Appeal For Defence Funds 532


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.

UPDATE ENDS

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
BBC

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

Alternatively:

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

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.

532 thoughts on “Appeal For Defence Funds

1 4 5 6 7 8 9
  • Bewildered Spider

    Wow! Craig -I don’t always agree with you but have learned a lot from reading you. This is a nakedly political move by a corrupt body politic.
    Donation on its way.

  • Sean

    4 months actual time as under 1 year gets a 50% reduction, an appeal based on points law and NOT a rerun of the trial… I fear in such cases as you are guilty off, it is a waste of time and money…there also exists the possibly of an increase in a sentence termed ‘unduly lenient’…

    • DunGroanin

      Sean. Lol.

      Back to the class with your inept gaslighting attempt you clown.

      The fake : charge, trial, judge, verdict will not survive the white heat oh the ECHR. Even if the SC rolls over to have its tummy tickled.

      Just have to get the case through to that place and it will cost lots more, BUT there will be an ever increasing crowd of donors with every stage of this travesty. Good. It will awaken more of us from the drone of MSM wormtongues.

      Even Mail readers, if comments there on Craigs sentence are anything to go by.

      The Law of unintended consequences is now in play by the conspirators and their hence folk of which you are a very incompetent cog.

  • Lorna Campbell

    Gutted. Absolutely gutted. I really did think they’d go for a fine. I am heart sorry for you, Mr Murray. And for your family. Have contributed, but will do so again as soon as funds permit.

    • Jim

      I never thought for one moment that this would result in a fine. It would be a ‘completely pointless exercise’ as the Judiciary would say.

    • Richard

      This case would have been bounced out of court if it was a jury. I have read the comments and the blog by Craig several times now. I still cannot identify the individuals who accused Alex Salmon. If independence in Scotland means more of these legal scams to silence people good luck Scotland. Also I was disappointed to see the chipmunk (sturgeon) get back in last week. A person for the people needs to be elected, I would not be surprised if sturgeon has a fatal accident in a few years time. Similar to princess Diana. Her husband has ceo of snp, what value does he provide.
      Well Craig we all need to help you more and overcome this travesty for you and your family. Don’t let the buggers get you down. I’ll help you again, but it needs to wait until the end of the month now.
      Remember very few folks in the judiciary can be trusted. Plus that are greedy buggers. The barristers here have an opportunity to make their name and change the Scottish legal system for good.

      • Tom Welsh

        ” I still cannot identify the individuals who accused Alex [Salmond]”.

        That is certainly true of any normal citizen. But even if one could identify the accusers, why would that be wrong (as opposed to illegal)?

        With objective and fair reporting such as Mr Murray’s now forbidden, the way ifsclear for government to get rid of anyone it dislikes simply by bringing a malicious prosecution alleging some trumped-up charge of sexual misbehaviour. The accusers will be anonymous – under pain of law, and forever – and the defence case will not be allowed to be stated outside the court.

        Franz Kafka and George Orwell stand in awe.

  • Sean_Lamb

    Fascinating to see how those who are loudest in outrage at Russia’s jailing of Alexei Navalny and the same people who are discreetly celebrating the imprisonment of Craig Murray. Case in point
    https://twitter.com/OliverKamm/status/1392097223618572288
    And the entire Bellingcat clown show, obviously.

    It is a bit like how the people who wail the loudest about the Uighurs never seem very interested in the Palestinians

    • Tatyana

      Obviously, they consider money fraud to be an excusable minor offense, compared to a jail-deserving crime of telling the truth. Just think, if everyone reveals the truth like Snowden or Assange, how can the corrupt elite continue to fill their pockets?

  • pete

    The sentence seems both harsh and unfair, it is not in line with natural justice, quite the opposite, it is a travesty. Nobody was harmed by what you said, you gave the only unbiased and as full account that was possible, about the trial of Alex Salmond.
    I have contributed again to the cost of the appeal in the hope that the court will finally come to its senses.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Mr. Craig Murray,
    I am obliged to eat humble pie. For I had stated that I would if you received a custodial sentence.
    I don’t even have wiggle room, for had the sentence been 8 months suspended for a year or so, then at the very least – I would have been able to rationalise and say that they did accomplish the task of intimidation without going to the ridiculous extreme.
    The precedents do weigh in your favour on the aspect of proportionality ( i.e. lack thereof in the sentence).
    Quite frightening all round when considered in the context of a purported self-righteous Western democracy.
    But – there is Assange already in prison – so why not a Murray too?
    Didn’t mean it that way – overall – this is no laughing matter.
    Appeal is the only practical next step.

    • N_

      Can you cite some precedents for a non-custodial or suspended custodial sentence for contempt of court?
      It’s like perjury – the default sentence is jail time.

      • Cubby

        N

        It is Scottish government policy to reduce the number of short term jail sentences. They should have added to the pages on the Scotgov website – except if they are guilty of annoying the great leader – Nicola.

        Way too many people in prison in Scotland on short term jail sentences.

        Like it or lump it N – nasty Nicola is batting for your side.

      • Giyane

        N_

        There was no contempt of court in this case, because the Scottish Government made up the accusations, protected the false accusers as if they were real accusers and then concealed the evidence of their perjury.

        This prison sentence is a massive dick-waving exercise by Scot Gov to frighten others from reporting their criminal lies. If you don’t understand the concept of a criminal government, I wonder why you come to CM blog every day . He is only here himself because the criminal Labour government was torturing Muslims by proxy against international Law.

        The SNP is exactly like Blair’s New Labour, a far right wing Party camouflaged by the legacy of its predecessors. Jack Straw was happy poodling for George Bush and Sturgeon is happy poodling for the US exactly the same.

        The only difference between Craig then and Craig now, is that then he was a lone prophet crying in the wilderness, and now he is a well-respected analyst who cannot be ignored in a higher court of Law.

  • John O'Dowd

    Another contribution made to fighting for all of our rights .

    We always knew the case was a political prosecution – but just in case there was any doubt, Ms Dorrian’s actions with regard to your attendance at the Assange case in Spain makes this absolutely clear.

    In a way, we should be grateful. The Brit state exposed in all its stinking entrails.

    • N_

      a political prosecution

      ^ That should be the grounds for appeal (against sentence): abuse of process for “political” reasons. I’m not sure whether that was part of the defence case at the trial, but anyway…

  • Robert Dyson

    Absurd & appalling. Punishment for honesty. My faith in the legal system is very damaged. It’s a worry for all of us.

      • Jennifer Allan

        DunGroanin – yes anyone can comment below the article or click green or red arrows. (registration required). So far almost all comments are from south of the border which is good isn’t it? -especially the thoughtful comments in support of Craig. I assume you are not meaning money contributions from these persons, but every little helps. The paper refers to Craig’s blog but does not provide a link.

      • Jennifer Allan

        I am a little concerned; all the DM comments are more than 5 hours old. They are moderated in advance, but I have known DM comment threads to be removed or edited, presumably after ‘establishment’ pressure.

    • Lapsed Agnostic

      Thanks to copious quantities of sugary tea laced with a few tots from the ‘secret’ bottle of Whyte & Mackay under the sink, I’ve almost recovered from the shock of our generous host’s sentencing. I thought the worst he’d get would be a suspended sentence – having foolishly believed that they were trying to make a example out of him, rather than a martyr.

      Regarding Lady D’s summing up as reported in the Hate, linked to above: ‘Deliberately and lethally’? What’s that all about? Has anyone been killed? She’s off her torts.

      Scrolling further down the piece, the thought occurred to me: I wonder what 80% of the comments will be about? Was pleasantly surprised to discover only around 20% of them were thus – and that overall most comments were generally supportive.

  • Exiled

    As a nationalistic Scot, who thinks independence would be disastrous for the people of Scotland, I disagree with much of what you campaign for (and I wish you’d stop doing it!) But as one trained in Scots Law, I cannot sit back and not encourage you to fight this grossly unfair conviction and sentence. So cash sent for your defence fund, and if you’ll forgive me a little levity, please spend it on your defence and not on an independence campaign. All the best.

  • Tatyana

    It is very sad, in fact, for a Russian person. We grew up with the awareness that we live in an unfree, ideologized state, but with a dream that there are truly free countries in the West, a land of blue hopes, where justice and civil governance reign, where people can speak freely and not go to prison for this … Where is this dream now? Where is this ideal?

  • Highlander

    I’m presently unable to donate but as soon as I receive my pension I shall look your way.
    God bless you for the integrity you have shown and an example and dedication to all, hopefully to those like Nicola who need their feet placed firmly on the ground. And her head removed from the clouds. Its despicable what she has allowed to happen to you, and allowing the judiciary to be used in such a wicked manner. I’d expect this from Boris…. ! We all saw what happened to the North Yorkshire intelligence officer, after 7/7. We all saw what happened to Willie McRae, we all saw the army truck drive over the car, taking those commemorating the anniversary of Willies McRae’s death, perhaps you should consider yourself lucky, they aren’t forwarding you for rendition or torture in some foreign shore… as Straw and Blair so blatantly did before and after the first Iraqi butchery. Oohs…. do you have any suicidal thoughts? Do you have bruises on your body? Make clear, your mental state, we all saw what happened to Kashoggi from Boris’s mate and partner in crime!
    God bless you. Its hard to be an honest man, with honour duty and integrity, just to be persecuted for being a real man.
    God bless your family, I thank them for your sacrifice to truth and morality. I hope the funds and the appeal is quickly transferred to Europe. You’ll not get justice in these islands!

  • Cubby

    Some pretty poor excuses for human beings posting on Wee Ginger Dug (the well known Sturgeon is God cult site) who have no sympathy at all for Craig’s plight. Indeed the poster yesindyref2 who has posted on Craig’s site seems to think he tried to help Murray but he wouldn’t listen. More like he was setting Craig up with his comments. If this was my blog I would ensure none of these disgusting people ever were allowed to post on it again.

  • Fwl

    I don’t agree with 2/3 of what Craig says but the 1/3 is worth supporting.

    Even if I disagreed with 100% of what Craig says he should not be going to prison.

    Sent £100

  • Deb O'Nair

    Eight months for reporting on a case where no person was actually imprisoned – absolutely bizarre state of legal affairs in the UK.

  • N_

    Questioning the “however obscure” reasoning may have some mileage. It’s not just the Inverurie Herald. Who knows what other piece of an alleged jigsaw might be scrawled on a toilet wall somewhere, perhaps behind a cistern where it can only be read by someone standing on the toilet seat or who is over eight feet tall? The crown’s argument is ludicrous.

    The “right to report the defence case”, though, is probably a non-runner. There’s no constitution that guarantees such a right (or any other right) even against the provision of section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (or any other statute).

    Why not contest the verdict on the grounds of abuse of process flowing from a criminal conspiracy by government and judicial figures, evidenced by how other, named people published stuff and didn’t find themselves in any kind of hot water? If the crown wishes to argue that it’s in the public interest to prosecute and jail Craig but not to prosecute anybody else who on the face of it may have acted similarly, then make it say it out in the open.

    (Just my barrack room tuppenceworth.)

    • Giyane

      N_

      Natural justice send A a fair trial . Fair means even- handed. If the prosecution case is published and grotesquely exaggerated in the media, then the defence case should have the same publicity.

      If the accusations against Salmond were proven to be lies, then the same weight of justice should be brought down onto the liars as on to the one they accused.

      In Islam a witness has to swear that if they are lying, they are cursed for ever for lying. Not, if I turn out to be lying I am permanently immune from prosecution.

  • Fwl

    What are some of the most basic expectations of a good society: freedom of speech and fairness & justice in court.

    In the past we thought of British justice as meeting the highest standards and as a model to the world.

    We certainly thought of ourselves as superior to Italy and Spain. However, in Italy the courts have had some astonishing successes in holding mafia to account and even shone a light on Gladio, In Spain the courts hold their Royal family to account. How we have fallen. I have to wonder how it can be that in Scotland political complainants in a political trial could expect to stay anonymous. Can’t imagine this happening anywhere else in the Western world. We are slipping down some Kafkaesque wormhole. And of course CM didn’t reveal their identities and took considerable care with his reporting.

    Remember that song from Hair: Let the Sunlight In.

    Hope Peter Hitchens has something to say.

    I will be interested to see how we hold David Cameron to account over Greensill.

  • Jo

    Could Spanish court intervene somehow to allow you to give evidence in JA case…..in person or by video? Or can you make written legalised deputation???????

    • Dawg

      The Scottish Court didn’t even let him testify in his own case: it was done by written submission (also published here – which may have irked them further).

  • glenn_nl

    There’s something really pernicious about these short term jail sentences. They serve a purpose of keeping the total numbers in jail deceptively low. A great number of people can have their lives significantly damaged, yet since there are not _that_ many in jail at any given time, the figures don’t look as bad. There are ‘only’ X number of people in jail on minor drug offences, for instance. But over the course of 5 years, it could be 10-20 times X .

    A short sentence achieves the aim of making someone virtually unemployable for the medium to long term, can wreck any domestic stability and will of course terminate any current employment. It makes travel and obtaining insurance difficult. All the required disclosures and terms can make one liable to disproportionate further sentencing for trivial and often inadvertent breaches of conditions.

    All this is not to mention the psychological harm that comes from spending time banged up, and the health problems it might pose. And not to mention again, the fact that the individual concerned is now going to be of significant and on-going cost to the country, instead of the contributor they may well have been before sentencing. All potential from that individual is probably lost.

    Getting custodial sentences for something not significant enough to attract serious time, and certainly where avoiding harm to the public is not the aim, is surely an unjust amount of damage to any individual (and cost to the country). Hardly surprising that our rates of imprisonment are about the highest among the civilised European countries, to go along with our massive levels of inequality on all indicators that make a country a fit place to spend one’s life. And the right to call itself a decent and just society, for that matter.

  • Athanasius

    Once again, totally oppose your politics (except for Scottish independence, which I support), but I’m sending a THIRD donation to your defence fund because I don’t like the law being used in this way. Offside, big time.

  • DunGroanin

    Right. Let’s step this campaign up.
    Can the site get a QR code up that links specifically to this issue? I wish to spend money time and effort on getting it to the QR savvy pub goers from next week.

    Double? Screw that. I want a million who will happily provide a quid every time the Establishment turns its ratchet.

    • Different Simon

      I have no idea what you’re talking about – and given my age I’m just glad there are people here who do understand – but anything that can be done should be done.

      • Different Simon

        Thank you for trying, Tatyana, but although (I think) I know what a QR code is, I have no idea how it would be used in this case. I’m willing to learn but I’m glad there are people who already know and can engage the technology in a worthwhile cause.

        • Tatyana

          Simon,
          modern smartphones have cameras. When you aim your phone’s camera at a QR-code, then your device recognizes it as a code and suggests to open the link (or anything that is coded).

          It is easy way to connect people to your content, because it only needs clicking a couple of buttons on your device. Easier, compared with the traditional way of opening your browser, typing an URL symbol by symbol.

          QR codes are especially convenient outdoors, when people move and have no time to sit down and attentively type the URL. Often used by sellers at week-end Fairs, street markets etc. to link people to the payment page.

          DunGroanin suggests to place a printed QR-code in a pub, so that the visitor may get informed about Mr. Murray’s case.

  • Ian

    As is commonly agreed, this is an utter travesty of justice. It isn’t justice at all, but the deliberate harassment and targetting of an individual who published politically inconvenient comments and facts. Clearly you annoyed them and that, as far as I can see, is the sole motivation for their spiteful attacks on you and the perverted use of an extremely vague, undefined law. ‘Jigsaw’ identification is clearly such an imprecise and speculative concept that, unless there is clear evidence, it is not worth the paper it is written on, and is merely a political tool of suppression.
    The weakest and most absurd part of their claim is that such identification could occur from the most innocuous of statements about the trial, because a HYPOTHETICAL person MIGHT be able to piece together an identity with other similarly published unremarkable comments, none of which was remotely liable on its own to supply identification.
    If you cannot see the iniquity of such a concept you are not fit to be in the legal or political profession. Because, plainly, it makes any report whatsoever, any comment or observation, or repetition of publicly available facts, could hypothetically be responsible for someone, unidentified and unknown to make the identification. The last piece of the jigsaw might also be sourced from private knowledge, a friend or relative, or a chance encounter. So, if Craig is HYPOTHETICALLY responsible for one tiny piece of a jigsaw, logically all the other sources, facts and comments, including the guy in the pub, is also responsible and must be punished by the court in the same way.
    This would mean every paper and media channel in the country, all social media, people in pubs and jobs, policemen etc etc. Anybody who ever uttered an opinion or relayed a fact. In fact it is impossible to see who wouldn’t be subject to prosecution, apart from those who had never heard of the case or discussed it in any capacity. Because all of these people might have passed a scrap of information on which led our hypothetical person to complete the jigsaw.
    This obviously brings the law into disrepute. But wait, there is more. Our hypothetical friend is now claimed to know a complainer.It is not, as far as I know, illegal to know who the complainers are. Many Scots do, many think they do. So what crime has Craig or anyone committed? They have led someone, again no-one anybody knows or can find, to think they know a name. What proof do they have Craig or the myriad of other sources for their jigsaw has led them to a correct identification? They cannot verify it. unless they get more information from sources which are not Craig. Only then would their ‘jigsaw’ be complete. And therefore, logically, Craig is not responsible for their knowledge.
    And here’s another thing. If it isn’t illegal to know information what crime has been committed. A crime can only be committed if our hypothetical person publishes it. Which would be an important part of the evidence. Who has published a name based on what Craig is supposed to have said? If no-one has, where is Craig’s crime? The only logic to this is that our hypothetical friend has committed THOUGHT CRIME – he has successfully identified a complainant in his mind. How can we know that? Where is the test or evidence?
    As soon as you start thinking about this law, the whole thing falls apart like a house of cards. There can never be proof, because the whole chain of deduction is entirely HYPOTHETICAL, with no such person identified, no evidence, and no ability to see inside the minds of putative, not real, persons.

    If the court of appeal is concerned with the application of the law, and the standards of the profession, there can be no conceivable way they can uphold a judgement based on entirely spurious speculation and hypothesis which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would closed down the entire press and media, and imprison every person who wrote or commented about it. Because they, by this definition, cannot know that some scrap of information, combined with once again unknown and hypothetical others, caused a hypothetical person to come to a hypothetical conclusion which need not have even been published.

    If you think that doesn’t bring the law and the courts into massive disrepute, you have no place in any public office. The only possible conclusion is that this is a vindictive, selective use of a law which should never be on the statute books unless it specifically demands proof and evidence of the claimed offence. As it stands, no such demand is made, which leaves a defendant to. be prosecuted on wholly fictional claims and speculation. What is the law if no proof or evidence is required, merely an opinion from a judge who in her remarks made it clear her personal antipathy and condescending disdain for someone who dared to try and bring the facts of Alex Salmond’s defence to the public?

    Whatever you think of Salmond, Sturgeon or Craig, no-one should want to live in such an arbitrary Kafka-esque society where people can be jailed on purely speculative, unevidenced hypothesis. And no court of appeal should go along with it, if they value their profession and the reputation of the legal system. Do they, or do their loyalties lie elsewhere?

  • Intractable Potsherd

    I’ll make a donation when funds come in shortly.

    Unfortunately, though, given the current members of the Supreme Court, I think you are on a fairly futile quest. The Court is terrified of more political scrutiny, and it is desperately trying to pretend that Lady Hale’s presidency didn’t happen. I hope I’m wrong, but your case is just the sort they don’t want, so I think they’ll try to make it go away.

  • Different Simon

    I listened live to the sentence being handed down this morning with incredulity and anger. The thing that most astonished me was Lady D’s assumption and assertion that Craig’s deliberate intention was for people to use his reports of Salmond’s trial to identify the accusers.
    I read those reports as they came out, and the idea that Craig was deliberately trying to encourage identification of the accusers is nonsense – is a lie.
    Craig, I’ve made another small contribution, and will make more if and when you ask. Thank you for your courage. Stay well.

    • Ian

      Another instance of Thought Crime. Dorrian is apparently able to enter Craig’s mind and establish his intention, although she produced no evidence that anybody had made in ID from his reports, and nobody has ever claimed they did so. So she is accusing Craig of thought crime – thinking that he could somehow smuggle in a reference. She also ignores the fact that the complainers were identifiable to anybody who attended the court, and were thus liable to identification by anyone studying a court report who might have ancillary information.
      So in addition to Craig’s thought crime she is apparently arguing that a successful defence in a public trial cannot be published to inform people of the therefore false accusations, because people ‘might’ identify the complainants, even thought their case has been disproved. Any honest and factual reporting of the case necessarily involves discussing incidents which are clearly dated and located. So any curious person could have looked that up and made their own deductions. Therefore no factual accounts of the trial should be published. So why were other court reporters not prosecuted?
      She is a fraud, with only person she wishes to punish – the man who sought to allow Scots people to know about the nature of a case of wide public and political significance. Now she is saying that shouldn’t be allowed because a false witness ‘might’ be identified, thus censoring any public knowledge of what has happened to a man cleared of all charges. What kind of Stalinist state does she think she lives in? A total disgrace. A media worth its name would campaign about this, because the future for court reporting on sexual, political and legal cases is now seriously in doubt, and thus the ability of Scots people to know what is going on in their country. Which presents a wide open opportunity for bad actors to play the system with false accusations and lies about their enemies. Now why would such a policy stem from an administration who are already talking about abolishing jury trials in some cases?

    • Jo1

      Indeed. I was astonished she was able to rule on intention when, clearly, that is complete speculation on her part.

  • mark golding

    Craig Murray has many times exposed British spooks hookup to the Guardian newspaper.

    We remember in 2013 the UK government ordered the Guardian’s then-Editor Alan Rusbridger to destroy laptops containing the numerous internal NSA and GCHQ files released by Snowden, and GCHQ agents duly visited the newspaper’s offices to oversee the destruction.

    Later that year Alan Rusbridger appeared before the home affairs select committee to discuss the Snowden leaks. In a weasily manner he told committee chair Keith Vaz, ‘he’d flatly ruled out publication of “a great deal” of the NSA/GCHQ files available to the Guardian newspaper. Some files related to Iraq and Afghanistan “we’re not even going to look at”, he said.

    Since the 2015 appointment of Katharine Viner as Editor the Guardian newspaper has served as a dependable conduit for intelligence agency propaganda. For instance in December 2018 Guardian foreign correspondent Luke Harding authored an ‘exclusive’ report which stated Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chair turned convicted felon, had met with WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on three separate occasions. Craig asserted according to the Embassy strict visitor logs this was a fabrication by British intelligence.

    In 2019 Luke Harding claiming Russian diplomats allegedly held secret talks in London with associates of Assange, in an attempt to assist in the Wikileaks founder’s escape from the UK. Craig denounced the article as a “quite extraordinary set of deliberate lies”.Craig revealed he and close confidant of Julian Fidel Narvaez had engaged in discussions with Assange in 2017 regarding a possible departure from the UK capital which did NOT ever include Russia as a destination. Craig said, the report was ‘black propaganda’ intended to add a further layer to the fake news of Wikileaks’ non-existent relationship to Russia as part of the “Hillary didn’t really lose” narrative.

    Again after apparent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in 2018, Craig exposed amongst other important issues, Pablo Miller, Skirpal’s MI6 recruiter and Salisbury neighbour.

    Clearly I believe the secret intelligence services are involved in the incarceration of Craig Murray as a whistle-blower revealing pivotal truths. My friend Annie Machon confirmed the British intelligence community is the most legal[ly] protected and least accountable of any spy agencies in the western world. It is hedged around by a battery of laws and police powers that can be used to stifle dissent or criticism. It is a “carrot and stick” scenario: the soft aspect, of course, being cosy chats with selected journalists, well-timed career-enhancing scoops, as well as an increasingly unhealthy journalistic dependence on briefings coming out of the intelligence world and government.

    The stick aspect includes the battery of harsh laws that can be called upon to suppress free reporting in the UK, which sometimes leads to self-censorship by the media. These laws include:

    Libel laws;
    Terrorism Act 2000;
    Injunctions;
    Super-injunctions;
    Public Interest Immunity certificates (PIIs) or “gagging orders” issued by ministers;
    Production orders;
    Contempt of court proceedings;
    The media self-censorship of the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (the Infamous old “D” Notice system);
    And of course the abusive use of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

    • DunGroanin

      Mark , good read.
      Reminds me of the late Clive P, who would occasionally share his wisdom here.
      Another insider who got kicked for being honest.
      I bet he would have had something useful to add along the same lines.

      What gets me is that not a single MSM journalist or so called antiestablishment blogger has chosen to report the defence evidence in the Salmond trial. I know that the media is wholly controlled except for some sops who provide ‘opinion’ for colour and fig leaf purposes.

      Not a single one in the U.K. Which just encourages me to get busy.

  • kashmiri

    I fail to understand how on earth one needs to ASK PERMISSION to appeal. A right to a fair process is a RIGHT, not a privilege that may or may not be granted by the judge. Sure, a higher court may not want to hear all appeals, but being a foreigner, I find “requests for appeal” beyond by comprehension. No court wants to admit that their judgment was wrong!

  • Tayo Aluko

    Does this conviction not suggest that you and/or supporters of yours can “legitimately” carry out a citizen’s arrest on another journalist whose contempt of court was greater (or should I say more material) than yours, Craig? So many to choose from…

  • Goose

    The sentence does seem incredibly harsh for a purely fictional, satirical piece, one that studiously avoided using the complainants names. And why were serious health issues mitigating against a custodial sentence dismissed so casually?

    Were this happening in el Sisi’s Egypt, maybe it’d probably be easier to make sense of.

    • Giyane

      Goose

      Maybe I’m.wrong but the satirical piece was ignored in this trial. Their objections were limited to comments by Craig that would help to identify accusers from a group of suspects a person already knew.

      We are literally talking about government insiders here.
      About Scottish Government internal confidentiality.

      The Lady Dorrian presumably consulted the Shakespearian coven about Craig’s personal intentions. Or maybe she just read the entrails wrong.

1 4 5 6 7 8 9