they can resurrect the public’s outrage just in time before the verdict is announced.

    Treat this exclusion as a badge of honour.

    And don’t forget to whisper to yourself, “fuck them” before your head sinks into the pillow tonight.

  • Dave Llewellyn

    This was a shocking thing to happen. Not only the event itself but the manner in which it was done. I sat beside Craig both days he was allowed into the public gallery and confirm every word that he said was true to the events in the court and that any chance to identify witnesses had already been made on other feeds that Craig held back.

    One law applied disproportionately.

  • Tom Welsh

    “To be excluded from a public trial on the basis of something I have “possibly” done, when nobody will even specify what it is I have “possibly” done, seems to me a very strange proceeding”.

    Not to any reader of Franz Kafka. Indeed, it sounds straight down the middle.

    • Tom Welsh

      For instance (taken almost at random from “The Trial”):

      “Who is issuing the indictment? What office is conducting this affair? Are you officials? None of you is wearing a uniform, unless what you are wearing” – here he turned towards Franz – “is meant to be a uniform, it’s actually more of a travelling suit. I require a clear answer to all these questions, and I’m quite sure that once things have been made clear we can take our leave of each other on the best of terms.” The supervisor slammed the box of matches down on the table. “You’re making a big mistake,” he said. “These gentlemen and I have got nothing to do with your business, in fact we know almost nothing about you. We could be wearing uniforms as proper and exact as you like and your situation wouldn’t be any the worse for it. As to whether you’re on a charge, I can’t give you any sort of clear answer to that, I don’t even know whether you are or not. You’re under arrest, you’re quite right about that, but I don’t know any more than that. Maybe these officers have been chit-chatting with you, well if they have that’s all it is, chit- chat. I can’t give you an answer to your questions, but I can give you a bit of advice: You’d better think less about us and what’s going to happen to you, and think a bit more about yourself. And stop making all this fuss about your sense of innocence; you don’t make such a bad impression, but with all this fuss you’re damaging it. And you ought to do a bit less talking, too. Almost everything you’ve said so far has been things we could have taken from your behaviour, even if you’d said no more than a few words. And what you have said has not exactly been in your favour.”

  • James

    Yet the Herald dont get removed for publishing a headline on the day’s events that said “Alex Salmond is a sexual predator……er, said someone once”. Yes, I think you know why, Craig; you weren’t negative enough.

  • LxR

    As a woman I feel it is incumbent on me to say that much hysteria was generated by the #MeToo and #BelieveWomen campaigns which ultimately led to some false accusations, some miscarriages of justice and the #HimToo campaign.

    In 2012 when the campaigns finally reached our shores, our leaders, particularly Nicola Sturgeon et al, instead of taking a balanced more judicial view jumped on the bandwagon to create even more hysteria. I believe this explains more about why the accusations are restricted to a certain very short time frame and none known of [despite 2 years UK wide publicity] in the previous 30 years.

  • Willie

    Craig, your reports of the Salmond trial brought into sharp focus how compromised and biased the MSM is. What you report and what the MSM are two different things. Only through your coverage can people see the level of deception

    But the fake, biased, or progandist news is only part of the fascist state in which we live.

    The police and prosecution spent maybe around £5m investigatin Alex Salmond. Who authorised that, in these hard pressed times when ordinary crimes cannot be investigated.

    And why from the outset, and before the fiscal threatened you with contempt, rejected your request to attend court on the spurious grounds of not being a journalist aligned to a proper journal.

    And who instructed he fiscal to write to you to threaten that you were in contempt of court? If it is on the grounds of allegedly revealing the secret witnesses none of us are any the wiser because of your reports. Nor as you say have you been ordered to take your blogs down. So who instructed the fiscal?

    And now the judge bars you from the court. Did someone persuade her? Seems that they did and succeeded. But why? Why ban you without telling you what you’d allegedly done wrong and or asking you to correct it?

    Like the charges against Alex Salmond it is certainly beginning to look very much as a conspiracy – just like Assange was initially set up on rape charges, now dropped.

    And all of this is before the introduction of the new emergency powers that will in plain sight allow the state to excercise whatever control it wants.

    One can see how the Nazis came to power in the 1930s, and how things went thereafter.

    Had Hitler’s regime been stopped then, millions would not have walked into the gas chambers.

    We let our democracy slip at our peril and as Julian Assange, and now you are showing, state sponsored suppression is very real.

    Thank you for trying to fight for truth. But maybe, just maybe, this virus epidemic and the powers being assumed by the state forces might just bring about a real revolution in the minds of the people. Nazi Germany did after all ultimately fail, as all such states do.And only through knowledge will this happen.

    Keep up the good work.

1 2 3 8

Comments are closed.