Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched 754


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

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

754 thoughts on “Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched

1 4 5 6 7 8 12
  • Angela Mckichan

    Stay strong many people believe in you ,
    You have been a champion for people for so long ,hopefully people will now step up for you ???✌️✊✊✊✌️✌️

  • George Clark

    Am I imagining things, or does the indictment pretty much name one of complainers?

    • craig Post author

      I think one thing which is entirely plain, is that if their motive was to preserve the anonymity of the complainers, they would not have brought this indictment.

  • Lev Ke

    Btw, I’ve tried my best to identify the alphabet women with what I read here, but I miserably failed. I’m at home on the internet and generally find stuff quickly, but I have the distinct feeling that unless you know who these women are and can specifically search for their names, you can’t find much in searches unless your spend hours and hours going through government or party sites.
    So unless you know these people’s names, my experience is that you can absolutely not easily find their identity with the information on this blog.

    • Penguin

      If you read the daniel gravel propaganda piece then she outed more than one of the women. There are plenty of reports in the media of the meeting between sturgeon, aberdein and alphabet lady on the specific date.

      There are very few women who would have been in a lift with Salmond and lesley evans pet servant on the China trip.

      How many women who were regular attendees in Bute house had an arm in plaster in the month in question?

      How many women were in a position to have their pathetic letter published by RCS before giving them £500,000 in public funds a day later?

      It is literally impossible to have any sort of court case where any evidence is given in public and maintain any sort of anonymity.

      Curly haired gingers who applied to stand in the Northeast of Scotland, before being rejected by the former FM, are not two a penny either.

      All of this information is in the Public Domain and the COPFS and the whore of Dreghorn are fighting a losing battle to keep their secrets.

      Remember that Who Dares Wins and you’ll be having marmalade on toast before you know it.

      • N_

        Someone should have just outed the lot of them on a website based on a server outside of Britain.

        It shouldn’t be considered “shameful” to be the victim of a crime as they alleged they were. Lying and bringing false witness, however – now that should be considered shameful.

      • Dave Llewellyn

        The people most likely to recognise them already know all the main players because many of them were asked to take part in the charade and REFUSED.

  • Wulls

    £25 from me.
    I’ll happily do the same again if you are stuck
    Keep up the good work.

  • Derek Hopley

    Proud to be an English supporter of this great Briton , Scottish Independence or whatever !

  • Ken Johnston

    To all the contributors in England and the US. Thank you so much. Not your fight but you stand with us. Fair makes my een water a bit.
    BTW. I don’t doubt that all these names will be harvested by the US Intelligence , then given to GCHQ. Keeps it legal.

    • Shatnersrug

      Of course it’s our fight, you don’t think they’re just going after Craig for Alex do you? It’s Assange and he’s excellent take down of the CIA hit and run, not to mention Salisbury. Craig has been a fly in their ointment for a very long time, now they think that have him and want to make an example of him, I hope Craig goes after them in return, as I said earlier Craig has a lot more thump to him than the average joe.

      • Ian+Foulds

        seconded Mr Johnston.

        Mr. Shatnersrug – we are aw Jock Thamson’s bairns wherever we bide. Thank you.

  • Out+of+Affric

    I, for one, am taking care not to get caught in contempt of court of Craig’s contempt of court hearing.

    For if I did, I could not be sure that someone on here would not put themselves in contempt of court of my contempt of court hearing on Craig’s contempt of court proceedings.

    Contemptuous or what?

  • Billy Bones

    We appear to live in a police state, biased against the narrative of independence for Scotland. Not one Britnat ‘journo’ has been cautioned or arrested for contempt of court or ‘jigsaw identification’. This is a national Scottish scandal.

    For them to have acted the way they do, I suspect COPFS is riddled with Oxbridge Britnats. By their deeds, [not their words], shall we know them. In fact, if centres of Scottish devolved powers have not been infiltrated by Mi5, then Mi5 is not doing its job; which job is to secure the unity [and British Establishment power] of the UK, in Scotland. As Mi5 has openly admitted, Scottish independence is the biggest threat to the UK since WW2. The British Establishment would seek, as a matter of course, to ensure the Scottish justice system is a tamed power, or more precisely, a ‘collaborative’ power, within the UK. To use the Second World War analogy, so beloved of British Establishment propaganda: the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), the Scottish Parliament, Scottish political parties, BBCScotland, the Scottish Civil Service, Police Scotland and Scottish newspapers, all collaborate with the British Establishment, to preserve the UK in Scotland.

    The Vichy Government in occupied France served its foreign master’s interests; not the interests of the occupied French people.Despite nearly 75 years since the end of the Second World War, the ‘dark years’ of French history is still a very sensitive topic in France. ‘What did you do in the War, Daddy’ has a far more sinister overtone in France.

    Or look closer to home for a clear example of how the British state divides and rules. The war in Ireland for independence cost thousands of needless lives as the British Establishment divided and ruled both socially and physically with the partition of Ireland. Then there was the partition of India, with countless millions dead, all at the behest of the British ruling classes.

    It can therefore be argued that the said Scottish Establishment is putting the British Establishment interests before the interests of the Scottish people. By their actions shall we know them.

    How many within COPFS attended Oxbridge or an English public school? The same social class are also recruited for the Foreign Office & the senior management of the BBC. Their less bright offspring ensure no working class actors obtain success.

    I’m amazed, Craig, that your success within the FO is the exception that proves the rule.

    You know their modus operandi better than any. I will contribute to your fighting fund. But who will sit in the gallery to record and publish your trial?

    • douglas clark

      Billy Bones,

      But who will sit in the gallery to record and publish your trial?

      Well, either you or I could. After getting press accreditation or summat. Perhaps the National could help us with that?

      • Peter N

        The National! The National! The National is a right-wing establishment supporting rag of the Scottish elite. A comic for the numpties they think the Scottish public are.

      • Dave Llewellyn

        I will. I did every day of Alex Salmonds. Assuming I am not a co defendent of course given that they seem to be rounding up everyone who wasn’t a dyed in the wool unionist.

    • Billy Barkin

      Billy Bones:

      “How many within COPFS attended Oxbridge or an English public school?” – A bit more subtle than that.

      The question is really “How many were privately educated (mainly in Edinburgh) and got their law degree at University Edinburgh of Edinburgh or St Andrews. Many, like Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC, head of the Crown Office first attended Edinburgh and then Oxford/ Cambridge – in his case Balliol College) because they need a degree in Scots Law to practice in Scotland. They then go to Oxbridge to get properly indoctrinated – and be accepted by the Brit establishment.

      I worked for a time at St Andrews House – head office of the Scottish Government – and met a few of this type of genius (Edinburgh private school, Edinburgh University, and/or Oxbridge).

      As someone from the real Scotland, they are not recognizably “Scottish” – deeply anglicised, and with either English accents or much attenuated strangulated Scottish accents, by which they try to hide their Scottishness.

      Superficially charming, they are very brittle if challenges, masks slip and they turn very,very nasty very, very quickly – but they then act against you sneakily behind the scenes.

      They are mostly what e call in my part of Scotland a bunch of effin fannies.

      Quite apart from the BritNat agenda to undermine Scottish independence, and deal with anyone who challenges English imperial pretentions – and who exposes their disgraceful, indeed criminal, activities both Craig Murray and Gordon Jackson QC committed one even more egregious crime – they made this bunch of effin fannies look like what they are:

      A Useless bunch of effin fannies.

      That’s the real crime which will not be forgiven – or forgotten!

  • david cox

    Nil carborundum Craig, please excuse my Latin but you will appreciate the sentiment I am sure-with you all the way.

  • Christine

    Donation made. I have always found reading your blogs informative and truthful. Keep up the good work!

    • douglas clark

      Chistine,

      It is ‘interesting’ that you and I pay for blogs. Rather than mainstream media. I ‘listen’ to this site and the likes of ‘Wee Ginger Dog’ to an extent that, say five years or so, I would have thought was mad. The world turns, perhaps? Here, and Munguins New Republic and Scotland goes Pop! and the aforementioned Wee Ginger Dog is what informs my opinions.

      I still have subscriptions to The National, The Herald and the NYT. But that is merely to challenge the btl comments. Or in the case of the NYT to do their crosswords and suchlike.

      I, too, have made a donation. Had I more liquidity, it would have been a heck of a lot larger.

      Just saying.

      • Jennifer Allan

        Craig’s enemies will be far more afraid of a large number of persons making moderate donations, than a small number of supporters making large donations. So don’t be ashamed if your donation seems small, (I’m a pensioner). As we have seen it all adds up, more than £40,000 this morning (Sunday) and rising fast. The majority of donations come from Scottish Citizens, but persons from England and even the United States have contributed, and some of Craig’s political opponents have even ‘chipped in’. Public outrage is reflected in the comments. This not just Craig’s fight. This is about all of us, fighting to preserve our democratic rights to free speech, without censorship and oppression.

  • Chrestomathy

    My best wishes and prayers, Craig. I am full of admiration for what you are doing in exposing the cant and chicanery and the downright lies of the establishment. Donation sent.

  • Measured by the heart

    On reading the indictment, I’m struck by the use of comments from the public on this blog as evidence of contempt. Also, it quotes only those saying that Craig is guilty. Is this normal?

  • Eva Smagacz

    Just read entire indictment, 28 pages, 72 paragraphs. It would be funny if consequences were not so serious. Half of it is more like a whinge about how popular your blog is and how you have chutzpah to write what you write on topics that you write about. It look paragraph 30 to mention for a first time of what they were complaining about.
    And then of course, there is an attempt to make you guilty by association because some people twitted something that could have been a contempt of court, you responded warning them, and by virtue of your popularity it made you guilty of contempt of court.
    Seriously, if they just said: here, here and here you wrote stuff we have beef with, I “could” have been persuaded this is about breaking the law.
    And what’s up with Alex Prentice QC being the prosecutor who signed the indictment? None of the 37 Advocate Deputes was at work that day? Isn’t he by any change a tincy wincy sore about losing the prosecution of Alex Salmond, and therefore a bit too close to be objective (actually, he is not objective, read the indictment, folks, and it permeates the pages).

    • James

      Yes – if the consequences weren’t serious – and if it wasn’t such a clear statement that Scotland is now a police state with an utterly corrupt judiciary – then it would be very funny. It looks like a total joke – and one imagines the judge reading out the `Yes Minister’ sketch in sombre and serious tones and keeping a straight face. It is almost like a television comedy script from the 1980’s with someone like Rowan Atkinson or Peter Cook playing the part of the judge.

    • Blair Paterson

      Most of Scotland should be in court along with you. We all say the A.S.trial was a stitch up, meanwhile the real guilty deniers of justice will be sitting judging the innocent

    • N_

      Yes – much of this “indictment” is nothing to do with the risk of possible exposure of the names of some witnesses in a recent trial, but simply implies “This man accused police officers and politicians and state lawyers of being a bunch of corrupt a*seholes, and he’s still walking around at liberty – this is OUTRAGEOUS!”

      If these lying corrupt scum were serious, they’d apply for an interim order to get the supposedly offending material taken down right away. They didn’t do it while the case was on, and they don’t do it now. Bit of a giveaway that they’re just jumping and following instructions from those who aren’t lawyers.

      If it weren’t so serious it would be amusing that they call David Clegg a journalist but they say that Craig only “purports” to be one.

      Hatred showing, much?

    • terence callachan

      I agree
      Why Prentice again ?
      Keeping him involved so he can use his recollection of events might not work as well as he thinks it will work because…..HE LOST

      His judgement in progressing the cases against A Salmond was impaired

    • Squeeth

      I doubt that Craig allowed every comment through the moderation system; he could cite the ones he squelched to demonstrate his legal rectitude.

    • Stonky

      That’s uncommon generous of you Trowbridge. Just for clarity, are we taking about a hundred pounds of meal, salted pork, or raw seed cotton in gunny sacks? If it was me, I’d go for hardtack or pemmican.

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        You know nothing about me If Craig really gets in trouble, I will probably give more.

        I have been called a kinds of things, like a stupid cunt, but never ungenerous.

  • David Cunningham

    Just stuck in few £’s to ease the total on a bit.
    Wishing you and yours the best outcome.

    Take care and keep on blogging.

    Kind regards
    Callmedave.

    • Tinto Chiel

      Without your journalism, I would have been totally ignorant of Julian Assange’s deplorable treatment, the defence argument and evidence in the Alex Salmond case, the ludicrous novichok narrative in Salisbury and the content of the Labour report into anti-semitism.

      It’s frightening the extent to which MSM journalists are mere stenographers for the state and how vindictive the establishment can be when they fear someone (that’s you).

      Donated some moola and plan to do so again at intervals. I suspect this may be a protracted process.

  • Lieve Claes

    I want to solemnly declare to Her Majesty’s Advocate and the judge in the case of the former against Craig Murray, that since random commentators’ opinions on Craig’s blogs and tweets are used against him and therefore are given legal value, I want mine to be included in this court case: “Craig Murray did not publish anything in contempt of court. I was unable to identify any alleged victim even though I searched the internet with the given information. Unless one is already familiar with SNP politics (and therefore could have guessed the identity of many alleged victims simply by the MSM reporting), it is not possible to find out the identities without long and serious research. On top of this, Craig did not publish any personal details that were not already revealed by the MSM.”

  • Billy Dasein

    Few quid in there – more if and when needed. You have love and support out here, and much admiration for your moral courage. xo

  • Paul Barbara

    I would suggest people are moderate in attacking the Justice system in comments, because although we as commenters may be fairly safe, it is Craig who may pay the price.

  • Rae Jardine

    It’s wrong that you need to spend a fortune on legal support when you have nothing to answer to. It’s bordering on a police state, where only the rich can protect themselves.

  • Node

    I don’t always agree with you, Craig but I’ve been around this blog long enough to know you’re honest, and that’s a rare thing in the news business. It’s therefore to my benefit as well as yours that I make a donation.

  • Peter N

    Donation made, Craig. I hope you give them a good poke in the eye. And I hope that you and your family are bearing up well under this horrendous pressure of a witch-hunt.

    I want independence for Scotland like I want the air I breathe but Sturgeon & Co in the upper reaches of the SNP and the ne’r do well associated hangers on need to go. Time for a clean out, the stench of their corruption is appalling.

  • Karen Martin

    There has to be a day of of reckoning over this whole affair! The media, police and Crown Office all appear to be in collusion, firstly over Salmond himself and secondly anybody who dares to speaks the truth and to deviate from the narrative being set.

  • Rhys+Jaggar

    £10 into your fund via Paypal, Mr Murray.

    All the best in trouncing the troublemakers without a case.

  • Steve

    I hope you have distributed many copies of your detailed notes and sources (on the salmond ‘case’, the Assange ‘case’ and the Skripal story in particular, but not exclusively). For release in the event of hostile action against yourself. If the police do decide to raid, and seize your computer, files, records etc,then they should be aware that it will not stop the truth coming out. That it may in fact trigger the public release of revelations they seem awfy keen to keep concealed (and that you yourself have sought diligently to maintain private). Kind of a nuclear option, but keep it in mind. If the bad actors in this case think they can prevent exposure by putting you out of action, then they need to be made aware the absolute opposite is in fact the case.

  • Ciaran Goggins

    The good news is that this is going round the world. Pretty much any decent nation will offer you political asylum. Oh, isn’t it odd that accusers are anonymous but those innocently accused are not? Or that this suits Whitehall admirably. Saor Alba.

  • William

    You hit the nail on the head every time! They acting dictatorially and are shining a long overdue light at a publicly funded body! I am outraged for you. Good Luck !

1 4 5 6 7 8 12

Comments are closed.