In view of our understanding that the High Court has found some articles on this blog to be in contempt of court, and in view of the fact that the Crown Office had sought to censor such a large range of articles, this blog has no choice but to go dark from 15.00 today until some time after tomorrow’s court hearing, when it will be specified to us precisely how much of the truth we have to expunge before we can bring the blog back up.
This is a dark day for the entire team here. We will be looking to appeal this to the Supreme Court and if required (though we very much doubt it will be) to the European Court of Human Rights.
—————————————————–
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
Ethereum/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.
So so sorry that you have been hounded by the thought police of the newSNP Stasi, we await your return!
Thank you Craig for all you do. The truth will out.
Best wishes and best of luck with the appeal.
Bless you. Thank you. Love you.
Fingers crossed, Craig, that the truth will be revealed.
Grief.
Best wishes to you Craig, and to all the family.
All the best, Craig. Stay strong.
They are determined to shut you down aren’t they?
This is the clampdown.
All best wishes, Craig, and thank you so much for everything you’ve done and written
Very dark day. Hoping for a brighter future.
the public are with you,all the best.
“the public are with you”
Most of the public have no idea that this is going on in our “democracy” because the “free press” continually ignore the fact that the country is not under the “rule of law” but despotic oligarchical fascism served up by a criminal quisling government. Saying such a thing in public will soon be against the law as if to prove the point.
Good luck, Craig.
Sad day for Scotland and civil liberties.
Never in my life have I seen this country so mired in wicked evil and outrageous crookedness — nor with so little in the way of scrutiny, accountability, meaningful opposition or even *basic, honest news reporting*.
This country is now a bad, bad place, people.
Heartbreaking. It’s like living in a VR remake of Papers, Please.
Very best wishes, Craig. All the best to you and yours. Good luck tomorrow.
jt
I am astonished and not in a good way.
RIP integrity , honesty and justice.
Best wishes. Hope you will be back up soon.
Yes, our elites really are evil.
Great to see you back up.
You have been treated disgracefully by a corrupt Scottish establishment and a captured legal system; your only crime was to report the truth of the defence case, and the underlying conspiracy that lay behind it. That is the last thing they want out there – and the lengths that they have gone to just proves that.
Your integrity and courage are beyond doubt, and I have no doubt that you will be acquitted when your case goes before judges from a jurisdiction outwith the control of Scotland’s corrupt prosecution authorities and judiciary – a sad state of affairs.
What we have seen and are seeing is the operation of a colonial administration and a colonial legal system owned and operated by those who owe allegiance to the colonising regime.
Your fight is our fight.
Good to have you back Craig.
Great to see blog back up. My thoughts are with you and your family. do hope you can appeal this decision.
Censorship. You know what truths they fear by the truths they try to hide.
In case you missed the whole story, you can catch up here. It’s uncensored. https://consortiumnews.com/2021/03/25/murray-found-guilty-of-contempt/
Thanks for that pasha. Good article.
There’s also some support on the Wings Over Scotland blog, written on March 25th, called Partial justice.
I had been thinking, whilst THIS blog was down, how was Craig to raise some extra funds, to cover possible, future appeals etc.
Pasha,
Very good article on Consortium News, as ever.
Nice to read a straightforward article without all the “pussy footing around” & “walking on egg shells”.
Also, it puts into perspective just how cautious, considerate & comprehensive Murray has been.
The only thing I’ve gleaned from Craig’s reporting is just how corrupt and criminal the Sturgeon gang and establishment have been, I’ve got no idea who any of the discredited accusers are. But then I guess that’s the whole point of the persecution, others could be alleged to have left crumbs or jigsaw pieces (when the fk did that become a “thing” worthy of millions in Gov’t expenditure?!?), but then they didn’t expose the criminal conspiracists behind it, so they’re not in the dock
And all of this off the back of disingenuous claims of concern about protecting women from assault – utter traitors to the issue of women facing sexual abuse and/or harassment.
From the Consortium News article:
“Prentice (QC) maintained that Murray’s writings must be seen together, not in isolation, acting as “magnet” to draw together “needles in a haystack” to identify the anonymous accusers.”
How fkn weak is that?!?
Utterly despicable behaviour by Sturgeon and all her various robed, uniformed and suited collaborators – a pox on all their houses…..& second homes!
Happy to see the blog live again!
Mr. Murray, may I please repeat the questions I asked on Twitter?
– Can we please know who was the advocate depute in the case of HMA v Salmond?
– I mean, since the allegations are disproved, so these women are NOT victims of sexual assault, and therefore identity protection would not apply to them, but only because the advocate depute secured a special court order – so I would like to know his name.
– Is it common practice to issue such a court order? Is this done in every case of sexual accusations?
Alex Prentice.
As a layman I have many thoughts on this judgement (opinion), these are some of them:
The assurance of anonymity for the alphabet sisters was given before the trial and before any evidence they gave could be challenged in court. Was the assurance given to them as a group, if so would that not prejudice the outcome as an assumption was made that they all (as a group) suffered something similar.
The importance of the oath before giving evidence was different in Alex Salmond’s (AS) case to those of the alphabet sisters. The consequences for AS re perjury would have been substantial. The consequences for the alphabet sisters had they committed perjury would have been their continued anonymity – what then was the importance of the oath to them?
The anonymity of the alphabet sisters was not necessarily anything that the court could control especially if they decided to give interviews to the press and tv. What responsibility do they have to the bargain that was struck and also to their fellow sisters?
The word ‘jigsaw piece’ in this case becomes pejorative as it assumes the jigsaw is held as some sort of a game and that there is some purpose in holding the ‘piece’. The term ‘jigsaw identification’ should never have been used as it assumes the purpose of information is to finish the jigsaw.
Dafydd
Could there be a confusion between:
1) anonymity given by the Scottish Government in the context of their complaints to Scottish Government HR (which is a duty of care of an employer)
2) the court order made on the second day of the criminal trial, which protected each of the complainants?
If they had commited perjury, they could be prosecuted for perjury regardless of their anonymity.
A court of law wouldn’t ordinarily use the term ‘jigsaw piece’; it would say ‘it could be reasonably inferred’.
Tatyana
Yes, protection orders such as these are almost always ordered in Scottish courts. [In English courts. they happen automatically – the court doesn’t need to remember to do it.]
Complainants are protected for life (maybe forever, I’m not sure). regardles of the outcome of the trial.
For what my opinion is worth, it does seem a right and proper thing to do.
Even if they make up the accusation?
Robert
Even if they use that anonymity to continue to smear Salmond and question the jury decision on TV and in the papers.
Tatyana – “Is it common practice to issue such a court order? Is this done in every case of sexual accusations?”
It is quite complex. The Opinion of the Court which I linked below goes into considerable detail, beginning on Page 21:
– Part 1(a) – The section 11 order
[43] – The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 provides blanket, lifelong anonymity for complainers in England and Wales, whether the publication takes place in England or in Scotland. Although section 4(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, appears on the face of it to extend a similar protection, in England and Wales only, to complainers in rape cases in Scotland, further examination of the statute (section 7) shows this not to be the case….
“Is it common practice to issue such a court order? Is this done in every case of sexual accusations?“
No and no.
See also how judge Leeona Dorrian in yesterday’s judgment against Craig keeps going on about what she calls the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s “Editors [sic] Code of Conduct [sic]”. (It’s actually called the Editors’ Code of Practice. This woman gets paid a lot of money as a top lawyer. Clearly the money doesn’t go on hiring either fact-checkers or people with enough education to know how to use apostrophes. C’mon, Leeona, give some of the money back, in view of the demonstrably cr*p job you’ve done.) Bloggers don’t have to follow the IPSO code. Even if the National Union of Journalists did require its members to, the enforcement would be a matter for the NUJ and I can’t see what sanction they would have other than removing a member’s union card. The NUJ isn’t a statutory body. As for IPSO it could require the issue of a correction, or even slap on a fine, assuming a publication is actually following the code in the first place. It’s basically eff-all to do with Ms Dorrian, and it’s sweet Fanny Adams to do with the matter of whether or not Craig acted in contempt of court.
Anybody can call themselves a “journalist” and assuming such a mantle doesn’t give them any more legal obligations than anybody else has.
Can someone suggest an explanation for this behaviour by Ms Dorrian other than her being a biased a*sehole, committed to helping out the government no matter what?
They are absolutely taking the p*ss.
If the biggest name among the names of the “alphabet women” DOESN’T enter the public domain before the election on 6 May, then everybody in Scotland who doesn’t want to lick the government’s boots ought to WATCH OUT. As soon as that “big name” comes out – and most of the world is NOT under the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts – it will be obvious that Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament, and it will be obvious that James Hamilton lied in his report too.
Incidentally, at the time of writing the Scottish government is referring to James Hamilton as a “QC”. They must think it sounds really impressive to call somebody a “queen’s counsellor”. That’s worth noticing, if anybody is thinking of voting SNP because they don’t like the Tories. The SNP leadership is nothing but a bunch of tartan Tories. Hamilton is not a QC. They don’t have QCs in the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is a republic. What kind of morons work for the government in Edinburgh?
Or could it be Queen Nicola they are thinking of, the failed solicitor whom everyone in Scotland was urged to engage in a clapping ritual for, and who, as is well known throughout the entire political class in Scotland, has a fake marriage because she wants to pretend falsely that she’s heterosexual?
Does she ever tell the truth about anything? Her nemesis awaits. It’s imperative she meets it before 6 May.
It is idiocy to believe that political opposition is primarily about “debate”. Make it personal.
LOCK HER UP!
Are we in contempt of court if we suggest that Lady Dorrian is a big jobby?
« It was also averred that a number of articles were further in contempt of court, in that they, and the improper moderation by the respondent of comments left on the site by readers, created a substantial risk of prejudice to the trial proceedings »
So just watch it, Jimmy.
Iain
The message contained in this passage is authoritarian, intolerant of society and depriving people of their right to have their own opinion and express it freely.
I am surprised by this. I’ve always believed that the judge and jury must deliberately avoid looking for information about the case in question. They also must declare their impartiality under an oath, right? Otherwise, be excluded from the trial, isn’t it so?
So it’s not Mr. Murray’s problem, but the court’s problem.
N_ has a point.
The court’s opinion refers to the journalistic standard, and not to the law. I concluded that protection of anonymity was desirable but not mandatory, and an additional pro to this conclusion of mine was the fact that there was a special court order for the anonymity of the complainants in the Salmond case.
I would also like to stand up for Lady Dorrian, because I see attacks in her direction. And it’s not female solidarity that made me do it. Lady Dorrian is a judge, a person employed by the community to do a job. Anytime we hire someone to do a job, we indicate the area of responsibility and give instructions. Likewise, Lady Dorrian’s powers only operate within the bounds of laws.
If the law of your country allows for the anonymity of the complainants, but not the anonymity of the accused, it’s not Lady Dorrian’s fault, this is a question for your government.
Lady Dorrian could have been blamed for bias if she applied the wrong law, or lent force to some irrelevant rule / precedent.
Thoughts on this new Alba Party Craig?
Craig, I hope your son is distracting you from all of this and reminding you of what is really important. With best wishes. G.
The Opinion of the Court is here:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf
It’s a very interesting document, really not very supportive of the Crown, and seems to confirm much of what Craig has been telling us.
Perhaps they want an appeal to the Supreme Court in London so they can play nationalistic politics against it?
After all, they went to the police to say British prime minister Boris Johnson had broken the law by visiting Scotland.
The clever move would be for the SC to say no, sorry, we don’t have jurisdiction. Then the case can go straight to the ECHR.
Oh, that I read yesterday and I must say – whoever wrote the review on the “Yes Minister” fan fiction – they greatly narrowed the field of search for those who may want to play Jigsaw Sherlock Holmes!
From Mr. Murray’s writings I only imagined afro-textured curls.
I would never ever guess the meaning of *** until prompted by Mr. Prentice, *I believe it was his review saying where exactly to look at.
I still no wiser of who the complainants are, but least I understand now – oh! That was comedy! There were witty things there!
I noticed, in the courts opinion they use ‘fan’ fiction. Why it’s not ‘fun’ fiction?
Is it that they don’t find it funny?
Or, is it shortened from ‘shit hit the fan’?
‘Fiction factory’ would be a fitting name for the court 🙂
You know – I leafed through it – and was left feeling very sorry for Lady Dorrian. I now understand why she took so long to publish her judgement. She had to read through absolutely everything that Craig Murray has written with great care. Some people like Craig Murray’s writing (I certainly do), but I imagine that Lady Dorrian would prefer to be reading Mills and Boon; the collected works of Craig Murray are not her favourite bed time reading..
Anyway, this explains to me the more petulant passages from the judgement and how they got in there.
Lady Dorrian has also had to read through thousands? of “third-party comments”. Including comments by -N I presume:) It could be seen as quite a chore and a remarkable feat to publish a Judgement in such a short space of time. All entirely dependingly on your perspective of course.
All the best to you and your family Craig. Hopefully justice will be seen to be done.
Assuming you are not prevented from becoming an MSP, Will your Action for Independence join forces with Alex Salmond’s Alba Party which has just been launched and seems to have the same aim?
On the whole I would say
1. Support for the SNP is “sticky upwards”;
2. Alec Salmond’s Alba project will be a flop. He doesn’t half look a charlie, advocating that we should cast our constituency votes for the SNP. Even for Angus Robertson in Edinburgh Central? Or how about Nicola Sturgeon in Glasgow Southside? Also saying the British government has said it “will not allow” another indyref is a load of old lying c*ck.
Why would Salmond encourage voters to vote for the SNP and not his own new Alba Party?? (Although I remember people being encouraged to vote Labour in the 1990s, on the grounds that the LibDems hadn’t a hope)
Possibly if he couldn’t afford to put up candidates everywhere he might support the SNP in some. There’s one possibility.
It hardly matters. No unionist figure or party can save the UK. It is finished.
The Alba party says it’s launching on the 701st anniversary of the Treaty of Arbroath. Well that’ll put food in a lot of bellies.
It also says that a vote for a pro-independence party is a vote for UDI. (I.e. for a Capitol-like skirmish on the High Street in Edinburgh, but don’t worry – with only about 20 people killed, same number as at the Beer Hall Putsch, and resulting in a useful “blood flag” for later use.) They say that that’s the state of affairs that was brought about by a statement by the “Westminster government”. (Never mind that the statement is non-existent, nor that the British government is in office as a result of a British general election, a vote in which there’s always a higher turnout in Scotland than in Holyrood elections.)
The thing about this loony policy is that it will increase turnout for anti-independence parties among unionists. Has Alec been on the vodka?
Permit me to deconstruct Salmond’s statement that the new party’s agenda will be driven by the aim to create a “successful, socially just, environmentally responsible, independent country”.
* “successful” – that means good for profit, i.e. for profit makers, the private sector, businesses
* “socially just” – that means good for “people”
* “environmentally responsible” – that means good for the “planet”
Ring a bell?
The party’s donation machine is up and running. Which bank are they using?
Why such a negative take N_?
Given the monopoly on independence moves the SNP have had, only slightly impacted by the Greens, how can another vehicle arriving on the scene not be seen as a healthy democratic development?
The idea the SNP have become too comfortable with the trappings of Holyrood power and are foot dragging on independence is widespread, whether accurate or not. If Alba can puncture that SNP complacency them more power to ’em.
Oh dear… N_ N_ NURSE,
“sticky upwards”
has hit the fan again.
???
Alba could be a genius move. Just look at the the role Farage’s Brexit party played in pushing the Tories over EU membership. Didn’t personally agree with Brexit or Farage, but there’s no denying that first UKIP, then ‘The Brexit Party’, acted as catalysts pushing the Tories all the way.
Not directly running against SNP in constituencies they hold refutes the charge of being ‘splitters’ too. The unionist press will try to frame Alba as a rival … Salmond vs Sturgeon – a direct challenger, But hopefully Alba will avoid being drawn into that silly game, by making clear they fully support SNP MSPs who support independence, and hope to campaign as partners one day.
A delightful scenario would be the SNP falling short of an outright majority and the Greens substantially reduced by Alba (even one of their own MSPs was eventually sickened by their Woko haram fanaticism). With the SNP requiring the support of Alba to pass a budget, Salmond could make this contingent on a Judge led inquiry into the handling of harassment claims (assuming this is the will of Parliament). That would expose Sturgeon for the nasty little corrupt, careerist those paying attention already see.
The “linesman” says Salmon “is a discredited figure who admitted appalling behaviour towards women …”. Has he ever met Boris? Petronella Wyatt, Danielle Fleet ….
@Goose – That isn’t how Alba are playing it though. They’re saying people should vote for the SNP candidate in every constituency, regardless of which party holds it now; and that they should give their “list” vote to the new party. (So if the new party gets off the ground, a leaflet will drop onto Craig’s doormat asking him to cast his constituency vote for Angus Robertson, for example.) They aren’t distinguishing between SNP candidates they see as True Nationalists and those they see as Fake Nationalists. (Their website is here.)
Telling voters “vote for us with your list vote rather than for them, but that’s not a vote against them – it’s the clever choice if you want to help the True Nationalists in their midst, but never mind when they tell you it isn’t” may be a bit of a bridge too far, even for those whose response in 2014 to “Hey, you don’t even know what currency you want” was to mouth off about “Westminster” and “London” and the undervaluing of the resources of the Nation.
Salmond is very unpopular in Scotland. Perhaps he’s looking in a mirror through the bottom of his vodka glass?
He’s only playing the list card because he knows he can’t win any constituencies. 300,000 votes max, and that’s at the outside. Probably fewer than 200,000. And that’s if they run.
Running as an outsider Craig received a sizeable chunk of support in his bid to be SNP President, so there is clearly some unease that the independence issue is drifting, as the SNP lurch towards being captured by the ultra PC ‘woke’ agenda people; obsessed with fighting culture wars and imposing needless neo-authoritarian restrictions on society. There are a fair number of erstwhile passionate SNP supporters fed up with the current SNP leadership’s direction and want to put rocket boosters on independence making it the priority.
Alba provides that opportunity.
Support, solidarity from a long time reader and admirer in the USA.
Mr. Murray,
Would you be able to tell us:-
1. What was the final decision in your case?; and
2. What, if having been found guilty, was your sentece?
CB
The answers are available on Mr Murray’s Twitter page.
1. https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1375133210338852864
Craig Murray
25 March, 5:11pm
The actual judgement in my case has now been published. It is 42 pages long.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf
The link to the court judgement was also given in a comment above.
2. https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1375062924453154823
Craig Murray
25 March, 12:32pm
So my verdict was delayed exactly eight weeks from the hearing until today, instantly after the Holyrood and Hamilton inquiries were completed and Scots Parliament adjourned.
My sentencing is set for 7 May the day after the Parliamentary elections.
Total coincidence of course.
Total coincidence indeed.
Thanks for the reply.
Seems to me at a quick glance that if the 4 different complainers were similarly referenced in any other news publication then there is room for argument.
Also, “In our view this material falls foul of the court order. Alone or taken together with
other material it contains sufficient detail to be likely to lead to identification of a
complainer.” – incomplete sentence – if you are Sherlock Holmes x4 you may just get close to identification. I like the uncertainty and hedging of ” to be likely to lead to…” Sherlock – where are you?
“Alone or taken together with other material it contains sufficient detail to be likely to lead to identification of a complainer.”
Then shouldn’t the authors of the ‘other material’ also be in the dock?
Courtenay, are you thinking, like me, that Craig’s sentence will depend on whether he is elected as a MSP?
Elected, it will be at least a year in prison; not elected, it will be a few months.
Bayard,
Love the question.
My mind works in this way:-
1. Murray is a threat to the establishment.
2. Murray needs to get a ‘legal punishment’.
3. Unfortunately – the ‘legal punishment’ is being so vigorously challenged that the entire judicial system comes under question.
4. So – what does the establishment do next?
Courtenay, the Establishment is a punk that always feels lucky.
Best wishes for Alba (but after you have defeated the SNP I would just ask that you try and re-negotiate the constitutional settlement of the UK – don’t leave).