Appeal For Defence Funds 457

UPDATE I today received a prison sentence of eight months for my reporting of the defence case in the Alex Salmond trial. I have a three week stay while we apply to this same court for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. My appeal will be based on the simple fact that I did not identify anybody. It will also be based on the right to report the defence case being denied by an extraordinary, impossibly strict application of “jigsaw identification”, and on fair process not having been observed.

Should this court refuse permission to appeal, which seems not unlikely, I will in all probability be jailed while we apply direct to the Supreme Court for permission, which will take some months.

I am afraid I find myself once again obliged to ask you for funding for the appeal. We have raised about £70,000 but are likely to need, at the least, double that.

UPDATE The defence fund has received £46,520 in the 24 hours since it was relaunched to fund the appeal to the Supreme Court. That does not get us there, but it is a good start on our way as the appeal continues. Over 2,000 people have donated, with the smallest donation being 82p and the largest £1,000. Every penny is greatly appreciated. I should make plain that despite the astronomical costs, some members of our legal team have been working substantially below their normal rates and with time donated free.

One donation of £500 from a gentleman I know, came with a note that explained that Willie MacRae had lent him £100 shortly before his highly suspect death. He regarded the £500 as repaying that debt, and was sure Willie would approve of the use of his money. That brought tears to my eyes.


On Friday I shall be sentenced, very possibly to prison, for contempt of court by “jigsaw identification”. While I do not believe anybody has ever been imprisoned for “jigsaw identification” before, my entire prosecution has been so perverse that I cannot imagine why they have done it unless that is the intention.

With enormous diffidence and frankly embarrassment, I find myself yet again obliged to ask people to contribute towards my defence fund before my hearing next Friday, to enable us to move forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court. Legal bills actually paid to date amount to £161,000, with about eight thousand not billed yet. Non-legal costs, including the opinion poll, total around £9,000. The total raised by the defence fund to date is around £143,000 with the balance of around £18,000 paid so far having come from my personal pocket.

The practical result of the judgement against me is that it is virtually impossible to report the defence in any sexual allegation case; as witness the fact that I was ordered by the court to take down every single word of my articles covering the defence case and evidence.

The judges ruled that publishing any information that could theoretically assist not the public, but literally a colleague who worked in the same office, to identify a complainant, would constitute jigsaw identification. They also ruled that jigsaw identification was committed if you gave a piece of information which could identify a complainant in conjunction with information that could be found anywhere else, no matter how obscure. For example, if information from page 19 of the Inverurie Herald six years ago, combined with information from page 178 of a book, combined with something I published could lead to an identification, I am guilty regardless of whether or not anybody did in practice actually piece together these obscure sources of information.

In fact the court heard nothing that would pass as evidence in court that any individual had in fact identified anybody as a result of my articles. There was zero evidence of harm. What has been harmful is the gross censorship of my journalism, with my entire daily account of the defence case removed, and my critique of the Garavelli article removed. In consequence, it is once again virtually impossible for anybody to discover WHY Alex Salmond was acquitted, enabling the massive state and media led campaign to claim he was really guilty – which sadly appears, with the counter-narrative banned, to have acquired great traction.

You will recall that I commissioned a Panelbase opinion poll which proved that a significant 8% of the Scottish population – that is around 400,000 adults – believed they had been able to identify one or more of the complainants in the Salmond case from publication, but when asked stated that the source of this caption was overwhelmingly the mainstream media.

Well I decided to re-run the opinion poll to see if anything had changed. These were the results. 11% of the Scottish adult population – that is half a million adults – by now believe they know an identity. This is how they know:

It is perfectly clear and entirely consistent with the first poll. 54% of people who believe they know an identity got their information from the newspapers. 27% got it from TV and radio (there may be overlap between these groups).

Yet no newspaper or TV journalist or editor is being prosecuted.
Not even Dani Garavelli, who is overwhelmingly named as the source of information – by fifteen different people – is being prosecuted.

So let us be perfectly clear. The three top sources named for identification were

Dani Garavelli – by a country mile
Kirsty Wark

None of whom is being prosecuted. Garavelli has published an entire series of major articles amplifying the prosecution case against Salmond, in Tortoise media, twice in Scotland on Sunday and in the London Review of Books, plus many other well paid commissions. She has effectively made a fat living out of an entirely one-sided account that claims miscarriage of justice simply by omitting all the defence evidence. In so doing she has plainly been much more credibly guilty of jigsaw identification than I. On the other hand, my long critique of Garavelli’s first Scotland on Sunday article, which interpolated the defence evidence which contradicted her account and proved that the jury was right, has now been banned, censored and desroyed by the court, the 21st century equivalent of burning the manuscript in the public square.

Garavelli has gone on to become media-puppet-in-chief to the Scottish government, producing a stream of adulatory articles about Nicola Sturgeon like this one about what a great constituency MSP Sturgeon is, which is (ahem) somewhat contrary to received wisdom.

Garavelli is protected because she is part of the inner circle, while I am prosecuted, when the mainstream media is not, because I am an opponent of the corrupt nexus of power that governs Scotland today. The official line is that through enthusiasm for Salmond’s cause I revealed information to the public that the mainstream media did not. That is a fiction the Scottish legal system has chosen to adopt, and for which I will be sentenced on Friday.

All the real world evidence shows that is untrue. I revealed far less than the mainstream media revealed. This is a shameless and openly political prosecution of one of the very few platforms of any size which explained the truth about why Alex Salmond was acquitted by the jury. That is my “crime”.

We have to get this out of the foetid corruption of Edinburgh and into Strasbourg. That is only possible via the UK Supreme Court, and my legal team are now working on that appeal. I urge you to subscribe not only because of the particular injustice of my own case, but also because this ruling puts a huge power in the hands of the state by making it next to impossible to report the defence in cases of sexual allegation. As such allegations are the favoured tool of the state against perceived dissident threats (cf Julian Assange), this is very dangerous indeed.

You can contribute to my defence fund here. I am extremely grateful to those who have and I want to stress that I absolutely do not want anybody to contribute if it causes them even the slightest financial difficulty. I am afraid to say that the amounts we need to raise remain ridiculous; this fact is of course all part of the implementation of suppression, by “lawfare”.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above


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

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Leave a comment

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

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

457 thoughts on “Appeal For Defence Funds

1 6 7 8
  • Sarge

    Donation made. This case must be heard by judges who are not in the pocket of the vindictive Sturgeon. To see their judgement overturned would be sweet on many levels, not least for how sickening it would be for Nicola and the liberal Great and Good. If Dorian does force you to appeal direct to the SC and it takes months,.so be it. You seem the kind of guy who could do a few months standing on his head and return with many an astute observations and uproarious tale.

    • TonyN


      As I see it, there is no such thing as an independent scottish judge. ALL scottish judges are in the employ of the scottish Government, and will do what they are told.

      I have asked how far a scottish judge’s writ runs south of the border, but no-one seems to know. Do you?

      • Sarge

        The appeal will be to the Supreme Court in London. Unlikely you would think to be awed by a Sturgeon judge. Although if Sturgeon really does have handlers in Vauxhall, as has been speculated, who knows how far they will go to prevent her being exposed or embarrassed.

        • N_

          The irony is that “someone” has been briefing the media that there will be a big case at the British Supreme Court regarding a second independence referendum – a court battle between the Scottish and British governments.

          Why should there be a judicial review of a Britgov refusal to grant a s30 request? All the British government would have to do would be to get the support of the Tory leadership British parliament and the court would back out. There is some “deep politics” going on here…

        • TonyN

          Sarge, thanks for your reply, which I understand confirms the idea that the two jusisdictions only come together at the supreme court level.

          So to take a practical example, where someone living in England expresses an opinion of a Scottish court that said court finds is a contempt and hands down a two-month sentence, how can that Scottish court enforce such a judgement in an English jurisdiction?

      • Goose


        The Scottish judiciary, just like the civil service, is staunchly unionist.

        Why keep putting everything that’s happened on the SNP ? The idea Sturgeon is somehow micromanaging judges is ridiculous.

        • Sarge

          She selects them, why are you trying to pretend otherwise? I guess you think she has no role in this persecution of Craig and the attempt to fit up Alex Salmond?

          • Goose

            I’m saying it’s probably more complex than the base motive you assign to one person. The whole system has pro-unionism baked in. The judiciaries in England and Scotland are very, big ‘C’ ,conservative. Sturgeon may have a role, or be being influenced, but it isn’t just her.

        • Bruce H

          In reply to Goose,

          As this whole affair is based on this particular court case it seems difficult to think that the present leadership of the SNP is not involved just a little bit, doesn’t it? And I have no particular axe to grind directly. I feel concerned by the implications concerning freedom to report and freedom of speech and what seems to be an enormous injustice – 8 months seems totally disproportionate, a warning to others who may think of going against the system. Like the Assage affair which is an even worse warning, the destruction of this man’s life amounts to pure terrorism. it makes me feel as if Britain is on course that makes one feel uneasy, to put it mildly…. and I say Britain as clearly North or South of the border things are just as putrid, it’s not exactly an argument in favour of independence either. (could that maybe be not purely coincidental?)

          Looking at the sums of money required even to defend Craig Murray and Julian Assange it necessarily makes anyone think twice before getting involved in legitimate contestation that goes against the interests of the powerful or rich, it is simply political terrorism.

      • N_

        @TonyN – some gory details about cross-border police and judicial procedures inside Britain are here.

        They are different jurisdictions but there is also an over-arching jurisdiction. It is not like extradition where a person cannot be extradited from a country for an alleged action that is not an offence in that country.

        Alex Salmond whatever anyone may think of his politicking or other actions is a complete and utter dirty b*stard for not defending Craig in public, Craig who is being judicially persecuted for legitimate reporting of Salmond’s defence case. Shameful and dishonourable. He should have been in the public gallery. Look after people who look after you.

        • DunGroanin

          N_N_N_Nurrrsssse , he’s having a moment again!

          How exactly is the Oxygen of publicity deprived victim of the same injustice supposed to say anything that would be reported?

          What public gallery???

          Get a grip and don’t keep skipping your meds – the nurse is overworked as it is.

        • ET

          This is one of those rare occasions where I agree with N_. I think Alex Salmond should make some show of support or at least say something to the disproportionality of the sentence. It doesn’t have to be on MSM. Does he have a twitter account?
          CM put his neck on the block so that people could see the provenance of the accusations against Alex Salmond. Better yet, a large donation the the appeal funds.

  • James Riddle

    I suggest that this could be a good time for an `I am Spartacus’ moment.

    I downloaded most of Craig’s articles before the court order which forced him to take them all down and I imagine that there are many who did exactly the same thing.

    If those of us who did this start our own blogs and post the pieces by Craig Murray which expose the truth then – well – surely she can’t put us all in jail, can she? And if she does, then we might be able to keep Craig Murray company during his residence at Her Majesty’s Emporium for Excellent Journalists.

    Seems to me that this is a better way of supporting Craig than shuffling large sums of money into a bottomless pit, when the court has no intention of listening to the defense arguments anyway.

    • TonyN


      I have speculated that a logical analysis of all of the MSM/BBC utterances, plus those of the Court, and importantly LESS CMs blog posts, could have revealed sufficient pieces of the ‘jigsaw’, and would also answer the following questions:

      • At a certain point in time it was not possible for an ordinary member of the public to complete the jigsaw UNLESS one already knew the identities of the individuals ; e.g. as did Dorrian.
      • That the utterances by BBC/MSM commentators, at a certain point in time were sufficient to identify the complainants.
      • That these utterances were at least as revealing as any data emitted by CM, and that those commentators ought also to be prosecuted.

      I know that such work was supposed to have been undertaken by the court, but this independent analysis would settle lingering doubts.

      • James Riddle

        TonyN – As far as I am concerned, (a) I STILL have no idea who the women in question actually were (I don’t mix in the circles where people are `in the know’) and (b) Craig Murray’s writing was the *ONLY* source of good information, which gave me some understanding of what was going on (and it didn’t reveal the identities to me).

        I shouldn’t say `only’ – all due credit to Grouse Beater who gave a good account of the trial, but it left out some important information, which appeared in Craig Murray’s account.

        The acid test: people who didn’t read Craig Murray all thought that Alex Salmond would be found guilty and were very surprised when he was acquitted; people who read Craig Murray’s account had the understanding and insight to see that they should put their money on acquittal.

        In her judgement, Lady Dorrian couldn’t point to an account which, in her opinion, gave the background and insight without helping to identify the characters, because such an account doesn’t exist.

        • Giyane

          James Riddle

          The Lady Dorrian, as Ian rightly points out below, takes a high and mighty position that while she is able to contain what she knows in her own brain bladder, others , including Craig were bursting to blab it all out and were unable to keep their silence.

          As a man who is fasting while posting comments on a blog, I’d like to say that so long as our common enemies, integrity initiative, Belling cat etc are making war on truth, we should be fighting back. If they stop , we stop.

          But if they put us under curfew while themselves working day and night to pervert the truth, we have an equal right as them to speak out.

          In other words they started it. In order to expose their lies , we have to expose them. This is not just now, but in petpetuity. I declare that so long as the PTB pervert the truth, then night and day 24/7 , 365 days a year, we will be morally obliged to challenge their lies.

          Even if that exposes other facts they want to be kept secret. They have to get it into their little heads that this our right and we will.not be silenced.

          If they stop lying, then we will have no reason to talk about what they want kept secret. End of.

          • James Riddle

            Giyane – OK – as I said – we simply take Craig Murray’s pieces, which he was ordered to take down, and post them on our own web pages / blogs.
            If, say, 100 people did that, would she be able to put us *all* in jail? Actually, I wouldn’t put it past her …..
            Of course, it would be really nice if she got – well, it would probably be ill advised of me to state what should happen to her.

  • Ian

    It’s always going to be difficult to report accurately on a case like this, because to do so requires that people understand not the names of the complainers, which won’t mean anything to most people, but the network which some of the principals are involved in. We know, from the notorious ‘I have a plan’ tweet, that the well intended guarantee of anonymity was used as a cloak to hide exactly this most nefarious of facts from the public. It is further reinforce by the extraordinary PR push to keep the ‘anonymous’ complainers in the media eye and their ‘suffering’ – why would that happen, except for very political reasons? If anonymity is the guarantee to keep women out of the public eye, then it is an extraordinary move to keep them in the public eye with repeated testimonies and pleas, none of which we know anything the truth or otherwise of. Particularly as a jury of mostly women found no evidence of their claims, and which Craig’s factual account of the trial, now censored, revealed as a hotch potch of wild exaggeration, faulty memory, coaching and in the worst case an outright lie. That is what Dorrian and co apparently want to expunge from the record. And this vexed used of anonymity is the method to do so.

    One of the (many) false claims about this issue is that someone like Craig will deter other women from coming forward. This is nonsense. What will deter women is the callous way that some of them in this case were dragooned into a court case, against their will. That would put anyone off. Most women will also agree that the purpose of anonymity is to achieve justice. Yet the Alex Salmond case achieved justice despite it, and the most concerning details which had huge political significance, were obscured under this device. Craig sought to alert to this, without naming the individuals. It is a fine line, but there is no doubt from his statements that it was done to service justice and the public interest. Dorrian deliberately misrepresented that, as well as smearing and mocking it, in order to keep those issues, which were never about identity or deterring future cases, under wraps.

    Craig obviously needled her, because he cleverly used the case against him to make clear the iniquity of the entire farce against Salmond, a political maneouvre and not the scandal it was framed as. She is piqued at his courage and straight talking, and has resorted to personal insults, as well as wild speculation, quite wrongly about his motives, in order to suit her narrative. None of this has a place in a court of law, because it is based on speculation and pseudo psychological interpretation. Especially when, as we know, others were far worse in letting the public know who the ‘aggrieved’ were. An objective appeal court would see the nature of her personal antipathy towards Craig and dismiss it out of court, particularly on the grounds that not a scrap of evidence has been produced for her claims about identification or Craig’s state of mind. He has drawn blood and she has hit back, which is no basis for legal decisions.

    • Ian

      PS in addition to the evidence of her personal feelings and attitude affecting her judgement, and thus invalidating it, she made a claim that Craig was presenting the facts, in his own interpretation, as ‘the truth’, which clearly outraged her.
      Yes, this is what bloggers do, thousands of them every day, as do journalists, commentators and people in the pub. That she should claim there is something invidious in that, while she exercises her own interpretation and claims it has a higher status than Craig’s or anybody else’s is a philosophical question she is clearly not equipped to answer, since she just assumes she alone has access to ‘truth’.
      Just another reason to reject her heated and biased judgement, which is so full of holes false logic and spurious speculation that it is a travesty of truth and law.

      • TonyN


        Excellent post.

        As time is of the essence, we can but hope that an exposure under UK parliamentary privilege will at least put Dorrian & Co. on the spot.

        My own concern, residing under english jurisdiction, is that any comment that I make that was deemed a contempt of scottish court by a scottish court, the sentence could be applied in england. I have raised this question on this and other blogs, but answers have not been forthcoming.

        It is obvious that if such a situation is indeed the case, it was publicised in the UK MSM, one could expect a massive uproar across the whole of the UK, with momentous consequences not least for CM, and also for the devolved governments

        Would you care to comment?

    • Wikikettle

      What can save our sad decline and fall, is the simple promotion of Truth. The cretins in power and in control, claim to be patriotic, yet their actions are are dismantling our institutions, built up over generations to govern with efficiency and a semblance of democratic legitimacy. Today we see more brazen corruption in public life. Jullian Assange, Craig Murray and very few remain to shout down to the villagers that the wolves are coming. The villagers are so busy in their entertainments and consumption of so called news, only annoyed at the “other” and wanting to go on their holidays. Not giving a toss about Jullian or Craig or Gaza being pummeled to rubble yet again.

      • Stevie Boy

        In this perverse world we now live in, it is the MSM that decides what ‘truth’ is and what ‘truth’ we are allowed to see.
        Without the alternative media there is absolutely nowhere for the actual truth to be promoted. The objective of Governments is to close down alternative media sources so that they can carry on lying, stealing, imprisoning, murdering and torturing as they see fit and with no interference from the electorate.
        The big question is: ‘does the media control government or does government control media’ ? Or maybe it’s some establishment cabal that controls them all.

    • Giyane


      In short, whoever decided to force the women to take their very weak accusations to the police has removed their privacy. Huh. That stupid word, privacy. How many times every day we read ‘we value your privacy’ before corporate big brother swallows the lot?

      Not much privacy in people knowing the accusations without the identities, like the naked swimmers who used their newspapers to hide their faces from passers by.

      Google told me today that by law I have to add my birth date to my details. Ostensibly to assist personalisation, but in fact to verify that comments sent from my phone are mine.

      As a society we are slowly being driven towards no privacy, like the communal toilets in Rome. The PTB have the thankless task of pretending to maintain the pretence of personal privacy, while being able to listen to and see everything we said or did. Which hurts their dignity . And it annoys them that we can read their minds without spying, simply by analysing their words.

      I think it is just as hard for those who aspire to manage people to have to pretend that life still has privacy, as it is for us to live life normally knowing there is no privacy. We end up playing cat and mouse whereby we can feed those who think they are invisible , stuff which we know will annoy them, and they have to eat it, because that’s their job.

      • Tom Welsh

        “Google told me today that by law I have to add my birth date to my details. Ostensibly to assist personalisation, but in fact to verify that comments sent from my phone are mine”.

        Shortly after you give Google such details, they will be for sale (cheaply) online. Then criminals will be able to impersonate you even more plausibly than before. It’s a bit like the arguments that were advanced for arming the police.

        Thank God I have no account with Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Microsoft or any such.

    • Tatyana

      Ian, thank you, very well said.
      Re: anonymity of the complainers. Some of my thoughts and questions.

      On what basis does that case even qualify as a sexual assault case? Is there normally a preliminary review of the materials, before the trial? Or is it enough that the complainants say so?

      In the latter case, this is a serious flaw in the entire judicial system. Just imagine what a high-profile case could be cooked up if Mr. Salmond (sorry) farted in the elevator.
      Ex prime minister is accused of organizing a chemical attack !!! Mass casualties right in the center of Edinburgh !!!

      Seriously, I mean that any interpretation of actions must have reasonable logical limits. I find it ridiculous to regard posing for photography as a sexual act. The same goes for the hair joke and the touch on the cheek to wake up. This is obvious to anyone who graduates from school, because the school course includes the basics of biology and sexual education.
      It is impossible to assume that all the accusers were young, uneducated girls.

      Mr. Salmond’s actions may be unpleasant, annoying, inappropriate, but it was certainly NOT a sexual assault. Or, do all accusers consider themselves to be such irresistable sex-appealing Divas that male colleagues necessarily feel desire when around them?
      Then, what a pity that the court protects their anonymity! I am burning with curiosity to see this flower garden of paradise hourias!

    • Tom Welsh

      “One of the (many) false claims about this issue is that someone like Craig will deter other women from coming forward”.

      That is nonsense for another, more fundamental reason. How can I put this without the risk of hurting anyone’s feelings? The women (are we allowed to know that they were all women? If so, why?) accused Mr Salmond of various illegal acts, but the jury did not find their accusations credible and therefore acquitted Mr Salmond.

      To my mind, the inescapable implication is that they lied. Moreover, they conspired to lie, with the explicit purpose of having Mr Salmond imprisoned for a very long time. In my innocence, I assumed that although the court had given them the privilege of anonymity during the trial, that anonymity would automatically be withdrawn when they were prosecuted for perjury.

      Yet they weren’t prosecuted for perjury; nor was the blanket of anonymity withdrawn. I even saw a comment on this blog stating that the verdit of the court was immaterial, and that the women were to be presumed truthful and Mr Salmond’s acquittal a miscarriage of justice. In other words, that the accusers were the real victims.

      According to The Telegraph today, Lady Dorrian said that “The European Court on Human Rights noted that criminal proceedings concerning sexual offences are often conceived of as an ordeal by the victim”.

      Although not exactly the same as saying the accusers in the Salmond case were truthful and were indeed victims, that is as close as one could possibly get to saying that while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability.

      What is the point of holding a trial, when the accusers are nevertheless considered to be “victims” and the accused – even after his acquittal – to be a criminal?

      • Tatyana

        Tom, I believe your reasoning is correct. I can clearly see how the judge held Mr. Murray responsible for hypothetical harm that could potentially arise. Controversial, shaky and one-sided ruling, because it protects women who even put forward false accusations, but does not protect men against whom such accusations are made.

        But I am not a judge, just a simple person, so my question is also simple:
        In your country and according to your legislation, WHO IS AUTHORIZED to qualify a case? Who is the person who decides whether this case will be called “sexual harassment” or the title will be “noncompliance with corporate ethics with colleagues”? Can you answer?

        • Tom Welsh

          Tatyana, I have no legal qualifications or knowledge. However, I think that in most countries criminal cases are brought forward by a public prosecutor who works for the government. (One of the biggest – I think deliberate – loopholes in the UK system is that the prosecutor can choose to prosecute or not do so, without giving any particular reasons).

          I believe that, compared with “Napoleonic Code” legal systems, the British and US justice systems give prosecutors a lot more discretion as to when they bring charges, and what those charges are. This article seems instructive:

          Can anyone better qualified answer Tatyana’s question?

        • Tatyana

          I believe that if it’s true that all people are equal, then the court should not allow anyone to name any names – neither the complainant nor the accused – at least until the moment of the verdict. It would be fair.

          If it were so, all that the general public would have learned in the end is that someone put some uknown accusations against some gentleman, but the jury did not find it a crime. Simple, right?
          No harmful disclosures of anonymity, no high-profile scandals, no exorbitant fees for lawyers and journalists.

          * The freed up finance and effort could be forwarded to e.g. healthcare. Isn’t it wonderful? It is!
          I bet, I would be a better queen 🙂 *

          • Tom Welsh

            It occurs to me that the whole principle of anonymity for accusers strikes at the root of any fair system of justice. As we have seen during the whole of this Salmond-Murray epic, the effect is to shroud legal proceedings that are of vital and general interest to the public in a black veil of secrecy.

            “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman”.
            — US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941)

          • Fwl

            It’s one thing to make an anonymity exception for rape cases based on the argument that there is empirical evidence that without anonymity victims won’t come forward. I don’t know if that is proven but I can see that it’s very arguable and likely to be true. It’s another thing to extend that anonymity to far lesser allegations. And then there is also the political context – difficult to see how that can be ignored ie surely sometimes public interest should trump the complainant’s right to anonymity?

      • Crispa

        Yes in the context of the trial outcome Lady Dorrian’s comments can easily be interpreted as encouraging women to make false allegations against any man they dislike.

        • Giyane

          In Salmond ‘s case it was 2 men who disliked the man, probably for his deep integrity and ability to function in realpolitik without sacrificing his principles.

          Those 2 men are building a legal system for Scotland in which dog whistle smear campaigns overrule factual evidence and the independence of the judiciary is overruled by the Scottish government.

          Justice by mob or tyrant rule will never be justice. The women are pawns in a dirty manipulative game. Sturgeon included

    • Pigeon English

      IMHO the way you see it is the only, rational, logical way to interpret CM case.
      I am in “disdain” of that Court Officer.

    • Coldish

      Excellent, Ian (14.40 and 14.45): thank you for spelling it out. This woman has no place presiding in a court of law.

  • Goose

    Craig showing he’s a true gentleman again by being concerned for others – those in Gaza – at this difficult time.

    The UK media diabolical as ever. Portraying it as a “full-scale war ” is a Nazification. It’s like saying the Jewish ghettos in German occupied Poland were in a full-scale war with the Wehrmacht – the implication being it was somehow a fair fight.

    Aren’t the Israelis brave, using the most advanced drones and warplanes to attack a poverty-stricken people densely packed into Gaza – like shooting fish in a barrel. This all started because of the forced evictions. And Israeli courts are about as likely to side with Palestinians in upholding their East Jerusalem property rights, as South African courts were to uphold the rights of blacks at the height of apartheid.

    Expect no criticism from the UK or US though, both would’ve supported Goliath over David.

    • James Riddle

      …. and I’d also be somewhat surprised to hear much in the way of criticism coming from Nicola Sturgeon.

      • Goose

        Could be cynical, cold calculation News Group Newspapers, who owns the the Scottish Sun?

        Politicians wouldn’t be that shallow? ….Wanna bet.

      • iain

        She has a longstanding weakness for US war criminals, so probably safe to assume she shares their affection for the IDF.

        I recall CM saying he had been told SNP MPs and MSPs had lately been instructed not to express solidarity with Palestinians

        • Goose

          It has to be acknowledged that any expression of solidarity would be misrepresented as blanket support for Hamas. Because the people who control our media are so blindly supportive of Israel. They are the gatekeepers and we aren’t allowed to have a rational debate in the UK or US.

          Corbyn’s horrendous mistreatment being an example of the character assassination by media that awaits anyone prepared to raise concerns.

  • Joseph Mellon

    So what happens if the appeal to the SC is successful?

    • damages for wrongful imprisonment?
    • legal fees awarded against the crown?
    • further consequences for the judges concerned?

    The Lord Advocate recently admitted to malicious prosecution – surely a criminal act? – and it had no personal consequences for him whatsoever…

  • Rob

    You can tell that Dorian woman that this pleb has just seen the identity of Woman H outed on twitter, for the whole world to look at. I have followed your blog/twiitter posts and didn’t have the foggiest idea who the protected complainant was. But now we have progressed from alleged jigsaw identification to a massive billboard with the complainer’s name picked out in neon and that is OK.
    This campaign against you stinks, but somehow I’m not surprised at the brutal violence of the Scottish elite, look what happened to Rizzio and Darnley.

  • Andi

    Danke craig für deine wichtige arbeit, spende ist raus

    [ Thank you Craig for your important work, the donation is sent. ]

    • Unrepentant SAFFA in Ostfriesland

      Ich dachte ich bin der Einzige in Deutschland der Craig Murray nicht nur unterstutzt, aber wahrnehmt.
      Bleib gesund Andi!
      Grüß aus Ostfriesland.

      [ At last!!!
      I thought I am the only one in Germany who not only supports Craig Murray, but also perceives.
      Stay healthy Andi!
      Greetings from East Frisia.
      Billy ]

      • nevermind

        Billy, du bist nicht der einzigste. Einige hier haben Jahre lang Erfahrung mit Craig und seinem intetessanten Leben.

        Heissen Dank fuer deine Unterstuetzung, SAFFA, einfach Klasse.

        [ Billy, you’re not the only one. Some of them have years of experience with Craig and his interesting life.

        Many thanks for your support, SAFFA, just great. ]

  • Tatyana

    People, let’s draw more attention to fundraising!
    I was able to donate a little bit. These funds were not free, but intended to renew my driver’s license. But I thought I could walk for awhile, because Mr. Murray sacrifices much more – his freedom.
    I urge you all to reconsider your financial priorities. Otherwise, it may be that we will all be walking, and maybe even marching, mutely, in some brave new world.
    Something needs to be done about it, today.

  • IMcK

    I have not been through all the comments but wonder if the following logic is applicable.
    1) The jigsaw identification is based exclusively on CM’s posts in which case should not the prosecution have to prove their case by assembling the jigsaw
    2) The jigsaw identification relies upon CM’s posts plus other sources in which case should not the prosecution be required to identify them and bring similar charges against the other(s)
    To assign guilt without either 1 or 2 (or in the case of 2 at least identifying the information) is to do so without proof

  • Lapsed Agnostic

    Further to my reply to Jennifer Allan’s astute comment @18:24 on May 11, and finding myself with a bit of time on my hands, I’ve been subjecting the comments from the petty bourgeoisie on the aforementioned Daily Hate article to rigorous statistical analysis – well more rigorous than that used by the WHO to deny ivermectin to millions, with deeply tragic consequences.*

    Here are the results:

    Pro-Craig / Anti-judiciary comments – 56% of total – with average approval rating of ca. plus 300

    Anti-Craig / Pro-judiciary comments – 31% of total – with average approval rating of ca. minus 100

    Uncategorised comments – 13% of total (can’t be arsed working out their approval rating)

    Note: I’ve included all comments alluding to money in the anti-Craig category, but the ‘punching above’ comment in the pro-Craig category. Our generous host always punches up.

    As well as being shocked to the core by the sentence, I was also staggered to see the Hate journos didn’t enlighten us as to how much our generous host’s house is worth on the open market. Are they feeling all right? I hope they’re not coming down with that Indian variant.


    • Lapsed Agnostic

      I was going to leave a comment at the Hate pointing people in the direction of this blog, but you had to register to post one and I didn’t want them pebble-dashing my inbox with sidebar/boob-of-shame spam. Sorry.

      Don’t worry, if I had registered and posted, I would have made sure to include the appropriate (Scottish) Government health warning: Reading Craig Murray’s Blog – and its attendant comment threads – can turn you from a boomer into a zoomer.

  • Fwl

    Report that a barrister who broke an embargo on a Supreme Court order has been fined £5,000. He said he had wanted the truth to come out and had been prepared to go to jail.

  • JM1979

    I will donate. I found this website had some interesting posts about the Skripal/ novichok issue and what Craig wrote seemed to be honest and perceptive. I can’t claim to know all the facts/law but this has the smell of a politicised decision. I think and hope that the Supreme Court will be objective here and if either it refuses to grant leave to appeal, or Craig loses there, he will at least have had a fair hearing.

  • Name (required)

    What a cuntry i live in (not a typo).

    the truth gets you gaol.

    lies gets you the highest office.


    CUNTS the lot of them

1 6 7 8