Authoritarianism is Shoddy 394


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.

TWO WAYS YOU CAN HELP

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]

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

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


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Comments will be closed on June 4, 2020.

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

394 thoughts on “Authoritarianism is Shoddy

1 2 3 4 5
  • frankywiggles

    They can’t be bothered to even try and make it look straight cause they know there is no adversarial media in this country to call foul. Similarly in the ever increasing absurdity of the Assange extradition trial. It’s now known that the CIA / US govnt was listening in on every conversation between Julian and his lawyers in the Ecuadorian embassy.
    https://thegrayzone.com/2020/05/18/exposed-cia-used-sheldon-adelsons-firm-to-spy-on-julian-assange/amp/
    In any country with a rudimentary commitment to the rule of law that knowledge in itself would see the case dismissed and the US government condemned across the board, especially by liberal media that claims to hate Trump. Unfortunately this is the United Kingdom. I will help in the ways you suggest.

  • Colin Alexander

    Craig
    Here is the Anwar case: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC_36.html

    In the Anwar case, it was not in dispute about whether Mr Anwar said certain things. The issue was whether that amounted to a contempt for the court’s authority.

    In your case, you don’t dispute certain things were written. The issues therefore are, if I understand correctly: What you wrote, did it facilitate jigsaw identification, so breach a court’s order that ordered anonymity?
    and
    What you wrote on another occasion, was it an attempt to influence / undermine the Crown’s prosecution of Alex Salmond so bringing the court into contempt?

    However, some aspects of the allegations, eg certain tweets, you clearly dispute you made such tweets. Surely, the Crown, as a first instance would need to convince the judges there were those tweets before any judgment can be made as to whether they amount to contempt?

    The case which I referred to in my previous post, the complainer’s accusations were based on hearsay, so the judge was not even convinced certain acts had taken place in the first place. So how could he judge whether they amounted to contempt?

    • N_

      The issues therefore are, if I understand correctly: What you wrote, did it facilitate jigsaw identification, so breach a court’s order that ordered anonymity?

      The doctrine of “jigsaw identification” was invented to prosecute Craig and it raises a point of law straight away. What the hell is “jigsaw identification”? I doubt there’s much of a precedent. In a sense it’s an extension of the law of conspiracy such that parties can be convicted for working at the same time doing different things that have a cumulative effect even if they don’t know each other or communicate. Well at least one of the parties can be convicted. Maybe another will only get raided and robbed, whereas a third will get funded by Zionist-helping story buyers to progress in her glittering journalistic career, Channel Islands accounts opened for her if she wants them.

      (Compare jailing strikers in wartime not for breaking an anti-strike law but for high treason.)

      We get straight to the question of an abuse of process. That is not mere “whataboutery”. It is not “public policy” to prosecute every person whom the authorities believe or know has committed a crime. For many offences there is supposed to be policy on where to draw the line. If the authorities prosecute only, let’s say, those who have fallen foul of the current leadership of the governmental Party, while not prosecuting others who have done comparable stuff but who are bosom buddies with the said leadership, that is “political” and an abuse of judicial process, meaning not only that the case should be thrown out but also that those who ordered the prosecution have themselves committed a crime. There are circumstances where “you didn’t prosecute all the other people you know who did the same thing” should lead to a dropping of a prosecution even if, were the defendant known to be the only person in the world who did it he would be convicted.

      They’re trying to make law on the hoof. These are the same creeps who attempted to get rid of jury trial not only for cases like this but for all cases that would otherwise be tried by jury.

      • N_

        The right of a defendant to be treated fairly comes above considerations of morality. Abuse of process -> drop case. It doesn’t matter how odious a crime was. If it was particularly vile, jail the process abusers for 10 years and task the police with watching the former defendant to ensure he doesn’t do it again, having seized property from the process abusers to fund a contribution to the policing costs. But it doesn’t matter if a person is Jack the Ripper. Considerations of the rule of law dictate that they are still entitled to a fair trial in exactly the same way as Mother Teresa, and if they aren’t getting one, stop the case and let them walk free. Daily Mail readers can eat sh** as far as I am concerned. Most of them are fascists who haven’t got a clue what the rule of law means because they want blood so much.

      • A2

        “The doctrine of “jigsaw identification” was invented to prosecute Craig and it raises a point of law straight away. What the hell is “jigsaw identification”? I doubt there’s much of a precedent. In a sense it’s … ”
        here’s an article from the press Gazette from 2008 warning journalists about that very thing, one of the first things to come up in a search, hardly invented to prosecute Craig who has himself explained what it is.

  • Antonym

    Do Sturgeon, Mi5 and Whitehall copy ideas from Beijing on Authoritarianism, with Covid19 as fig leaf cum smoke screen?

    May 22nd: Beijing will establish a sound legal system and enforcement mechanism for safeguarding national security in Hong Kong, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said on Friday at the opening of the annual session
    of the National People’s Congress
    (NPC).
    https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3085574/two-sessions-2020-beijing-sets-sights-hong-kong-legal

    • N_

      The reform of the British civil service in the 1870s was partly on the Chinese model, and British Tories generally speaking are admiring of the dictatorship in Beijing (see Edward Heath’s comment after the Tienanmen Square massacre, which he compared to the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry that he was responsible for), albeit perhaps not as loving as they were towards the dictatorship in Chile and still are towards the one in Singapore. But Beijing has much more money, some of which it bungs to Cambridge University for example. Britain for a long time was the benchmark country for the mainland Chinese regime as the US was for the USSR.

  • Jo

    Is there any legal validity in the possibility that as the Salmond case was heard by a jury….then Craig’s case must be heard by a jury???????

    • Jon

      I think the issue is that Contempt of Court cases are treated differently to standard criminal prosecutions, at least in Scotland. I would have a high degree of confidence that a jury would acquit in these circumstances, as long as the counsel for the defence was competent (and Craig’s healthy defence fund should give him access to excellent representation).

      But given that this case is to be seen only by judges, it’s anyone’s guess. Will the judges make an example of an anti-Establishment troublemaker, or will they respect the fact that citizens can be journalists?

  • Sopo

    Expect some smear pieces to soften up the public prior to Craig’s trial. The intelligence services are running the show and Craig has been a persistent thorn in their side. Not just re Salmond, but the Integrity Initiative, Phillip Cross, Julian Assange/Russiagate, all tge way back to revealing UK looking the other way re torture. To those on the inside, the consensus is likely you have had a fair old run and should long ago have graced a prison cell. If you have a Get Out of Jail Free Card, time to play it.

  • Jo

    That there could be a jigaw identification…..surely by only proving such an identification has been made only by yourself by bringing forward a real specific person who themselves must claim they have been identified only and exclusively by your means…and be able to prove it in order to be cross examined ….to show that the person who must now be publicly named by the court to prove it and that their names is now in the public domain…could have been identified by any other means …which should be possible for your lawyers to establish ….thus exposing the name of this person and subsequently revealing the others because this contempt process will actually reveal the name.Otherwise it is all just supposingly hypothetical….and do courts convict on hypothetical?

    • N_

      Try sticking two fingers up at a judge, shouting “Sh*thead!” at him, and then arguing it didn’t cause him any distress. Contempt of court doesn’t have to lead to actual harm.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    ‘My Lord, the defence wishes to call Lord Turnbull to the witness box’.

    ‘Request denied.’

    ‘My Lord, there is cogent evidence that the petition to bring my client to court for this hearing was inexcusably lacking in rigour, attention to detail and basic probity. The Law Lord signing that petition off was Lord Turnbull. It is therefore critical to the principle of legal due process that the judicial authority responsible for signing off the petition be questioned under oath as to why they lowered their standards to such an execrably unacceptable standard.’

    ‘The petition was issued. That is all that is relevant to this hearing.’

    ‘With the greatest of respect, My Lord, you are saying, are you not, that issuing a petition saying that her Majesty committed adultery, perjury, child sacrifice and gassing in concentration camps is all that is required for her to be brought to proceeding so farcical, so devoid of any reality that the term ‘Legal Due Process’ would long have lost any meaning in this country?

    ‘The analogy you make is entirely irrelevant, it is demeaning, seditious and utterly without sensitivity to culture, breeding and manners.’

    ‘Is My Lord saying that (s)he is a devoted upholder of culture, breeding and manners? Or does such a term include bad manners, breeding partners who fail to teach their children how to behave and a culture of intolerance, shameless lying and absolute contempt for legal niceties?’

    ‘I am saying that I have ruled your request invalid. Do you wish to be placed in contempt?’

    ‘No my Lord, you have made your values on how Scottish law should now operate exceedingly clear….’

    • Courtenay Barnett

      Rhys,

      The answer is predictable:-

      ‘My Lord, there is cogent evidence that the petition to bring my client to court for this hearing was inexcusably lacking in rigour, attention to detail and basic probity. The Law Lord signing that petition off was Lord Turnbull. It is therefore critical to the principle of legal due process that the judicial authority responsible for signing off the petition be questioned under oath as to why they lowered their standards to such an execrably unacceptable standard.’

      Q. So Lord Turnbull – why did you let this happen?

      A. To be perfectly truthful – I was in a bit of a rush to stitch up Craig Murray.

  • Mist001

    I don’t want to put a dampener on things, but have you given any thought as to what will happen if you’re sent down?

    I mean things like your family on the outside, who’s going to be watching out for them? Taking care of bills and so on because if the worst comes to the worst, it’s going to affect them too. They’ll need to be looked after and reassured.

    As for yourself, if you go to jail then you’re going to need certain things. Tobacco is the currency in jails I believe, so you might want to pre-arrange a steady supply of that. You’ll need books, magazines and stuff and reliable people to bring them in.

    I know you’d rather not consider these things, nobody would, but they have to be taken into consideration. As it stands, what we know is that you’re up in front of the beak, so any number of things could happen, the worst being sent down, so be prepared for that possibility.

    • nevermind

      mist oo1. Have you had any thoughts on how paying your parking fines and your butchers bill, and your rented accommodation, once your partner has been locked up or worse, demised?
      These are highly personal considerations and your assumptions are if anything, irrelevant or non of your business.

      • Mist001

        Nope, because I’m not the one facing the possibility of a jail sentence.

        I can also make assumptions, one of which is prudence isn’t a strong point of yours.

    • Stevie Boy

      If, and let’s hope not, the worse were to happen this news channel would cease – which is essentially what the state want.
      So, Craig, is there a contingency plan to keep this site operational ? Anyone you trust to tell-it-like-it-is if you were ‘away’ ?

    • Kempe

      Smoking not allowed inside jails any longer so it’s nicotine patches which are the new currency.

      Hopefully it won’t come to a custodial sentence or a long one if it does but I’m sure Craig will be doing all he can to mentally and physically prepare. The Home Office has a guide for anyone facing a prison sentence and a number of ex-lags have published their own. If Craig does get banged up he should be sent to a vulnerable prisoners wing due to his age and existing medical conditions. An ex-screw who recently joined us says cells are kitted out with TVs and radios etc but he might still find himself confined to the cell for 23 hours a day due to staff shortages.

      Expect the best, prepare for the worst.

  • wonky

    It saddens me to read this. That’s it. Goodbye England. You are now on the official international BDS shitlist. Not that I could ever afford a British car(‘s maintenance), but now I’m not even sure wether I should burn my Beatles and Joy Division and Sabbath albums. I certainly won’t buy any new ones until the regime and the “royals” are toppled.
    Be wise England! Being on the wrong side of the emerging IV Reich will not impress St Peter much.

  • Patrick Roden

    Craig, there’s no reason you should listen to me, but in my opinion, it is clear that a green light was given at some point recently, throughout the UK court system, that gave permission for judges to act corruptly, if they were doing so to suppress the opinions of those deemed to be anti-establishment.

    You must reconsider the offer of political asylum at least until you have generate enough publicity to ensure the eyes of the world were looking in on any future trial.
    The publicity that an ex UK ambassador needing to seek asylum from another European country because of legal corruption would be huge, and hugely embarrassing for the Scottish legal system. so the pressure to begin to act legally because of this, would far outstrip any pressure brought by people who support you signing up to view the trial on-line.

    1. Seek asylum from the person who offered it to you.
    2. Ask as many foreign governments and news outlets as you can to lobby the Scottish government on your behalf.
    3. Make it clear that you will be happy to attend any court case if you are given a fair hearing while showing the foreign media just how poorly the case has been constructed and how lacking is the evidence against you and Mark Hirst.
    4. Ask for any foreign legal experts who are willing to look into this case and give legal opinion to how valid the charges are (legal experts love a lot of free publicity)
    5. Pave the way for others who are treated like you and ask foreign governments to publicly offer asylum to any independence activists or activists who criticize the UK / Scottish governments.

     
    There’s no way you are getting a fair trial Craig, so don’t go like sheep to the slaughter.

    • Ian T-W

      There’s a lot of sound thinking in that. However, I wonder if the powers that be wouldn’t be just as happy were Craig to pack up and go elsewhere. Although he could still blog from abroad, it mightn’t have quite the same effect.

      Also, although going into the slammer for two years would be decidedly unpleasant, Craig is unlikely to be extradited to a third country which was the fate awaiting Julian.

      Also, as Craig hasn’t jumped bail, the crime which he is accused of is a non-violent one, coupled by a medical history which would make him vulnerable to the documented coronavirus inside the prison system, Craig might be able to apply for house arrest should things turn out badly in the court proceedings, especially with any appeal still pending.

      However, if a third country were to grant Craig honorary citizenship, instead of asylum, mightn’t that third country be able to apply some pressure to see that the case proceeded in a fair and open manner?

      • A2

        Ian T-W
        You don’t make an example of someone by treating them as vulnerable, otherwise Assange would not be sitting in Belmarsh.
        If this is indeed a deliberate attempt to target Craig rather than a over zealous lash out at the first available then you can assume if he loses, the conditions he will be held in won’t be particularity cushy.

        • Ian T-W

          Yes, I did get that which is why I said that two years in the slammer would be “decidedly unpleasant”.

          However, my point is that it would be two years as opposed to more than 100. My other point was that, because Craig has not jumped bail, they would have a more difficult time in explaining why he has to be locked up in a prison system which has been documented to have the coronavirus in it when he has not been convicted of a violent crime and when he has documented health concerns which make him vulnerable to the disease while any appeal, should the court proceedings go badly, was still pending.

          Of course, the authorities could ignore all that and throw him into a cell in Belmarsh next to Julian to send a warning to others. I understand that. But it would make what they are attempting to do all that more the obvious to all but the wilfully blind. While that should already be readily apparent, there are some who are obtuse without being wilfully so. Society does much to condition that to be the norm.

          All I’m saying is that there are a lot of variables which need to be taken into consideration as I am sure Craig is doing. He would undoubtedly have a clearer perception of the likely outcome of these proceedings than many of us watching this unfold from the sidelines.

      • Patrick Roden

        My thinking is to drum up a lot of publicity and support both at home and abroad while offering to return for a trial if the Scottish legal system can guarantee him a fair and unbiased trial.
        The very fact that Gravelli isn’t being pursued while Craig and Mark Hirst are, shows a level of bias that indicates that the Scottish legal system is broken, because if the system isn’t applied fairly to all citizens then the system is surely broken.

        I understand the point made about this sites effectiveness if Craig moved away, but running a site from outside of Scotland hasn’t stopped Wings over Scotland being effective.
        People in the UK are used to hearing about oppressed people claiming asylum in the UK, but a UK citizen journalist needing to claim asylum and being granted it because the Scottish legal system is acting unfairly would generate a huge amount of publicity here and abroad, so you could argue that the extra traffic that would be directed to this site from people who wouldn’t normally visit would be huge.

        The question I would ask everyone who has been keeping up to date with the trial of Alex Salmond and the subsequent arrests of Craig and Mark Hirst, is do you feel it in your bones that Craig will not be given a fair trial?

        I certainly feel it and think Craig should ask himself the same question and if he agrees that he is in all probability being fitted up by either a corrupt legal system or by a group of corrupt individuals operating within the system, he should take the necessary steps to
        defend himself while bringing to the public attention, the behaviour of our courts.

        I think at the bare minimum, Craig can ask for another judge to review how and why decisions were made to bring charges against those who were supportive of Alex Salmond while completely ignoring far more serious breaches by several people, who were not supportive of Alex.

        A former first minister is taken to court and now an ex-diplomat is charged for writing the truth about the trial, by what is clearly a legal system in which the stench of corruption is unmissable.

        I think this would be huge.

  • Duncan+Spence

    I have sent this post to an international law expert I know and shared it to facebook with my own blurb. Other than that you have my moral support.

    Watch your back. These gobshites particularly don’t like it when one of their own spills the beans. You are a brave man.

  • Ron Soak

    Question:

    What do you call someone who signs an official court indictment containing glaring errors, missing paragraphs, and inaccurate accusations with no supporting evidence?

    A. Alex Prentice?
    B. Lord Turnbull?
    C. Incompetent?
    D. Corrupt?
    E. All of the above?

  • Ann Marie Kinninmont

    Any upload or download is recorded in the registry. Surely you have access to someone with IT knowledge that can prove the tweets did not originate from your laptop? Twitter will know where the tweets came from…but they’re deep state so I doubt they will cooperate.

  • CasualObserver

    What If, the Scottish Ascendency have sold out the idea of Scottish independence, in the same way they sold out The Wallace. They would be scared shirtless of Salmond who has Independence written through him like a stick of rock, and to forestall any comeback on his part an attempt using the age old tactic of sexual impropriety was made. It went wrong Big Style, and so to try and save something from the situation, contempt prosecutions will be used to enable the idea to be put abroad that Mr Salmond got away with it because of the efforts of his friends to effectively sway the jury at his trial.

    Clearly, putting a couple of notables in the chokey for a while would do much to add credence to such a plotline, as its very much the case that the fabled Man on the Clapham Omnibus, and even the Glasgow one, still tend to hold to the belief that its only in very rare cases that folk get sent down for no good reason.

    There also remains the question of what should happen to Mr Salmonds’ accusers ? If one assumes that they are sizeable entities in either the Scottish political class, or the UK Civil Service, then an examination of what might be assumed to be false accusations by virtue of the jury verdict, would no doubt put the mockers on careers that are far from over in a big way. It therefore becomes a possibility that the fate of of a few contrarian activists outside of the Charmed Circle is of little consequence if they can be used to try and salvage well rewarded positions.

    All in all, a dangerous strategy for the Ascendency ? In the event of a proverbial slip ‘twixt cup and lip’, things could blow up horrendously and have an effect opposite from that intended.

  • N_

    How about a support demonstration outside the court, live-streamed, in which everyone strictly and ostentatiously obeys social distancing rules, either carrying 3-metre long flimsy bamboo sticks (my first idea) and making sure they stay out of reach of everyone else’s stick, or (probably a better idea if somebody can source the materials) people wear rubber rings like this?

    The police would obviously break the demonstration up, and equally obviously the police would be acting unlawfully, because there is no legal ban on street demonstrations.

    The state is acting both inside the law and, in a very widespread and “in your face” way, outside the law too – one of the distinguishing characteristics of fascism. And the idea of “vermin” is rising, rising.

    Disagree? Well, please note very carefully the difference between the ways that the following two stories have been reported.

    1) The proposed 14-day quarantine requirement for every person who enters Britain (except from Ireland). It has been predicted in the media (which is under 10 Downing Street control, in case anyone didn’t know) that there will be quite a wide level of non-observance, which the authorities aren’t planning to do much about. (As an aside, we should also observe that they are talking about locking up – in port-town “hotels” – those who enter the country without a home to go to. Now I seriously wonder who those people might be. Certainly homeless British people are in no position to take flights abroad even when there isn’t a lockdown.)

    2) Outside gatherings by British people, including many who are black, who live in the inner cities – like this one in Handsworth in Birmingham. Not only was it broken up by armed police, but the police (again, just to be clear, clearly under 10 Downing Street say-so) gave headcam footage to the Daily Heil in order to whip that newspaper’s readership up into an orgy of genocidal desire. In what I predict will become a major theme, they also report that the people at the gathering – an utterly peaceful community event – didn’t believe the official story about the coronavirus. The ideas of “disease-spreading vermin” and “not with the nationalist and state programme” are coming together…an unmistakable marker of fascism, or to be even clearer, of national socialism. (Or should that be National H-Socialism? A case of “Hail the NHSDAP”?)

    • CasualObserver

      Live streaming from outside courts tends to be frowned upon, especially when the courts are dealing with things that may have a whiff of impropriety, as was discovered by a certain Tommy Robinson.

      Then of course, and as has been noticed by others, there’s the virus business, damned handy for getting rid of shows of solidarity and doubly helpful in preoccupying the public’s attention.

      • N_

        Tommy Robinson was doing it outside a trial by jury. Judges are assumed not to be so easy to influence. Perhaps demanding a trial by jury could be the focus?

  • PleaseBeleafMe

    I’d just like to chime in with my support Craig. Regardless of whether this petition is shit or legally viable,the fact you r being persecuted because u cannot be muzzled is obvious.
    To those offering legal advice as to be cautious etc. I say fuck em! The man who whimpers against injustice deserves it. You’re in the right. Scream it from the roof tops. Let everyone know what’s in their Soylent green.
    That being said your lack of patience at your injustices may turn u into a martyr in prison but what the fall of any regime on its last legs of semblance of a true justice system realises is that martyrs create hydras of other martyrs until they become heroes. Best of luck!

  • Northern+Sole

    Hi Craig, I will request access to the virtual hearing as you have suggested. Can you please advise on details of the hearing so that I can be as accurate as possible with the request. You have said “the virtual hearing on 10 June”. Will this be enough detail for the courts to recognise that it is your hearing, and not another which may be taking place on that date? Sorry if I’m being a bit dense here.

  • FlorianGeyer

    The British Justice system is getting more like the disgraceful US justice system every day.
    The appalling treatment of General Flynn by the FBI etc, being the latest abuse of US political lawfare to be exposed.

    It is now apparent that the same US style shyster Mafia Lawfare ‘inquisition’ is being used to punish and abuse Craig Murray for telling the truth.

    • Giyane

      FlorianGeyer

      “.. is getting more like..”
      When the US is trying to stop criticism of its blatant war crimes throughout the Middle East, only two things matter. What does Trump need to do to remain in power? and What does the Judge need to do to keep his/ her job?

      Trump has to support an alliance which he probably despises called NATO or USUKIS. Trump is so weak politically that he’s just like a car horn that’s jammed on.
      The potus needs the bad guys silenced , not for himself, but for his backers.

      Trump needs the UK to do bad stuff in the Middle East, not because he is bad, but because as a businessman he sees no benefit in trashing stuff. The trashing is the agenda of his backers.

      So what does the Judge have to do to keep his job?
      As from 13/12/2019 the Home Secretary in waiting was from the same powerful lobby as President Trump’s backers. So since the rigged election every single British Judge has a new master, whom he or she must appease.

      Craig has been here before, but nobody has the courage to spell it out in words of one syllable, including me.
      A mafia has taken control of the world, and anybody who thinks this is just Craig’s problem is living in CCL.

      IT’S VERY SIMPLE. Neither the Potus nor the Judge like being under the control of the mafia. In fact they totally detest being under control of the mafia. So all that is needed is for Craig to be extremely nice to and about the Potus and/or the Judges, and they will dismiss his case.

      When you have lost your money and your passport in a strange land, a little bit of gracious smiling and deference will probably save your life.

      • Giyane

        Your Honours, i am deeply distressed, more than you could possibly imagine , to find myself in this predicament that I have unwittingly offended the solemn authority of the Scottish Court of Justice.
        Justice something I believe in from the bottom of my heart. I have tried , but clearly failed in your noble opinions, to avoid contempt of this court at all costs but if in my pursuit of justice for an old friend i have misjudged what could or could not be published, all i can do is to apologise. I will certainly refrain from pursuing anything like this in future.
        The last thing i would ever want to do is to hold a court of law in contempt.

        • Emily

          Yeah, better to eat humble pie. Apologise profusely and get to hell out of the court (by the front door). There is no point in being a martyr for the ’cause’.

  • A2

    I just read “the 29 march Tweet” which is still there and my heart sank, certainly answers the question “how can they go after Craig and not the other journalists”…. “Media don’t say that.” ffs The only good thing I can take after reading that is that I’m less inclined to believe that there is a deliberate attempt to silence/intimidate/punish Craig* so that if he is found guilty, whatever sentence there may be will probably be less harsh than might have been if that were the case.

    *which is good of course but it’s also shaken my trust in Craig’s judgement.

    • Ian T-W

      Haven’t read the offending tweet. However, if they refuse to grant him credentials as a journalist because they don’t deem him to be legitimate enough or to have enough reach, then they can hardly accuse him of having outed anybody in a way to make any significant impact.

    • James

      … well, I read the tweet and it didn’t reveal the identity of any of the accusers to me.

      The tweet *did* give me a very good picture of the nature of the accusers.

      Craig Murray was – and is – entitled to express the view that the whole Alex Salmond case was a fit-up – this is basic free speech.

      He was (and is) also entitled to explain how he came to this conclusion – with the restriction that he shouldn’t identify the accusers.

      The tweet seemed to me to be (a) giving very good indication as to why he had concluded that the whole thing was a fit up and (b) doing so in a way that didn’t reveal the identities of the accusers (except for people who already had a pretty good idea who they were).

      So – as far as I can see – Craig Murray is not guilty of the contempt of court charge.

      I have been trying to figure out who the alphabet sisters are and I still don’t know (perhaps I’m thick or something ….)

      • Giyane

        James

        Thick?

        Your friend tells you , before selling it, that they have clocked their private hire car back from 400000 miles to 200000 miles, which still is very high mileage. This was done not to con anyone, God forbid , but to not let the taxman know his / her real income. So harmless really because he will tell the purchaser the real mileage.

        The victim to a moral person, is not the new purchaser but 70 million people who suffer austerity for the sake of one person’s greed.

        Similarly, it was not Craig’s intention expose the alphabet accusers, but merely to inform the public about the scandal of a High Court being used to squash political opposition. The judges are guilty as heck and they well know it.

        They, and only they are in contempt of the Court over which they preside. They are after all the ones that permit the scam to operate under their jurisdiction, knowing full well that it is a scam.

        • James

          Giyane – my feeling is that Lady Dorian (if she is the judge in charge of the proceedings) will simply throw it out because it has been so badly written. Does she really want to hear everything that Craig Murray has written on his blog?

          I also think that the proceedings should be televised, because the whole thing is a total joke. `Your Lordships, I do formally and solemnly submit that a twitter user, using the handle Bella Spandangle, with the user name Twinky Toes did publish the following Tweet …’

          That bit comes from the part where they might be able to argue that C.M. gave too much information, but in order to get to that point, the judge will have to sit and listen to 50 articles of pure rant which amounts to `we don’t like Craig Murray’s blog very much’ so by that stage she won’t particularly be in a mood to take the tweet of 29th March very seriously.

          I’m thinking of something along the likes of the Gilbert and Sullivan `Trial by Jury’ (this could be `Trial without a jury’) They could set it to music (with Alex Prentice and Turnbull singing `with bias free of every kind this trial will be tried) and get up the best comedy entertainment that BBC Scotland has produced for years.

          My money is on Craig Murray being acquitted.

          This petition is so incompetently written that I can’t see any judge taking it seriously.

  • diabloandco

    Ca’ canny Craig and may your defence lawyer be a mighty attack dog – I see the crumbling of edifices and I look forward to a better , fairer re-build.

    I have to say I am with the last commentator , I too am thick – I have no idea who the alphabet women are, even after reading the Garavelli crap and other assorted bleats. And the other part of me cares not at all .

    What does enrage is the contempt in which they appear to hold the court outcome and their continued attacks on Alex Salmond and his supporters through their friends in the press , the judiciary and the use/ misuse of police Scotland – all have gone down so far in my estimation that clearing the Augean stable has become a matter of urgency for Scotland.

  • Not a doctor

    On the tweets which are referred to but not quoted in the petition, it may be that the position of the prosecution is that to publish them as part of the petition is to commit the very offense which the prosecution alleges you have committed. I.e., if the tweets of 29 March and 1 April in fact could lead to identification of someone whose identity should remain confidential, then the prosecution would not want that information in a public document.
    The prosecution may therefore argue that it will show you the tweets in question as well as the judges in the case, but they will otherwise remain out of the public record of the case. With that in mind, the numbering of the paragraphs of the case probably could be re-written as follows:

    49. At 08:31 hours, etc…. The message states:
    ” [text of tweet intentionally omitted to preserve the identity of the complainants]”
    [50.] It is respectfully submitted, etc…

    • SA

      Doesn’t make sense. It would have been much easier and clearer to say:
      49. At 08:31 hrs a tweet etc… The contents of this tweet has been withheld for reasons of confidentiality and will be submitted to the court and accused at the trial, otherwise you can just insert about anything at the trial and spring many surprises.

  • Angus Coutts

    If Craig were to seek political asylum can I suggest the recently relocated French Consulate in Edinburgh which, conveniently,, is located on the opposite side of the street from The High Court

    • Courtenay Barnett

      Then his fate would be like that of Julian Assange.

      I hope he is able to beat the rap/trap – in court.

    • Piotr+Berman

      Only going straight to Russian Embassy offers some guarantee and comfort. First, extensive grounds would prevent claustrophobia. Second, expulsions of Russian diplomats assure non-cramped conditions. Third, no security contractors on CIA payroll. Fourth, the chances of British police entering premises with the permission of the government in charge of those premises are extremely remote.

      More practically, shows of support promise a lot of headache to the authorities in the even of actual arrests. Otherwise, I would take a ferry to Bergen (is it currently possible?).

  • Sarge

    Mind-boggling what they are trying to do to you while war criminals and eugenicists bestride our earth like colossi.

    • Mary

      and an adviser to the UK Prime Minister is found to have actually broken the law but so far, has not been charged.

  • Piotr+Berman

    After some thinking, I concluded that the court order was contradictory, at least if we assume that the court should pay some attention to public interest.

    On one hand we have the public interest in a discourse on issues of political importance, with implication about aptitude and inclination of public official, elected by the public or nominated by elected officials. To what extend they follow their petty interests that is contrary to the interests that large segments of the public perceive? The very central concept of informed voting requires that such discourse can take place. This is not the question of minors who can be stigmatized and bullied, and who by themselves are not vitally important to the public at large.

    On the other hand, there is an interest in preserving anonymity of accusers that presumably has some justification (the accused person has similar concerns, if you ask me). At this point, the very publication of the accusations makes huge breaches in their anonymity, breaches so huge that innocent details can “de-anonymize them”. After all, the public knowns a lot more that “in a certain institution in the United Kingdom something happened”.

    The only way to protect the anonymity would be to make the investigation confidential, and the trial secret, with no disclosure whatsoever in the event of non-guilty verdict. Otherwise a neighbor would know that person Delta worked in the place known from the press at the time mentioned in the press, and on the days known from the press leaves home with time and attire suggesting going to court. This solution was possible.

    However, we see an attempt of conducting a secret show trial. Easy to do in Stalinist Soviet Union, where as a matter of course the press writes only what the authorities wishes to write, but quite contrary to the “western liberal concept of freedom” that is presumably included in the unwritten constitution of the Kingdom.

    • Bethany

      The press should butt out of all trials and court proceedings. It serves no ones interest, certainly not the accused. As a senior court official once told me being splashed all over the papers was “part of the punishment”. The courts actively collude in this, anyway. i.e. furnishing journalists with complaints/indictments, etc. The council even furnish journalists with the cases to be called in the ‘taxi court’.

1 2 3 4 5