An Open Letter to Lady Dorrian 315

My name is Nadira Murray, wife of Craig Murray. On the 7th of June Craig will be sent to prison per your decision under the law of contempt of court.

I understand and fully support your decision of protecting sexual assault victims however I do not feel Craig has been judged fairly. Craig even wouldn’t tell me the women’s names or identities, or ever foul mouth them during the trial when I asked about it.

Craig does protect and previously had directly helped many women who suffered abuse including a few women’s asylum seekers’ cases, without any payment.

In my country Uzbekistan, he sourced British government funding as well as giving his own money for victims of domestic abuse in a hospital refuge in Samarkand. These were women who had attempted to burn themselves to death with kerosine this is a local culture for abused women.

I have been living with Craig for almost two decades now, and I know him as a gentle soul, a helpful human being, a kind partner and a loving dad to his four children.

Having come from an abused background and then police state, I know exactly what trauma is, and your unfair decision is a form of power abuse, which brings back my own PTSD trauma from my own country from authorities.

I gave birth recently, with a 3 months old baby now, and have a 12 year old son, and my work from home – Craig has been a helpful hand and the main income in the household. My children need their daddy, I need my partner.

Him being under my watch (as his doctors stated his conditions are pulmonary hypertension, APS and atrial fibrillation, among other illnesses) I worry his health is not suitable for the prison which you ignored and took away his basic human rights. Prison hospitals are not suitable for his type of serious illness!

I believe you are sending him to a deliberate death sentence knowing and ignoring his health conditions.

I urge you to reconsider the sentence and allow Craig to be at home with his children who need him.

Yours sincerely,

Nadira Murray
4 June 2021

Details of how to contribute to Craig Murray’s Defence Fund are here:

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 *

Comments will be closed on June 20, 2021.

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

315 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Lady Dorrian

1 2 3 4
  • Courtenay Barnett

    Any order of imprisonment ( which itself is excessive – given the nature of the contempt charge) should be stayed pending an appeal. It is unjust to imprison while he still has a chance for overturning the sentence on appeal.

    I grieve for him and wish you and your family well at this trying time.

      • Courtenay Barnett

        Alex T,

        I have been trying to make some sense of Mr. Craig Murray’s sentence.

        I did a search on the Scottish legal system, at the ‘Scottish Sentencing Council’ web site, which states this:-

        “If the appeal is allowed against a guilty verdict, the appeal judges can:

        • find that the offender is guilty
        • find that the offender is not guilty
        • order the trial to be heard again.

        If the appeal is allowed against a sentence, the appeal judges can:

        • reduce the sentence
        • make no change to the sentence
        • increase the sentence.

        If the appeal is allowed, an offender who has been sentenced to imprisonment, may be released while waiting for the case to return to court.”

        On the basis of logic, it seems to me:-

        1. If an appeal is ‘allowed’ then having allowed the appeal – how can it be that the appeal court “find that the offender is guilty”?
        2. By way of reason, if the death penalty did exist in Scotland, then after an appeal wherein there was no stay of execution of the sentence, then the convicted person would have already been executed at a point in time when the Court of Appeal “find that the offender is not guilty”.
        3. All the indicators are that the evidence against Craig Murray was very fuzzy at best, and there was no overwhelming confirmatory indication of guilty. So, eight months in a prison with no chance at a ‘stay’ ( under the Scottish legal system) seems to me a horrendous injustice.

        However, having stated all that I confess that I know far more about English law than I do know about the Scottish legal system and/or laws.

        Is it wrong of me to suggest that Mr. Murray is the victim of a hanging Judge by reason of there being no close precedent to validate and/or justify the very harsh sentence, inflicted on a man of previous good character?

        • Margaret O'Brien

          I agree with you except for your last few words “of previous good character”. He is still of good character, in fact I don’t think they come much better than Craig. I’m sure you agree with this, it’s just those last few words and the way they come across.

          • Courtenay Barnett

            “Of previous good character” is legalese – ‘lawyer speak’.

            When the case moves beyond conviction and to the plea in mitigation stage, the lawyer(s) inevitably speak to the fact of none or very few blemishes on the person’s previous character – which feeds into the likely sentence. This is why it is astounding that a person of Craig Murray’s character, on an honest assessment of his character, could have earned him a custodial sentence.

            So – we are on the same page – all said and done.

            Well – not done – for I still hope that he does not end up in prison – by any means possible.

        • Margaret O'Brien

          Yes Courtenay I know it’s legalese, it’s just obviously so inappropriate in this case. We are on the same page I know. Little shocks me these days but this is still shocking. Especially with people who should face justice for actual crimes but never do.

          Craig is also being punished for his support for Julian Assange, while the war criminals he exposed are treated like respected elder statesmen! Sadly I see no change on the horizon anywhere.

        • Tom+Welsh

          “If the appeal is allowed against a guilty verdict, the appeal judges can:

          • find that the offender is guilty
          • find that the offender is not guilty…”

          That seems to be in tune with the overall atmosphere of the Scottish injustice system. Whether you are found guilty or not guilty, you are still an “offender”.

          Just as someone who has been found not guilty by a jury remains a criminal, and his accusers victims.

          • Francie & Josie

            As the old music hall joke goes, he got off on a technicality – he was found not guilty 😀

        • Hans Adler

          I don’t understand your confusion:

          • To allow an appeal means that the original court allows the ‘offender’ (weird choice of words given that the very point is that they may yet be declared innocent!) to make an appeal to the appeal judges. If the original court does not allow the appeal, the appeal court will reject it without even looking at the merits.
          • This question is irrelevant. So long as there is no intent to introduce the death penalty, there is no need to make rules compatible with it. Also, the passage you quote says nothing about any stay of execution. I would expect this to be in the discretion of first the original court, then the appeal court. Just for completeness: Even after a death penalty has been executed, a retrospective acquittal can be enormously important to relatives and associates of the victim. The US doesn’t do this, probably because retrospective acquittals are seen as a threat to the death penalty.
          • The injustice clearly is the point. Apparently the Scottish legal system is flexible enough to allow it. (In the case of Julian Assange, the English legal system is not flexible enough, and the fact that it has been transparently abused in every step is an important part of why the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture declared that it’s a case of torture.)
          • Courtenay Barnett


            I stand by what I originally wrote,

            But – permit me to comment in a narrow way:-

            “Even after a death penalty has been executed, a retrospective acquittal can be enormously important to relatives and associates of the victim”

            The Derek Bently posthumous acquittal is very much on point. Maybe Lady Dorrian and Lord Goddard, in the annals of legal history. may yet end up having much in common.

    • Kate

      Indeed. Fingers McGarry is out of jail pending her appeal (for something she initially pled guilty to) yet he is being sent to jail. I’m not a fan of his, but even I can see the unfairness in that. The SNP apparently have their fingers deep in the legal pie in Scotland.

      • Margaret O'Brien

        If you’re not a fan of his why bother commenting as you do his cause no good, in fact the opposite?

        • Bayard

          It is certainly worthwhile someone who “is no fan of” Craig commenting that they find “unfairness” in his treatment. It shows that the people on here complaining about the way he has been treated are not all just his fan club. When a friend criticises someone, or an enemy praises them, that carries far more weight than the reverse. Neither the criticism nor the praise can be attributed to partisanship.


    I don’t see how anyone can fail to be moved by this. Unless they have a heart of stone. We will see.

    Thinking of you Mr Murray and of your family. You and especially they do not deserve this.

  • James E

    I am so disgusted by Judge Dorrian’s treatment of Craig Murray. Utterly repugnant and inappropriate. I pray for you tomorrow (Monday 7th June) and hope the Judge comes to her senses.

  • DunGroanin

    That’s a short and clear statement that any judge or magistrate would understand and with a non violent ‘criminal’ never lead to a jailing.

    I hope it sways the insane prosecution, procedure and judgement inexplicably delayed over many months …

    I doubt Cruella D’orrian has any intention of protecting justice above her besties’ path of destruction following their male overlords (The Crown’s) wishes, to destroy the Indy Will, by utterly dismantling the SNP from the inside. This is by publicly turning it into a corrupt and putrid party, full of DS planned post-post-modern ID wars between the Indy membership and indiscriminate graft of the senior celebrities of the party – which will collapse as planned the SNP tribal instincts of Indy, as the main objective.

    The ‘Lady’ is not the prettiest of them all, let alone the most blindly judicious; she ain’t for ‘turning’ either, like that original putrid PR DS invention that poisoned two generations of ordinary U.K. citizens into giving up the hard-won post-war settlement that lifted and protected the poorest.

    That she and her fellow judges don’t acknowledge any conflict of interest in LD being in charge of both trials and knowing they will ultimately be humiliated in history and Law books makes not a jot of difference to them as they spend their last few years lording it. That a supposed independent judiciary fails to police its own judges and courts in real time is utterly absurd.

    The Bastards will pay with karma and nightmares and their offspring will disown them.
    Being socio- and psycho-paths, they just don’t understand that or care.

    Let the Scottish Bastille be erected tomorrow – it will be the blue touch paper for its storming the day after. CM’s jailing will make him more powerful than they can ever imagine.

    • Shatnersrug


      I really do not know what to say, where are the people of Scotland. All voting for Nicola. Just like the people of England all voting for Boris. This is the same power structure, those that rule from the pulpit crushing dissenters. I honestly thought Scotland would last longer than England in holding authoritarianism at bay, but not since Craig’s persecution I don’t. There should be a huge rally and protests tomorrow. People should prevent the police from making an arrest. Should close the Police headquarters. But I doubt they will.

      • Squeeth

        In the 2021 election the Snats got 47.7% of a 63.5% turnout = 30.3% of the votes of the electorate.

        In the 2019 election the Tories (officials) got 43.6% of a 67.3% turnout = 29.3% of the votes of the electorate. A small minority of the vote in both cases. That’s some catch, that catch d’Hondt/FPTP.

      • nevermind

        You are right Shatnersrug, what happened in Pollockshields should galvanise a few thousand people outside Oxborrow road, turn those police cars upside down for all I care, they are all complicit in this charade.
        Jaggys point is also admirable, you can’t solve a jigsaw puzzle with one piece alone, i.e. one journalist alone does not make for a clear identification, it takes those who also knew these perjurers and publicly announced their names, other journalists such as Dani Garavelli, Kirsty Wark and Sky to finish the jigsaw. Lady Dorrian also knows the perjurers and her premonition of this jigsaw identification meme, without being able to test and or prove it, is the only meme being used to make up this claim.

        Her claims are false and bad justice reeks beyond the courts, the common stench has engulfed the SNP at Holyrood. The lags are cooperating their faux prattery.

        My heart goes out to Nadira and her children, for her last minute plea to this addict to aggrandisement who is blind deaf and without a heart.

  • Kuhnberg

    If this was happening in Iran the western press would decry it as a travesty of justice. But it is happening here, in the UK, and the western press ignores it.

      • IMcK

        Yes, I am without any expertise in such matters but it seems logical that ‘jigsaw identification’ must be by more than one journalist/person otherwise, if by a single journalist/person, the offence would be identification. But as alluded to in your article the proof is in assembly of the jigsaw (irrespective of whether by one or more persons). Given the court are effectively claiming the jigsaw pieces lie in the information quoted in the court documents, then failure to assemble them is surely an admission of ‘no case to answer’.

      • John Cunninghm

        Jaggy – Surely it doesn’t need a lecturer in media law to realise jigsaw identification needs only a blog and a twitter account. In fact a series of articles on a single blog could constitute JI. No?

        • john cunningham

          Broadcasts also likely to come within the remit of the law. Perhaps even simple speech, though this would be difficult to prove unless recorded.

  • John

    Nadira, I have never been moved by anything so poignant as your letter before. I hope Lady Dorrian has at least an ounce of compassion and pardons Craig.

      • Shatnersrug

        They’ve used legal chicanery and loophole to jail Craig. The fact they’ve found such a way to do says to me that pardons aren’t in anyone’s agenda, and Craig won’t be silenced. Apart from much else this is his job and only source of income.

        I think Scots need to pull their heads out of their arses and storm the cop shop, but they won’t.

  • Frank

    Writing a letter post-sentence letter to the judge has zero effect. You are leaving yourself open to a charge of intimidation and harassment of the named Judge.

    • Wikikettle

      Frank. Nadira is giving evidence to the Lady Judge of Craig’s past actions to help really abused women who were so traumatised that they were prepared to set themselves alight. Not the the actions of a man wanting to out rape victims; to the contrary. Are you suggesting your Great Leader and her Law Officer should now prosecute Nadira for Threatening Behaviour ? !

    • Ryan

      You are partly right. This letter should have been written and submitted before sentencing. To do so afterwards, and especially making it an open letter, is likely to do far more harm than good. Comparing the court to Uzbekistan will go down especially badly. I am surprised that Craig’s legal team did not advise accordingly, or maybe they did.

      • craig Post author

        I think that both Frank and Ryan ignore the fact that Dorrian is very evidently utterly prejudiced and had been from day one. The letter would never, at any stage, make any difference to her actions, which are about something else entirely. What we need to do now is build up a head of steam to getting this before the Supreme Court.

        • Jimmy Riddle

          craig – I now appreciate that it was actually worse than what your `Yes Minister’ piece portrayed. They knew full well that even if Alex Salmond was acquitted, they would still be able to destroy him by spreading the false `well, it was her word against his and the evidence simply wasn’t strong enough for a conviction’ line, or else they would be able to plug the `the jury was corrupt’ line. In this way, it wouldn’t matter if Alex Salmond was acquitted – he would still be destroyed, rendered harmless and out of the game.

          Your reporting was the *only* thing that caused a problem for the false narrative that they were trying to peddle.
          I don’t really understand why Lady Dorrian has so much invested in this. She doesn’t seem like a natural Sturgeon supporter. Perhaps the previous post by Kirsten MacDonald explains this – but it still doesn’t make complete sense to me.

  • Leftworks

    If Craig Murray’s appeals fail, he will go to prison anyway, so it appears to me that it will make little difference to a Court genuinely interested in justice, to have the clemency to stay his imprisonment until his appeals have been exhausted (given the circumstances detailed by Nadira Murray). He presents no danger to the public. There is no danger of him running off beyond the Court’s jurisdiction.

    I am so sorry, Nadira. You and the family will suffer along with Craig – he is not the only person being sentenced here. I wish you all well and I hope (though not with any particular optimism) that the Court will listen and will stay Craig’s imprisonment pending his appeals. Best wishes.

  • Muscleguy

    There is supposed to be a presumption against ALL custodial sentences of less than a year in Scotland. Dorrian has ignored this. Craig is not charged with a violent or sexual offence, he is not a danger to the public. So why not a suspended sentence or home detention with a tag and curfew?

    THIS shows how vindictive this custodial sentence is. They making an exception for Craig as though he was a dangerous criminal. It stinks to high heaven.

    • Georgr

      Dorrian has been told to bury Craig and that is what she is doing for Sturgeon and co. She is looking for her next position.

      She does not care if Craig becomes ill, more sick, or dies in prison,

      She needs Craig to be sidelined for good.

      She does not care if his family is damaged.

  • Ron Maclean

    ‘Show me the judge, and I’ll tell you the law.’
    — Ian Mitchell, quoting Ian Hamilton QC, in the introduction to “The Justice Factory’.


    Human Rights Act 1998/ECHR

    ‘Article 7

    No punishment without law

    1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
    2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.’


    ‘Contempt of court is not a crime as such but it can be punished by a fine or by imprisonment, so it bears most of the hallmarks of a criminal offence. It has been described as a “sui generis offence committed against the court itself which it is peculiarly within the province of the court to punish” (Robertson and Gough v HM Advocate (2008) …
    — McDiarmid, 2018

    ‘The core of the existing principle is, I suggest, that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the courts.’
    — Lord Bingham in ‘The Rule of Law’.

    Am I confused because I am not a member of the Scottish judiciary or merely because I exist in a ‘peculiarly’ Scottish, atmosphere of hypocrisy, malevolence, and abuse of power?

    • Alf Baird

      On the matter of ‘civilized nations’, and given the reality of a British unionist establishment elite still running Scotland and its institutions, regardless of who sits in Holyrood, as Aime Cesaire put it in his ‘Discourse on Colonialism’:

      “….between colonization and civilization there is an infinite distance. (Under colonialism) the bourgeoisie is condemned to become every day more snarling, more openly ferocious, more shameless, more summarily barbarous; that it is an implacable law that every decadent class finds itself turned into a receptacle into which there flow all the dirty waters of history; that it is a universal law that before it disappears, every class must first disgrace itself completely, on all fronts, and that it is with their heads buried in the dunghill that dying societies utter their swan songs.”

      It is about time the Scots understood what independence is and why it is necessary, and the depths colonial powers will descend to prevent it.

  • Marmite

    Wonderful letter pointing out the hypocrisy of the British state, pretending to care about vulnerable people, falsely maintaining their false image of vulnerability and protecting that at all costs if it is politically important to do so. But if, by contrast, it is politically necessary to throw other equally vulnerable people in a tank of sharks, to cover up political crimes, then so be it. If the letter requires any signatures, please add mine.

    • Shatnersrug

      The thing is, neither Julian or Craig are going to shut up are they? So to jail they go and there they stay.

      Remember Shaker Aamer? Got his freedom but agreed to do one round of interviews and disappeared – that’s the deal you have to make with the state for your freedom and I doubt Craig or Julian could do that. Obviously Shaker endured such hardship and cruelty who can blame him for keeping quiet.

  • Ron

    Nadira, Craig,
    Well done. An appeal to head and heart of Lady Dorrian. Let’s hope it works where the appeal to judicial honesty and logic did not.

  • Republicofscotland

    A nice appeal for sanity to prevail, unfortunately I believe it will fall on deaf ears, as Scotland careers at speed towards a totalitarian state.

    It’s a pity that you don’t have a notable medical professional, who could vouch for you that a prison sentence would be very detrimental to you due to your health conditions.

  • John

    Some people are going to leave a mark on this world, while others will leave a stain.
    — Eleanor Roosevelt

    Crag has already left a big mark on this world and I am sure there is plenty more to come.

    Dorrian on the other hand has left a stain on Scotland’s reputation, the Crown Office and herself. I wonder how she can even look at herself in the mirror.

  • Peter

    Sharing the heartfelt love and support for, and total, determined solidarity with, Nadira, Craig and family. The best of luck and best wishes for tomorrow.

    Can anyone say whether tomorrow’s hearing will have public access – either online, by phone or whatever, and if so what the details are?

  • James Cook

    The world is but a stage.

    Many fail to see the other sides POV. This is part-in-parcel of a program to fully control communication and silence anyone who would dare question the authority of those in power.

    Look here to see how the issue of men pretending to be women is being used to sever social cohesion:

    One way or another men are using “?men?” to control women.

    Craig knew what he was doing and his adversaries are making an example of him. Others will soon follow suit, till the desired objective is achieved – silence & obedience to government.

    Craig must make the most of this drama and make this as painful as possible for the authorities.

    Show the public their true motives for his persecution. Yes it is persecution NOT prosecution.

    Go Craig!

    • Anonish

      The internet really isn’t a safe place for open discussion any more – particularly Twitter. I knew it wouldn’t last forever but seeing people receiving such heavy-handed punishments for something as ultimately innocuous as “causing offense” is incredibly chilling in both senses of the term. What’s worse is not only seeing regular folk cheering it on, but seeing them actively participating in selling out other people they disagree with – and if it’s not the law, wrong-footing a celebrity on their vanity campaign can have you sued into poverty. I can only hope people will realise what they’re throwing away before they disagree with the wrong person themselves. Probably not, as long as they’re ‘winning’.

      It’s the celebration and indifference that hurts more than the injustices themselves. I don’t know how you sway a public who are so eager to see others put to the torch just because they sit on the other side of the fence.

      • James Cook

        Some humans take pleasure from the pain of other, as long as they feel they are in a safe place themselves.

        Lucretius noted this part of strange part of human psyche long, long ago.

        “It is pleasant, when on the vast sea the winds are stirring up the water, to look at the great misfortune of another person from the land; not because it is pleasant to rejoice in another man’s troubles, but because it is a relief to comprehend what types of evils from which you yourself have been spared. It is pleasant indeed to look upon great battles in war being carried out on the battlefield, the dangers of which you have no part in. There is nothing sweeter than to possess the fortified, lofty doctrines of the wise, as serene temples, from which place you might look down upon others and see that they wander everywhere seeking a path for their aimless lives, as they struggle with their intelligence and fight for nobility, as night and day they wrestle with great toil to climb to the highest mountain of riches and to acquire things. O miserable minds of men, o blind souls! In what shadows of life, in what perils is this age of yours have you passed! You see, don’t you, that nature barks for nothing other than this, that pain be severed from the body and that the mind, freed from worry and fear, enjoy a pleasant feeling.”

        When you surrender your fears, you are truly free.

  • AndrewR

    I wish Craig well tomorrow. From the judge’s perspective, he is guilty, because she could recognise one or other of the witnesses in his writing. What the law means can be argued, and it is truly absurd that an appeal about an interpretation of the law is heard by the same person who made the original interpretation! But the imprisonment, surely, is because Craig is not contrite, as criminals ought to be when facing sentence. They throw themselves at the mercy of the court, say they have seen the error of their ways, and promise that from this day forth they will live an honest life your honour. But Craig, in fact, barely recognises the authority of the court, and has set himself up as the equal of the judge in matters of the assessment of evidence. He has even written about the judge’s failings! So, what’s a judge to do?

  • Josh R

    Good luck Craig, Nadira & the wee ones,
    Keeping everything crossed for you,
    Hope you get some good news tomorrow

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Such a powerfully moving letter, written straight from the heart. It encapsulates the depth of this injustice and the cruel symmetry of the irony. Only a stone would not weep.

    This is the British/Scottish Hard State in its true, unveiled imperialistic form.

    The future will judge this act as a crime against humanity.

    By contrast, Blair, war criminal, responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands in an illegal war visited upon a country, gets paid a fortune for each after-dinner speech.

    The Champion of Human Rights, the Whistleblower from the heart of the machine now needs people to champion his case and to blow the loudest whistle imaginable, to pierce the integument of this Hard State, to expose the stench of it’s corrupt venality.

    All power to Nadira and Craig!

  • Penguin

    Nice try but lady dorian is just another murrell turdlicker. She tried (HA) her best to handicap Salmond’s defence and needs the murrell seal of approval to become the new lady advocate. You’re on to a loser appealing to her better nature as it is clear she doesn’t have one.

    • iain

      I fear you’re spot on. This great weigher of the scales of justice is laser focused on getting another nudge up from Sturge. Deaf to reason and humanity.

  • Chrestomathy

    Craig – a Scottish blessing

    May the blessing of light be on you –
    light without and light within.
    May the blessed sunlight shine on you like a great peat fire,
    so that stranger and friend may come and warm himself at it.
    And may light shine out of the two eyes of you,
    like a candle set in the window of a house,
    bidding the wanderer come in out of the storm.
    And may the blessing of the rain be on you,
    may it beat upon your spirit and wash it fair and clean,
    and leave there a shining pool where the blue heaven shines,
    and sometimes a star.
    And may the blessing of the earth be on you,
    soft under your feet as you pass along the roads,
    soft under you as you lie on it,
    tired at the end of the day;
    and may it rest easy over you when, at last, you lie out under it.
    May it rest so lightly over you that your soul may come out from under it quickly;
    up and off and on its way to God
    And now may the Lord bless you, and bless you kindly.

    • Josh R

      I’m not much of one for poetry (except LQJ & good hip hop) or gods, but I thought that was lovely.
      Being a bit of a meanie, I’d add a final line:

      “And may your persecutors be damned to an eternity of daytime TV, pot noodles & dreary weather”

  • Clark

    Readers, when a system becomes this corrupt, the only ethical place to be is in prison.

    Don’t do anything genuinely criminal; give the system no excuses. Don’t storm the police station or overturn the police cars. Commit civil disobedience. Do something that does not deserve prison, but refuse to bow before the system until it jails you. Refuse to accept the authority of the court, citing Julian Assange, Craig, Mark Hirst, Roger Hallam, Richard Barnard and all the others . Throw the system’s hypocrisy back in its face until it jails you out of pure spite; there are only so many cells.

    I understand how you feel but do NOT descend to the system’s level; provoke it into showing its true nature for all to see. Its power subtends only from the acquiescence among the population; do everything in your power to deprive it of that.

    • Jimmy Riddle

      Clark – easier said than done. Lady Dorrian’s treatment of the case is a calculated act of violence and it does take superhuman effort and self control not to descend to that level. There is a saying about a person who lives by the sword will die by the sword and Lady Dorrian has initiated the violence and a violent response against her would certainly be morally justified.

      I am a Christian and I take seriously the words of the apostle, `leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’

      I’d say that Lady Dorrian is conducting herself in a way that is very much in line with burning coals heaped upon her head.

      • Clark

        ” easier said than done”

        Absolutely; I am yet to do it myself. But all the ones I have named are doing it. They need reinforcements.

  • Ron Maclean

    ‘So, what’s a judge to do?’

    From: The United Kingdom Supreme Court

    Guide to Judicial Conduct (2019)

    1.2 The Justices have drawn upon the ‘Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct’, endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 2003 and published with a commentary in 2007. The intention of the ‘Principles’ is to establish standards of ethical conduct for judges, to provide guidance for individual judges and the judiciary in regulating judicial conduct, and also to assist members of the executive and legislature, lawyers and the public, better to understand and support the judiciary. The principles are stated as six “values”:

    (i) Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.

    (ii) Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.

    (iii) Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.

    (iv) Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all the activities of the judge.

    (v) Ensuring equality of treatment all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.

    (vi) Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.

    2.2 The Justices have all sworn the judicial oath, which states:

    “I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”

    In taking that oath, each Justice has acknowledged that he or she is primarily accountable to the law which he or she must administer. This involves putting aside private interests and preferences and being alert to attempts to influence decisions or curry favour.

    3.10 Sufficient reasons for not sitting on a case include:

    (i) personal friendship with, or personal animosity towards, a party; …

    • John Cleary

      Ron, now ain’t that interesting!

      See if you can tell what they are trying to hide.

      If you go here

      You will find the judicial oath sworn by Ms Dorrian. It was, in complete form, thus:

      Judicial oath

      “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

      Now, back to your citation:

      2.2 The Justices have all sworn the judicial oath, which states:

      “I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”

      Can you see the difference?

      It’s obvious they are deeply ashamed of a judicial oath demanding subservience to a named individual.

      Deeply ashamed to the extent that they try to hide it through omission. They even left out the conjunction “and” before “I will do right….

      And deeply ashamed they should be.

      Any regime that requires its judiciary to swear fealty to the Supreme Leader is by definition a dictatorship.

      However many times I make the point about this oath it seems to be missed by the readership. As though they don’t care about oaths, that oaths do not matter. Some have actually made such a statement.

      Do they not believe such oaths are enforced? If so I suggest trying it on when next in the dock.


      It is Queen Elizabeth who is flagellating Craig Murray.

      Queen Elizabeth and her family. The Garter Knights.

      • Frank Hovis

        If that’s the wording of the oath Lady Dorrian took there’s a glaring error in it i.e. “Our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second”. Her Maj is the first of that name to be Queen of Scotland. Elizabeth Tudor was never Queen of Scotland. Does this make the oath invalid? I think we should be told!

  • Tony_0pmoc

    The 3 best books I have read in my life.
    Number 1 Susan Lindauer “Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq”
    Number 2 Craig Murray “Murder in Samarkand, A British Ambassador’s Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror”
    Number 3 Arthur Koestler “Scum of the Earth”

    They all have a very similar theme

    If you are jailed tomorrow, which so far as I am concerned, would be one of the most outrageous injustices since the jailing of Steven Biko, then you are in extremely Good Company.

    I suggest some rich parchment paper, and the best old fountain pen, with indellible ink.

    You have already more than made your mark, so you might as well write your best book yet.

    Good luck,


  • 6033624

    I wish all the best to you and your wife & family, Craig. This plea is heartfelt and very moving. I hope that they pay attention to it.

  • Ian

    This is very moving and heartfelt plea which will, no doubt, fall on deaf ears. Despite its evident request for justice to be considered.

    However, one question I ask myself is how the Scottish system as a whole regards the considerable damage to its reputation, both internationally and in the eyes of its own citizens, journalists and politicians.

    Everybody concurs that Dorrian has gone out on a petty, vindictive limb here, and has based her judgement on entirely speculative and hypothetical grounds. The lack of any evidence whatsoever for her imaginative constructions of the inner workings of Craig’s mind and an entirely fictional person who is exceptionally good at jigsaws would surely seen this case thrown out by any rigorous review of the facts.

    So the question is what do her fellow judges think of this tantrum she has thrown? Do they just keep their heads down and ignore it, or do they realise that the reputations of all of them and the Scottish system will be severely damaged by such a blatantly prejudicial and wildly disproportionate judgement and sentence? Do they care? They ought to.

    In which case, it would surely benefit the system as a whole that they let it be known to her that she has allowed her private opinion to cloud her judgement and that the best course is to allow the appeal and cancel the jail sentence. A system with checks and balances would encourage such a rational verdict, at the same time demonstrating that the court is not immune to good argument and sound common sense. Older, wiser and cooler heads would be seen to prevail, and their reputation would at least be partially redeemed. Remember this is an internationally observed case, it is highly ironic that the Sturgeon crowd are so desperate to be badged as ‘progressive’ while encouraging and turning a blind eye to such a feudal, repressive case. Well, here is an opportunity to show that they understand the basic principles of free speech, political commentary and justice free from prejudice. Which will they choose?

    • Fredi

      Which will they choose?

      Indeed. A large international audience are watching to see if their corruption matches their stupidity.

1 2 3 4