Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched 752


My Defence Fund has now reached over £75,000 from almost 5,000 donors. I am extremely grateful to each and every one. Work is now proceeding apace with the legal team. If charges are brought against any of the others who have been threatened by Police Scotland or the Crown Office over this case, including the journalist whose laptops and phones were seized by police, the funds will be made available to their defence also.

Original Post (from 24 April, with further update below).

I know of four pro-Independence folk who were last week phoned or visited by Police Scotland and threatened with contempt of court proceedings over social media postings they had made weeks back on the Alex Salmond case. Then on Monday, a Scottish journalist I know had his home raided by five policemen, who confiscated (and still have) all his computers and phones. They said they were from the “Alex Salmond team” and investigating his postings on the Alex Salmond case. He has not to date been charged, and his lawyer is advising him at present to say nothing, so I am not revealing his name.

Then on Tuesday morning, a large Police van full of police pulled up onto the pavement right outside my front gate, actually while I was talking on the phone to a senior political figure about the raid on my friend. The police just sat in the van staring at my house. I contacted my lawyers who contacted the Crown Office. The police van pulled away and my lawyers contacted me back to say that the Crown Office had told them I would be charged, or officially “cited”, with Contempt of Court, but they agreed there was no need for a search of my home or to remove my devices, or for vans full of police.

On Thursday two plain clothes police arrived and handed me the indictment. Shortly thereafter, an email arrived from The Times newspaper, saying that the Crown Office had “confirmed” that I had been charged with contempt of court. In the case of my friend whose house was raided, he was contacted by the Daily Record just before the raid even happened!

I am charged with contempt of court and the hearing is on 7 July at the High Court in Edinburgh. The contempt charge falls in two categories:

i) Material published before the trial liable to prejudice a jury
ii) Material published which could assist “jigsaw identification” of the failed accusers.

Plainly neither of these is the true motive of the Crown Office. If they believed that material I published was likely to have prejudiced the jury, then they had an obvious public duty to take action BEFORE the trial – and the indictment shows conclusively they were monitoring my material long before the trial. To leave this action until after the trial which they claim the material was prejudicing, would be a serious act of negligence on their part. It is quite extraordinary to prosecute for it now and not before the trial.

As for identifying the failed conspirators, I have done less than the mainstream media. But plainly the Crown Office, or whoever is pushing them to this persecution, had no genuine interest in protecting the identities, otherwise why did they tip off the media that I was being charged, and thus guarantee further publicity? If protecting the identities was their motive, to tip off the media would obviously be counterproductive.

But what proves that the Crown Office is acting from base motives and not those stated is the one-sided nature of this. Only supporters of Alex Salmond – the Alex Salmond found innocent by the jury – are being pursued by this continuing Police Scotland operation.

There are literally thousands who put out “Salmond is guilty” “Salmond is a rapist” “Salmond is a pervert” posts on social media before and during the trial. Not one has had the police knock on the door. The Herald published absolutely deliberately, the day before the trial, a montage of Alex Salmond amongst photos of mass murderers. They have not been charged. Every newspaper published “jigsaw identification” information which I withheld. They have not been charged or investigated, despite the evidence brilliantly compiled and presented to the Police.

No, this is a blatant, one-sided political persecution. That much is entirely plain. I have therefore decided, in the interests of open justice, to publish the entire indictment against me (with a single sentence redacted where I think the prosecution were excessively indiscreet). Neither the indictment nor the covering letter is marked confidential or not for publication. It is, so far as I know, a public document.

The Crown have very deliberately not included the names of any of the failed conspirators in the indictment and instead refer to the women by their court allocated letters. That is a plain indication to me that this is a public document drafted specifically with publication in mind. Otherwise the document would have more naturally used the names and not the alphabet letters.

More fundamentally this indictment is the basis on which they are attempting to put me in prison – in fact the indictment specifies up to two years in jail and an unlimited fine as the punishment sought from the court. I think the public interest, and my own interest, in it being public is very substantial.

The state believes it has finally discovered a way to put me in prison without the inconvenient hurdle of a jury of my peers. Contempt of Court is just decided by a judge. It is extraordinary that you can go to jail for a substantial two years with no jury protection and no test of “beyond reasonable doubt”; and on the whim of a judge defending what he may view as the dignity of his own office. This really is the epitome of bad law. To use it against freedom of speech is disgusting.

So here is the full indictment against me:

redactedcaseagainstcraigmurray (1)

If the indictment contains anything they did not wish to be public, well, I didn’t force them to serve it on me. From my side, the proceedings against me will be entirely open. I will remind you that you may find all or part of the indictment initially convincing; but you are yet to see my point by point reply, which naturally I shall also publish in due course.

[UPDATE

Pending the outcome of the trial, and on legal advice, I have redacted from the indictment those sentences complained of as aiding identification of a witness, and have redacted same sentences from original blog posts. My position is firmly that they absolutely do not they do not contribute to likely identification of witnesses, and the mainstream media did that to a far greater degree than I.]

The purpose of this operation against free speech is a desperate attempt to keep the lid on the nature of the state conspiracy to fit up Alex Salmond. Once the parliamentary inquiry starts, a huge amount of evidence of conspiracy which the court did not allow the defence to introduce in evidence during the criminal trial, will be released. The persecution of myself is an attempt to intimidate independent figures into not publishing anything about it. The lickspittle media of course do not have to be intimidated. To this end, I am charged specifically with saying that the Alex Salmond case was a fit-up and a conspiracy in which the Crown Office was implicated. So I thought I would say it again now:

The Alex Salmond case was a fit-up and a conspiracy in which the Crown Office was implicated, foiled by the jury. If Scotland is the kind of country where you go to jail for saying that, let me get my toothbrush.

Before then, I am afraid we have to fund my defence and I shall be very grateful for donations to my defence fund. My initial target is £60,000. I shall post daily updates on total reached, but I shall be using my established funding channels and not involving a crowdfunding website. I do not intend to fight this battle entirely on the defensive, and some of the funding may be put to launching actions against the Crown or others.




Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

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


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on May 29, 2020.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

752 thoughts on “Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched

1 9 10 11 12
  • Kaiama

    Given that the Assange case may well be delayed until November, we sincerely hope that you don’t get fitted up for contempt or we might be deprived of the only accurate reporting on the case. Fingers crossed.

  • Crispa

    I came across this by happenchance earlier today in the Cardiff and South Wales Weekly News for July 13th 1901 while researching something entirely different. I thought it had a piquant saliency about it. (I have edited it slightly).
    “THE SUSPENDED MINISTER
    Mr W. 0. Jones held services on Sunday morning and evening in Hope Hall, Liverpool.
    Some 350 people were present at the prayer meeting in the forenoon.
    The hall was packed in the evening by some 2,500 people, and Mr Jones selected for his text the words, ” The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
    The preacher at the end of the sermon said that he had been forbidden by some to preach, but he intended to continue preaching as long as he could obtain hearers, and in the movement they were inaugurating that day he would like their motto to be “To seek and to save that which was lost”.

    • Giyane

      Crispa

      To seek and to save..

      A famous old man from Scotland once told me not to talk about things I didn’t understand. Meaning, until I understood that this is a political world, controlled by the political elite, my opinions were unwelcome. Plus cha change , plus ch’ est la fxxxing meme chose. The rich and powerful are unredeemable, and have been since the time of prophet Noah pbuh.

  • michael norton

    I expect they would not have gone for Craig, if Mr.Salmond had been incarcerated. Perhaps this has been done in a
    fit of pique?

    IAN BLACKFORD raked in £241,904.36 in expenses during 2017-18 – making the SNP politician the second highest-claiming MP out of 650 in Westminster.

    It must be nice at or near the top.

    • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

      Without checking out Ian Blackford’s expenses, one assumes the outlay might just have something to do with his being head of the third largest Westminster party while serving a constituency well outwith the M25 and territorially the largest of the UK Parliament (Ross, Skye and Lochaber, c. 12,000 square kilometres).

        • Westie

          Caledonian McBrayne must be fair ripping off the punters (and Blackford, the ‘simple crofter’) on those ferry crossings then 😉

          • tarisgal

            ‘Simple Crofter’ or not, he is the MP for a vast area, which includes many boat trips to outlying islands when he has to visit all his constituents, WHICH IS HIS JOB. It may sound a lot of money, BUT THAT’S WHAT ITS FOR – REACHING EVERY SINGLE CONSTITUENT of his. And then getting back and forward to Glasgow to then fly down to London.

            You really need to do some geographical research into how much travel he has to do & thus why his expenses are so high. HE isn’t the one heating stables, or having duck houses built in ponds. It ISN’T the SNP MPs that are always being done for expenses cheating. In fact, I don’t believe ANY SNP MP has been hauled up for expenses theft. That seems to be a unionist MP habit, I’d say..

      • Piotr+Berman

        Perhaps the gentleman for Ross, Skye and Lochaber deems his patriotic duty to be as much of a nuisance to Westminster as possible, and maximizing the expenses is one of the little ways to do it.

    • Julia+Gibb

      Have a look at a map, including the islands. You try covering an area the size of a small country on the same expenses as a densely populated London constituency. Now factor in the several legs of commuting to London. Feel stupid? You should.

      • michael norton

        Julia + Gibb, no I do not feel stupid.
        Look again.
        Almost a quarter of a million pounds in expenses.

        This needs some flesh.

        • tarisgal

          Well you should feel stupid You haven’t done ANY research to find out just how much travel he has to do. And while it might seem a lot of money, that’s too bad. He has a duty to have MP surgeries in EVERY PART OF HIS CONSTITUENCY, to help EVERY OUTLYING CONSTITUENT and that takes him thousands of miles a year. And really, given unionists are the ones in the habit of claiming expenses for heating stables, and building duck houses in ponds, I’d say you really have a brass neck questioning SNPs expenses, seeing not one has been questioned about expenses theft, while unionist MPs make a habit of it. Ohhh dear…

          Like your mate above, you’re trying it on but it isn’t working…

    • N_

      It’s not pique. They want to stop the names coming out, because Sturgeon would then have to resign within a day. Presumably she wants to stay out of prison too. That is the rational element. Also they are vicious scumbags.

      The story of those who run the public authorities in Scotland and their close friends in the private sector to whom they give contracts is as follows:

      * they think they can get away with anything (seriously – how many corruption trials can anybody reading this remember?)
      * they believe that if they say the right kind of lying old sh*t then the money will keep flowing into their pockets
      * they believe that anybody who says “Hey, that’s not true” or “Yes, but under the Montreal Convention” is a pathetic loser. Their values don’t stretch to including respect for the truth or even for the law. They thieve whatever isn’t nailed down and they strut around looking “dignified” while they do it. (Except admittedly a man baring half his chest with one of his trouser legs rolled up doesn’t look “dignified”, but that kind of thing they do behind closed doors.)

      • Jon

        They want to stop the names coming out

        I thought that ship had sailed. I think there is a remaining legal process that Salmond has to go through, and the evidence he has kept back will be forced out at that point. I believe it cannot be stopped, unless a judicial process is interfered with (not a trivial thing, even for the establishment).

        So I suspect the additional evidence will come out regardless of whether the state wants it to or not. My hope is that it helps clean house at the SNP, if that is what ordinary members want, but I fear it could also harm the independence movement. It is a dilemma not dissimilar to the problems facing the Labour Party presently – it needs to clean house in order to move on, and yet it may find itself not able to do what is necessary. That ultimately could hurt both sides of the party, brought about by its establishment managers.

    • Michael Calder

      These might be useful. He doesn’t spend much on travel, considering where he lives. He has staff costs of £138,854.00. He is not the highest claiming SNP MP, he is fourth on that list. –

      https://www.mpsexpenses.info/#!/mp/736

      Here is what he gets paid for not much work outside of parliament –

      “Register of Members’ Interests
      Last updated: 27 Apr 2020.

      1. Employment and earnings
      From 1 December 2015, Chairman of Golden Charter Trust Ltd, Canniesburn Gate, 10 Canniesburn Drive, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1BF. From 1 April 2020 until further notice, I will be paid £3,247.25 a month. Hours: 8 hrs per quarter. In addition, I will be paid £1,575.85 per day for any additional work (additional payments will be listed below). (Registered 03 June 2015; updated 14 December 2015, 06 June 2016, 12 April 2018, 12 April 2019 and 14 April 2020)
      Until 17 December 2019, Chairman of Commsworld Plc, Commsworld House, Peffer Place, Edinburgh EH16 4BB. From July 2015 until 17 December 2019, I was paid £1,000 a month. Hours: 8 hrs per quarter. (Registered 3 June 2015; updated 3 August 2015 and 18 December 2019)

      https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25361/ian_blackford/ross%2C_skye_and_lochaber#register

      I think we should worry less about what MPs get paid or claim for, rather than banning them from having more than one job.

  • Matt Pekar

    Thank you Craig, for fighting for the truth and for us. Some financial help from Arkansas coming your way.

    And some wise words for the readership, from an orange man, paraphrased:

    The Crown Office is after us…Craig is just in the way.

    • Phil O'Sophical

      Is this the same Kenny Macaskill who tried his damnedest to scrap the corroboration requirement in Scottish criminal trials?

  • Tatyana

    Ingwe, this is for you and for other people who don’t do social networking.
    Mr Murray on his Twitter about 7 hours ago:

    “I had a really hard day. The prosecution asking the court on openings to accelerate my trial at an earlier date. Hours of talks with my defence team. Hard family conversations on what happens if I go to jail.
    Then this one tweet made what I do, all of it, seem worthwhile again.
    Below is a quote: Radd Seiger, Adviser and Spokesperson for the Family of Harry Dunn, who says “Thank you” to Colin Henderson for invitation to read Mr Murray’s blog on the Sacoolas case.

    http://prntscr.com/s7tphv

    • Ingwe

      Tatyana, April 29 @08:33-I’m much obliged to you!
      Periodic posts keeping us anti-socials in the loop are most welcome.

      • Tatyana

        Ingwe, I recall you once invited me to keep posting 🙂 You’re welcome. I thought some people may worry on abscence of updates by Mr Murray, so now you know he is busy with his team and family.

        • Ingwe

          Tatyana, you’re absolutely right that I do hope you continue posting. It’s always refreshing to hear views from someone who lives in Russia given how stilted and biased the reporting is of your country by our media.
          That your posts are are in English, not your first language, is, without intending to be patronising, amazing. You pick up on the British, sometimes obscure, sense of humour and add your own dry wit.
          I wasn’t, for a moment, complaining about Mr Murray not giving an hourly update of his defence fund. I appreciate that he’s got an awful lot on his plate and I note that, despite this, he has posted another tour de force on the hypocrisy of the West in bringing death and destruction globally in their own interest. Quite amazing.

          • Tatyana

            Thank you, Ingwe. It is an honor for me to be able to speak with people here. You can always count on honesty and transparency on my part.
            I’ve noticed that my, khm, measurement in inches was surprising 🙂 It made me wonder to what extent I got used to the English language and realities. I’ve been making things for more than ten years and my main customers are from the USA, I use inch marking of my ruler more often than centimeter.
            Another time I discovered smth new about myself is, I shared my housekeeping experience, and a reader commented “oh, these housewives with higher education” made me doubt whether I evaluate myself correctly when I introduce myself as a housewife.
            Finally, a recent story made me think about the purpose of my presence here, and after a few days of thought, I decided that I am “a Russian housewife waging her little funny war against big lies” – this remains the most accurate description of me.

    • Peter

      Obviously the primary focus for Craig right now is on winning his case, and I do hope, and indeed have high expectation, that he will and that this post is utterly superfluous, but in the event that the b*****ds did imprison Craig perhaps followers of him and this blog, and others, could form a network to support Craig and his family during what would clearly be a very difficult time.

      • Tatyana

        Peter, indeed, I hope kind people will support Mr. Murray.

        Another thing I’m worried about is …well, I have no one proper word, I’ll try to explain in many words:
        I see danger in the way the media describe Mr. Salmond’s trial. I am very worried about how it is described. For example, in the “The National”
        “…The former first minister Alex Salmond was cleared of all 13 sexual assault charges…”

        You see, this is a very short message. After reading it, other women will think, “Well, another high-ranking boss was cleared of 13 women charges”. After reading that news they will consider that defending their rights is useless. Among those who read the news there are real victims of the real abusers. So, they will think that standing for their rights against bosses, against being mistreated in the working space – they will think it’s useless. You see it? This short line, with no detail, just states “cleared of all charges”.

        This is terribly wrong.
        Abusers often play their “jokes” on those who can’t fight back, on women who don’t know how to go into conflict. These women must be brave enough to confront.
        It’s difficult for women to assert their rights to “sexual integrity” (sorry if incorrectly worded). Standing against a powerful boss – is more than incredibly difficult decision. To let go public a case where a woman is humiliated and her dignity is trampled – is an awfully difficult moral decision to expose that.
        And such short news reports just discourage women from standing up for our rights.

        I believe that all anti-rape organizations, all organizations for the rights of women, all of them should support Mr. Murray and uphold the right to fair, honest, open reporting. The right for true journalism.
        If there is a conspiracy against Salmond, this should be investigated and made public.
        I think that all women’s rights organizations should condemn these conspirators for the enormous harm they have done.

        • Giyane

          Tatyana

          When Muslims put forward their point of view that men and women should be separated at work, you get comments like ” when did you stop beating your wife.”

          Men and women are programmed to sex. Business is programmed to power. One either mixes them and accepts the consequences, or separates them and has a quiet life. Simples

          • Tatyana

            Giyane, what a wrong idea has been expressed.
            Why should men and women be separated? How do you separate the surgeon and the nurse in the operating room?

            A workplace is just one more public place, where people meet potential sexual partners, like a street, a bus, a park, a restaurant, well, any place except the home. As long as attention of the couple is mutually welcomed, there is no problem. Why objecting to colleagues fall in love, date, have sex, maybe get married, or maybe decide that the relationship is over, what’s the problem?

            We are not discussing mutual attraction at all, but abuse, a situation where the desire of one does not find an answer from the other. Saying that men and women should be separated in the workingspaces because “people are programmed to sex,” you don’t mean “to immediately satisfy sexual needs anywhere, regardless of the desire of the other side”?
            What we really should do is to learn to respect each other and learn to get along with each other. We are not animals, I hope everyone agrees with this.

          • michael norton

            https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49048972
            Carl Beech.

            In the high places allegations around Westminster,
            Carl Beech who made claims about certain high ups has been banged up.
            Apparently he , Carl, made it all up.

            Now I wonder if the same sort of troubles, will now come down on the Alphabet Sisters?

          • N_

            Eighteen years is a very long prison sentence for Carl Beech.

            According to the BBC, the police “failed to prioritise the tracing of important witnesses, such as people who worked alongside some of the accused at the relevant time. Some of them were not initially approached because officers wanted to avoid upsetting Beech”.

            Something doesn’t stack up.

            Certainly there are no flies on whoever penned that piece for the BBC:

            In the witness box, habitually pausing and humming when asked a seemingly unanticipated question about his account, Beech had the look of a man scanning his mind for a lie dressed as a memory.

            Typical of the crap standard of reporting nowadays is that the BBC don’t bother to tell us how the 18 years were portioned out for the various offences of which Beech was convicted. Don’t they have any trained court reporters? Didn’t a sub or an editor notice that most of the basic “who what where when” was missing from the report? I would be interested to know how many years he got for perverting the course of justice and fraud, and how many for paedophile offences.

            I wonder how he got to be governor at two schools. (They were both in Quedgeley in Gloucestershire: one was Severn Vale; the other was the Beech Green primary school where he was chairman of the governors.) For a time he worked for the NSPCC. That’s an organisation that could do with being investigated. For decades it has turned a “blind eye” to child sexual abuse in boarding schools, where it is rampant…and where much of the ruling elite send their offspring.

        • Peter

          Tatyana,

          Thank you, yes, I take your point(s) and support it completely – while completely lamenting the, to put it politely, sad comment from Giyane – which may have been deleted by the time I post this.

          I agree, to bring malicious allegations and prosecutions (assuming, as seems the case, that that’s what they are) based on sexual assault is as much a disservice to women as it is a crime against Alex Salmond, and likewise, the biassed reporting of the case, implying that Salmond is in fact guilty, equally does a disservice to women by, as you say, disincentivising abused women to report the crimes.

          However, as I alluded to in a previous post – https://tinyurl.com/y75wfz2e – it is quite possible, though by no means certain, that the fallout from Craig’s, Alex Salmond’s, and perhaps even Julian’s cases as well as that from the leaked Labour report will be a drawing back of the veil covering up the scale of wretchedness, collusion and corruption that infests the contemporary mainstream media.

          If that were to happen, it would inevitably lead to demands for a new large, Leveson style, public inquiry.

          That possibility might explain why much of the media has gone silent on this, and others, Bella Caledonia for instance, are yelping more loudly than usual.

  • DonnyDarko

    Donated Craig !!
    The fact they’re gunning for you, show’s that your still kicking them where it hurts.
    It’s frightening that there’s money in the Scottish justice system to silence the truth.
    All very East Germany and Stasi like.

  • nevermind

    The initial sums raised. In full swing at saving the health service that was set up to save people and change their lot in life, what else shall we engage in on a rainy day indoors?
    Any suggestions as to what we could initiate as concerned citizens eagerly awaiting the courts response to this failed attempt at prosecuting AS on a twitter conspiracy of likeminded group of women in the SNP and the civil service? Who, with the help of a massive police effort, we ought to get to know how much time, money and manpower was allocated for such a heinous exercise in controlling the political future narrative in Scotland, perverted the cpurse of justice to hurt AS and those milllions that wete very vociferous in the pursuit of their dreams, and Independent Scotland.
    If Nicola Sturgeon is such a Westminster aligned polished politician and purports to support Independence, why does she not take the example and hints of Tory swats such as Gove and nonelected guru Cummings in the way they are roughing their negotiations with Brussels, determined to just leave on 31.Dec.2020, and raise the sceptre of a UDI Independence move at the same time England wants to leave Brussels?
    Why is she engaging in an execise of controlling a health emergency/narrative that should be handled by responsible scientists and her healthminister instead of using this to excusr herself from this now urgent issue of Independence, political , judiciary and economic Independence?
    I put it to her that she is frit because she has never believed in this central goal of the Independence movement. She should resign before this empty hull of justice collapses around her.

    • N_

      Dominic Cummings unelected? But wait…that puts him in the same category as Nicola Sturgeon’s chief of staff, Liz Lloyd!

      • Giyane

        N_

        Cummings gets paid to think so that Bojo Haram can pose. If you think about it, neither of them were elected.
        Bojo was beamed up by a few thousand very wealthy Tories and added to an algorithm of proles.
        Spaghetti Bolognese. And who doesn’t love spaghetti bolognese?

        • Lawrence AB

          That’s because the British Supreme Court has no power to strike down laws, only to interpret them (and to interpret the unwritten constitution as it did over the prorogation of Parliament matter).

          And that’s because we have no written Constitution sitting above the Westminster Parliament that reigns supreme, and can change any law at will (no Parliament can bind the next). It all starts there. The absolute sovereignty of Parliament (not of the people) combined with monarchical powers for the PM is the source of all Britain’s problems.

  • nevermind

    of topic, but an overarching issue that is paramount to today’s crisis, imho. The climate crisis should/must now become the concern of elected members and guru’s such as Cummings, should be confined to advise, not to direct.
    Not unlike many publicly employed persona, Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett Carnac have a book that comes out, with a brutally honest message. Non violent civil disobedience must be the public’s Number one cause now.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/02/24/former-un-climate-chief-calls-for-civil-disobedience/?fbclid=IwAR0BDQcVvV0ieGGofGZ5YDgFERMN5k3kb5jVM2mMKDPMO7SrKrdf7ncAw2E

  • Republicofscotland

    On the murderous slaughter in Iraq by the West, I recall George Galloway bringing a young injured Iraqi girl to Scotland to receive a vital operation, of which Galloway generously paid for out of his own pocket.

    However what struck me was the ill feeling towards Galloway from the media, such was the strength of the propaganda aimed at Iraq as the evil bogeyman.

    The nefarious oil for food programme in Iraq, also pointed out the depths of which the greedy self serving Western neoliberal ideology will go to, to make a profit.

    As for your conservative estimate of 5 million deaths, easily I’d say. On Covid-19 though, by the time we count up the deaths from the virus, then the deaths from the knock on consequences, such as cancers, other diseases pushed into the long grass to deal with this virus, starvation due to economic hardship because financial resources were diverted to fight this virus, and of course, internal conflict for the remaining resources and that figure could easily rival your conservative estimate I think.

    The Four Horsemen, look theyll reap a huge human harvest in 2020.

  • Eoin

    I love the liberal distribution of [sic] when referring to Craig’s work, and yet they omit such grammatical alacrity when citing others. They also seem Though they appear to think “surprise” merits a [sic] also. What’s the betting they think it should be spelled “suprise”???
    And why take issue with “the extremely arbitrary powers of the judge to decide who is guilty of contempt of – the judge themself [sic] – is an extraordinarily abusive power if you think about it” Given that Craig was referring to a theoretical judge who might be male or female, he wouldn’t use “himself” or “herself”, but he uses the gender neutral “them” and because it’s singular, it takes the suffix “self” rather than “selves”.
    Do you know what, I would wager the serious prosecution people think definite is spelled with an “a”
    Also, they refer to Twitter user @TinkyToe and for a laugh, I looked it up and saw it has only posted in 2016.
    It seems the ever-so-careful serious prosecution people mean @Tinky_Toe, and for their information, that character between the “y” and the second “T” is called an “underscore”. It’s a completely different Twitter account! The serious prosecution people have accused an entirely innocent Twitter user of committing a criminal act, that is, naming a complainer in sexual crime proceedings!
    What dopes.

  • John Manning

    The Case Against Craig Murray.

    1.

    Before judging this it must be acknowledged that there will be a fairly large number of people who know the identities of the anonymous complainers. People attending court will have seen them, those in the SNP who worked for over a year investigating their claims will be aware of them. A number of police officers will know them. Members of the civil service and government will be aware that they took time of work to attend the trial. Members of their families will likely know as well.

    The consequence of that is understanding what the order for anonymity could achieve. It was clearly an order preventing widespread dissemination of their identities, not one prohibiting anyone knowing their identity.

    A second factor is that any published information leading to identification should be material to that identification. Incidental information which cannot on its own lead to an identification is not relevant. If someone is in possession of a large body of information which allows them to identify the complainers, adding an incidental fact to that compendium of information does not make the publication of the incidental fact material to the identification.

    If such incidental facts were seen as material then any fact (such as shoe size) pertaining to any of the complainers would become material once added to a larger body of information.

    2.

    HM Advocate has begun the case by promoting C Murray’s credentials as a journalist. Paragraphs 4 to 8 make the case that Murray is a journalist of some renown.

    Very recently the court prosecuting Salmond ruled that Murray was not a journalist and therefore not eligible to be a court reporter.

    In making this case HM Advocate risks bringing the court into contempt by a willingness to change what is considered fact/truth on a day to day basis in order to achieve a desired goal.

    The court has ruled that C Murray is not a journalist, he is a writer who publishes political and historical works.

    HM Advocate cannot change that now simply because it suits a current goal.

    3.

    HM Advocate then raises the question of Murray’s criticism of the investigation of Salmond carried out during 2018. By placing this in a charge of contempt against Murray it is clear that HM Advocate believes the statements by Murray are either false or misleading.

    Because Murray’s statements do in fact parallel the judgement of the Court of Session it must be concluded that HM Advocate is making a case that the Court of Session was wrong in its judgement which favoured Salmond.

    The Court of Session made a very strong statement indicating failings and bias in the investigation of Salmond and backed that up with a substantial financial settlement to Salmond. The Court of Session has stated more strongly and more loudly everything Murray has stated.

    Is HM Advocate challenging the Court of Session? Is HM Advocate in contempt of the Court of Session?

    4.

    Political Satire.

    Cambridge English Dictionary. Definition “Satire”
    A way of criticising people or ideas in a humorous way especially in order to make a political point.

    Murray states as is normal for most fiction writers that the events depicted in his satire are not real and any resemblance to actual individuals or events is merely coincidental.

    All political satire resembles real life events, that is the purpose of satire. If readers connect the satire with specific events or people that is their own interpretation, not that of the writer. Remember Murray is not a journalist; we have the court’s ruling to prove that he is a writer.

    HM Advocate has made the point that the description of a former politician and his wife in the satire could lead to the identification of one of the complainers. Until I read that I was unaware that one of the complainers was the wife of a former politician. HM Advocate’s revelation here is the publication that makes it easier for me to identify the complainer, not Murray’s satire.

    Two of the five commentators cited from the 433 comments made, mention Salmond. One of those stating the reference was allegorical (ie poetical or a story with hidden meaning). The main comment cited was a discussion about the relationship between the independence movement and the SNP. I imagine this was included because the commentator was called Alex which might confuse some readers into thinking it referred to Salmond.

    5.

    HM Advocate makes mention several times of commentators reacting to Murray’s articles. The comments cited are generally critical of Murray’s writing and state that they have been able to identify a complainer because of those articles. There is no evidence that they have identified anyone except for one commentator on Twitter who published the name of a complainer which was revealed to her by a different source. Murray was not the source of that identification and did not contribute to that identification.

    The remainder of the commentators fall into the category of hearsay evidence, not usually admissible in a court.

    Because of the open nature of the internet the publications by commentators are not publications by Murray.

    In Clause 25 HM Advocate intentionally confuses an article from 5 March 2020 with the earlier article using political satire in order to try and reinforce the false premise that satire is journalistic comment. The 5 March article was about the Salmond case the satire was not. The satire was a political comment about how the justice system could be manipulated. Bringing the two together this way is a shabby bit of politicking which should be beneath HM Advocate.

    If people believe the satire published describes the actual events relating to Salmond’s trial then that is their own judgement that the legal system is grossly at fault not that of Murray. That is the purpose of satire, its holds a fictional mirror up to reality.

    6.

    HM Advocate mentions in several places that Murray has stated he knows more than he can say. All this reveals is that Murray was limiting his statements in order to stay within the law. This case is an argument about whether or not Murray was successful in that.

    From Clause 29 onward the case starts to address the matter of identification of the complainers.
    There are a constant stream of claims that Murray is publishing information that could lead to the identification of a complainer when in fact the information is already a public record. HM Advocate is claiming that whenever evidence presented in the court, which directly concerned a complainer, is recited by Murray, that Murray is therefore publishing information made confidential by the order for anonymity.

    HM Advocate cannot be so foolish as to confuse the anonymity of complainers with a record of a public trial. This was not a case tried in secret.

    I know nothing of Scottish politics nor of the SNP. I have tried to use Murray’s publications to identify any of the complainers and have failed to even get a shortlist of candidates. Anyone who believes Murray’s publications could lead to identification should be required to show the step by step path they applied using public information to reveal an identity.

    I am firmly of the belief that to identify a complainer from Murray’s publications requires a significant body of additional information relating to the Scottish Civil Service or the SNP or the Scottish Government of Salmond.

    The most significant identification facts mentioned in this case were the tightly curled hair and the attempt to become an electoral candidate. For people with knowledge of the SNP this could well provide identification. Both these facts are court evidence and on the public record. They were not revealed by Murray.

    In Clauses 53 to 56 the HM Advocate goes a step further by placing the blame on Murray for the potentially contempt made by another reporter (Garavelli).

    At this point one can only consider that HM Advocate is subject to the same bias that the Court of Session ruled against.

    • Lev Ke

      Congratulations and thanks! I’m sure Craig’s legal team will be aware of these points but it’s great that you compiled all of these contradictions so they can be pointed out in public already. We can all use them in discussions now!

    • Jennifer Allan

      Thank you Mr Manning. I would expect Craig’s legal team to already be preparing to petition the Court to have the entire Indictment lifted, or if not lifted, then completely expunged of everything prior to Clause 29. Lady Dorrian instructed the Jury to base their verdicts entirely on the evidence heard in Court, having already deliberately excluded all evidence relating to pre trial ‘conspiracy theories’. On the weekend before the verdicts were announced the Jury members will have been warned not to discuss the case with families and friends, and avoid press and media trial reports, and internet speculations.
      If I had been a member of the Jury, I would be insulted by any suggestion I had been overly influenced or biased by any of the lurid stuff in the tabloid newspapers, or any of the conspiracy theories doing the rounds in social media, Apart from anything else, this is an attack on the integrity of the Jury. The only ‘bias’ would seem to be that of the Crown Advocate.

    • Measured by the heart

      “HM Advocate makes mention several times of commentators reacting to Murray’s articles. The comments cited are generally critical of Murray’s writing and state that they have been able to identify a complainer because of those articles. There is no evidence that they have identified anyone except for one commentator on Twitter who published the name of a complainer which was revealed to her by a different source. Murray was not the source of that identification and did not contribute to that identification.

      The remainder of the commentators fall into the category of hearsay evidence, not usually admissible in a court.”

      Thanks for describing this bizarre feature so clearly. The opinions of random people writing on this blog were included in the indictment, as long as their opinions were that Craig was in contempt of court.

      On reading the indictment, I didn’t see anything about the credibility or motivations of the commentators, or even if the comments were made by real people. Yet, based on this, a man is to appear before a judge with possibly ruinous consequences.

      For some reason, I thought the legal system worked differently.

  • Dafydd

    Out of interest, did Garavelli actively seek out woman K? Did she have permission from the court to do this, and could anybody else attempt to contact any of the alphabet sisters for an interview?

    • paul

      As I,a member of the voting public, do not know who they were.
      How did mrs garavelli?
      Did they reveal themselves, or were they unrevealed by mrs gavarelli’s claque?

  • Mary

    Craig Murray
    @CraigMurrayOrg
    The UK is turning into some kind of very strange paranoid and illiberal security state. The treatment of Assange shows us that.
    The refusal to allow the EU to open a diplomatic office in Belfast is the kind of behaviour you expect from Belarus or North Korea.
    8:39 pm · 29 Apr

    I would second that if I was on Twitter which I am not.

    • Alex McMahon

      I’ve chipped in with a slightly better than modest amount. Good luck Craig, this is going to be rough,
      Cheers, Alex

  • Ben

    This bizness is shameful. But I doubt your principled defense of Assange and his band of Stalinist loyalists is worth your sacrifice.

  • Christopher Barclay

    ‘The state believes it has finally discovered a way to put me in prison without the inconvenient hurdle of a jury of my peers. Contempt of Court is just decided by a judge. It is extraordinary that you can go to jail for a substantial two years with no jury protection and no test of “beyond reasonable doubt”; and on the whim of a judge defending what he may view as the dignity of his own office. This really is the epitome of bad law. To use it against freedom of speech is disgusting.’

    This is the same law, or at least version of the English law, that was imposed on Tommy Robinson. In his case, prison included the threat of serious physical violence by people convicted of violent crimes.

    The Alex Salmond and other cases have also shown why accusations of rape and sexual assault need to be presented to a jury. Those advocating for such cases to be decided by a panel of judges are wittingly or unwittingly advocating for a totalitarian state.

    • Jennifer Allan

      @Christopher Barclay -There WAS a recent abortive attempt by the SNP administration to suspend jury trials during the Coronavirus crisis. Covid-19 has proven very useful to our present political leaders in Scotland:-
      “Scotland drops plans to suspend jury trials during coronavirus crisis
      Michael Gove urged Nicola Sturgeon to reconsider ‘deeply concerning’ proposals”
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/01/scotland-drops-plans-to-suspend-jury-trials-during-coronavirus-crisis

      Quote from above:-
      “Joanna Cherry QC, an SNP MP who helped lead legal challenges to the UK government’s Brexit policies last year, called on her colleagues in Holyrood to put the proposals on hold.”
      “The right to a jury trial and the rule against hearsay with only the strictest exceptions are cornerstones of our criminal law,” she tweeted. “They should be guarded jealously and I am sure MSP colleagues will want to consider these proposals very, very carefully.”

  • Christof Lehmann

    Here is an important point that has not even been covered.
    60.000 needed for the defense of one’s right to free speech – how many would be able to afford that? The fact that this kind of sums are required to even have a chance to avoid years-long prison sentences on trumped-up charges is in and on itself enough to prove that something in jurisprudence has gone terribly awry and that it is right out dangerous not to resist by all required means. – W.r. Christof Lehmann.

    • Jennifer Allan

      You need to be a multi millionaire in order to afford the kind of legal expenses needed to defend yourself against a powerful Government administration. They of course can access any amount of public money to engage the best lawyers and advocates. Alex Salmond was paid £500,000 following his recent successful litigation; the cash was stated to be a reimbursement of his legal fees. If he had lost his case he would have been forced to pay the Government’s legal expenses in addition to his own.
      The SNP administration’s attempts to impose a ‘named person’ for every Scottish child under 18. The scheme sought to appoint a state official for every child in Scotland to monitor their ‘wellbeing’ – defined as “happiness”. This included powers to access and share private data on children and parents, and to provide ‘advice’. One government-funded leaflet said Named Persons would even check whether a child was given a say in what they watch on TV. Parental rights would have been usurped by this very unpopular scheme.

      The Scottish Courts ‘rolled over’ refusing to block the scheme, which was eventually overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court. This cost £millions of taxpayer’s money. It would be very nice if political leaders were made personally liable for legal and court expenses incurred as a result of their refusal to accept their mistakes and misjudgements and move on.
      https://www.christian.org.uk/press_release/supreme-court-blocks-scottish-governments-totalitarian-named-person-scheme-in-historic-ruling/
      “In one devastating line from the judgment, the Supreme Court justices observed:
      “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world.” [Paragraph 73]

    • douglas clark

      I completely agree. They silence the likes of you and I through unequal wealth. It is, perhaps, the case that only the rich have access to the levers of power and others do not? Don’t seem right to me.

      • douglas clark

        Second attempt, apparently.

        I completely agree. They silence the likes of you and I through unequal wealth. It is, perhaps, the case that only the rich have access to the levers of power and others do not? Don’t seem right to me.

        Craig! For goodness sake, please, please update this blog with up to date information on how your funding is going. Apart from anything else, it would cheer up your supporters. I appreciate that you are stressed out, but folk that admire you and suchlike, have rallied to your cause.

        They deserve updates.

        • Jennifer Allan

          Douglas -Several days ago Craig put an update on Twitter to state the initial target of £60,000 had been reached and even exceeded. The above comments from you and myself demonstrate how ordinary persons can be targeted and destroyed financially and every other way, by those in power with access to unlimited resources. Keeping his enemies guessing about the amount raised by public donations to his defence fund is a good idea, even if it keeps the rest of us guessing as well! The most important thing is that thousands of ordinary citizens have donated to the fund, including political opponents and lawyers and other persons involved with our Scottish justice system. Quite a few donations have come from abroad, including the US; the publicity has extended beyond our borders.
          Sending Craig to prison, is most unlikely, particularly since the failed attempt by the SNP Administration to remove jurys from Court trials, also included powers to release prisoners from jails during the Coronavirus crisis. The Government will not want to create a martyr, and prisoners are presently very vulnerable to Covid-19. This could be a death sentence. We abolished those some years ago in the UK.
          That leaves an ‘unlimited fine’. If the contempt hearing had been scheduled to be heard in a sheriff or district court, the maximum fine able to be imposed is £500. We are not told about the parameters of High Court fines, but if the purpose of all this is to wipe Craig and his family out financially, imposing a ridiculously large fine is the only way to do this. We must all be vigilant-and patient. Get ready with the public outrage. It’s the only thing this Government administration understands and is afraid of.

          • Peter

            @ Jennifer Allan

            Thank you for your valuable and informative posts.

            Am I correct in assuming that you’re part of Craig’s legal team?

            And when you say:

            “Get ready with the public outrage. It’s the only thing this Government administration understands and is afraid of.”

            Do you mean the Scottish or the British government, or both?

          • Jennifer Allan

            Peter – I assure you and anyone else reading this blog, not only am I NOT part of Craig Murray’s legal team, I have no social or other links with either Craig Murray or any member of his legal team, whoever they are. I have no legal qualifications or links to that profession, other than my own family’s from time to time legal requirements.I discovered Craig’s blog for the first time after Alex Salmond’s trial had already started and I was browsing the internet looking for some decent accurate reporting of it. I am not a member of any political party and did not vote SNP at the last 2 elections. I also voted to remain in the Union, and would vote so again. I am NOT a fan of Alex Salmond. The administration I am talking about is the present Scottish SNP Administration.

            Craig’s indictment contains assorted anonymous Twitter and blog comments claiming his blog contains information which might lead to the identification of the complainants. If this is used as ‘evidence’ in the Court hearing, then these ‘timrous moosies’ can identify themselves and explain under oath the step by step process they used to do this. I would contend only persons within what I will call the complainants’ ‘sphere of influence’, would have enough prior knowledge to be able to make some kind of educated guess, and even then this would only be a guess, unless of course they already knew the identities of these women before the trial.

          • Peter

            Jennifer,

            Ok, understood, got that.

            Thanks again, I hope you will keep posting here.

  • Gogsymac

    Just a point to remember. It isn’t an Indictment that Craig has been served with. It is Petition – different procedure altogether. The procedure followed is like a civil case although the court has the power at the end of the day (if matters are proved) to impose a fine or at worst imprisonment.

      • Gogsymac

        Not sure how long the case will take. It will depend upon the court timetable. There is a preliminary hearing this month I think and the final hearing will be set for a few weeks ahead of that. Craig will no doubt keep us informed on that front.

      • Gogsymac

        In fact – I’ve just read the post by Craig again – (note to self read things properly before posting comments) The hearing has already been assigned for 7th July so we should see what the court does then. Sorry to mislead. The date later this month was the time given for Answers to the Petition to be lodged.

  • Formerly+T-Bear

    Mr Murray,
    A response to your request for funds to cover Julian Assange’s court proceedings was sent, an amount enough to cover a modest night’s lodgings in London (from experience once while traveling from Spain to Ireland without going through an airport). Since it is becoming more and more likely there will not be further proceedings as well as you will be unable to travel there, please take the residue of that donation and apply it to your legal defence funds.

    Law-fare is an insidious legal cancer designed to create fatal stresses in the victim. It is obvious that the intent behind the action is to cause self-censorship of yourself and eliminate all journalism emanating from unapproved sources. Your observation of the London magistrate’s prepared summary is a threat to all fellow-travellers of the neoliberal thought collective evidenced by the despicable item presiding in the Scottish court you are now a subject of and will doubtlessly be found remiss (such are the jejune ways of children learning social behaviour, pretending to be adult) leading to greater self defence appeals and costs. You have a costly experience ahead of yourself, but that is the point of the exercise. I’ve had a similar life experience, the lesson received resulted in visceral aversion and contempt for censorship in any form imposed as you are about to experience. Stay strong.

1 9 10 11 12