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.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/
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:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
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.
[i]”Ruth
March 20, 2020 at 22:23
Yes Scottish law still has the not proven verdict”
“Cubby
March 21, 2020 at 10:18
My understanding is that there have been moves in the past to remove the not proven option but they were not successful.”[/i]
Thank you both, realise now it was Double Jeopardy, aka re-trial at some future date, that is I think now possible.
One man knew how to deal with these modern day terrorists I.e. The ruling classes he out terrorised them his name Michael Collins
The Law is an Ass my friend and you are subjected to a Kafkaesque procedure.
Can the defence not allow your presence as friend and family as with JA?
I’m sure there will be a way for the will is powerful with all of us here that you represent.
Maybe in the brief rest we can have a short piece on the virus, the gfc2 and the 3 budgets in a week so far – there are plenty of worms pushing to get out of that can.
Craig, a “possible contempt of court” is laughable. The plotters had no legal grounds for excluding you and they knew it. It’s easy for me to say now after the event but imo you were fooled. You were so taken aback when the police told you about the (non-existent) exclusion order that you didn’t think of asking for their numbers. I wouldn’t have either. As for the clerk of the court, (s)he had been warned to expect a phone call to the court from you and was ready with the reply (s)he’d been told to give.
The exclusion order isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Its not all doom and gloom
I understand that the taxpayer funded bars, coffee shops and restaurants in the Houses of Commons and Lords will remain open as “essential services”.
And the choice of bars is not inconsiderable
https://observer.com/2016/10/booze-at-the-palace-british-parliaments-30-bars-for-thirsty-mps/
Well, it’s fairly obvious that MPs could not possibly function unless they were permanently loaded. Not only are the tasks placed before them far too difficult for their intelligence; but a few of them may even be tormented by the occasional moral scruple arising from their vestigial consciences.
Pb
March 21, 2020 at 12:57
More evidence of their hypocrisy.
People have put forward some very good suggestions as to what Craig’s ‘contempt of court’ might have been, in this thread, but whatever the reasons for it, it comes down to one point; why didn’t they tell Craig what the problem was?
If Craig’s writing can be said to do anything that might cause ‘unfairness’ or to expose ‘identities’ then it would be of the utmost importance to request that he rectifies this as quickly as possible, or put another way, would Craig Murray have edited any post on this site, if it were pointed out to him that it may fall fowl of the law?
Craig can answer for himself, but I think we all know that he would have changed anything that was illegal (or potentially so) if it was pointed out to him.
Alex Salmonds defense brief, says that he is left with the feeling that ‘Something doesn’t smell right’ in this trial. Well, this ruling against Craig has just added to the stench.
Patrick Roden
You logic is on the ball. If the court thinks something has been written that has the potential to adversely affect the trial then a logical course of action would be to take action to get it removed asap. As this is not happening then it means: 1. there is nothing written that is a problem or 2. the court is complicit by allowing it to stand.
It is not just the world that works in mysterious ways but the courts do as well – but of course, the courts should not work in mysterious ways they should be accountable to the public who pay their salaries.
But….. CM did receive a letter (from ‘the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’) telling him that a particular blog might be regarded as in contempt, and inviting him to remove it. Craig was sure that he was not in contempt, and did not remove it. I admire him very greatly for being willing to take that stand.
But — if you want to know what may happen in this case and its aftermath, you have to undertake the probably unpleasant task of trying to see how the case looks to other people.
If Mr Salmond is found not guilty (or not proven) on all counts – and I hope this is the result -, Craig Murray will not be pursued for contempt, because it would be ridiculous to do so.
The answer you would get to the question ‘if the prosecution are so worried about the contents of CM’s blog, why don’t they demand its removal now?’ would be that in the internet age it would do more harm to publicise the blog (so many more people want to get hold of it) than to leave legal action against Craig until the case is decided.
“The exclusion order isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”
It would still be desirable, I would say mandatory to see the paper it’s written on, if it exists. Else it doesn’t.
You can’t even communicate directly with Judgers, Sheriffs of Nottingham, the big cheese Sheriff in Chief, or even the Great Panjandrum itself, Their Faux-Virtuous Vilenesses. Even where statute insists that they receive submissions from pertinent parties and individuals, they’ve drone-armies of rude (to everyone else) minions to keep them in a bubble and never to come into even ome-way written contact with the people whose lives they wreck daily, for fear of puncturing their sanitary isolation from the grubby oiks, other than maybe but probably not, through one of their legal-mongrel mates, with lots of begging and scraping and bowing. M’turd.
.
They are not the law, not themselves above the law, they cannot ever be or even think they are, or all is lost. Which it very much looks as if it might well be, not just in this case but in all and especially in one dear to me. Long overdue for radical reform the law, the courts, they are like everything else in England’s play-thing Scotland, rotten through and through, by design.
It seems that, legally speaking, our human rights have gone backwards in the past 750 years. Note especially the final sentence.
“The king has no equal within his realm. Subjects cannot be the equals of the ruler, because he would thereby lose his rule, since equal can have no authority over equal, nor a fortiori a superior, because he would then be subject to those subjected to him. The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because the law makes the king…”
Henry de Bracton (medieval English lawyer ca 1210-1268)
“than to leave legal action against Craig until the case is decided.”
HOw can there be legal actoin when no charge or even description of the offense is offered?
This is nuts.
I wish there were a barrister around who would challenge this obvious intimidation of Craig Murray and vitiation also of Alex Salmond—who may well be glad of the moral support offered by Murray. And this may be Craig’s real crime: standing by Salmond instead of joining in on the witch hunt.
At least long after the ordeal is over, by a process of elimination, these contenders for Ms. Alphabet 2020, will become known. But by then even social-workers will be armed and abstract ideals such as justice will be even more the pipe-dreams they already are.
Instead of Independence, we now have a fourth unionist party, ironically still calling itself the Scottish National Party.
.
How many SNP members walked out over the party’s support for the British monarchy and NATO?
I can’t see what’s non-Scottish about support in Scotland for the union.
Remember who won the referendum too.
Having asked the above question, I doubt many SNP members will resign from the party if an icon of his nation, a veritable McEvita, gets thrown in jail for an inability to keep his hands off women and his todger in his Y-fronts when he’s had a few.
If he has any friends left, they should advise him not watch the film McVicar (1980) over the weekend.
N
” I can’t see……”. Yep you really really can’t see much can you. They call themselves British not Scottish that’s why – it’s their choice to identify as British – Britnats.
“Remember who won referendum” – yes the British and EU citizens who were falsely told to vote no to stay in the EU.
I would have thought old war films where a couple of hundred upper crust English won the war would be more your cup of English tea. Marxist N ????? You are as a big a phoney as the Labour socialist Lords sitting on the RED benches stuffing their faces using taxpayers money.
N , you can’t see what’s non Scottish about support in Scotland for the union , no of course you can’t that’s bee cause you are not Scottish you are English.
Now, if Holyrood wads the U.K. parliament and Scotland always always always had a majority of the MPs elected to it and if Scotland controlled all England’s money and allocated england an amount to spend each year and didn’t allow england to borrow and didn’t allow england a foreign policy would you see what is non English about support in England for a union ?
Of course you would
In view of the fact that the trial was open to the public when ‘The Alphabet Sisters’ real names were used there will be a fair number of people who already know who they are.
Unless people are banned from talking to one another/sending emails it won’t be long until everyone who is interested will know.
I just wonder in this digital age if the guarantee of ‘lifelong anonymity’ is worth the paper it’s written on especially in cases that involve high profile celebrities/politicians etc.
I was trying to find out how old this law was and came across the following. Possibly different in Scotland.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/justice/anonymity-for-defendants/
‘Text from Woman H to Woman J says she is “mulling” what they call “the AS stuff”, appears to say “I have a plan and means we can be anonymous but see strong repercussions”.
Am I correct in stating that in addition to the not proven verdict Scots law is unique in sanctioning an individual for the possibility of committing a crime? I mean it is possible I might murder someone tonight, but rather unlikely. Shouldn’t I be arrested for that possibility? Fortunately I live in Helsinki and the Finns don’t go around arresting people for thought crimes and possibilities. Besides I might possibly catch the virus, its not impossible..
“Shouldn’t I be arrested for that possibility?”
In the world of “Minority Report”, yes.
It’s already happening.
https://themindunleashed.com/2019/10/william-barr-pre-crime-program.html
Meanwhile in the USA:
“Louisiana Man Arrested, Charged with Terrorism for Satirical COVID-19 Facebook Post”
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/satire-facebook-post-terrorism/
Interesting but remember Americans don’t do irony, they are armed to the teeth and the are particularly paranoid at this time. This the ‘end of days’ for them. It’s contextual.
Have you watched Cloud Atlas? It’s quite long. The book was too thick for me, but the movie is great. To quote from another favorite movie, “politicians use lies to cover up the truth; artists use them to reveal the truth” – or words to that effect. One comment here on this very page also points out that “the law is overruled by our masters across the pond.” A propos of which, whatever possessed Julian to run back to U.K. from Sweden I don’t know; at the time he said that he put his faith in the U.K. justice system, when of all people he should have known that Westminster is managed by the USA, and it’s Hilary Clinton who wants him dead cos she thinks she’d have been president it it weren’t for those pesky kids. I still meet people who say (in their home counties accents) that they don’t think the British government is corrupt; so it’s the level of willful ignorance is the nub of the problem. Or, as one Reg said, in yet another favorite movie, “what Jesus plainly fails to appreciate is, it’s the meek who _are_ the problem.” Please don’t despair!
Personally I prefer ‘Life of Brian’ even after all this time it cracks me up.
You may snugger N_/Fred but until it happens to you, that a member of your family has been abducted and might well be dead and the law, isn’t interested, just shrugs. Is that the kind of country you want Scotland to be, the sort of country anyone would want to live in?
Your sort, of bitter twisted unionist makes it possible, you don’t care who is hurt, as long as you get your per-comment blood money.
Excerpts from James Doleman Byline Times report from 20/3/2020 High Court Edinburgh The Defence summation.
A jury heard the lawyer of Alex Salmond suggest that there was a “pattern” in the accusations of sexual assault and attempted rape against him, in that ” every single complainer in this trial is in the political bubble”.
The defence advocate then turned his attention to the testimony of another witness, who he described as a “powerful figure” and whose evidence appeared “devious”. He told the jury that the incidents this witness alleged happened took place before “hundreds of people……every eye was on him and he supposedly commits a sexual assault? These charges , when you look at them, don’t make any sense.”
“This stinks, it absolutely stinks”, Mr Jackson added.
The defence advocate then turned his attention to the testimony of another witness, who he described as a “powerful figure” and whose evidence appeared “devious”.
‘Powerful figure’.. This now confirms everything.
“powerful figure”
like someone who currently attends COBRA meetings?
Michael Norton
If you are addressing that question to me I think it is not Priti Patel or anyone else who attends Cobra.
The defence lawyer is referring to Woman A.
Michael Norton
It is not Nicola Sturgeon.
Yip!
I had wondered if the “powerful Figure”
might be me Nicola Sturgeon?
She has been reported as attending COBRA,
not sure if that is in person or by electronic ways.
Look, if you have ever worked in a high pressure environment, you will find that you barely have time to get out of that bubble to find any women to pursue, flirt with, harass, sexually assault or whatever. You are working full on and do little except sleep, get up, have breakfast, work eat and drop into bed exhausted.
I would be amazed if Alex Salmond spent enough time outside of the SNP bubble to get close enough to 12 women such that he would even dare to touch them up.
Apart from anything else, politics anoraks are probably pretty boring to non-anoraks, whereas younger politicians on the make may be viscerally attracted to the power a First Minister exudes.
@Rhys Jaggar ‘Power is the great aphrodisiac”according to Henry Kissinger , who probably knows more about both than Alex.
Henry Kissinger never had to work hard. He was an adviser to politicians, and not a politician himself. So he had plenty of time to diddle whoever was attracted to his repellent persona.
Do you mean that English premier league footballers only ever sleep with other English premier league footballers?
No, but have you asked how many hours a week that EPL footballers actually work?
They may be ridiculously highly paid, but they train 4 hrs a week tops, will be able to pick their kids up from school every day they are not flying abroad (once every four weeks on average) and they certainly have time to go out to restaurants, night clubs etc etc.
Sorry: change ‘four hours a week’ to ‘four hours a day’.
The Britnat rags and Britnat broadcasters concentrated on the defence counsel saying Alex Salmond “could have been a better man”. Biased from beginning to end. No doubt if he is found not guilty they will find an angle to suggest he was guilty.
Ragmans roll the lot of them.
Unbiased you would rather they covered it up I suppose.
Kempe
Covered what up? If you are asking me a question can you try and make an effort to make it clear.
It’s perfectly clear.
Kempe
Ok so you don’t want to make an effort. Fine. So I will just assume you are an ignorant lazy Britnat – hope that is fine with you.
Do me a favour don’t darken my door again.
I took ‘powerful figure’ to mean that she (spare me if that personal pronoun is incorrect) lifts great weights and chews broken-bottles by moonlight.
(Apologies for not ever replying in nested-form, I can’t. Some script on this site is flagged as ‘extremely dodgy’ by my rather secure browser configuration, and I’d rather not allow it, even download it, as it’s hosted by the dark forces, who knows where, and on a per-user basis could be used for anything at all, as well as or instead of what it is supposed to do).
“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.”
And that’s exactly why you were barred from the courtroom.
It’s clear that your polite, hopeful comments on the fairness of the judge were absolutely wrong. As one would expect for any trial of such political significance.
My recommendation: do anything that makes you happy, to take your mind off this thing. Watch a funny or interesting video, go for a walk, hang out with friends or family, read a good book, go to a cafe, anything that would fit the bill. We need your continued presence. If the immoral bullies in charge succeed in breaking your spirit, that would be a tremendous, and avoidable, victory for them.
It’s not surprising that well organized and well funded immoral a**holes win some victories. Getting despondent about it helps them more.
“It’s clear that your polite, hopeful comments on the fairness of the judge were absolutely wrong.”
Tactically too: nothing was more calculated to anger the Judge and prejudice her future career than to judged fair and unbiassed by a notorious critic of the state.
Interesting point. Makes sense.
My experience at work was that whenever I was hopeful, optimistic in a way which was independent of powermongers up top, it was perceived as one gigantic threat.
I mean: really. You are tasked with ‘promoting innovation, increasing the number of patents filed, spin-out companies formed etc etc’. So you go around telling everyone that they are lazy, good-for-nothing grant guzzling timewasters who are totally uninvestible for as long as they remain in employment?
Right. There is giving false hope (which I did not do) and there is giving praise for good work done, carry out the appropriate due diligence (which for scientists includes checking the academic literature to prove you understand what they have done, why they are doing it and what their competitors globally have done) and engage with them on their level (as top scientists) – which I could do as I had been a researcher for 10 years myself.
There is no need for any sneering, belittling, blackmailing, taunting and betraying.
That is the preserve of those who have sold out, put employees under surveillance at home for no good reason, tap telephones, hack emails and track cars, credit cards and mobile phones.
You will not be surprised to hear that all those activities ramped up hugely as soon as my optimism started rubbing off on others, started generating sales and started turning around a morbidly depressed HEI.
You will be even less surprised that those doing it had backgrounds in blue chip corporations with strong links to the security services, both in the UK and the US.
Franz Kafka would understand this sort of Trial perfectly
So would Tommy Sheridan. And Roger Casement. And Harvey Proctor.
The problem is that most people-from whom juries are chosen, don’t understand that once the standard of proof “Beyond all reasonable doubt” is dropped nobody is safe from malicious persecution in the guise of prosecutions.
In recent weeks we have seen several cases in which the great majority, even of commentators on the internet, have quite happily gone along with verdicts finding Weinstein (the fat Hollywood billionaire film producer nobody likes) and Epstein (the ‘pedophile’ sex trafficker) guilty on the basis of the sparsest evidence-or no evidence at all in the case of Epstein who was killed before he was tried- because they didn’t like them, preferring instead, as most will, the young vulnerable accusers.
Just as Free Speech is about allowing people with whom you disagree to publicise their opinions, so Justice is about everyone, including unattractive old men and Tory reactionaries, getting fair trials in front of jurors able to clear their minds of biasses and preconceptions and weigh the evidence presented in court to them.
My view is that Salmond is guilty of no criminal offences and he is not being charged with anything other than crimes. But that, as we have seen, there is a good chance that he might, against the evidence, be found guilty. Was not Abdelbaset al-Megrahi notoriously railroaded by this Justice system while the SNP was in office? Anyone who watched complacently as that happened is hardly in a position to criticise what has being happening to Salmond.
And then there is the matter of vetting candidates for the SNP which is a surefire way of transferring power from the people to a centre that is bound to use that power in its own interests. And, here, appears to have done so in an extreme, almost incredible-Mandelsonian; manner.
“Was not Abdelbaset al-Megrahi notoriously railroaded by this Justice system while the SNP was in office? ”
No he most certainly was not. A Labour/LibDem coalition was in power during 2001. After Donald Dewar (Labour) died there were three First Ministers during that year: Henry McLeish (Labour); Jim Wallace (LibDem) ; Jack McConnell (Labour) – but the Camp Zeist abomination was Dewar’s doing.
The first SNP government was elected in 2007 (Alex Salmond) – and its justice minister (Kenny McAskill – now a Westminster MP) was involved in Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s release on ‘compassionate grounds’ – although this conveniently prevented his appeal – saving Scotland’s stitch-up judicial system further embarrassment. (McAskill is a Scottish solicitor)
The Camp Zeist kangaroo court was set up during the tenure of Donald Dewar (1999-2001). On 31 January 2001, Megrahi was convicted, by a panel of three Scottish judges sitting in a ‘special court’ (i.e. with no jury) at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. The ‘right’ result had to be obtained for our US masters.
This was such a stitch-up that it will remain a huge stain on the Scottish ‘justice’ system for a very long time. But they had been given their instructions by the US who didn’t want the real perpetrators identified for reasons of state.
These matters are very easily checked ‘bevin’.
Scotland remains a vassal country within a US vassal state (UK). The justice system is not about ‘justice’ – it’s about the operation of state power.
There will be no chance of judicial reform unless and until Scotland is independent. The present trial is all about that.
I should also point out that the ‘Justice Minster 1999-2003 was Jim Wallace (LibDem) – also a Scottish solicitor, who now has a sinecure in the House of Lords
Wallace operated as a Scottish solicitor but he is British.
Oh – and Dewar was a Scottish solicitor – as is Nicola Sturgeon
Dewar was British as well. He was the man who agreed to Blairs requested change to the Scotland /England sea border so that a small amount of oil reserves could be in English waters that then allowed the UK to designate oil and gas revenues as UK ex regio.
Just another signature on the Ragmans roll. Doing what he was telt by that other phoney Scot Blair -Britnat Blair who tried to kid on he was English and not a Catholic.
The term “Scottish solicitor ” Cubby, is not an issue of nationality – it is simply a statement of fact – that the person’s law qualification and right to audience in a Scottish court is in Scots law. You can be of English, Welsh, Irish or any other nationality, and be a ‘Scottish’ solicitor ( a solicitor in Scots Law).
I agree that Dewar, Wallace were/are BritNats – not sure what (the Scot) Tony Blair’s catholicism has to do with this – although my understanding is that he did not formally convert until after he left office – although I am informed that you CAN be RC and UK prime minister (not always the case) – it has never yet happened – and Blair might have thought it not worth the hassle it would inevitably have caused.
Blair’s duplicitous bastardness goes way beyond his religious confession!
Hamish McGlumpha
I have a family member who is a Scottish lawyer and was familiar with the fact it is not an issue of nationality but thanks anyway.
Tony Bliar doesn’t get called that for nothing. He also thought about getting rid of the Discriminatory law that says a RC cannot be monarch but bottled it when he realised the Britnats in N. Ireland would be rioting and it would be another article of the Treaty of Union 1707 that would be broken. If you keep breaking all the articles eventually you have none left and no Treaty and therefore no UK. A true Britnat.
“These matters are very easily checked ‘bevin’.”
Indeed they are. As you demonstrated.
The purpose of Hate Crime legislation is to ban free speech in defence of the powerful NOT the weak. They do this by making everything about “Hate” from the minor to the major, and in sexual matters equating a hand on the knee with attempted rape. Once such a conflation is made, and the legislation allows this to be subjective, everyone is guilty, but the powerful decide who gets prosecuted, making some more equal, before the law, than others!
[ Mod: Off-topic. You’re welcome to discuss the Coronavirus and associated policy issues on the Momento Mori – Unpopular Thoughts on Corona Virus thread, or you can contribute to the discussion in the forum entitled Corona virus: Government takes the St Augustine approach.
Regards. ]
—
Craig s post. About previous pandemics and how we should all put things into a wider context when considering the present crisis the world is facing
(he was gracious enough to furnish us with nostalgic pics of him and his siblings from a bygone idyllic colonial era,no doubt to sway us emotionally rather than providing the hard facts, but I digress)
in retrospect Craig s perpspective proves to be way out of kilter with the reality of the current global pandemic
Make no mistake, half the world will be infected by this virus over the course of this year, but Craig chooses to narrowly focus on the plight of the few elite victims of the system.
I am surprised by this lacunae in an otherwise and on other occasions erudite and insightful commentator.
Now more than ever, we require parochial Scottish nationalists to step up to the challenge of the crisis humanity faces on a global level.
Tube
Agreed with all your sentences until the last one. So I guess that makes you a parochial tube. Address your concerns to your fellow tube the guy with blonde hair but no comb who has the power to step up to the challenge but is too big a diddy to do so.
Zube
It maybe that there is enough being written on the pandemic elsewhere. There seems a distinct lack of interest about this subject here. That is why I started this thread
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/corona-virus-governemnt-takes-the-st-augustine-approach/
But not many visit or comment. However it is great that Craig agrees to host such threads.
Magic Mushrooms
Yes I know the article is about AS’s trial but I was referring to lack of comment on the other thread.
It is not full of nonsense and it is not a fake virus. I suggest you educate yourself a bit more to survive.
Moderators: “Memento Mori” is correct.
—
[ Mod: We know. Craig has commented on the matter. He has opted to retain the idiosyncratic spelling. ]
Quite right Watt. Many vested interests at work in the scientific and pharmaceutical community.
We will find that the ‘virus’ is a big fake cover story for the real problem; a collapse of the economy.
And, it also serves to exclude important news, such as Mr. Murray’s report on the current trial.
Yanks probably used Сулеймані barbaric murder to hide the huge repo conducted next day.. 8t’ i’d say over 11t$.
Who benefits:
Security industry/cops/army/intelligence etc
Financial industry/ banks etc
Pharmaceutical industry/untested vaccines. will try and make them mandatory, more money, few $ here and there to grease the tracks/untested injected into body
Government/more control/repression
Hides an overdue crash. The financial junky has no junk left/ taxpayers on hook for how many trillions
Its always about the money/banks are going to make a killing this means hardly any spending on whats needed most “infrastructure” military useless when country run down.
Is it the Russians who are doing this? No. Your so-called take care of you until grave are selling you out again. Better to be a debt slave than war? make your choice, or maybe we have both coming.
If business cant survive without bailout they die. Moral hazard, remove it. Unless critical to society. Some Banks/ car manu/fat airlines. All need to go on a debt diet or die. Others will rise. History tells us this.
Humanity cannot rise unless it deals with the issues it does not want to touch. Consider in a federation of other galaxies. We are so violent and foul. So much capital wasted on vested interests.
Whats the Epstein guy? was not the first, still operating, world leaders implicated, do as you are told or the details get released. Most world leaders rushing to issue huge bailouts and assistance to anyone who asks. Do it or be exposed. I don’t know. ?. Hidden trillion dollar repo/bailouts 24/7 going on right now. Huge resources devoted to working out who dies.
Echo’s of 1933, global economy crashed and assets bought cheaply, massive social upheaval. Prepare for the worst, if its less than that then good. Same script. Think of a people who had a habit of murdering people and assuming their identity.
Have enough to keep you going if possible. Don’t keep it all in the bank, whats the point anymore anyway. In the bank you are an unsecured creditor. Last inline. No compensation scheme will have the funds if the shit really hits the banking fan.
Take this seriously, crisis actors etc, endless lies and propaganda. Its a big push, big cost, it is any one’s purpose to defeat this like they were roundly beaten in Syria.
I know women’s anatomy does not include balls. It does not prevent them from having courage to stand in front of a an abuser and look straight at his face and say “He is the one who molested me”. Any real victim will do it. I am from a “third world” country and I’ve seen uneducated women doing preciously that. May it be in court of law or in men dominated local Panchayat, I’ve seen victims display moral courage and wanted justice.
These HIGHLY educated political and government leaders hiding under veil and giving testimony??????
Oh Scotland save yourself.
Craig I thank you for your bravery and your ethics . I think it is absolutely atrocious that you were not allowed in to the Court . This is something that shouldn’t happen in democracy and it’s very frightening to see the lengths the state will go to silence anyone or anything they wish to keep hidden . There are very many people who are grateful to you for telling the truth and you are right to do so .
Who am I to teach lessons in politics.?
Purely as a comparison, and therefore disallowed in Scottish Law I’d like to compare the Scottish Independence struggle with the Syrian struggle.
In Syria, as in many previously colonised countries a dictatorial dynasty was set up by the West to weaken and oppress the spirit of its inhabitants by prison torture and religious loss of freedom of expression. In other words to suppress truth and liberty of thought. Spy networks and torture machinery were supplied by the West, and chemical weapons were delivered which were made and supplied by European countries. The dictators were friends,, clients and employees of the West.
Whatever crimes the Assads did, were instructed and enabled by the West.
In comparison, Scotland’s leaders , many centuries ago Capitulated to British aggression and surrendered its sovereignty to its neighbour, which was sorely aggrieved when their colony showed signs of resistance.. Alex Salmond is the main target of Scotland’s colonial rulers’ outrage. By setting up a show trial for their enemy they intend to bring Scotland back into its traditional role of totally owned and subservient colony. Where they can park nuclear power Stations, nuclear submarines and maintain a land route to their other colony, Northern Ireland.
However, technological change in both colonies in the areas of spying, and banking means that the colonisers no longer require much of the apparatus that was previously needed to keep their colony in a state of weakness.. in other words they were able to control Syria and Scotland without the need for a local ruler. In other words the local rulers who had previously been clients and employees of their colonisers were completely unnecessary .
In the Syrian war Assad was demonized for doing exactly what his colonisers told him to do, oppress religion, oppress resistance, stifle the economy and house Western illegal weaponry.. The Assads were employees under direction from their bosses in London.. They were ideal scapegoats for Western colonial brutality.. They would beat, drug, imprison, torture to order.
Scotland is not Syria. Scotland’s role as a subservient colony was simply to stagnate , leaving the majority of the land to be occupied by the highly immoral and highly political Royal Family.. if Salmond was a colourful character, that was deliberate , because the Windsors who squat in Scotland have no morals whatsoever… what is the feminist prudery of Nicola Sturgeon going to do about this bunch of sheep staggers occupying her country? Zilch!
This is the rub. If Scotland were to bring this dour Presbyterian prudery launched against one specially chosen unsaintly man, against the Royals baggage of adultery, buggery, thuggery, and financial skulduggery, she’d be gone in a second. She has been selected, just as Salmond was, for her broad-minded, no nonsense approach to life. Right now she is playing prudery politics for power, but she can be trusted never to bring those dour Presbyterian politics against her Royal colonists and their Scottish court. Long may your lum reik !
Or as the song goes. ” Come down my chimney tonight ! “
Well, Giyane,
thanks for your fascinating insights as to Assad as a torturer of his people and all that. I have garnered a fully different impression of the man, myself. So much so that I fear I may have failed to appreciate a satire. How long did you spend in Syria?
cheers
Watt
Watt
Do you think a tone will vote against a candidate whose spy network is not designed to create algorithms to inform the government whose vote they can borrow for their side, , like ours, but will arrest you or your family members and beat them up in prison?
I know we are nearly there. How long have you lived in England?
Anyone..
I suppose that it’s not beyond a possibility Mr Murray was excluded from the public gallery purely as a provocation tactic, to goad him into a circumstance that might further prevent him from doing what he does so effectively. Either way, whoever engineered the exclusion incident scored a goal this time, but it remains to be seen if it was an own goal. No good will come from this and the perpetrators are running the risk of being exposed at some time in the future; these sort of actions have a habit of getting out.
As has been observed so often about Watergate and subsequent scandals – it’s not the initial crime that causes disaster; it’s the attempts to cover it up, and then to cover up the cover-up…
Which, incidentally, demonstrates that Nixon was overthrown because the establishment wanted to get rid of him. If he had been in good odour with the Deep State, he would have stayed President and Woodstein would have gone to prison like Assange.
I may be a bit of a Polyanna about this. But I do not see Craig’s exclusion as a defeat: quite the opposite. When the establishment uses arbitrary sanctions against individuals you no know it has been rattled.
Apologies if I gave you the impression I regarded Mr Murray’s exclusion from the public gallery as a defeat. I can assure you that was not my intention and I concur entirely that those who wish Mr Salmond ill are clearly rattled, as you say, I was more thinking particularly of Mr Assange’s predicament in HMP Belmarsh and if Mr Murray was able to be shown to be involved in some verbal altercation at the Salmond trial it would lend ammunition to have him excluded from reporting on Mr Assange’s next appearance in May (coronavirus permitting).
Yes, but if that is so, you need to all be rallying around Mr Murray to give him the emotional support his bruised emotions are currently in need of.
You do not have sleepless nights without stress increasing (and coincidently, stress is a huge immunosuppressant, making you more susceptible to all disease), worry being foremost in your mind.
If you want Mr Murray to respond to the punch to the solar plexus, you all get out there and start punching a bit on his behalf.
Maybe it was about covering the closing addresses by Counsel?
If you go back to the 1980s, the closing addresses to the Clive Ponting OSA II trial could not have been more contrasting. One was a conniving little c**t playing to a bent judge and their Establishment Masters, the other raised the most fundamental issues of justice in peacetime Britain. As a Cambridge Undergraduate at the time, my morals came down firmly on the side of the defendant, had absolute contempt for the Establishment and they have remained fairly clearly in that space ever since.
The best summation of that trial came in Private Eye’s Dear Bill column: ‘My advice was to come clean and say: ‘What the hell is war about if it’s not torpedoing a boatload of Argies before they do the same to our boys, but for the boss this is a very delicate matter, her finest hour etc etc, so any hint of criticism is likely to bring on a case of the heebyjeebies. In this she was encouraged by Tarzan and now they have decided to string up some Whitehall paper pusher, thumbnails, screws, the whole works, all because he photostatted a few memos and posted them down to Halitosis Hall’.
But OSA II was invoked and a bent judge was hired to deliver one of the most bent directions to convict in the history of British justice. 12 middle fingers were raised firmly by the jury at the bent judge and trial by jury has been seen as a threat to Establishment power ever since.
I do not really know how the two Counsel speeches played out, but I would certainly have appreciated hearing Mr Murray report on them.
Maybe the Establishment realised that so prevented it from happening?
What a surprise – no one saw that coming or the ensuing ‘dark night of the soul’, did they?
Sturgeon has no objection to bailing out financials who have been busy buying their own stock for years and laying off staff. Trillions for connected but no equilavent amount for the poorest in society. The people who need the most help, not some crappy corporate that loaded up on debt when the music was playing and is now slowing even stopped in some cases they go cap in hand and have the audacity to expect the future wealth generators to pay for this criminal fraud. You are managed by simple crooks liars and fraudsters. But you know this and elect them to represent you apparently while they steal as much as they can. In every crisis there are opportunities, find them and exploit them. Say no to those who oppress you. Repeat, “everyone in government and corporate is my enemy”. MI6 fags must be really pissed they lost Syria and funny how many of them got creamed over there. HAHAHAHAHA. MI6 & MI5 fags will put you in a holdall, they are gay they are bent and their arse is up for rent….MI6…MI6…the Syria losers.
I wish they would…
why? are you a real robot? hasten to add
Craig has stooped noses into piles of dung and by being excluded, the judiciary basically agreed that they are a pile of dung and they don’t want anybody else to know. Sadly they failed and hence Craig won this battle. whats going to happen next is anyone’s guess. I would change hair colour, alter my gait and repair make sure the cameras work.
After all they can arrest you for ‘suspecting and infection’ if they see you walking anywhere in public.
thanks mods. can you please change the rules as well that say that O/T are ok after page 2, much obliged.
—
[ Mod: Yes. Would you mind removing the text “n/a” from the URL field every time you post? It just hyperlinks your name to a page error.
Thanks. ]
An extract from Grousebeaters transcript of day 7 of the trial. 17/3/2020 The Defence begins their case.
On to Woman A. Alex Salmond says claims he touched and kissed her are” a fabrication from start to finish”; they were out in public at the centre of attention, it ” would be insane to be doing anything like that”. He says the claim he sexually assaulted Woman A is ” not just a fabrication, it’s ludicrous”. He accuses Ms A of recruiting and encouraging five of the other accusers also to make fabrications against him. He describes Ms A as extremely close to Nicola Sturgeon. He says it ” accusations make no sense whatsoever” and says Woman A has encouraged some of the other complainers to ” exaggerate or make claims against me.
Even after all the things that Craig has documented over the past weeks it is their own conduct that is the most damning damning indictment on the democratic legitimacy of the judiciary in this country. They are evidently unaccountable, corrupt and not fit for purpose. Not that this is the first time their behaviour has brought embarrassment and shame to the entire country but this was a real eye opener – respect to Craig for refusing to be ground down by harassment and in doing so exposing the truth about these people
At least you have a soul, Craig. The people who excluded you from the trial have lost theirs.
@Tom Kennedy
Lost or sold?
The end of life as we know it
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0122/20122.pdf
How long did it take to put this Bill together?
Amongst many other worrying prospects, long enough to plan that Julian Assange might die very soon of Covid19, in custody, and that any inquest could be be neatly squared off, without fuss, by the right chap.
@Pb March 22, 2020 at 19:16
“The end of life as we know it
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0122/20122.pdf
How long did it take to put this Bill together?”
Years, it must have been sitting ready, and those involved just itching to roll it out. Just a quick global find and replace of lkupagl with Coronavirus.