Authoritarianism is Shoddy 397

Well, it is really happening. It is something of a shock to see yourself listed as a criminal for writing the truth. I have a tiny extra glimpse now into the way my friend Julian has been feeling.

Three appeal court judges even at the procedural hearing – though not unheard of, that is not normal. The state is sparing no resources on this; in a sense I am flattered.

There will be no jury at the eventual trial, and this worries me. Not least because the indictment (called a “petition”) contains within itself evidence that this process is a stitch up. Please help me here, and read paras 49 to 56 of the indictment after reading this explanation.

Para 49 of the indictment is an utter garble. It states that I sent a twitter message beginning “It is respectfully submitted…”.

I sent no such twitter message. Para 50 is missing. This is not a misnumbering, para 50 really is missing. I assume my twitter message, intended to be quoted at para 49, and whatever led in to the Crown’s argument beginning “it is respectively submitted” were in the missing section.

At para 53 the same thing happens again. It explicitly states that I published another tweet starting: “it is respectfully submitted that”.

I published no such tweet. Again the indictment does not give the actual text of the tweet complained of, even though it claims to do so. This time two paragraphs are clearly missing, and again this is not just a misnumbering, because of the missing material. It jumps from 53 to 56.

In short, the indictment from paras 49 to 56 is an inoperable jumble, with three paras missing from two different locations and which does not even contain – though it states it does – the very tweets which form part of the alleged offence with which I am charged.

You may argue this does not matter, and clerical errors are easily corrected. But that is to miss the point. I used to prepare official documents in my 20 year diplomatic career, from ministerial replies to members of the public to fully fledged international treaties.

A Diplomatic Note to a foreign government, which has a legal status, might be the best comparator from my work to this indictment or petition. I always scrupulously proof read every one I sent before signing. It is unthinkable that a Diplomatic Note would be sent containing not one but a series of major, material errors.

Is this document any less solemn? It is an indictment on which they are attempting to brand me a criminal and potentially send me to prison for up to two years. It is signed by Alex Prentice, Depute Advocate General on behalf of the Lord Advocate, and by the senior judge, Lord Turnbull.

But one thing is abundantly clear. Neither Alex Prentice nor Lord Turnbull can have carefully read through the document before they signed it. I do not believe for one moment that they would knowingly sign off a document containing such major errors. The judge, in particular, is meant to weigh carefully the matter to see if there really is a case to answer before he signs the Crown’s “petition”. But, I say it again, plainly Lord Turnbull has not actually read through it; or he would never have signed this garbled mess.

I am advised that it may be “contempt of court” for me to point out that Lord Turnbull signed this without reading it. But when a law makes it illegal to point out a blindingly obvious fact, then the law is an ass.

If Lord Turnbull does not wish to be criticised, he should try doing his job properly and actually paying attention to what he signs.

Contempt is the right word. I have a great deal of contempt for anybody who would send me such a portentous legal document rotten through with utterly careless error which would have been spotted by even a cursory reading of the document.

They did not read it. The judge who approved it did not read it.

Neither of them bothered to read the indictment or petition because it had already been decided to “get” Craig Murray and it therefore did not matter what the document actually said. The content of the charges is immaterial to them. Otherwise, they would have read them before signing. There can only be two reasons for that failure. The first is incompetence. The second is corruption. In a sense, it does not matter which it is in this case.

A state which is turning to authoritarianism to crush dissent does not need to be very careful about matters of process.

The failure of both Prentice and Turnbull to read before signing is not important for the mistakes in the document, which can be remedied by a new document. It is important because of the clear indication of attitude. This prosecution is abuse of process, a clear Article Six violation under the European Convention on Human Rights.

A series of facts make this abundantly plain. The abuse of process lies in this combined with the extraordinary selectivity in prosecuting me, when others who can be objectively proven to have much more effectively produced “jigsaw identification” are not prosecuted. There is a very clear political motivation behind the selection of who to prosecute and who not to prosecute.

When you put together the facts that there is overwhelming evidence that mainstream media journalists were more guilty of “jigsaw identification” than I, that systematic police action is being taken to harass only supporters of Alex Salmond, and that they don’t even care what the indictment to be used against me actually says, the overall picture becomes very, very clear.

Authoritarianism doesn’t have to worry about mistakes in the indictment, because it can just smash you in the face with the jackboot. That is what is happening here.

My own view is that they were so keen to “get” Craig Murray they just signed without any proper scrutiny whatsoever. I don’t see any other conclusion. Do you?

They do not have the excuse that this is routine. Major prosecutions for contempt in Scotland are extremely rare – the last one was Aamer Anwar about a decade ago (it failed).

So why could the state be so keen to prosecute Craig Murray, that is doesn’t even care what is in the indictment, or even if it is drawn up with the most basic level of competence? Well, I refer you to this excellent letter setting out the fact that the state is only acting against those who defended the innocent Alex Salmond, even though his detractors were much more in contempt of court. And I refer you to the Panelbase opinion poll which showed that very substantially more people who know the identities of the accusers, learnt them from the mainstream media.

I remain clear that I identified nobody. If I had wanted to, I would have done so openly. I have never been noted for cowardice.

The other accusation, that I wrote articles stating that the prosecution of Alex Salmond was a fit-up, is something I state again here. It is a proper exercise of my freedom of speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Actually, you don’t have to go past the very first sentence of the indictment to understand what is happening here. It reads “On 23 January 2019, Alexander Elliott Anderson Salmond was arrested by police officers in relation to a number of incidents that had taken place in Scotland.”

“That had taken place”.
Not “alleged to have taken place”.
“That had taken place”.
And Prentice wrote this, and Turnbull signed it off, after the acquittal.

After independent witnesses gave eye witness accounts that several of the incidents had not taken place at all. After it was demonstrated in court that the accuser of the most serious offence was not even present when she claimed the offence took place.

After the jury threw out the pile of ordure that the very same Alex Prentice as prosecuting counsel presented to them.

“That had taken place”. No, most of the incidents had not taken place at all, and none in the form alleged.

Right at the start, this wording gives away the motivation. The conspirators have still not psychologically processed the fact their attack on Alex Salmond was foiled by the jury. The Crown is now coming at Mark Hirst and at me in an effort to get some kind of victory from this massive waste of public resources. The conspirators seek to assuage their massive humiliation in the failure of a prosecution that stank and quite obviously ought never to have been brought.

I am not going to pipe down under this abuse of process and attack on freedom of speech. On the contrary, this will be a reasoned, forceful and very public resistance.


The hearing on 10 June is supposed to be public, but it will be virtual because of coronavirus. While it is a case management hearing, I shall nevertheless be grateful if you are able to “attend” virtually, as I am very keen indeed that I am not stitched up out of the public eye. Please send an email requesting access to the virtual hearing on 10 June to [email protected]. I am very keen as many people do this as possible. Journalists please in addition copy in [email protected] for accreditation.

Secondly, many people come to this blog through social media and I am currently suffering a very high level of suppression, on Facebook and especially on Twitter. Rather than just retweet and share any soical media post that brought you here, (which may appear on the face to have worked but the dissemination will be suppressed), I would be very grateful if you could also write your own new posting and put a link. If you have your own blog or access to one, a commendation of this post with a link would be very welcome, even if it is not your normal policy. And finally of course, the entire post is free as always to copy, republish and translate as you wish.


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

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


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


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

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

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

397 thoughts on “Authoritarianism is Shoddy

1 2 3 4 5
  • michael norton

    Because of the coronavirus pandemic gripping the world, the Scottish Government said it would be wise to put the Independence campaign on hold.

    A Holyrood election is due next May and if the SNP were to win an outright majority it would significantly raise the chance of a second referendum being held.

    Does anybody think this is even remotely likely?
    We are entering a very deep Depression, people are hardly going to vote to cut lose in a Depression.
    Or is this just blabber to keep Sturgeon in post?

  • M.J.

    Dissing the judge? You’re asking for it!

    I wouldn’t bank on technicalities like the blank spaces in the indictment, because there’s enough places where they didn’t leave any blanks.

    I hope you’re prepared for your folks to visit you in jail this time next month. If not, maybe you should make your peace with Turnbull & Co. in the next fortnight, while there’s time.

    • craig Post author

      If you were not concerned solely to be extremely unpleasant and gloating, you would have noted I nowhere claim the indictment is insufficient. Rather it reveals the fact that Prentice and Turnbull plainly did not read it before signing it off, which goes to their attitude.

      It is a moot point whether pointing out that people who have a pre-existing malevolence towards me, have such a malevolence, will make their behaviour better or worse. The worst course of action is plainly to play along with the fiction this prosecution is a fair and unbiased process.

      • bj

        I’ve seen comments of mine removed (a.o. less than a week ago) for far less than the off-topic tripe these trollers like this coward M.J. drop here all the time.

        [ Mod: BJ, a quick check of the deletion records suggests that the most recently removed comments from you were posted on the 29th April. Both were corrections which were duly actioned by the moderators):

        There’s also an occurrence of “though’ that should be ‘through’, that set me on the wrong foot for a moment.

        [ Mod: Thanks. Fixed. ]

        Mods, please change into “Bruce Schneier’s” (i.e. remove one ‘s’). Thank you.

        The previous deletion was more than a year earlier, on 3rd March 2019; it was also a correction: “s/one/on/”.

        If you think otherwise then we can load and search the archives, but be aware that can be a very time-consuming process. ]

      • M.J.

        I deny the slanderous charge. Don’t say you weren’t warned not to be foolish.

        • James

          Yes – `don’t say you weren’t warned not to be foolish’ is exactly the line that Hitler’s gestapo used in the 1930’s in similar circumstances.

          M.J. – we have to stand up against you and the people you represent.

      • Tom

        would never answer a silly Troll. best of luck from Dublin, Craig , by the way enjoyed your books

    • James

      M.J. – look – your side lost – get over it. You look like a sore loser.

    • Jon

      M.J. – there is something distinctly sinister about your spiteful gloating. The consequences of this series of events are rather more serious than you merely standing behind a school-yard bully.

  • Anndra

    What’s the story with the timezones in the indictment anyway? Paragraph 49 the indictment refers to a tweet on 29/03/2020 at 08:31, but when you check Craig’s twitter page the tweet in question went out at 16:31 GMT… Similarly, paragraph 53 refers to a tweet on the 02/04/2020 that went out at 19:20, but when you check the Twitter page the tweet in question was sent out at 03:20 GMT.

    That doesn’t make much sense to me…? Usually the time that is shown is the local time of the person viewing the tweet. So was it put together from overseas?

      • Anndra

        Ah, I see. Nothing remarkable so. The best of luck with this Craig. I wouldn’t consider you a coward for getting out of the country. You’re much more use to people outside of prison. But I really hope you win!

  • Mary

    I received this in reply to my request to Judicial Communications etc for internet access on 10 June.

    ‘This inbox is checked during working hours. If you have an urgent, out of hours enquiry, please ring 07818875826 or 0777 393 6363. Thank you.’

    If I receive an answer I will post it.

  • Colin Alexander

    Craig Murray

    Did you watch?

    “Appeal Court: The End of the Line”.

    I think you will recognise at least two of the people on it. Also, it may help familiarise you with court process and legal language in Scotland’s criminal courts.

    • Meghan

      I have to admit to not having heard of the legal termres gestae before. Prentice, as you would expect, made a hash of trying to explain it, kind of like his ‘petition’, but it appears to mean ‘the facts that form the environment of a litigated issue and are admissible in evidence’, some sort of exception to hearsay. Could come in handy.

  • Marmite

    Well, the scum always rises to the top, as they say, be it judges, police, politicians, managers, bankers, etc..

    Meanwhile, because the state is too busy prosecuting decent people, the fattest criminals of them all do not even merit the appearance of an investigation.

    That even the appearance of legality no longer matters shows just how apathetically stupid the 1% in Britain believe the other 99% to be.

    • Bramble

      I wish the 99 per cent would do something to disprove that. So far all they have done is vote for Brexit and repeatedly vote for the Tories, even when led by Johnson, mostly to prove they are proud and patriotic British citizens and better than any bloody foreigner or unpatriotic leftie who believes in social justice, peace and cooperation. That is not exactly bright, nor independently thought through, and it certainly is not conscientious resistance to the ruling consensus.

      • Bayard

        “repeatedly vote for the Tories”

        To be fair to the GBP, with both Conservative and New Labour parties being Tories, there hasn’t been much alternative until lately and even then only in certain parts of the country.

        • Marmite

          Not true Bayard. There is the Green Party. Unfortunately, though, the maliciously manufactured image of it as a hive of nutcases has meant that only the most intelligent among us would ever vote for it.

          The levels of distrust in anything green or left have been raised so high and so consistently as to make any ‘real alternative’ inconceivable. The 99% have been so thoroughly duped as to believe that all that matters is growth and the economy, and the rest will follow. So it lays down supine and continues to receive its royal screwing over by its master.

          The main problem is the way kids are being educated. From the get-go, they are taught that education is something you pay for, rather than a human right, and that education is about being told what to do and think. I doubt you would find a single principal or vice-chancellor in this country who has even heard of Paolo Freire. They are so bloody ignorant, yet earn expontentially more than the teachers who actually care.

          Britain doesn’t have a hope in hell until it demolishes privates and independants, gets rid of the managerial scum at the top, and makes higher education free.

          • Marmite

            Sorry. The obvious point being that if you had a more highly educated voting public, capable of questioning authority rather than regurgitating its bullshit, you’d have people who are less amenable to being manipulated by the state and market interests and their lapdog media. You’d have more people thinking about the long game, and the kind of earth and he kind of society with which they want to leave their children.

          • Bayard

            The irony of your comment is that private schools are, post Blair, much less indoctrinating than state schools. Having been educated at both types of school, I can tell you that the pressure to conform, to fit in was much greater at the state educational establishments than it was at the private ones, and that was before Tony B saw the use of the national curriculum and the state education system to put across the government’s message de jour.

          • Natasha

            Marmite, The Green Party “maliciously” manufacture its own “image” rendering it part of the establishment on account of Lucas’ continued silence on Assange. Where’s the Green Party’s press release in support of Assange, if Lucas has the time to reply to one of her constituents with irrelevant claptrap defending the establishment line on Assange (at least Corbyn publicly supported him)?
            The Green Party’s anti-nuclear policy also renders them an anti-scientific bunch of hippies stuck in the 1960s (see my web site for detailed analysis).

  • N_

    @Craig – Might they have redacted the indictment in expectation that you might publish it? If so, what a way to run a railroad! If that’s their game, they could have asked the judge for an order forbidding publication of the revealing sentences surely. There are multiple indications in this case of an abuse of process by the crown.

    That said, I hope you think of possible negative ramifications before you draw attention quite a long time before a hearing to errors in the other side’s documentation which, having read about them on this blog, they may find time to correct.

    Alan Turnbull was a prosecutor in the PanAm103 case. Imagine a person having such ignominy on their record. Got promoted for it too, and for not resigning when asked to “help”. Wouldn’t it be a shame if his phone got hacked and the tape leaked to Russia Today? 🙂

    Anagrams of “Alan D Turnbull” include “Null banal turd”.

    • N_

      before you draw attention quite a long time before a hearing to errors in the other side’s documentation which, having read about them on this blog, they may find time to correct.

      As opposed to, say, ambushing them by revealing the errors online 30 minutes before the hearing starts.

      “Be like water” 🙂

      • craig Post author

        The ambush thing is not an option for a number of dull technical reasons. The best way to deploy this was very considered.

  • fwl

    Sounds like Kafka. I’m turning into a libertarian (against some of my better instincts). I used to think the libertarians were the right wingers (well they usually are) but now its the statists even though they might present as moderate centrists. Their centre is not really that centre between right and left it is the centre of all power and control.

    It is not a contempt to assert that something is irrational. That is a common ground for appeal i.e that a Judge reached a perverse or irrational decision, which no right thinking judge would reach.

    I have not heard of an indictment being irrational but it is certainly possible if it makes no sense. There is probably some other technical term for a flawed indictment which makes it void.

    Is there no other explanation eg that text might have been left out because to include it might have somehow arguably further risked identification? But that wouldn’t account for the weird way in which it reads and even if that were the case your lawyers would presumably have to be given the text and the evidence of the tweets. Have they not been disclosed?

    In the world of Trump the mask of reason has been dropped. What is it showing us?

    • Jon

      @fwl – interesting thoughts. I suppose socialists tend to assume the malice of the capitalist state will wither once the motivations of profit and control are removed. However, I have had doubts for years – how can we be sure that ostensibly well-meaning statists will maintain individual rights when they are so focused on the aims of their grand project?

      • fwl

        Jon – I suppose the best you can hope for or work towards is a country with a constitution that has sufficient checks and balances and a free and vigorous independent press such as to prevent the political centre and more importantly their backers from running away with things. For that to hold it needs engaged intelligent publicly spirited inhabitants who at least try to apply reason rather than emotion.

        Some activities need a centralised approach but people need to be vigilant and to accept that if there is strong constitution some things they would like to see may take time or not happen. In contrast the authoritarian state can rush in directions, but at a big price. The pandemic may may lead to an increased public spiritedness in some areas of life, but rolling Corona only news is turning our brains to mush.

    • lysias

      The late historian George Mosse — who had personal experience of Nazi oppression — considered Nazism and fascism in general to be totalitarianism not of the right or the left, but of the center.

  • fwl

    I see that most cases are where a Defendant appeals after conviction on grounds that the indictment was flawed. Such cases involve the appeal court then considering whether it was just a technical flaw or something more fundamental. Here errors can probably be corrected early on and so allow for defence preparation. I would hope that something fundamental would include for eg where the indictment has somehow deprived the defendant of the chance to properly prepare his defence. It should therefore allege every essential element of the offence. If what is alleged can only be ascertained by showing the offending words complained of then it is obvious that they should be there.

    Paragraph numbering is just a technical flaw.

    My tuppence worth is that not including the wording of the tweest might be harmless if the wording is easily ascertained from the indictment having given the date and timing, but if there is a dispute as to who tweeted it or that it doesn’t exist then you would of course need to see what is alleged it said.

    If the defendant and his representatives don’t know what the tweet was and or it can’t now be easily located then there is an obvious argument that he can’t properly prepare his defence i.e. a fundamental flaw.

    If the words can easily be ascertained then perhaps it is more of a technical flaw. If for eg the prosecution left off the indictment because they didn’t want it in public, but nonetheless provided it in defence disclosure then so what (although transparency of justice arguments might say it should still be there).

  • Jean Nisbet

    Craig, there’s a problem with the email address you provided above. Can you check it and get back to us?

    • Patrick Roden

      If you remove the last ‘full stop’ from the address jean, it should work. for instance, uk. should be uk

  • Fwl

    BTW no one should record the proceedings. Craig you ought to make this very clear.

  • 6033624

    While in the Civil Service I used to prepare documents for the Sheriff Courts. Obviously they were checked before sending but were ALSO checked by the receiving court. Even small errors would find the entire document rejected for resubmission.

    There is one alternative theory to the ‘error’ that is shown and that is that the document is submitted minus the relevant texts as some kind of redaction – owing to the fact that the tweets are (allegedly) identifying persons protected under the order of the court. I’m therefore assuming there might be a way to submit the document without then naming them (or alluding to them) and repeating the (alleged) offence. But then, who knows..

    • Stewart

      This was my thinking initially – a redacted redaction, similar to a “super injunction” where the media is not even allowed to mention the existence of the injunction. Explains the missing tweets and paragraphs. But that would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it?
      Oh wait, the whole indictment is ridiculous.

  • jim

    Affirmation – Judicial

    “I, ____________ , do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ____________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

    Without fear or favour, affection or ill will…sounds like they have broken the oath……

    • Frank Hovis

      Her current Maj Queen Elizabeth the Second isn’t the second of that name North of the border. Anne Boleyn’s daughter never reigned in Scotland.

  • fiona nicholson

    Craig, can you confirm please that the case is titled Crown v Craig Murray? This is to ensure I get the emails correct so they cant wriggle out.

  • Giyane

    All psychological pressure of uncertainty plays on the blackmailer threatening to disclose damning information out of context.

    The Salmond trial and the Assange trial are exactly the same because the allegations of rape are very severe. The mere fact that the British state used false allegations to intimidate two people who were politically opposed to their power is totally unacceptable.

    It is however the mindset of those who spy on us 24/7 that when they can find nothing whatsoever to convict a person with, false accusations will automatically be used against their political opponent. I dont know what the correct legal term is for false accusations, but commonsense tells me that if the state is making them, it is in the public interest that the state be exposed.

    Perhaps the US has an amendment in its constitution to that effect. That’s why the Pilgim Fathers left the UK.
    If there is no way that the citizen can expose malice by the state for purely political purposes, we are indeed a Fascist state.

    I personally can only conceive of this psychological torture by the state as Satanic double-blind. Others maybe call it kafkaesque. The beauty of my religious explanation of this psychological oppression is the understanding that Satan has no power. All he can do is fill your mind with terror about being incarcerated with crazy people while all your personal life goes to wreck and ruin.

    No. The people with whom you share your prison may be cleaner-er hearted than the shit on the outside. Your family and friends will rally round in your absence.
    Your potential death terrifies the PTB because of the publicity it might cause.

    You have a moment of enormous power when you can tell the highest in the land that they have borne false witness against their political opponents in a gulag fashion and that they will face a higher court I.e.God’s and a higher legislation I.e. the 10 commandments upon which British justice is founded.

    They dont like it up em. They really terrified of being exposed. You have nothing whatsoever to fear by exposing them. They merely wish to terrorise you into backing down.

    • Giyane

      Double-bind. I.e. you broke our rules while you can’t prove that we were breaking any other rules.
      You have to prove that they were breaking the rules AND that their rules were only designed to stop you from exposing their breaking of the rules
      . Snap! The lock explodes.

      • Bill

        To quote Franklin D Roosevelt: “There is nothing to fear but fear itself”.

  • Dungroanin

    Sic em Mr Murray.

    There wil be at least my hundred mates emailing to attend. Hundreds more on social media too.

    Covid emergency is relaxed. Nicola said so. Alex has waited long enough.

    Lets be having them. No time like the present.

    Good luck and more funds available when you ask.

  • Doug Scorgie

    From the letter in Wings Over Scotland:

    “As Mr Murray has pointed out, it would not constitute a legal defence for him if accused of robbing a bank to point out that other people had also done so and gotten away with it. An affirmative answer therefore would NOT prejudice his trial.
    “But such a blatantly one-sided prosecution of one person while six others go completely unpursued for the same offence places such obvious and wholly justified suspicion over COPFS’s impartiality and propriety…”
    The bank robbery analogy does not reflect the situation in your circumstances. If you were caught robbing a bank you were caught, end of story. If other bank robbers have got away with their crimes it is because they have not been identified.
    In another analogy about being stopped by a police patrol vehicle for speeding, you cannot claim a defence that other drivers were speeding at the same time as you. But if there was speeding CCTV along the road then the police would be able to trace all the speeders and prosecute the lot.

    In your case Craig the other contempt of court suspects ARE known to the prosecution so all or none should be summoned to court.

    • Ingwe

      Doug Scorgie@ 22 May at 0:800-your dismissal of the two analogies ( I having put forward the the speeding one) suggests you’re talking about justice, but this is about the Law. They’re not the same thing. They should be but they’re not.

      We have to take the world as it is and not as it should be. I learned very early on in my legal career that the law, providing justice, is incidental. Of course all people should be treated equally but they’re not. The Law, under capitalism, never will. That’s not its function.

      • Lemon

        Justice and law are not the same thing. It is not called the High Court of Just-Ice for nothing 😉

  • Sean+Clerkin

    I will state the truth as I see it. Craig Murray is being picked on by the British state an increasingly authoritarian state. Craig you are a decent human being and a true Scottish Patriot . I will send you a donation because I have read a lot of your writings and you deserve support.

  • Sean Clerkin

    Craig you are a good man and a true Scottish Patriot. I will send a meaningful donation to you

  • AliTee

    Fucking hell this is incredible… ‘listed as a criminal for writing the truth’. It’s 1 a.m and i should be in bed but I thought I’d check in to see how things are here. I will be sharing this far and wide, you have so much integrity Craig, my heart is banging away here. I am shocked but also sense this battle for truth and integrity, freedom of speech, human rights and human dignity will certainly be more than just a lazy one dimensional attempt to slander and criminalise an innocent man by an abusive state, ‘my country’. This action will fire sparks that will eventually light beacons. Let truth prevail! Of course when the prosecution fails the ‘story’ may disappear but our deepening disgust will not. FTS!

  • Mist001

    A newspaper has more money than you.

    My feeling is that the COPFS is using you as a sort of test case in this prosecution. If it’s successful, then they may well go after the others. At the moment, the assumption seems to be that they’re only after you and they’re not interested in the MSM reporting. Like I said, newspapers have more money than you who can likely hire high profile defence teams. Rather than the COPFS suffering an embarrassing defeat in that situation, they’re going after easier prey first, which is you. They may well go after the others later. Nobody knows at this stage.

    The other thing which has crossed my mind is the other assumption that this is to do with the Alex Salmond case. Maybe it isn’t. You had your difficulties with the Diplomatic Services and the Establishment, which you’re up against now, has a very long and vindictive memory. It may well be their view that this is an opportunity for some kind of revenge or pay back for the Diplomatic days and Alex Salmond is just a useful pretext.

    They’re just my views though and I could very well be wrong.

    What I would suggest though, is that you try and do some physical exercise, whether it’s going to a gym, riding a bike or chopping some logs in the back garden. This case will exhaust you mentally and physically, so it’s important to keep your strength up. Don’t let the bastards grind you down, as someone famously had engraved on the back of a watch!

    • Giyane


      What kind of establishment would condone or do torture on an industrial scale just because a bigger state told it to do so? If the US is the problem and all these British be-tighted knobs are just kowtowing to the US, maybe we should think about the psychology behind the new world getting the old world to grovel to its every whim.
      We know that violence breeds violence. Is there some historical root for the US forcing the UK to torture? Or to persecute whistleblowers? Or to falsely accuse respected members of society?

      Craig is now in a similar position to myself in the Asian community. Blowback from colonisation does not reach the perpetrators of colonial violence , so it gets deflected to the nearest available representative of the colonial class I.e. dumbo.

      I have a feeling that the malice in this trio of court cases is not necessarily coming from the british or Scottish establishment, but from some punishing frenzy from the US against the parent nation that originally made their lives so unacceptable. Maybe a phase of adolescence.
      Definitely that is true of every particle of Donald Trump.
      What a childish little bitch he has turned out to be!

      Let’s hope both he and his clone Bojo Haram are brought down by their total incompetence over covid19.
      In all three court cases somebody who is full of hate and unutilised energy is whacking a very square peg into a very round hole. We. Will. Teach. You. Fucking. British . Cunts. What. You. Did. To . Us. And. To. The. Rest. Of.The . World..

      Imho it is always the people who oppose colonial oppression who end up being punished for it. NEVER the people who do it. That is unfortunately how it works. The actual oppressors are always , by definition , beyond the reach, in time or place, of the anger of their victims. That is the way of the world. Craig should take his being singled out by the teenage rage of the USA as a badge of honour and be patient. Eventually the child will come to understand that it is whacking the wrong goldfish and stop doing it. Patience will prevail.

      • lysias

        I used to think that the infiltration of the British government in Quatermass II by zombies doing the will of extraterrestrial aliens might have been meant to represent domination by the U.S. But the show dates from 1955, a year before the Suez Crisis. However, one thing that show author Nigel Kneale said he had in mind was secret defense installations like Porton Down.

        • Giyane

          We are staying up in the last few nights of Ramadhan, thinking deep thoughts about the meaning of life and the world.
          I know nothing about zombies or Quartermass 11, so I have no idea what you mean. But hello anyway.

    • Courtenay Barnett


      To have a ‘mistrial” first there has to be a trial – then followed by a motion for a ‘mistrial’.

      Isn’t that the necessary sequence?

  • Reliably

    I lived through a number of years in which my mail often arrived in torn envelopes, as if someone cut across the top with a butter knife. Utility bills were always opened. It was all ham-handed and obvious – but that was the point. Eventually it stopped. (I often wonder about people who do this as part of their job description. Do they discuss it with their family at the dinner table?)

    I draw a parallel here to Craig’s indictment because the sloppiness of the document allows the prosecution to (1) say ‘we don’t really give a f*ck’ and (2) scuttle their own case when it’s time to go to court. I’m quite certain they’ll do the latter.

    Anyway, in the same way that I wondered about my mail-mutilators, I’m smiling at the notion that the prosecution and their enablers are reading all these comments and also that they’re regular readers of Craig’s most excellent blog. Hearts and minds, anyone?

    • Giyane


      Yes, not even force-fed to digest opinions they detest.
      They are internally and externally compelled to listen to their critics daily exposure of the spy community’s crimes. No wonder spying is so well paid. Sometimes it gets to them and they expose themselves by sending a message to the person they are secretly spying on.
      So then we all have to pretend we haven’t noticed that people are being paid to illegally investigate our private lives.

      You know who I most admire? The plucky Chinese students whose response to 24/7 espionage is to rebel.
      Obviously restriction will make people rebel, when previously they would not rebel. The entire 24/7 spying industry is a strong motivation to rebel as much as one can.

      Eventually society will become so febrile and ferile that the PTB have only one choice, to put the down.
      And that is apparently why we need covid 19.

  • Sam

    1) Missing paragraphs
    2) Timestamps from the future
    3) Missing quotes from publicly available tweets
    4) The ridiculous legal term “jigsaw identification” apparently made up on the spot

    And not to mention 5) The utterly absurd prohibition on publishing the names of adult witnesses from a CONCLUDED trial.

    Sheesh, I had no idea the UK was such a failed state.

  • Andrew Mcguiness

    My own view is that they were so keen to “get” Craig Murray they just signed without any proper scrutiny whatsoever. I don’t see any other conclusion. Do you?”

    No, I don’t see any other conclusion; and more, I think this kind of blatant flouting of the rule of law is becoming more common. I don’t think the careless mistakes which give away the motivation are accidental; I think they’re part of the message.

    • Judge Judy

      Like when in the States the Judge sentences someone to death sandwiched between two speeding violations. And they make a point of calling the next case before the person sentenced to death has even left the courtroom.

  • David

    The late “spook” Martin Frost spoke some at some length and quite cynically about the Scottish legal profession. His website has been down for years following his death -although I have kept some pages. His general thrust, as I recall, was the clannishness of the legal profession and their association with the brotherhood of Freemasons. I hasten to add that tis is not a rant against Masonry, but simply an explanation of Frost’s knowledge. He had run-in’s with the Scottish legal fraternity on a number of occasions and made it his task to understand what he was up against.

    The following is an extract from a book that was published some decades ago but I doubt things have changed much:

    • Monster

      There is a strong connection between the security services. the construction industry and Freemasonry . If MI5 wants sombody ‘offed’ they farm it out to a muscular employee of one of the construction giants. But it is organised in a most British way. At the end of Pall Mall is a smallish building named Mark Mason’s Hall. Mark masonry is a branch of freemasonry that centres on the building of Solomon’s temple. The main reason construction giants and developers join it is get lucrative contracts from local authorities whose staff are also members. Mark Mason’s hall is also a centre for the regular craft masonry, in particular St James’ Lodge, whose membership is mainly the police, including special branch and some MI5 officers. During the informal discussions at the popular bar after the rituals all manner of nefarious activities can be discussed, not least a hit on someone.

  • babbyTroll

    so would it be contempt for an observer to put together the jigsaws?

    purely from what the msm published?


    without showing the resultant pictures? ?

    [i’ve no interest in jigsaw puzzles – my only interest here is that of Craig’s, and Alex’s, and Julian’s, etc, plights]

  • Colin Alexander

    If the Crown alleges an accused person facilitated jigsaw identification and uses others’ Tweets or btl comments as “proof”. Eg, If x, y and z say on Twitter: ” I was able to work out the identity of “A,” because of the accused’s tweets”. Unless they produce x,y or z to testify this in court, is it not just hearsay?

    rg. x could be lying or mistaken, x might be a fake account. x could have been influenced by other sources, or already had sufficient personal knowledge. This evidence would need to be tested in court, the witness cross examined etc. Hearsay is not generally allowed in Scots Law criminal cases, with a few exceptions:

    NB: The law on hearsay evidence is amended by the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020.
    If someone denies / does not admit sending certain tweets how does the Crown prove beyond all reasonable doubt he or she did send them? e.g. A Twitter account could be hacked or misused.

    • craig Post author


      There is no jury in a contempt trial. There is also no test of beyond reasonable doubt.

      • Colin Alexander

        Someone I know was accused of attempt of court, and it was dismissed: the judge commented that the complainer failed to convince the judge beyond reasonable doubt, as that’s the standard he’d need to be convinced to, in a criminal case.

        Re: Jury, I never mentioned a jury. A judge also has to justify a decision to convict eg sufficient proof that convinces him beyond reasonable doubt.

        • Budgie

          That’s the difference between a judge and jury trials. The judge has to explaining their reasoning, the credibility/reliability of witnesses, what ‘findings in fact’ they made, etc. A jury doesn’t have to do anything of the sort. That is why it is easier to Appeal (by ‘stated case’) against a Sheriff’s verdict in the Sheriff Court – the Sheriff has to detail how they reached their verdict. With juries grounds of Appeal tend to be more ‘points of law’, ‘misdirection’ etc.

    • Ravvy

      Even though the police can identify and trace a specific advice they still need to prove who had ‘their fingers on the keyboard’. Even if a single individual had access to the device it is still no proof. The first thing the police are going to ask when they seize a device is: “Is this your device?” Most people are going to reply: “Yes”. And that is the corroboration right there and then. In effect doing the Crown’s work for them. Without an admission all they have is a phone that just happened to be in your possession. Most accused persons convict themselves straight out of their own mouths.

      • Sopo

        This is plainly absurd, given that devices can be easily tied to internet activity.

        • nevermind

          not only that, proprietary sof/sifttware, hardware and services services often have devices in their design that opens up your privacy like a book, they can interfere in what you say and or have written in the past, delete and or hide what they want. So a computer, mobile and laptop are never really yours. I’m sure Clark would second this description.

        • nevermind

          I’ll second everything he said. I kept stumm and they sent me 5 different officers, the last two as one unit to try and persuade me to talk to them.

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.