Appeal For Defence Funds 531

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

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

531 thoughts on “Appeal For Defence Funds

1 5 6 7 8 9
  • Andreas Raab

    This is a disgrace and I would never have believed that this is even possible in what I thought of as a civilized country. That is, until I heard about how Julian Assange is being treated thanks to your reporting.
    Sir, you are doing it right and you are a role model for many journalists.
    Contribution sent in ETH.

  • Billy Bones

    This woman Dorrian will go down in Scots history and Scots legal history as one of the most entitled and corrupt bahookies to ever warm a Scots law bench. An utter disgrace. Shameful.

    • Jennifer Allan

      Craig was interviewed by the Daily Mail today, which published Lady Dorrian’s comments when sentencing:-

      “Sentencing the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, judge Lady Dorrian said Murray knew there were court orders giving the women anonymity and he was ‘relishing’ the potential disclosure of their identities.”

      Craig’s response to this (Quote):-

      ‘I genuinely did not intend to identify anyone I really didn’t, and I don’t think I did identify anyone. I still believe that,’ Murray said.

      ‘There was no evidence led at all by anyone to justify the judges remarks about doing it ‘deliberately and lethally’ as she said. ‘I just don’t know where that came from, it wasn’t alleged by the prosecution, it wasn’t in the evidence. I don’t know how she could say such a thing. I found it all a bit strange. Slightly bemused but ready to continue with the appeal.’

      Craig also commended the DM’s fair reporting on Twitter.

    • Hamish McGlumpha

      Dorrian presents herself as an impartial judge – but she is far from that. She is a political activist and according to Hugh Kerr, former leader of the National Union of Journalists “has led the campaign to get rid of juries in the cases of sex offenses in Scotland.”

      Cases such as the one she presided over – where a jury acquitted Alex Salmond – and hence this case, where she and her fellow judges took exception to Mr Murray’s observation that the Salmond case was a “stitch-up” – something so bleeding obvious that it hardly merits contradiction.

      The Crown Office, which brought both the Salmond case, and has in a leading role an identifies MI5 agent, is according to journalist Mark Hirst “an institutionally corrupt prosecuting authority” which is “abusing their power and acting in an evidently biased and political manner.”

      We are in serious trouble here in Scotland with a corrupt government, prosecution authorities and judiciary, who act with impunity, in concert and without effective accountability, to silence dissent and imprison – or attempt to imprison, political opponents.

      • Giyane

        Hamish McGlumpha.

        If the feminists want to promote justice for victims of rape, why don’t they select cases of serious misogyny and violence? Why are they picking on two affable middle aged respectable gentlemen?

        The missing link between the political interest in reform and the savagery of the attacks on Assange , Salmond and Craig is that all three cases were concocted by the British deep state security services and are political trials with no connection to the accusations.

        Our intelligence services are not intelligent. Just extremely stupid and dim.

        • amanfromMars

          Our intelligence services are not intelligent. Just extremely stupid and dim. …. Giyane, May 12, 2021 at 00:21

          You might like to refine that admonishment and reveal the endemic problem is systemic and exists and rests in the leadership of intelligence services, Giyane. A simple change of leadership deliver an opportunity to change the problem, and make the right change with an inspired choice can easily provide many novel solutions to any number of increasingly persistent and uncomfortable difficulties. However, to not change things fundamentally and radically, is only going to render the future not dissimilar to the past with nothing unpleasant resolved and everything several degrees considerably worse off.

          The following is worth a diligent ponder and exploratory expeditionary punt …….

          amanfromMars 1 Wed 12 May 06:46 [2105120646] ….. getting right down to Core Source Ore work on

          Who you gonna call ……… whenever Alien Celestial Existential ExtraTerrestrial comes a’knocking removing all pretentious barriers?

          Who/What does an M or a C or a Q talk to whenever floating about like a cork all at Sea in a TEMPESTuous Storm with Zero Novel NEUKlearer See/Approved Improved Enlightening Sight?

          “There is no doubt that we are facing a moment of reckoning,” said Fleming, ominously. “But it’s clear that to face up to this moment of reckoning, we need to protect and build our strategic technology advantage. By that, I mean using science and tech to help defend against threats. To amplify our values. And as a consequence, make Britain stronger and more prosperous.”

          Does GCHQ director Jeremy Fleming, who oversees the surveillance agency’s NCSC offshoot, actually believe Britain has any viable strategic technology advantage program with platforms and projects and presentations providing exceptionally mutually beneficial satisfaction to all impacted, to protect and build upon and defend against all manner of crazy and/or misguided threats ………. or is the honest truth, such is what UKGBNI and others are confronted by and identify as a hostile enemy threat to be repulsed in mad battles rather than realise as an extremely attractive addictive treat to be enthusiastically encouraged and ACTively exploited and engaged with?

          To persevere in pursuit of the former with thoughts of defence morphing into implausible plans for attack rather than simply accepting and engaging with the civilised sophisticated agencies and unique universal utility of the latter, would be a colossal blunder costing traditional inherited and conventionally commanded and conveniently controlled SCADA systems more blood and treasure, pain and grief than it is possible to endure and survive.

          There is no doubt that we are facing a moment of reckoning,” must be a prime candidate for the understatement of the century at least.

          What do y’all want to do about IT? Is there anything you think you can effectively and efficiently do, or would you just rather it was sort of magically fixed for you by others you’re best not knowing too much about for your own safety, at whatever it costs which will certainly not be cheap in the fields and ranges that generate key interest in the sums and to the tunes of billions and trillions?

          Such is certainly the most inexpensive root and route to take. Of that you can rest assured.

        • Hamish McGlumpha

          No disagreement from me on any of this – Giyane.

          “Feminism’ is a cover for Deep State activity, and the removal of the right to be tried by a jury of one’s peers.

          There can be little doubt what will happen when a bunch of privately educated Edinburgh wankers in wigs can decide the fate of anyone that their chums in the Crown Office choose to fit-up. This is not theoretical, we’ve watched it happen with the Rangers case, with Salmond and now with Murray.

      • Jo1

        You make an excellent point Hamish. The lady has made various rulings throughout this entire Salmond business and although the court case, and verdict, are now in the past, she seems eager to work against and undermine them.
        Did she not rule that certain group conversations could not be made public, leading the Parliamentary Inquiry to claim they weren’t relevant? I find that very worrying indeed. She also became involved, just after the Salmond trial, in a study or other to do away with juries in sexual assault cases. Her impartiality is therefore not immediately obvious to me, to say the least. I’m also concerned that her latest judgement actually speaks for CM’s intentions in committing certain things to his blog. On reading her judgement that there was a “deliberate” intention to..blah blah”, I was thinking in my head, “Objection, your honour! Speculation!” For that’s what it was. If a prosecuting or defence lawyer cannot lead on “evidence” claiming to know what a person was thinking at the time, because it’s speculation, how can a judge do it? Who judges the judge?
        The other major problem we all have in Scotland is that we are badly served by a media for whom the truth has no place in proceedings. Let’s also consider the other huge matter which still hasn’t been addressed. The highly significant leak, from inside the SG straight to the Record journalist David Clegg, of the report on the official Salmond Investigation itself. How on earth did no one pay a price for that? Why has the investigation into the leaking just fallen aside? Why did Sturgeon so easily walk away from that, just as she walked away from everything else? There’s no doubt in my mind that the Scottish media picked a side because they despise Salmond so opted to shield Sturgeon on everything from that point on. Incredibly, this also applied to the trial itself where the mainstream media actually eased up on reporting when the defence case was being presented so that there was very little information provided on what was happening. So the public, all over the UK because the trial was being followed there too, got very little detail on the defence case leading to the conclusion that the prosecution case was overwhelming! CM was the only one providing accurate reporting on the defence case. That is incredibly worrying. So hated is Salmond that a decision was clearly taken by the Scottish Media not to report accurately on the defence case. Consider how prejudicial that is. The same applied in the Parliamentary Inquiry process where again Sturgeon was presented as having emerged from eight terrible hours of giving evidence when, in fact, she gave very little at all. The same applied when, having announced the Parliamentary Inquiry to investigate her government’s handling of the Salmond case, she promptly trashed it when it went against her! The media went along with her view.
        Furthermore, why did the Scottish media give her such a soft time of it ahead of Scottish elections? The media knew about the vicious infighting going on within the SNP on various matters yet buried all of it. Sturgeon wasn’t challenged on any of those issues. Scottish ferries were clapping out all over the shop within a fortnight before the Scottish Elections, the “new” ones, are rusting on the Clyde somewhere, islanders are going nuts over reduced services and changes in timetable. Not challenged on that either. So, in reality, the Scottish Media is part of the problem. For, along with Government, prosecuting authorities and the judiciary, we have a corrupt media too. And, for me, that means we’re really screwed.

    • John Cunningham

      Careful you don’t end up sharing Craig’s martyrdom for contempt of court and libelling a judge. Craig claims he tried very hard not the identify any witnesses. Common sense suggests not doing something requires no effort. What Craig tried very hard to do was identify witness and avoid the consequences.

      • Twirlip

        Enjoying this, are you? “What Craig tried very hard to do was identify witness and avoid the consequences.” What piffle!

        • John Cunningham

          Twirlip – As a socialist and humanitarian, I don’t enjoy seeing anyone suffer. But the law of the land is there for everyone and Craig had plenty warning (including from me) he risked breaking it – ironically to aid the odious Alex Salmond, who needs no help as he is free as a bird.

          • pretzelattack

            he’s free as a bird because his accusers lied, the truly odious people pretend he did what he was accused of. fortunately the jury was made of a better class of human beings.

      • TonyN


        Re contempt of a scottish court by someone in england. What can they do about it?

        • John Cunningham

          TonyN – As both are part of Britain, ‘they’ would not see a problem.

        • John Cunningham

          Dane Dine – Truth, honesty and integrity are my only interests. Learn to recognise them.

  • Tom Welsh

    A few years ago I was angry that, as a Scot, I was not allowed to vote in the independence referendum just because I happen to live in England.

    Today I am happy not to live in Scotland – I shall probably never return.

    • Dean Clark

      Same, apart from the England part. Zero chance I return to Scotland until they sort their shit out… Ironically, I decided to leave because Scotland shat the bed when it came down to an independence vote… Now, I am thinking you dodged a bullet.. My thinking had always been that once independence happened, new parties would form and eventually replace the SNP. The response to Salmond’s attempt to set up a party that essentially supports the snp has made it clear that won’t happen… A million list votes wasted to get 2 snp mps in when it could have put in 30 alba mps.

      • Tom Welsh

        “I am thinking you dodged a bullet…”

        Exactly the phrase that occurred to me. Corruption on Bute used to be widespread and widely acknowledged; but on a national scale it is so much worse.

  • mark golding

    Although these are dark times we will continue to hold the flame for Craig Murray. We will hold his inspiration as a human rights activist and we will recall his posts infused with his experience and love of Africa from a time as UK deputy High Commissioner to Ghana.

    I hope this little journey back through time will reveal a possibility for an extraordinary future for Craig and with only an ephemeral present that is already fading.

    Thoughts from Ghana

    The UK and Corruption in Ghana

    IMF and USA set to ruin Ghana

    Finally as a night-cap these words from Haile Selassie’s iconic 1963 speech that inspired Bob Marley’s hit song “War”

    ..that until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned;

    that until there are no longer first class and second class citizens of any nation;

    that until the color of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes;

    that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race;

    that until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained.

    And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed;

    until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will;

    until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven;

    until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil.

  • Wikikettle

    Historian, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist, Journalist and Political Prisoner in Scotland. FFS

  • AmyB

    Ironic that the Judge mentioned the “gravity” of the issue. You’d think if it were truly considered that grave, they’d be prosecuting Miss G and Miss W before Mr M (oops – I do hope I haven’t inadvertently identified any Scottish journalists or Newsnight presenters…)


  • Peter Mo

    OK guys lets get to work. I have my doubts that Craig’s lawyers are doing a good job. Obviously if he got 8 months some questions need to be asked.
    Please Craig setup a new thread where only serious legal arguments and research can be presented which your lawyers will be required to read.

    • Julie Gregory

      A certain lawyer defended a British ex spy against the British Govt re publishing a memoir in Australia. . Many years later he became Australian PM & helped keep Assange in lockdown .

    • ginger ninja

      “I have my doubts that Craig’s lawyers are doing a good job.” Exactly. It seems a random person off the street could have defended him just as well. Tens of thousands of pounds given and they can’t get him off from such an obvious fit up job.

      The legal system seems to be a protection racket more than anything else. It’s an absolute disgrace.

    • DunGroanin

      PM, What’s your expertise?

      You do know who the lawyer Roddy is?

      The crucial failure in the courts in this case as in Assanges is the Judge, anonymously appointed, compromised, controlled and it seems corrupt in MY opinion.

      I wouldn’t take a simple parking charge case to these nazgul in fear of having my goolies fed through their mincer instead of receiving ‘blind justice’

      The fact is, the move to remove jury trials and have such hanging judges being mere puppets of the duplicitous State is where the independence of this judiciary is publicly and hilariously daily compromised – like the naked emperor.

      Why is a judge allowed to carry on in a case where they are linked to another case – surely the Defence should be allowed to ask for a unconnected judge?

      Why is a blatant abuse of process by the judge and their court allowed to carry on with impunity?
      The shortness of the jury-less ‘trial’;
      The failure to allow cross examination;
      The extraordinary length of time between the ‘offence’, the charges, the ‘hearing’ and unjustified ‘verdict’ and now the ‘sentence’ – all of which is against natural justice.

      Why can’t that judge, her courts actions and perverse emanations from her bench be called out instantly?

      Why is the senior judiciary panel not intervening? Like the Law Society would upon a bad lawyer?
      Why are such spooky justice dispensers tolerated?

      Why can they carry on practicing when such charges of compromised actions is proved? Why aren’t all the cases they were involved in checked to see if other miscarriages of justices have not been habitually perpetrated by t he or extrajudicial conspiracies?

      Why indeed can’t they be arrested, charged and tried and gave their personal finances, pensions and Liberty removed?

      An independent Scotland with its own constitution and independent judiciary with its checks and balances is what the western declining morbid Empire needs to inspire the Peoples of the old rancid nation states long boiled to death frogs.

      That means the old MUST pass for the new to be born.

      In My Opinion.

  • Ian

    Just donated from New Zealand. I’ve been a long time reader of your blog and am appalled at the unjust treatment you are receiving from the “justice system”. I’m hoping for a better outcome that it looks like you may receive. I imagine I wouldn’t have to look hard to find sentences of less than 8 months handed to violent criminals.

  • House MD

    “Justice is a knife in the back and a kick in the balls’ – to paraphrase Colonel Cathcart and Joseph Heller.

  • Isabella Robertson

    I will gladly help your fund. I think it’s outrageous that you have been charged with this false accusation and would not be a bit surprised if Nicola Sturgeon was behind it; she is a power mad facist. She wanted rid of him to get his job, sticks out like a sore thumb. I have absolutely no doubt that Alex Salmond was innocent of all he was accused of and the deliberate evil back-stabbing done by Nicola Sturgeon will not be forgotten in Scotland. You can let him know this when you see him. I wish you good health Craig and thank you for your courage to speak out against tyranny. If it wasn’t for people like yourself the world would be ignorant of the atrocities that happen. I applaud you and all who stand up for the truth ???

  • Tom Kane

    This is a repost of a comment on Iain Lawson’s blog…

    Yes… This treatment of Craig Murray diminishes all of us, and particularly diminishes the COPFS and Scottish Judiciary.

    That the Scottish Civil Servant whose boss is the first minister could conduct an unlawful investigation from within the Scottish Government, and present findings that were tainted with bias directly to the COPFS and kick start an investigation of our former FM by bi-passing the wishes of the complainants and the lawful police investigation processes… That is almost suffocating in the amount of breath it takes.

    To punish the only person who reported the strength of the defence in the eventual trial for speaking the truth to the world about what was presented to the jury…

    And the equivocal role of the Scottish Cabinet Minister/Lord Advocate in the affair… And those who have gotten off Scot-free for misleading the Scottish Parliament…

    We are all diminished. And another good man needs help. Contribution to fund sent in yesterday. I hope there’s more we can do to help you, Craig.


  • Peter M

    Perhaps a silly question.
    Why does this appeal need to be so horribly expensive? Is there really a need for all these lawyers who charge like wounded bulls? After all, they will bring forward arguments you tell them to. Putting it crudely, they will verbalise Craig’s instructions, adding some verbal diarrhoea in the process (apologies to any well meaning lawyers out there).

    The prison sentence is completely over the top, as well as the guilty verdict itself. A clear example of miscarriage of justice (if justice still exists!).

    I believe Craig is more than capable to argue his own case. His circle of friends/acquaintances etc. (as well as this blog’s commenters) can provide plenty of (legal) advice. Perhaps a bit over-simplified, but can someone shine a light on why the apparent need for this financially crippling outlay?

    PS. Have contributed to your fund and will do so again.

    • Giyane

      Peter M

      In Pakistan or Turkey and in many other parts of the world , if you want medical , legal or any other kind of help and have no money , the bill is payable in sexual or other modern including private armies.

      Britain is now reaping the whirlwind that it sowed in its days of Empire when it stole the wealth and destroyed the cultural heritage of its slave dominions. Those destroyed cultures have immigrated back to base.

      I would not be remotely surprised the missing Scottish government millions had not found their way into justice Department to make it bent. Who will turn down a bribe in Austerity Britain, and who is brave enough to confess to receiving it?

      I speak as Muslim convert because I see the community I have adopted for reasons of faith is deeply and comprehensively corrupt in ways that contradict our faith and British values. That is unfortunately the reality of our country.

      Am I shocked? I have had 25 years of getting used to it.

    • craig Post author

      It’s basically a closed shop, Peter. I could argue my own case very well, but the judges really listen only to their own.

      • Old Lag

        You can go all the way to the Court of Appeal without a lawyer. It’s called ‘party’. You submit ‘Adjustments to the Stated Case’, copy it seven times and post it off to the court in Edinburgh. A hearing is then called in front of three Judges in which you get to say your bit. Been there, done it!

        • Old Lag

          PS There is also a ‘sift’ done by a single Judge to determine if your grounds of Appeal are ‘competent’ that you have to get passed. Especially given your background I think you would find the whole process and procedure a piece of cake to be honest.

      • John Cunningham

        Craig – Your confidence is commendable but somehow your words remind me of the Dustin Hoffman character in the Tom Cruise movie Rain Man. Please leave it to the professionals – it worked for Salmond..

    • Jo1

      “I believe Craig is more than capable to argue his own case. His circle of friends/acquaintances etc. (as well as this blog’s commenters) can provide plenty of (legal) advice.”

      With respect, PM, I think your suggestion is most unwise.

  • Jerry

    I am on the political Right, but I have given more to your defense fund than I have ever given to any other cause. I like reading your blog and the comments on it. Please, please, please keep defending freedom of speech.

    Good luck

  • Riuch

    Maybe sturgeon was the Blair. John Smith possibly had enough integrity to be concerned what the Labour had planned, his sudden and unexpected death paved the way for Blair, a man with a whole range of hidden activities and easily blackmailed and useable. If the first referendum was a fix and the Ind had the votes that got rid of Salmond and kicked the debate into the long grass. The SNP are not interested how people cannot see the play. Alba will take years to move forward and that benefits the SNP and assists the English occupier of Scotland. Sorry to hear the communists framed you for a crime you did not commit Mr Murray. There is no point in having a trial when the political & judicial system is that corrupt that the outcome always favours the oppressor. It is up to the people to take independence and not wait for someone to give it to them.

    • M.J.

      “Maybe Sturgeon was the Blair… ” The same thought has occurred to me, but I might substitute something else “for “communists” in your statement.

      • DunGroanin

        I wonder if there is any proof or photographs of her with the Blairites?

        • M.J.

          Actually I meant that she was like Blair, not in specific policies, but in shifting her political commitment. Blair joined Labour, and if he were “got at” (I’ll let others guess by what persons) that would explain his dilution of classical socialism (e.g. clause IV) in the interests of electability. If Sturgeon, SNP leader were “got at”, that would explain a dilution of her commitment to out-and-out Scottish independence.
          But it can’t be denied that their political calculation worked for them. Blair got himself elected more than once, and so Sturgeon did well (though she doesn’t have an outright majority).
          Whether they should both have done other things, and if so, what, may be nice subjects for debate, I’ll leave them to others, as I think that speculating about counterfactuals (e.g. what if Hitler had won, or Mao had lost etc) are of limited value.

          • Bayard

            If Sturgeon was “got at”, what makes you think that those who “got at” her wanted her to have an overall majority?

          • M.J.

            Any potential influencers of Nicola would want their own agenda furthered, like any lobby. But they wouldn’t be the only actors, and couldn’t guarantee a majority, especially with the complexity of Scotland’s electoral system.

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      John Smith was British American Project through and through. As were Blair, Mandelson, …
      Then there’s the grieving widow, The Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill (she uses the definite article for some reason). Now she is ahem, guarded about her activities before becoming vermin in ermine. From what little can be unearthed.

      “In the 1960s, Baroness Smith was an undergraduate studying Russian at Glasgow University, and subsequently worked for Sir Fitzroy Maclean at The Great Britain – USSR Association.”

      She also had a stint as a Director of the private intelligence outfit Hakluyt. Hakluyt was set up and is staffed by ex-officers of the British Intelligence Agencies.

      • John Cleary

        You’re sniffing around the edges of the truth, Vivian. The key to what happened to John Smith lies in the seemingly unrelated matter of Anglia Television and the insider trading carried out by Lord Archer.

        But John Smith was a decent and honourable man who paid a price for his decency.

  • Wally Jumblatt

    I suspect the higher echelons of the legal profession are no more honourable, fearless or immovable than the rest of us, and don’t resist all that courageously when leaned on – with subtlety or not.
    You read snippets in the reporting that suggests they purposely leave little holes or errors during the cases that maybe means an appeal can be won, whether on procedural grounds or factual.
    That way they think they can hold their arrogant heads high that they were cleansed of the dirty deed of aiding the enemies of ra peepel.
    If that is Dorrian’s game, she is a disgrace.
    – and if it isn’t, she is a bigger disgrace. She has played as big a part as the clown spider-woman did on the Prorogue case, in bringing the law into disrepute.
    Without justice, there is no law.

  • DiggerUK

    With regards to the court case in Spain re the illegal surveillance of Julian, why can’t evidence be given by a video link…_

  • Greg Park

    A horrifyingly unjust, patently malicious sentence. For the long term the darkest aspect of it is that the people most wildly supportive of it consider themselves to be on the left, or at least liberal left.

    Where is society heading under these circumstances?

  • Julie Gregory

    I knew they would sentence you to prison . You helped Julian & also defended an RT tv host . Such things in Britain are not

  • J

    I was dismayed by the news yesterday and greatly discouraged. My thoughts are with you and your family. I’m struggling to see the positives in this situation, and there are some although they’re all in terms of making the best of a very bad situation. That you exist at all is miraculous, that the powers that be have failed to fit you up before now is not for lack of trying, but that you’ll fight and keep fighting is what gives me hope. Best wishes.

  • cimarrón

    An eight-month sentence for an unproven crime,
    while a proven perjurer remains free.

  • Tim

    I am really shocked and dismayed by this. I can’t imagine how you must be feeling Craig. I will give more to your defence fund; perhaps your case could be raised with Amnesty International? Or are they now completely captured by the establishment?

  • Martin Kernick

    Seems to me that ‘Lady’ Dorian is showing contempt for the Spanish courts, standing, as she is, in the way of a just hearing.

  • josh R

    fk ’em all, Craig. Go on the lam!
    Make them seek you here & seek you there, then pop yer head up from time to time & spit in their eye!
    Lead them a merry dance before they get to kidnap & cage you!

    I’m sure we could find a few Cornish & Galician fisherfolk to ferry you across the Bay of Biscay, those Kernows & Galegos are an unruly bunch, probably honorary Scots!
    Then you get to keep your appointment in Spain & enjoy seeing a “justice system” for a change (fingers crossed!).

    Ahhhh, can but dream….imagine the trade off in extra sentencing might make that all a bit ‘inadvisable’.

    If the worst comes to the worst, 8 mths (or 4, if you behave….??) will give you plenty of time to get started on those 2, or more, books you’ve got in mind, whilst shirking nappy changing duties (hope the missus has got a strong support/social network around her?).

    And you’ll be cohabitating with a much more decent class of folk than you’ll have found lately in the hollowed corridors of politics & the judiciary. You will likely enjoy the conversation & generational mix you encounter, no doubt imparting some precious ‘seeds’ of righteousness amongst the many minds you’ll touch, enriching them with tales of a lifetime of critical thought, commitment to justice & the most rare & rosey antics.

    However you’re feeling, I hope you don’t let the basTurds mess with your mojo. They’ve not won anything, you’ve forced them to reveal just how corrupt & vile they are – point to Murray!

    Fk ’em All!
    & bless you

    p.s. top tip when facing a bit of Porridge:
    Flip flops or sandals for the shower, Trench Foot seems to be inevitable otherwise.

    • Goose

      @Josh R

      Not all prisons are the same. There’s Category A,B,C and D.

      Julian Assange is in Category A, Belmarsh : category A prison holds male prisoners who, if they were to escape, could pose a threat to the public. Which seems outrageous.

      For context, back in 2013, then coalition Cabinet minister Lib Dem Chris Huhne, who incidentally, also got 8 months, for perverting the course of justice , ended up in an Category D open prison. The tabloids criticised country club surroundings & relaxed regime.

      Chris was one of the more thoughtful, independent minded Lib Dems. Isabel Oakeshott later revealed her pivotal role in that affair. Did Cameron want him out of the cabinet before the push for war on Syria in the knowledge he’d be a potential, powerful vocal opponent? His ex wife, economist Vicky Pryce also got 8 months, although bizarrely upon release was feted by the BBC; regularly appearing as the go-to economist of choice

      • Sean_Lamb

        I think Craig Murray: The Prison Notebooks may one day take its rightful place along side Gramsci

      • josh R


        “There’s Category A,B,C and D.”

        I was about to say, ‘once someone’s locked a door on you, is allowed to put their hands all over you & controls what you can do & when you can do it, it doesn’t much matter how comfortable the place is’……..but then I bothered to goggle “Cat D” :-)))
        Yes, it would be nice to hope Murray gets something along these lines (why can’t ‘day release’ work be child caring for your children??).

        I’d still recommend flip flops though 🙂

        Interesting what you reference wrt Huhne, not something I’d heard about before, potent reminder that for every CM, AS or JA, there have been numerous other legal persecutions of whistleblowers, publishers & the “politically inconvenient” since we ushered in the new millennium with such optimistic fanfare.

        • Goose


          Didn’t imply it was easy, or nice. But different categories and their regimes, really do matter.

  • Mary Rose Lindsay

    I read Craig Murray’s blog and had no idea from it the identities of the women concerned. Several other journalists were questionable
    and were never taken to task, but publicly adulated. It is disgraceful to sentence a man to a term in jail for seeking to tell the truth, as Craig Murray does , as a gentleman and a Diplomat , testifies.
    There are very few trusted journalists of integrity around today and this injustice must be rectified.
    I am donating to help in a small way in hope of a successful appeal.

1 5 6 7 8 9

Comments are closed.