UPDATE Some journalists, NGOs and observers registering for my trial using details below are being asked for the case number. This is HCA/2020-06/XM.
My trial for Contempt of Court in my reporting of the Alex Salmond trial is on 27 and 28 January at the Court of Appeals in Edinburgh. Contempt of Court charges can be brought by a judge or by the Crown. These are being brought by the Crown – an important point. It is a strange charge. The potential penalties are very serious – up to two years in prison and an “unlimited” fine. Yet it is not a criminal offence nor a criminal trial, and despite the life-changing penalties there is no jury; but the judges do have to rule on the facts to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
I am being charged with contempt of court on three separate counts:
a) Publication of material likely to influence the jury
b) Jigsaw Identification of Protected Identities
c) Reporting the Exclusion of a Juror
These are some of the key issues involved:
a) Publication of Material Likely to Influence the Jury
- My defence team believe this is the first modern prosecution in Scotland (or England) for a publication allegedly influencing a jury in favour of the defendant. All previous prosecutions for at least 150 years appear to be for prejudice against a defendant. It has always been assumed the Crown and the judge are big enough to counter any prejudice against the Crown (If anyone wishes to research the unprecedented prosecution point further that would be welcome; it is of course difficult to prove a negative)
- The Lord Advocate cannot order censorship. The Crown has not had the power of censorship in Scotland for 300 years. I am not obliged to obey an instruction from the Crown Office to remove an article. If the Lord Advocate genuinely believed an article could influence a trial, he had a public duty to go to a judge before the trial, in a timely manner, and ask the judge to order the removal of the article. I would have contested, but obeyed if I lost – only a judge can order the removal of an article.
- It is ludicrous to claim my little blog influenced the jury, compared to the massive outpouring of mainstream media articles amplifying salacious allegations against Salmond released by the Crown Office.
- Political satire is protected speech
- My articles were well founded journalism indicating the Salmond prosecution was a conspiracy involving senior members of the Scottish Government and SNP, with the active corrupt collusion of the prosecutorial authorities. This is true and evidenced in documents held by the Crown but kept from the Salmond trial, kept from the Holyrood Inquiry and so far kept from my trial. Publication of this true information was of crucial public interest and protected by my Article 10 rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.
b) Jigsaw Identification
- I did not jigsaw identify anyone.
- The Lord Advocate argues that I am responsible for tweets in reply to my own tweets. We argue this is not true – I am not the publisher of twitter – and would set a very dangerous precedent.
- The Crown is specifically arguing that the bar for jigsaw identification is that any one single individual with specialist knowledge would be likely to identify a witness from my writing; this could be, for example, an individual who worked in the same office, or the doorman at Bute House who knew who was there on which day. My defence is that jigsaw identification means likely to identify to the public. If the Crown’s definition were accepted, there would be a massive chilling effect on journalism.
- The mainstream media demonstrably gave more jigsaw identification information than I did, notably, but not only, Dani Garavelli and Kirsty Wark. I have been singled out for prosecution on political grounds.
- The court order protecting identities did not come into being before 10 March 2020. Most of the Crown’s alleged examples are before this date. We absolutely deny my articles enable jigsaw identification, but even if they did they were not illegal at the time of publication.
- Up until 10 March 2020, had I wished to publish identities I could have done so quite legally in the articles before that date which the Lord Advocate cites. Unlike England, there is no law in Scotland barring publication of witness identity absent a specific court order. The fact I did not do so in the year between my learning identities and the ban coming into force, in several articles on the case where I could legally have published the identities, make nonsense the Lord Advocate’s contention that I deliberately gave clues.
- After Alex Salmond’s acquittal the false accusers continued to take advantage of the court anonymity order to decry and undermine the jury’s verdict and malign Alex Salmond. Given the high positions of influence the women hold, I decided to challenge in court whether there was not a public interest in stopping this behaviour, in this unique case greater than the important general public interest in protecting identities. I did not take it upon myself to determine this, but commissioned and paid for a senior advocate to prepare a case for the judge to decide. I received the draft application from my senior counsel but the application was postponed by Covid. I would not have taken this expensive and responsible legal route if I was leaking the identities illegally as alleged.
c) Juror Exclusion
- All I published was that a juror had been excluded but I was not allowed to say why. We argue this does not breach the court order preventing disclosure of the proceedings where the exclusion was discussed and ordered. The simple fact of the exclusion was not secret. (Though it is a very interesting story indeed which I shall tell you once I can).
AN APPEAL FOR HELP
I hope that brief account gives some idea of the legal arguments involved. But everybody whose head is not buttoned up the back knows this is not really what the case is about. This is about the ability of those in power in Scotland to use the law to persecute their political opponents. They tried it on Alex Salmond, they tried it on Mark Hirst – both blowing up in their faces – and now they are trying it on me.
If there were a jury, I would not lose one moment’s sleep. But there is not. I am buoyed by the fact that what the Alex Salmond and Mark Hirst trials show is that while both Police Scotland and the Crown Office may stink of rotten corruption at the top, Scotland’s judiciary is still independent. It is worth noting that the simply astonishing admission of the Lord Advocate and Crown Office to malicious prosecution recently in the Rangers case is going to cost the taxpayer almost £50 million, once all costs are in and awards paid out. The police and legal costs for the Alex Salmond case total some £10 million wasted.
I call on journalists worldwide who support freedom of speech to pay attention and to cover this trial. The case is HMA vs Craig John Murray in the Court of Appeals, 27 January. The emails for registration are [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] – please copy to all three. I also ask you to press specifically for video access, not the dreadful quality sound only phone-in.
I also call on NGO’s, political associations, community bodies and elected representatives worldwide to apply to register for observer status using the same email details.
Once registered, journalists and observers should ask the court for copies of the court documents. I am severely constrained in giving out documents at present.
Members of the public will be able to register to listen live. I am afraid this will very probably be the same poor quality sound only link down the telephone. It also involves giving the court some registration details, and may incur call charges to a London number. Registration details will be posted here by the court shortly – where you will also find details for Martin Keatings’ vital case on Scotland’s right to hold an independence referendum without Boris Johnson’s permission.
I appeal for as many people as can do so to register and listen in. Your support is vital to me both morally and practically. I can see no reason why registered members of the public should not inquire to the court as to the availability of the documents. Justice is supposed to be seen to be done.
Long term readers of my blog know that for well over a decade we have campaigned against injustice, ill-treatment, imprisonment and detention of many, both the famous and the obscure. I therefore feel little shame in asking everyone now to try and join in the same cause on my own behalf.
—————————————————–
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Etherium/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
I do not envy your ordeal, but you have a lot of support. I know many people on the right of UK and Scottish politics who are appalled at your prosecution, and the prosecution of AS. They have watched the Nitler saga unfold.
Having been disgusted with most involved, I can only hope that the Senators are untainted.
Best of luck.
I wish you well in your case. You have been scrupulous in adhering to high journalistic standards and have never taken a ‘cheap shot’ to boost readership – unlike many in the printed press.
I can’t believe I live in a country that allows what I can only call a kangaroo court. No jury and there seems little in the way of evidence to prove their case (although I’m far from being an expert) The stakes are high yet a single man will decide your fate. The press are all over the Navalny case now, why aren’t they reporting this (well, I know why but I still find it hard to take)
It seems the best defence against cases like this is the cold light of day, when the public are aware then those who would abuse justice are less inclined to be seen doing so.
I’ve seen justice abused at a low level for many years as a lot of former colleagues were detectives and I have family still serving. I’ve met those on the receiving end also and know that not every conviction means someone is guilty (or even thought to be guilty) I hope you’re right about our judiciary and that the judge involved takes the rights of the individual to report on cases more seriously than the desire of those who would run roughshod over justice..
Good luck Craig.
It would seem this is a test trial for the suppression of truth in journalism, one way or another.
I will definitely be tuning in. I will share this post as well. For there to be no Jury is completely unacceptable. I wish you the very best of luck. Rest assured Craig I’ll be watching like a hawk to see how all this pans out.
Who will, as you did for Assange, write a daily record for our consumption? Can we have a link ASAP please?
Those look like excellent, and valid, arguments, Craig. The best of luck.
Nice touch bringing into question whether the accusers should remain anonymous while using that anonymity for publicly attacking and defaming people.
Unless you get a politicised judge, Mr. Murray, you should win, your arguments are logical, solid, convincing, good luck, and chin up, there will one day will be a celebration on our street also.
The verdict in this “Craig Murray” case will show the caliber and straightness of that judge.
[2020] EWHC 1162 (Fam)
18. “The potential for jigsaw identification, by which is meant diverse pieces of information in the public domain, which when placed together reveal the identity of an individual, can sometimes be too loosely asserted and the risk overstated. As was discussed in exchanges with counsel, jigsaws come with varying complexities. A 500-piece puzzle of Schloss Neuschwanstein is a very different proposition to a 12-piece puzzle of Peppa Pig. By this I mean that whilst some information in the public domain may be pieced together by those determined to do so, the risk may be relatively remote. The remoteness of the risk would require to be factored in to the balancing exercise when considering the importance of the Article 10 rights. Indeed, as I have averted to above the Article 10 rights may be of such force as ultimately to outweigh the risk of identification…”
Thank you Colin I have forwarded that on to my lawyer
This judgment by Mr Justice Hayden seems very apposite indeed (to this legal layman).
“A 500-piece puzzle of Schloss Neuschwanstein is a very different proposition to a 12-piece puzzle of Peppa Pig. By this I mean that whilst some information in the public domain may be pieced together by those determined to do so, the risk may be relatively remote.”
It would seem to me also apposite that some of these women themselves through their proxies and friendly ‘journalists’, have done much to add to the “identification in the public domain that may be pieced together by those determined to do so”
Some of us with long association with the SNP have been able to do so with great ease based on matters published in, inter alia, Tortoise and the Scotsman
Whereas, what you have written provided no clues at all – at least to me.
To what extent can the reckless activity of those justifiably protected in law in normal circumstances be undermined by their own perverse activities?
Logically – as I have absolutely no legal qualifications or experience – the whole “jigsaw” argument seems unsustainable.
A person could have aduty not to reveal a piece of information X if he could, somehow, know for certain whether or not there exist other pieces of information Y, Z… which, in conjunction with X, might give a person knoledge that is forbidden by the state.
In order to ascertain that, the person would have to know all the information available to anyone, and take the time and trouble to work through it all seeing how it all fits together.
In practical terms, he would have to be omniscient.
Tom W
That’s a lovely, powerful counter-argument.
It seems to me that (very slightly) re-wording it to say “…would have to know ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILBLE TO EVERYONE…” sets out the even more clearly that only the omniscient could possibly be found guilty.
I have applied for virtual access, Craig. I will be awake at 0230 (Pacific time) bearing witness.
Whatever it takes – we have your back.
While Glenn Greenwald writes this for the current and future of the USA, it is completely applicable to Britain – in fact your time at the FCO will have made you very familiar with the principles here:
“Neoliberalism and imperialism do not care about the pseudo-fights between the two parties or the cable TV bickering of the day. They do not like the far left or the far right. They do not like extremism of any kind. They do not support Communism and they do not support neo-Nazism or some fascist revolution. They care only about one thing: disempowering and crushing anyone who dissents from and threatens their hegemony. They care about stopping dissidents. All the weapons they build and institutions they assemble — the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, oligarchical power — exist for that sole and exclusive purpose, to fortify their power by rewarding those who accede to their pieties and crushing those who do not. “
https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56212.htm
You have already been deemed a “dissident” and your trial will see that you are “crushed”. The process will make it all seem legal, legitimate and deserving.
You have worked for this end, so be accepting of the establishments punishment.
You and Julian have not “accede to their pieties”.
Radicalism is not so easily or passively crushed . Are you psychologically ‘on your knees’?
Dietitians write about the dangers of free radicals. Thus more modern thinkers, neoliberals, neocons, New Labour etc., elimination of free radicals is a high priority — they take exercise and diet advise very seriously.
James Cook
Exactly. It would be wrong to think that Craig’s trial about witness identification is , ” sob ” about ” sob ” the illusory fiction of “” boo hoo , I can’t bear it any longer ” non-existent rape. That is just paper-clipped onto a much older grievance against Craig Murray the Diplomat that revealed unmentionable genocide policies of the British State Torture Rendition Brainwashing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
On would not want an active and popular blogger to be talking about this right wing government refusing to stopping arms deals with genocide regimes like Saudi Arabia. So.keep him busy with entirely false accusations about supporting perpetrators of rape.
The British State’s policy on arms sales to dictators, diplomatic support for war-mongering genocide perpetrators is that money always comes first.
The British State never forgets a face. The corruption in Scottish Government is not about Tiddly Widdly Mrs Tittlemouse fake rape allegations. It’s about distancing British State revenge from its vindictive reprisals, Calling in favours, punching below the waist.
The horrible irony of it all is that while Craig decided that Scotland would give him a form of asylum from British spite, it is in fact wholly owned and comprehensively bought, Elf- faced Nicola Sturgeon plays stooge to rogue British State in exchange for power and democratic success in May election.
Rotten to the core is the key to success in this worldly life.
“The horrible irony of it all is that while Craig decided that Scotland would give him a form of asylum from British spite, it is in fact wholly owned and comprehensively bought, Elf- faced Nicola Sturgeon plays stooge to rogue British State…”
I think I see. If the English do something wrong, that is because the English are dreadful people. And if a Scots person does something wrong, it was because “the English made me do it”.
I’m afraid that there just are about as many horrible people in Scotland as anywhere else.
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being”.
– Alexandr Solzhenitsyn (“The Gulag Archipelago”)
Tom Welsh
How many of us would do evil things if the institution we worked for told us to do it and indemnity? I suspect everyone.
The colonial power has leverage over the colonial institutions. In the case of the Soviet Union the colonial governors in Eastern European countries or Uzbekistan, exceeded all bounds of brutality or corruption.
I hope Nicola Sturgeon realises that Scotland under Union devolution is starting to look like Uzbekistan, picking on respectable over 60s with left wing consciences and getting them threatened with long prison sentences on disingenuous or false charges..
Are we seeing Scottistan? And is that anything to do with the minister for Justice? or is it purely a Colonial Crown political perversion? Or, both at the same time?
.
Not all. For eg a certain former ambassador….
I humbly admit that I am but an observer from afar. From away. I have however traveled some of the world – I have walked Hadrian’s Wall and traveled the circumference of Scotland always intrigued by how many towns, in the area I once lived had the same names as so many, many Scottish towns. It is obvious that many, many sons of Scotland played a big part in opening The Empire for England.
Craig has been an insider of Empire and he knows how things work, so Glenn’s words are not some new revelation. Things do not change without challenges, but the uncontrollable elements of fate within the current politics at play will have no room for challengers. When oligarchical power is secure, some controlled change will be allowed. Right now oligarchical power is under threat, so their position must be protected. Change will NOT be allowed. Power must be protected and re-consolidated.
At least they are not openly using “Jedburg Justice” just yet!
As a ever curious observer from away, I have recently picked up The Marches by Rory Stewart – an exiled Scottish son swimming in the poisonous seas of America currently. Fascinating history of the border between barbarian Scotland and civilized England. Seemingly forever The Marches is never far from contention. Will border history repeat in future? Perhaps some day, but from the description of history by Rory, one must be very careful what one wishes for.
I wish the best for Craig, but I sense he knows what must happen if he continues to publicly challenge oligarchical power of both England and Scotland at the same time. Many before have traveled this unhappy road.
James Cook
In the game if Divide and Rule, fat livings are to be made from dividing, while leaving the ruling to others. A devolved colonial entity which The Lord Advocate, FM, and SNP in government all beling to are paid to divide, including the costs of failed court cases. London pays for the cost of dividing because the alternative, Scottish Independence, self-help, is infinitely more expensive to the colonial power.
Just as certain is the fact that if it was ruling itself the assets of Scotland would accrue to the Scots, and the costs of maladminstration would disappear.
The hypocrisy of Ian Duncan Smith yesterday pontificating on China and the Uighers, when the West has flattened so many Muslim countries, put the Pugin architecture in danger of collapse . Oligarchy is fuck all without legitimacy, says mother Theresa May from her own hypocritical little corner.
We’ll know when Ms Sturgeon wants Independence when she stops prosecuting England’s enemies for England and starts doing something useful instead.
I think you have a very naive view of politicians.
Believing that ‘with rule by the Scots, maladministration would disappear’ is rather like saying that giving the Africans independence would produce enlightened rule. Not sure Uganda, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and a few other places would be on your list of supporting evidence….
If you get independence, you still need to assume that politicians will be corrupt and operate for the benefit of a ‘cabal’, and not for the people.
The history of politics shows that it is rare indeed for a genuine visionary with the people’s interests at heart to be also endowed with world-leading skills in political shenanigans, they usually being ousted by far more heartless, scheming apparatchiks emboldened by the prospect of power for its’ own sake…..
Rhys Jaggar
Imho pressing false charges against an innocent man is psychopathic behaviour while seeking ermine for one’s collar is merely venal. One would hope society could de-fuse the psychopaths before they get to real.not just devolved power. it’s bollox to vote for Sturgeon to get an SNP victory. I’m not that naive.
My bete noire is Thatcher, friend of Jimmy Woke Saville, not Blair, friend of millionaires.
Rhys Jaggar
Colonialism involves two struggles, according to Cesaire: to overcome racism and class inequality. Getting rid of the former is at least a start, no?
Interesting piece. It chimes with something I read earlier today:
https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2021/01/19/american-democracy-is-in-no-imminent-danger/
Great article. See also this very important contribution By Chris Hedges on the Jimmy Dore programme.
https://youtu.be/olBU619Dlsc
It all begins to make sense. Revolutions are hard to spot in real time – but in retrospect seem obvious.
Some folks like Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges are able to see things for what they are and articulate their analyses in comprehensible language.
Only the most cynical, the most shameless, & the most dishonorable would go through with this show trial behind closed doors. Let’s hope the Scottish judiciary haven’t descended to Baraitser’s level, & quickly throw out this ludicrous case, a stain on a democratic nation.
Yes, we must hope the judge is possessed of some conscience.
Best of luck to you.
Good luck Craig, am sure you can think of any number of things you’d rather be doing than going through all this rigmarole. But it’s worth bearing in mind that, in these times, the good suffer. Anyone with a sense of decency and justice is ‘their’ enemy and anyone who is effective and resolute in their convictions is a target.
I imagine you understand this better than many and, whilst I’m sure this helps alleviate much of their intimidations, I appreciate that real world events would still give you cause for some considerable angst.
But then that’s their whole objective, conviction or acquittal. Grind you down and mess with your mojo every which way they can.
But you are very highly considered amongst the great and the good, you fight better than most and on behalf of the many. I’ve seen your words and work held in very high regard far and wide so let that keep your spirits up rather than let the guttersnipes beat you down.
Whilst it seems inappropriate to consider a perverse judgement by the court, if it were to come about, the absolute worst outcome of a custodial would leave you in the company of far more decent folk than you will find in the court, dressed in their wigs, robes and high falutin’ hypocrisy.
More worrying would be an attempt to bleed you financially but that will no doubt be alleviated with the help of the many on whose behalf you strive and suffer.
They can’t touch you, mate. So try not to feel too much like you’re on the ‘chopping block’. Every blow they direct at you simply reveals their vile natures and turgid (with silent ‘S’s) machinations.
As for the scheming attempts to block public access to proceedings (a la Assange), it’s enough to make your blood boil. Telephone audio?!? Fer fks sake, it’s the 21st century. I’m almost surprised they don’t try to offer coverage by way of pencil sketches and have no doubt they would if they could.
Hopefully you’ll have someone/s step up to extract and disseminate the relevant records of proceedings and can let us know where to look for that before hand.
I’m guessing they make it a pain in the arse to apply for such material but then if 1000 people were prepared to jump through those hoops on a daily basis on our behalf, perhaps we could turn it around to being more of a pain in their arses.
This would also be a way in which us sideline folk could pitch in from the comfort of our armchairs.
After shooting themselves in the foot with their previous failed pro(per)secutions, let’s hope they finish the job and finally put themselves out of our misery.
“turgid (with silent ‘S’s)”
Ooops, got my “Sturgeon” confused with “Sturgiss’.
That’ll teach me to try and be cleverer than I am 🙂
Hopefully justice will prevail. I have been following this debacle with increasing incredulity and passing on information to as many people as possible, absent of the media generally failing in it’s duties. Good luck.
This has nothing to do with illusory contempt of court. It is simply about trying to silence and discredit one of the few voices relaying the truth about the Alex Salmond case. Namely, that it was a top-level conspiracy.
The long arm of the ‘law’.
‘Nationalist activist ‘shared the identity of Alex Salmond accuser’
Alex Salmond was acquitted of all charges last March
Kieran Andrews, Scottish Political Editor
January 15 2021
A Scottish nationalist activist is due in court after allegedly revealing the identity of a woman who made claims of sexual assault against Alex Salmond.
Clive Thomson, of Rosyth, Fife, has launched an online appeal to fund his defence after being charged.’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nationalist-activist-shared-the-identity-of-alex-salmond-accuser-pqwbz77fn
____
‘Where the law ends, tyranny begins.’ John Locke – 1632-1704
I still don’t understand how people who levelled false accusations against Mr Salmond can still insist on their identity being kept secret after a jury has found him “not guilty”. (And “not proven” on one count).
Can anyone explain which types of accusation attract this extraordinary privilege of anonymity? I thought it was a basic principle of British law that the accused is allowed to see and hear the accuser in open court.
Just which categories of accuser are too delicate to reveal their identities when they attempt to destroy an accused person’s life? And especially when their accusations are proven untrue? For instance the woman who said that Mr Salmond tried to rape her, when she wasn’t even in town that night?
Mary
One of the accusers was very easy to identify as much of the mainstream commentary referred to her fairly prominent position, so all it took was a quick google. This person pops up in proceedings frequently. Having identified this person I scanned for clues to others. I came to the conclusion that life is too short .It was probably possible to find others but I did not want to spend hours scanning reports and interrogating google .In fact I am 100% certain that the one name I did get was from the Garivalli article-not the CM blog.
I also came to the conclusion that maintaining the anonymity was a gross injustice. These people had made extravagant or false allegations or exaggerated (under some pressure, possibly) trivial or everyday innocent events into an offence. This alone is highly suggestive of prejudice and contrived malice.
My conclusion was that such idle malice does not deserve anonymity. I would like this gross abuse of the principle of anonymity for fabricated victims of sexual assault to be revealed and reversed, I agree with anonymity for genuine victims(with some slight reservations).
These events, however were a far cry from the intention of the anonymity principle to protect genuine victims, rather than the perpetrators of malicious gossip, or a politically motivated contrivance. There has been a gross inequity in the way the ‘non-victims’ have been shielded, and the (exonerated) AS has been subjected to extensive salacious and defamatory comment after the case.
I would not be surprised in the least if someone’ in the know’ arranged for commentary to be made, revealing names, outside the reach of the local legal system. There must be a German/russian/french/brazilian/bolivian/mexican/spanish/(Catalonian? ) blog somewhere that would find the story well worth recounting. Once published elsewhere -what then? How about a fictionalised version with easily decipherable clues
One of the witnesses appears to have committed perjury. This an extremely serious offence and I am at a loss to see how this has been allowed to persist unchallenged, without a response from the legal authorities. Surely an honest judge has the power to compel an explanation of such a gross contradiction. What bigger contempt can there be than perjury? Certainly far greater than the trumped up spurious charges that CM will face in a short while.
CameronB Brodie
This week Westminster debated the £20 billion fund that gave £20 per week to recipients of Universal Credit. Because I have a limited company with a very small turnover I get £150 per week in furlough and most employees get substantially more. Yet the way Tories talk about these two categories always makes the beneficiaries of UC sound like undeserving and ungrateful whingers even though most have to face the virus at work. The company employees by contrast are brave and resilient for enduring a 20% cut in their wages, while struggling to DIY their own houses and exercise in the fresh air.
If you want to talk about corruption, start here. Thanks to Rishi Sunak property prices are accelerating while homelessness, frustration, misery and starvation explode at the bottom of the scale. This from a government that says it wants to level up.
With all due respect , it is impossible that this Tory government was democratically elected to power. The Tories corrupted the only leverage we have on how this country is run, through elections, and after criminally rigging the election, is now criminalizing the Left with court cases and smears.
Upward pressure is being placed on those who share Tory ” pieties ” and downward pressure is being rammed on the poor or who cared about the poor.
The SNP, by prosecuting AS, Mark Hirst and Craig, and demonizing Jeremy Corbyn, have shown themselves to be Tories. By their fruit shall you know them. A vote for SNP in May is a vote for Boris Johnson, Unionism for the next 40 and then another 40 and then so on AD infinitum. That is why I think your point about manipulating our cognizance of democracy is the nub of the matter.
You really must distinguish between a democratic election fought on ‘Get Brexit Done’ (which is the reason the Conservatives got a majority) and what has been done by Johnson et al since March 2020.
The election was a true reflection of Uk sentiment, what is not a true reflection is what they have been slipping through since. They have been getting away with it courtesy of blanked ‘Coronavirus’ coverage for 10 months, with all independent investigative journalism now dead.
Millions of people in England are absolutely disgusted by what the Government have done and have equal contempt for Keir Starmer going along with it.
The people who have actually been worst affected are business owners, small business owners. They are getting wiped out in huge numbers and almost none of them did anything but work hard, pay their taxes and live responsible lives. that makes the attack on them and them alone (no pay cuts for doctors, the police, civil servants, politicians, journalists et al, eh?) the single most repugnant decision in politics in the whole of my life.
Good Luck Craig.
To think that Scotland was the pioneer of many advances in society, politics, law, science, engineering, academics and more. Yet here we are in the 21st century and we’re nothing more than a despot cesspit of corruption of the highest order in our institutions – Craig Murray’s case, Alex’s Salmond’s case and Mark Hirst’s case is Scotland’s DEEPEST SHAME.
If we have but just a single thread of decency left in this country I hope it is still free thinking judges who will rip apart this farcical piece of theatre.
Craig, in normal times I would say that this is an absolute walkover but given the what has been revealed in the malign machinations of the Scottish Government, COPFS, Police Scotland and civil service I really hope that you have a bloody shit-hot sets of lawyers fighting your case.
I hope we don’t need to add the judicial system to the list of corrupt institutions – we watch with scrutiny.
I hope justice prevails, cause we need some justice in this car crash of the previous couple of years.
I too wish Craig the best, however we should be aware that much of ‘establishment Scotland’ has aye been run by a privileged elite holding to rather different cultural values from most ‘ordinary’ Scots. This has been said to be more or less the same culture as those who made money out of slavery and sold out the Scottish nation in 1707 (Ross 2008).
And much as the ‘Elitist Scotland?’ Report found (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/elitist-scotland), Scotland’s elite remains privileged and predominantly of a private school and ‘elite’ university background, especially so in the legal establishment. Thank God for juries composed of ‘ordinary’ Scots, we might say!
Which reminds me of the time in years past when I, as a ‘mature student’ in my late 20’s, sought to apply to study law at Edinburgh. I had just completed a year’s study at FE college, including a module on ‘The Scottish Legal System’, and had read much of what was an excellent Telford College library collection on the Treaty of Union, which meant that I had a particular interest in constitutional law. A recommendation from my lecturers also accompanied my application.
However, at my interview, Dr (now Prof) MacQueen told me, as I recall, that “I don’t think you would make a very good lawyer”; and that was it, the end of my legal career, before it had even begun. An academic associate with law school connections subsequently told me that “I probably didn’t go to the right school”, as most of the law student intake were from private schools. In addition, with the drive for Scotland’s ‘elite’ universities towards allocating ever more places to more lucrative higher fee students from outside Scotland, and hence less places to ‘ordinary’ Scots such as I, there was to be no room for this aspiring Edinburgh laddie. I nonetheless remained a little uncertain as to how they thought they knew that ‘I would not make a very good lawyer’, before I had even enrolled for the degree!
And so, thus ended my Scottish legal career because of well, lets face it, prejudice and discrimination. Which probably goes some way to explain why most of those who do supposedly make ‘good lawyers’, and drawn from the 3% or so of the population who are privileged enough to go to private school, also make up over 50% of the senior appointments in Scotland’s legal sector today, according to the Elitist Scotland? Report.
I suspect there may also be something in this kind of colonial-like prejudice and oppression (of Scots in oor ain laund) which explains why as much as 90% of academics in some of Scotland’s ‘elite’ universities today are not Scottish. Perhaps ‘ordinary Scots’ also do not make ‘good’ academics or thinkers either? As Fanon tells us: “a country under colonial domination requires liberating the mind”. Clearly so.
Still, I suppose one of Prof MacQueen’s most regarded works – ‘the 1989 centenary history of Heriots Cricket Club’ – must be a jolly good read!
Alf Baird
Venality. You have to be be venal to understand Venality. If you aren’t, how could you earn s living working for such people as a lawyer?
How many years will it take after Independence before arrogant denizens of Edinburgh call for ‘independence from the rest of Scotland’? You know, like Londoners were starting to do the past 10 years down south…..
You can hold your head high regardless of their verdict. The same cannot be said of the Lord Advocate, Crown Office, Police Scotland, civil service and the Murrells. You have exposed them and the stain is indelible.
Yes I agree. I trust, Alf Baird, that you have made a success of your life and that you have good health and happiness. How dare Macqueen have made that assumption and those comments to you?
He is still around and also gets around.
https://www.law.ed.ac.uk/people/professor-hector-macqueen
Mary
Funnily enough, I also became a professor, albeit in another academic discipline close to my heart, in one of Scotland’s new (1991) universities. Tho’ evidently I wasn’t quite good enough for the ancient university in the city where I was born and grew up!
As my mother used to say about certain places in Edinburgh, “thon’s no fer fowk lyke us son”. And she ought to know – for many years she made graduation gowns and uniforms for private schools in the city.
I have just tried to register for telephone access to your trial and received back the following message:
Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic the Justiciary Office is only able to process urgent business at this time. Any non-urgent enquiries will be dealt with in due course. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Might the excuse of Coronavirus be used to exclude members of the public from virtually attending your trial?
Hope not!
I take that back, they have got back to me.
Good luck with your trial. I cannot believe the establishment in Scotland has sunk this low.
I am keen to follow the trail but when I have gone to the various links you posted I am only allowed to listen in. It appears I can only watch if I submit bona fide proof of being a journalist, which i am not. Is this how public trials are now being held?
Here is the link to listen in with the code required hear the bottom of the page
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/access-to-virtual-hearings
I don’t know the truth about the Dunblane enquiry, but if even 20% of what is alleged about it were true, then the Establishment would have sunk pretty irredeemably about 20 years ago.
The biggest mistake ordinary folk make is to assume that their values are shared values.
They may be shared by many, but they are almost never shared by the Establishment.
All the very best Craig. Btw, I wasn’t stroking my ego by suggesting I know a bit about tackling cognitive corruption. And though I’m rusty, I think I can still point folks towards helpful, practical, insight.
Cognitive Basis for Corruption and Attitudes towards Corruption in Organizations
Viewed From a Structuralist Adult Developmental Meta-Perspective
adultdevelopment.org/FeinWeibler2012b.pdf
“The paper focuses on corruption and on attitudes towards corruption in organizations and proposes an interdisciplinary framework for reassessing both of them. It is argued that in order to compensate for frequent shortcomings and disciplinary reductionisms in large parts of the social science literature on corruption, an integrative theoretical and analytical framework based on the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC), one of the leading measurement tools in adult development scholarship, can provide new insights on both corruption itself, often discussed as a form of unethical behavior in organizations, as well as offer new theoretical horizons for understanding and evaluating public and scientific discourses on corruption. It can thus offer a substantially new outlook on the field of behavioral ethics in organizations based on a meta-systematic theory integration.”
My heart goes out to Stella Morris today as Julian Assange bail application was refused by that extradite and ttorture magistrate Baraitser.
There come the day when he will be released, he is now being kept in jail unlawfully.
wishing Craig the best of luck on the 27/28. I will apply to listen, but fear that my phone will be airborne if the fearty establishment stooges try and prosecute/ stamp on the messenger of truth and principle.
Hals und Beinbruch
Nevermind,
With this question – ‘do mind’.
I am trying to find out the true position:-
1. Did the US appeal the original ruling within the prescribed time for appeal; or
2. Did they not.
Please give me a concise and accurate reply – and – do mind.
No they did not, Courtney, it ran out at 12 pm Tuesd to Wed. as far as I know, and I do mind very much.
No question to answer and left in covid petri prison Belmarsh, I despair at this female Heidrich’s despicable actions.
Nevermind,
In legal proceedings there can be an application for extension of time or to file out of time.
However, in a high profile case such as Assange’s I must conclude that the US does not intend to challenge the refusal of his extradition.
My next question then is – why does he remain imprisoned at this point?
As far as I understand it, the US did appeal the decision.
Even if that is the case, I find it unreasonable to keep Assange in strict isolated lock-down in Belmarsh. Given the state of his case, where nothing condemnatory has been proved, a much lighter regime is appropriate, even if a decision of bail is not accepted.
All the best Craig. Courtenay Barnett, the US has filed for appeal if that is the term – see https://consortiumnews.com/2021/01/19/us-files-appeal-in-assange-case/
Thanks for that Rosemary, must have read an earlier article. Pardone moire Courtney.
Rosemary,
Sorry – just saw your reply after I had posted above.
Very well – that explains that Assange remains incarcerated pending the hearing of his appeal.
Thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately, so far I’ve just received an Automated reply saying:-
Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic the Justiciary Office is only able to process urgent business at this time. Any non-urgent enquiries will be dealt with in due course. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Protect the environment…please don’t print this e-mail unless you really need to
E-MAIL DISCLAIMER
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify [email protected]. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS). Finally, the recipients should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The SCTS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
http://www.scotcourtstribunals.gov.uk
Good luck Craig!
By the way, Alex Salmond is a political opponent?
“This is about the ability of those in power in Scotland to use the law to persecute their political opponents”
you are a brave and courageous seeker of justice and have my intense gratitude for your fighting the good fight, not just on my behalf but on behalf of all of us who for whatever reason cannot
CameronB Brodie
January 20, 2021 at 16:26
“The paper focuses on corruption and on attitudes towards corruption in organizations and proposes an interdisciplinary framework for reassessing both of them. It is argued that in order to compensate for frequent shortcomings and disciplinary reductionisms in large parts of the social science literature on corruption, an integrative theoretical and analytical framework based on the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC), one of the leading measurement tools in adult development scholarship, can provide new insights on both corruption itself, often discussed as a form of unethical behavior in organizations, as well as offer new theoretical horizons for understanding and evaluating public and scientific discourses on corruption. It can thus offer a substantially new outlook on the field of behavioral ethics in organizations based on a meta-systematic theory integration.”
————————————————————————————————
WTF are you talking about!
If you have something to say that you think needs to be explained to a wider audience speak in plain English.
I’m trying to point folks towards a post-colonial approach to tackling cognitive corruption within society and government. My abilities to do so are limited, not least due to my not having looked at post-colonial legal theory and sociological jurisprudence in nearly three decades. Though I’m sure the links I’m sharing can provide you with far more instruction than my rusty cognition and interpretation of ethical legal practice ever could.
Psychological Mechanism of Corruption: A Comprehensive Review
https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajsr.2018.587.604
A Wikipedia search reveals that the strange gravatar that accompanies the rot is taken from Back to the Future.(Dr Mengele etc)
Enough said.
Apparently you’ve no sense of humour, and haven’t picked up on the fact that I’m actually trained to fight fascism. Do try to at least keep up.
“WTF are you talking about! If you have something to say that you think needs to be explained to a wider audience speak in plain English.”
Doug. Cameron was recently booted from Wings over Scotland for spamming every thread with his endless irrelevant links to incomprehensible academic papers. It’s his thing. It got to the stage where up to a quarter of the posts on an article were rubbish from Cameron. Stuart Campbell tolerated his presence for a long time, but eventually his patience wore out.
It looks like Cameron has now decided to “move on” to Craig’s blog. So whatever you do, do not engage with him or in any way encourage him.
What privileges his crapflooding.gibberish above other off topic comments, which are immediately removed?
Mods, please explain the reasoning here.
crapflood
Crapflooding is a form of trolling online media such as discussion websites with nonsensical, inane, and/or repetitive postings in order to make it difficult for other users to read other postings.
Two possibilities:
1. CameronB Brodie is a real person, someone who passionately believes this ‘cognitive democracy’ stuff to the point of near fanaticism. In which case it must be a bit like being a Jehovah’s Witness going round having doors closed in your face all the time.
2. It’s some bizarre forum trolling disruption strategy by those who simply can’t tolerate an open and free discussion forum i.e, one where their media lackeys don’t control the narrative eg. a forum quite unlike the guardian’s btl arbitrary censorship bollocks.
Stonky – thanks for the warning. Unfortunately, I made one response to him (below) before I saw it. You’re right – and I won’t do it again.
The Fein & Weibler (2012) paper cited by CameronB Brodie is neither irrelevant nor incomprehensible, though it is very specialised and some readers might not be familiar with its methodological assumptions. In essence, it offers an analytic framework for understanding how conflicting norms of behaviour at different levels of analysis could exert moral pressure on a particular clique to conspire against a perceived antagonist in ways that would be viewed as immoral from an external perspective. For example:
“Loyalties are rather based on groups’ or leaders’ belief systems or ideologies, often connected to dualistic assertions, prejudices, stereotypes about, and definitions of the “in-group” and the “out-group”. Therefore, “strong, paternal-type leaders, often charismatic, tend to be preferred, on the assumption that they will take care of their children/followers and keep the group or society harmonious and fair”. (p.21)
However, Fein & Weibler’s analysis is highly abstract and CameronB Brodie makes no attempt to apply it in the context of Craig’s article. Accordingly, his comment arguably fails the Contribute rule which requires commenters to present their own interpretation of linked material.
CameronB Brodie has been commenting here since 2013, and many of his contributions have prompted interesting discussions in which he participated and explained his position. However, there have been some other instances where he cited obscure references with dubious relevance, a practice which isn’t explicitly prohibited but should be discouraged. Cameron has already been reminded of this by Craig and other commenters in this thread, and hopefully he will take due notice. Further instances may be intercepted and annotated accordingly by the mods.
More generally, it’s worth reiterating that the BTL comments section is for commentaries on the topic of Craig’s articles, not for abstract academic debates. Anyone who wishes to raise academic issues for discussion is invited to create a corresponding topic in the discussion forum, where ongoing analysis can continue without distracting from the more topical commentaries and conversations in the article threads.
Regards,
Mods.
Eeeeeh, it’s a good Pub this Stonky, no sooner than the Regulars get settled down for a quiet chat and libation of their choice, another Character comes through the doors. Thanks for the heads up, I’ll just keep scrolling unless a brawl breaks out 🙂
In other words, it’s a very long time since I was called on to assess the ethical content and quality of law and public policy, but I’m certain I’m not selling folks a dummy. Unlike those who are in charge of Scotland’s government, which is characterized by a poor separation of executive and judiciary, and can ultimately be over-ruled from elsewhere outwith Scotland.
A Framework for Measuring Access to Justice
Including Specific Challenges Facing Women
https://rm.coe.int/1680593e83
CameronB Brodie – would these `Specific Challenges Facing Women’ be related to the challenge of preserving one’s anonymity while lying through one’s teeth in order to pin a slander and character assassination on someone and get them banged up?
This is only my speculation, but ‘our’ justice system is stunted in development and deformed through standing under Westminster. Support for genderwoowoo is simply symptomatic of ‘our’ government and legal Establishment’ resulting lack of grounded morality.
CameronB Brodie – oh come off it – you can’t blame the English for that. Approximately 30 / 40 years ago our judicial system was envied and considered superior (c/f Thatcher employing James Mackay. Yes – she was in many ways pretty repulsive, but on this matter she was right – Scotland did have a superior judiciary with more integrity).
You can’t in all honesty blame the English and Westminster for the downward spiral. The level of corruption we see now is entirely home grown and we seem to have beaten the English at their own game.
I don’t blame the English for the manner in which British constitutionalism is supportive of cognitive corruption and hostile towards the natural law of things. That’s the product of methodological nationalism, whereby the state has established the moral boundaries of British legal cognition, as being defined by Conservative “One Nation” ideology, rather than the Natural law of things. Though conservatism is a functional component of organic government, the current rendition of English Torydum has distinctly anti-social and authoritarian tenancies that are supported by English legal culture’s historical ambivalence to international law.
I held back from going any further than scene 1 precisely because of the sensitivity of the situation and because your ‘yes minister ‘skit had attracted the ire of authorities.I suppose my general point might be that more may be revealed by coded humour and mischievous or scurrilous versifying, which has a long, long history in revealing truths against the wishes of the authorities.
Apologies if it made you nervous, and warmest hopes that you will emerge unscathed from the ordeal of the trial.