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
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
“Craig even wouldn’t tell me the women’s names or identities …”
Reminds me of “A Man for All Seasons”, when Thomas More refused to tell even his wife Alice why he wouldn’t take the king’s oath. Didn’t save him in the end, either.
Our Craig is effectively being imprisoned because he didn’t act in the service of the public. Had he named the names prior to the trial then the people would have known the facts, the trial would have lasted 10 minutes, the alphabetties would all be in prison, the SMSM couldn’t have been able to cover up for their corrupt paymasters, nicola murrell wouldn’t be First Minister, the Alba party would have had over a year to grow prior to the elections, we’d have some actual progress towards freedom by now, Hirst, Llewellyn, Thomson and the rest wouldn’t have been dragged through he courts.
See next time you have information which proves that a former First Minister if being set up by the current one you publish it. You ensure that everyone knows before they can put the structures in place to silence you.
CM is a victim of his own goody 2 shoes be nice to our enemies approach. Unfortunately his inaction has also blighted the lives of every other innocent citizen of Scotland.
A valuable lesson learned.
I don’t know if all you say is true: it’s not my country.
But I think there’s been insufficient attention paid to how the anonymity rule for those alleging to be sex-crime victims has become an extreme instance of the tail wagging the dog. There may be a case to be made that preserving such anonymity among the general public is desirable (debatable), and even that it should be legally enforceable in some way (much more debatable – in the U.S. the practice is entirely a matter of journalistic restraint, no judicial compulsion, other than for minors, and it still basically holds).
However, that it should become the single overriding public policy, trampling every consideration of exposing official malfeasance and of freedom of speech and of the press, as it has in the extended Salmond case, is utterly unacceptable. There is indeed no honor to be claimed in distorting and contorting one’s writing to conform to such a regime, and no merit other than the homely, human one of wanting to stay free of the state’s clutches and out of prison.
And, of course, Craig’s scruples haven’t even succeeded in that respect. Considered as part of his larger advocacy for Scottish independence, he may be learning (perhaps late for someone with his C.V.) that even if such political change can be effected nonviolently (we’ll see), it’s a disservice to himself and his cause to pretend it will play out according to the niceties and all quite cricket, old chap.
As long as I’ve already gone on too long, I might as well add: why doesn’t somebody in Edinburgh go all White Rose, find an old fashioned printing press (no “yellow dots”/MIC), print a large stack of leaflets with the conspirators’ names, and cover the streets with them until the suppression policy becomes nugatory? (I recall from reporting on this blog that one of the alphabet ladies was much less culpable than the rest, but by the same token she wouldn’t be harmed by her name being made public.)
As a former law officer I swore an Oath to discharge my duties without fear, favour, affection, malice, nor ill will.
The Alex Salmond verdict appeared from the published documents to be fair and just.
However, from this letter by Craig’s wife from a place where self-immolation is a woman’s last refuge appears dangerously close to seeing one of the highest law officers in the country bringing the Scottish Legal System into serious and actionable disrepute.
With more sadness than anger, I am now going to consult with a friend and member of the Faculty of Advocates on the protocols of removing law officers at any rank, from the positions to which they were appointed.
This grotesque and deeply unjust action against you Craig is very troubling to say the least.It seems clear to me the only ones showing contempt that deeply damages Scotland’s worldwide reputation are those who have so obviously stitched you up.Its genuinely terrifying Scotland has allowed these twisted charlatans to get away with this.
I completely fail to understand why Garavelli,Wark and the BBC are not being pursued or held to the same standard.They clearly revealed far more of the jigsaw.Something is very rotten indeed.
Stay strong Craig,my very best wishes to you and your family.
The Scottish Legal system is profoundly bruised.
The Right Honourable Alex Salmond warned of this in his sworn evidence to the Fabianni Committee.
There appears to be a toxicity that is infecting several venerable institutions in Scotland.
Lady Dorrian is straying far too close to the her inner politician and those with whom she surrounds herself. As evidence to that, I present the opinion of others, far more learned than myself. For my sins, I had very similar professional powers of arrest, detention and imprisonment as the Lady Dorian holds in her hand.
The term “to break a butterfly on a wheel” is evident here. When a sitting judge fails to recuse herself from a case in which evidence exists she should have recused herself, to wit political partiality in the matter to hand, then those charged with protecting the reputation of the Scottish judiciary either MUST act to remedy the bad stain, or sit by and watch disrepute and judiciary become common bedfellows in the minds of an entire nation.
I present as evidence, the peers of Lady Dorrian and their learned opinion on matters that may prove substantive in the current treatment at her hand, of Craig Murray and whether the Faculty of Advocates up to the First Minister and BEYOND are prepared to see the erosion of faith in our judiciary…
https://www.irishlegal.com/article/scotland-judiciary-imperils-right-to-a-fair-trial-with-renewed-attack-on-juries
Al-Stuart – the whole problem is jury-free trials. Juries bring a level of sanity and common sense, while judges can entirely lose reasonable perspective when they get too engrossed in the technicalities of the law. A jury can acquit, even if they think the law has been broken, because they take the view either that it is a rubbish law, or that it shouldn’t be applied in the way that the judge suggests.
It is dumping the concept of trial-by-jury that has profoundly bruised the Scottish Legal system.
If there had been a jury at Craig Murray’s trial, Lady Dorrian’s political convictions – or, indeed, any other factor that prejudiced her, wouldn’t have mattered at all; any jury would probably have acquitted him. It is only when they remove the jury that the weird and twisted mind-set of the judge becomes a problem.
Al-Stuart – thanks for the link. Interesting article. It proves that Lady Dorrian is the problem.
Hugely arrogant of her to want to get rid of the jury – she wants single judge trials where she can shout `off with his head’ without any fear of contradiction.
Jimmy
Might work out in Craig’s favour, all these dubious juryless convictions don’t make a good case for the concept so they?
I do think it is great in the long run. `Let all the poisons that lurk under the mud hatch out’ as Derek Jacobi said in the final episode of I Claudius.
It’s a bad concept and we really are seeing the dark side of the moon here.
The more heinous things they do, such as banging up people like Craig Murray, the more clearly we see that the judicial system is utterly corrupt.
The only problem here – and an extremely major concern – Craig Murray is not in good health. I personally would be very happy to get banged up – but I am worried about the physical strain of a custodial sentence on Craig Murray.
Al-Stuart
The idea of juryless courts for serious crime is outrageous. It seems to me to be about giving the state permission to trump up charges and convict whoever stands in its way. How can anyone present this as some kind of modern panacea to conviction rate. It sounds like something one might expect in Saudi Arabia, where state persecution is ripe. What next? Rebuilding deacon Brodie’s scaffold?
Take a look at this Shatnersrug, the scheming and planning is in full flow.
“Specialist courts in Scotland should be set up to deal with the most serious sex crimes, a review has recommended.
One suggestion is for cases to be heard by a single judge with no jury.
The review, led by Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorrian, is part of a shake-up of how Scottish courts deal with rape and other sexual offences cases.”
https://archive.is/Nbo4B#selection-743.0-759.144
Republicofscotland – there was a suggestion in the article that Al-Stuart linked to that it is all a question of productivity. A trial is considered a success if the defendant gets banged up and a failure if the defendant is acquitted.
Having a jury isn’t very good for convictions, because a jury has an annoying habit of wanting to see convincing proof.
The picture of Lady Dorrian, dressed in all her clobber, in the picture in the article Al-Stuart linked to reminded me of the picture of the Queen of Hearts in my 5 year old son’s book of Disney stories and the illustrations for the Disney version of Alice in Wonderland.
The only thing necessary to complete the picture: Lady Dorrian should be carrying a flamingo in her hand. She is already pretty good at shoulting `off with his head’.
The whole business, though, is basically a Thatcherite productivity drive for the courts, where productivity is measured in terms of the number of convictions.
RoS
How did we get here? Many people on here are saying it’s always been like this, corruption own nest feathering etc. But the death of the press in any kind of meaningful confrontational way has really got to be what has allowed the situation to develop. The Scottish government now fund the legacy media in Scotland and the Guardian and Mail certainly take large handouts from Boris. And the rest from banks and oil companies. But what happened to bolshy editors that hated politicians, they all been replaced by people that went to school with them.
Shatnersrug
” permission to trump up charges”
That is the whole point of spying on people, so that you can convict them of things they do in privacy which the state disapproves of but which are perfectly legal. It’s a massive exercise in mud-slinging in the vain hope of intimidating people into approved behaviour.
The state has tied itself in knots by publicly stating the West is free , while privately penalizing them for things that are not illegal.
Every government in the world now wants to control the people by spying on them and harassing those who disagree with them.on trumped up charges.
That is why the Tories are terrified of Huawei getting access to their people’s misdemeanours through a different back door to their own Google back door.
And No, it is not outrageous. It is the world we live in . Absolutely nothing to do with this particular judge or that political in that political.party. Anybody who gets above the glass ceiling of access to 24/7 state and corporate pooled spying has these tools, none of which are remotely connected to what we call the Law.
Mosques, schools, universities, corporations, G.Ps can now decide, like the Chinese Communist Party, who to give their favours to and who to prosecute for made up thought crimes. The whole world is doing it.
I am just so grateful that I made right decisions in life not to have that meaningless power to dictate to humanity what thought is allowed and what prohibited..
They say the Lady Dorrian is un-corruptible. Yes , they all are, completely incapable of being corrupted more than they already are!
“, like the Chinese Communist Party, who to give their favours to and who to prosecute for made up thought crimes. “
What do we know about the CCP other than what its enemies tell us?
This judge unfortunately dances to the tune of a higher political authority, one who appointed her and in whose hands her career prospects still reside. That isn’t to say an appeal direct to the organ grinder herself would have been any less futile. It would have been received with a cruel, satisfied smirk. No, any hope of justice lies in going beyond Scottish jurisdiction. Taken out of their hands, there may yet be a thunderous rebuke that will see the snipe’s smirk replaced with a glower. That is the only sane end to this vindictive farce.
U Watt – I don’t think she dances to anybody’s tune, except perhaps that of an inner voice inside her head. I get the impression that she is seriously deranged and should probably be put in a straight-jacket.
Of course, the fact that there might be a promotion in it for her could be helping to direct these inner voices.
The first thing to really appreciate is that there is no meaningful separation of powers in the UK.
The supposed independent judiciary is a myth; not only are the overwhelming majority of judges selected from the same class-background as those in the civil service and executive, on a micro-level, the civil service, who serve their political masters, decide on the particular case for specific judges. This is done both at first instance level and at appellate level. So, by choosing the judge, a seemingly purely administrative matter, the powers that be can ensure that they can ‘rig’ the outlook by their choice. That is why juries can thwart this rigging and why they will be abolished.
At appellate level, it is the choice judge or judges that is crucial. Again, this choice will ensure that the desired outcome is achieved, with the appearance, falsely, of due process.
Deepest wishes from my heart to yours Nadira, as you and your family come to terms with the despicable crime that has been committed against your loving husband..
Okey-doke.
I guess you could say I come from the other side on this one, in general terms. Without the Rule of Law, and note the capitals which aren’t always used, we are no steps away from wild life, the jungle, the cave dweller, the hunter, the rule of the fittest and biggest, and the one with the biggest club. The bully and his or her gang.
But without commenting on the rights and wrongs of the case itself, the Rule of Law owes its existence to legislators, advocates – and judges. And the over-riding observation in my experience, is that the Rule of Law uses logic as its main tool, together with understanding and analysis of the written word – as in Laws, but also as in any written material, whether paper or digital.
And an over-arching principle of that Rule of Law, is that we MUST be all equal in the Law, all Laws apply equally to all of us, and indeed, after a guilt has been decided, so must be the punishment.
From that point of view, if any attempt is made to “make an example” of someone who has been convicted, then that in itself goes against the Rule of Law, and brings the legal system into disrepute. And it is only by the acceptance by a vast majority of us all of the Rule of Law, its need, its fairness, its integrity, that the Rule of Law will survive change, threat, trouble, new technology, new media, new challenges.
And THAT should be all I need to say about that.
So what was Craig’s fate this day?
yesindyref2
Don’t really know why you bothered with this post. Somewhat tendentious and not really helpful.
Yesindieref2
Have you been in the pub?
Yesindyref2
Getting bored slinging your mud on WGD.
Are you trying to get a reputation as someone who was just born yesterday? Rule of Law? Equal? Very sorry to punch a hole in your dream bubble, but have you ever done a study of who gets convicted for crimes and why? If you do, you will quckly learn that your great Rule of Law is gender-biased in the extreme, treats women as imbecilc children, and turns a blind eye to the crimes of the rich and the powerful, treating them too as spoiled brats who only deserve a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, your Rule of Law continues to serve as a political tool for punitively destroying the lives of the poor, the dissidents, and the blacks, in the great tradition of Great Britain. Your great Rule of Law is shot through with politics, and the most heinous myths are that it is ‘independent’ and ‘impartial’. If you were just born yesterday, though, you will have lots of time to find that out for yourself, if you care to do so.
Marmite
yesindyref2 is making the same point as you but in a different way.
Courtenay,
Verdict/sentence delayed until tomorrow.
Jm,
Minimal good sign – for the moment there is doubt whether or not the 8 months might not create more problems than it solves.
Minimal hope – yet, maximum respect for Craig Murray – whatever the final decision.
The verdict is to be given in writing, so I don’t expect good news. Just another way for Ms Dorrian to slither out of her duties.
Shatnersrug,
Normally the Judge assigns a delivery date for Judgment and then reads it all out ( maybe back in the old days for me).
Anyway – as things stand – you may be right and the Judgment is given in writing without any reading ( for the hypocrisy of it all might just be too painful to express in spoken words) – so – yes – she just might slither out of her duty.
I remember back in the “National Conversation” days, when there was talk of releasing Megrahi on compassionate grounds due to his terminal cancer, and there were a lot of protests including an ex-chief of the FBI. McAskill and Salmond stood their ground – it was part of Scots Law, and let nobody tell us what to do, no matter how powerful the country or the people.
I was so proud back then, this was Scots Law, applied properly – and with compassion, and with resolve.
Seems to me moderate people, those who believe in the Rule of Law, should be watching the reports of the results of the hearing later today very thoughtfully, and hopefully we will be as proud as we were back in 2009.
Only a rabid dog could be proud of Scots law in this case.
Rena
Yesindyref2 is no rabid dog just an example of the type of follower of the personality cult of Sturgeon.
yesindyref2 – you shouldn’t have been proud of this one. Megrahi was convicted in a trial without a jury and the evidence was so flimsy that it is very difficult to see how a jury of 15 good people and true, simply trying to assess whether there was sufficient evidence that `he dunnit’, would have convicted him.
This was a miscarriage of justice – without any decent way of appealing the decision.
It was already going pear-shaped back then; the principle of trial-without-a-jury in cases where it was supposedly too difficult for the proletariat to make sense of the issues had already been established.
You are absolutely right about one aspect here – given the absurd legal situation, Salmond and McAskill did absolutely the right thing when they let him out on compassionate grounds.
Pride: the #1 cardinal sin and the root of much evil. The Devil’s best trick was making people think it’s good.
Ms Murray
I hope the judges think very carefully before confirming the sentence. Your letter is very powerful and should make the judges reconsider. One punch manslaughter used to have a starting tariff of 2 years or thereabouts. An 8 month custodial sentence when compared to that example shows how disproportionate Mr Murray’s sentence is. Dorrian is unlikely to be influenced by Sturgeon or anyone else. Though if some of the comments are accurate; it might have become personal with her.
Why is Dorrian unlikely to be influenced by her patron Sturgeon?
I’m confused.
Separation of powers. I haven’t read anything to suggest she was influenced by Sturgeon. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Dorrian was appointed by the Queen and perhaps some oath to the Queen was required. I would have expected that Sturgeon role would have been to follow the recommendation from some judicial appointments board in advice to the Crown.
Granted the DJ in Assange trial was giving judgements on various matters prepared before she had heard the arguments, according to Murray. However it is plausible that she heard nothing to cause her to change her view.
She was appointed to her current position by Sturgeon. It is also Sturgeon she needs to impress if she is to be appointed Lady Advocate.
It is murrell and her hatred of Men she has to appease if she wants to be promoted. Hence improving the conviction rate for rape cases by abolishing juries. Have a think about how terrifying it is that people just accept the notion of “improving” the conviction rate. 70% of rape cases end in a conviction and 100% (prior to last year) of Moorov cases.
The idea that 100% of all cases brought by the state should end with a guilty verdict should be rejected by any thinking person.
I think a big part of the problem is and has been, that the Judges hold Craig Murray responsible for the comments on his blog, whereas the authors of many of those comments are not responsible in psychological terms, nor do they have any interest in his welfare and freedom. They grind their own axe in complete disregard. It is a feature of so-called “social” media unfortunately, a very selfish and self-absorbed medium.
Are you talking about the SNP , mabeindyref2? or are you dreaming again.
Your attention here is not directed to the issues you aparently espouse to, so who has offered you a job? in whose pay are you?
Not sure why everyone is so down on indyref2. His/her comments seem at least as reasonable as many others here?
The other factor Uwontbegrinningsoon is age. An eight month sentence for someone over 60 even in good health is equivalent to say 2 years for someone in their twenties. With Craig’s health a factor then clearly the sentence is way over the top and prison for someone a first offender for a controversial misdemeanor is just beyond crazy. Clearly Lady Dorian (why the “lady” I don’t know) is guilty of ageist abuse.
Peter Mo
The trouble is this is Craig’s noughth offence.
Dorrian’s controllers are just asking her to convict him of something as Tiddly widdly as a dandelion seed wafting by so that they can pursue their other grievances again st an already convicted criminal.
The Lady Dorrian is neither mad nor bad, but like Dr Faustus not fully clued up on the full details of the deal she has been offered.
The deal is, ‘ you just convict him on some false accusation, thought up by the Sanhedrin _/ Murrells, and leave the rest to us.’
What the deal means is that if the devolved government of Scotland fails to bring the Independence movement of a now empire-less London under control, direct rule will be imposed from Westminster. Keep it sweet, do as you are told, convict Craig on no evidence, and you will keep your devolution gravy train.
Mess up, and see what happens next. Your choice darling. Don’t forget.
When Boris Johnson says Scottish devolution has been a disaster , that’s Etonian slang for ‘ we are going to pass immediate legislation to prepare for the return of Scotland to Westminster control unless the Murrells ( who they? ) give up this independence nonsense.
We will pass it using our fake majority of 80 seats and our fake Labour Party.
And if that fails, we will put our fake Labour Party in power with an even bigger fake majority and get them to do it.
Question is: Does the Lady Dorrian write her own judgement, or is she handed it, already written in a sealed envelope like Baraitser? I don’t think Bojo will trust a woman with Craig’s future. It will be written for her and then she resigns like James Wolffe.
‘Make never meen for me,’ she says,
‘Make never meen for me;
Seek never grace frae a graceless face,
For that ye’ll never see
(Ballad of Mary Hamilton)
Please provide details to attend today’s (Tuesday 8 June) virtual court
Thanks
It seems we are not allowed today.
Yesterday’s code not working.
Given that it was supposed to be a ‘written judgement’ I guess it wouldn’t be as comedic as the three stooges bench act as previous …
Let us await CM or whoever updates us here – he has posted a couple of tweets worth reading this morning.
No hearing today. The written judgement will just get published somewhere by the court.
Pilate’s dithering comes to mind. But we know what his eventual decision was. So I would still make up your prison bag with good flipflops and earplugs, in case.
M.J.
Dorrian has a simple choice, to succumb to the use & abuse threats of a cardboard cut-out prime minister and get resigned for her pains like Wolffe, after obeying orders and sending CM to prison.,
Or, face the Peer Review of the Supreme Court and be publicly humiliated and her reputation and life chances destroyed.
Since neither choice is acceptable to her, she might just decide to let him off and eventually get another job doing something else.
My bet is option 3. Actalented woman of integrity with a burning ambition to improve the lot of women in society has nothing to gain from orders barked at her by middle class white males.
Giyane – I get the impression that Lady Dorrian sincerely believes in what she is doing – and it may well be the opposite of what you think. Perhaps Lady Dorrian is taking the lead and perhaps Nicola Sturgeon is following. Dorrian is a determined lady, who is as mad as a brush.
Jimmy Riddle
There’s a wee problem here. I was brought up with TBWs , or typical british women as my Jewish Classics masters described them, and he encountered a few as a teacher at a public school. They are not mad, but they have only completely mad alpha males to socialise with in their teens., which gives them a warped view of men. as I also did for a long time , for the same reason.
Giyane – well, I wouldn’t say she was a TBW in that sense. I think I know the type you mean – although I have no idea about the issues that you raise (how a background where they only meet dodgy males might shape the character).
It doesn’t really explain very much, since these women whom you were brought up with didn’t go around shouting `off with his head!’ at the drop of a hat – and they did not in general find their way into the judiciary with the sole purpose of jailing as many men as they possibly could on the flimsiest of excuses.
I’d say rather that Lady Dorrian may be a caricature of the sort of women that you are talking about – and perhaps Lewis Carrol’s `Queen of Hearts’ from Alice in Wonderland is modelled on one of these. So there is something in what you say, but I maintain that Lady Dorrian is a caricature of the type that you describe – and that she is quite mad and needs to be put into a straight jacket.
I’m surprised. I thought she would relish the opportunity to say `off with his head!’
Anyway, the woman is clearly as mad as a brush ……
Craig, many people might say “This is the 21st Century for goodness sake”. I think what we should be saying is “This is only the 21st Century and we clearly have a long way to go”.
That is in the sense of Democracy, but also the Rule of Law, in respect of achieving a separation between the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. While having some measure of oversight of all of them, and building in at least two words “review” and “reform”.
I don’t think I’m the only “moderate” who has had cause to think about this in fact I know I’m not, and it includes some who owe their living to Law in one way or another, whose opinions I respect.
Seems to me in years to come this may be known as the “Craig Murray Case”. And perhaps being a catalyst for improvement is a suitable achievement for most of us.
Missed out the word “citizen” in there – we are all citizens, no more, and no less. And it is us who should provide the oversight, and much, much, more.
I may be wrong, and if so I would obviously appreciate correction asap, but my understanding of this is that Dorrian will release a written statement – not make a public statement in a courtroom.
However, I do not know at what time the statement is expected nor how it will be made public or how anyone, esp Craig’s many followers who will be anxiously awaiting the result, will be able to ascertain the judgement.
I’m sure urgent clarification would be greatly appreciated by all concerned.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg
Craig (or someone on his behalf) has been tweeting this morning but so far has not mentioned any expected timing.
Ha, beat me to it.
Thanks Craig and good luck and best wishes for today – ‘the future is not written’.
The way I see it is that Dorrian’s appeal decision today is irrelevant, it’s going to the Supreme Court no matter what she decides. Her kicking is coming and she can’t avoid it.
There are perhaps two underlying ‘local’ aspects to consider here which helps serve to explain Scotland’s ‘justice’ system as we see it today.
First, we should remember the Scots are an ethnic minority in the UK context who have had an (alien?) cultural hegemony imposed on them that is predominantly anglophone and unionist, and which positions and is intended to position the Scots speaker as inferior. This has led to an ethnic and cultural division of labour in which most of the top jobs in Scotland are reserved for anglophones who are also predominantly unionists; a colonial style elite school system aimed at the more privileged and who likewise tend to be mainly anglophone, reinforces societal segregation and hence inequalities. The way Scottish society is structured thus reflects socio-linguistic prejudice which our resulting societal inequalities derive from. Scotland’s justice system led as it is by a privileged anglophone elite looks upon the indigenous native Scots speaker more or less in the same way a colonial overseer would regard a humble native and with all the psychological bias and ‘mental pathology’ that interaction involves. This goes some way to explain Scotland having the largest prison population per head in western Europe which in large part reflects our colonial and hence oppressive reality.
Second, and reflecting our colonial reality, as the pressures leading towards independence (i.e. decolonisation) intensify we should very much expect to see the active intervention of the British security services in seeking to direct the justice system to their own desired ends. Hence the now constant stream of mostly malicious prosecutions brought against pro-independence politicians and campaigners. Craig has already highlighted the role of the security services in Crown and police operations (as the ‘arms’ of the British state in Scotland) and it does not seem unreasonable to assume that Scotland must also have its own Baraitsers’ sitting in judgment of revolting natives; the latter is really not much different from the longstanding colonial reality as far as most ordinary Scots are concerned. Which takes us directly to the ultimate motivation for the independence of a people which is to remove an oppressor, an oppressor which invariably presents themselves in the same ‘skin’ as the colonized, albeit speaking in a different language and adopting the values of a different culture.
Let’s remember that independence is decolonisation and that colonialism involves racism and prejudice and lies at the root of fascism and what we are witnessing here in Scotland in any death throes of what remains of the British state is colonialism in aw its mankit naitur.
Alf Baird
Once again your political analysis is perfect, but Craig Murray served successfully under Thatcher’s Tory government who have now been ousted and kicked by Bojo’s slightly right of Netanya Hoo government. Dominic Grieve was Attorney General, now nursing his sore parts, and erstwhile supporter of Craig’s complaints about torture rendition .
So Craig is very far indeed from having no allies in Westminster. The US / Assange wonks can nobble Craig, but Bojo’s inflatable bimbo Tory party can’t.
Indeed, Giyane, the youngest most promising ambassador the FCO ever appointed is now being hung out to dry by their politically frothing Scottish frontline judges, you could not make it up.
I hope that the judgement will be publushed to you first, not some office where political policing is de rigeur.
Take care of yourself Craig, you come first at present.
We know that. Except in this case you have an english raised and educated member of the political class being prosecuted. Not some gadgie from Pilton.
One can be an intellectual as well a revolting native.
Alf Baird
The Kurds were bombed by the British in 1920 and they said English was easy to learn, just speak normal Kurdish with an Oxford accent like BoJo on one of his bad days.The intonation will tell the meaning.
Murray had his school education in England, but went to Dundee University – and offshoot of the ancient St Andrews.
So whilst I nearly wrote that he had a Scottish higher education, on re-reading the above sentence I will revise that to “he had is higher education in Scotland – since sadly our universities are no longer Scottish, for the reasons so eloquently expressed by Professor Baird here.
Good comment Alf, I agree wholeheartedly with it.
Judgement is here.
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused by Lady Dorrian.
Imprisonment is suspended until 6 July while we apply direct to the Supreme Court to hear the appeal.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1402235958129483785
Me: Step by step, moving forwards?
“Step by step, moving forwards?”
Perhaps that depends on how vocal “moderates” become about this, particularly in Scotland.
It’s pretty clear to me some reform is needed, perhaps including some sort of external “Citizens panel” to provide an opinion to Judges about some issues – opinion which could of course be ignored. Such a panel could include Law professors, non-advocate solicitors, etc.
Yesindyref2
The reform that is needed is the removal of Sturgeon and her gang from power.
“perhaps including some sort of external “Citizens panel” to provide an opinion to Judges about some issues”
Almost like a jury?
If Craig had had one, he almost certainly wouldn’t be in this terrible situation now.
I believe it was the Magna Carta that granted us the right to a “jury of peers”.
Your “Rule of Law” argument is as threadbare and transparent as your waving of the Saltire.
I wonder why Lady Dorrian would refuse leave to appeal.
“I wonder why Lady Dorrian would refuse leave to appeal.”
Because that’s what they do – they just do what the f*** they like, and (normally) no one can stop them, and no-one stands up to them. She really doesn’t want the grown-ups marking her homework.
They slipped up here, apparently, by having three judges sitting which allows an applicant to apply straight to the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately for Craig, the SC has changed somewhat from the days when it was headed by the estimably independent Lady Hale – to be replaced by the very right-wing Lord Reed, who unfortunately is a “Scottish” judge.
So perhaps Ms Dorrian was only being pragmatically logical since she knows that the Scottish judiciary is an old-pals act, with a substantial dynastic element, drawn from the Edinburgh haute bourgeoisie colonial enforcers. They stick together and turn logical and legal summersaults to avoid upsetting each others’ judgements. Decent chaps.
Reed’s biography is standard issue Edinburgh colonial law stuff. He studied law at Edinburgh University and undertook doctoral research in law at the University of Oxford. He qualified as an advocate in Scotland and as a barrister in England. He practised at the Scottish Bar in a wide range of civil cases, and also prosecuted serious crime.
It is unlikely that Ms Dorrian has much to fear from such a reliable chap.
I fear that Craig Murray will have to take his case to Europe to stand any chance of justice.
I really hope I am wrong.
“Because that’s what they do – they just do what the f*** they like, and (normally) no one can stop them, and no-one stands up to them.”
Eloquently and accurately put, John. The Fabiani ‘redaction and witness amnesia’ farce demonstrated rather well that real power in Scotland lies primarily with the Scottish legal establishment, not with any devolved Holyrood ‘parish cooncil’ as Blair rightly called it, which has merely morphed into another layer of colonialism via its unwanted legislation, dubious agendas and daeless stance on independence despite six successive pro-independence Scotland majorities at Holyrood and Westminster. The Scottish legal establishment ensured its continued lofty status and privileges were enshrined in the treaty of union at the time Scottish sovereignty was sold off (by them?) and they even still sit in the auld pairlament itsel up in Parliament Square, making the law up as they go along. This is arguably where the real power in Scotland lies, unelected, as it has done since the union and before. As you imply, the justiciary are not answerable to anyone, and certainly not to Holyrood, yet remain ever loyal gatekeepers to the colonial power and its interests which guarantees their status and privileges, whilst keeping the restless natives in check, and ensuring Scotland remains in its place. Wings also established in correspondence with Ministers that neither the Crown in Scotland nor Police Scotland are in fact answerable to Scottish Ministers, which means their real controllers are in Whitehall. Does anyone seriously believe the Murrell’s are really in charge of any of this merry bunch?
“Does anyone seriously believe the Murrell’s are really in charge of any of this merry bunch?”
I do, 100%.
Who do you think hand picks and nominates these judges?
Sarge,
Judicial appointments are nominally made by the First Minister on the recommendation of the Scottish Judicial Appointments Board. She could refuse their nomination(s) but so far as I am aware, never has.
You can see how they make sure only the ‘right’ type of chap makes it to the bench here:
https://www.judicialappointments.scot/about/meet-our-team/board-members
The Board
There are twelve Board Members: four judicial and two legal members (two Judges, a Sheriff Principal, a Sheriff, an Advocate and a Solicitor) and six lay members including the Lay Chairing Member.
The present interim chairing person is somebody called Ms Deirdre Fulton. She is not a lawyer, but the rest are.
Appointments to the Board will also be very, very carefully selected. It really is just a cabal.
Correction to the above. Of the twelve members, six are lawyers six are ‘lay’.
Interestingly eight of twelve are female. The lay members are the usual assortment of business people, management consultants, HR so-called professionals (three of them – really bad news) a banker – all the usual bullshit occupations.
Nice middle class ‘dependable’ types – on a handy £296 per day – a bit more than jobseekers or universal benefit – probably in addition to their salaries/dividends/capital gains. Not quite as much as Baroness Davidson will get in the House of Frauds – but it’ll pay for the nanny and the green fees.
Hmmm, very odd, requires interpretation by someone with (much) greater legal knowledge than I.
The (not so) good lady judge says “no you cannot appeal to the Supreme Court but yes you can and you have four weeks to do so”.
If Craig’s appeal is accepted might the (not so) good lady judge suspend the prison sentence (seeing as she has suspended it for now) pending the judgement of the Supreme Court, which, according to Craig, could take years?
Appealing is not straight forward. The court hearing the matter at first instance can grant leave to appeal or refuse leave to appeal. If the latter, then that decision itself can be appealed to the Supreme Court. In that event if the Supreme Court allows the appeal then the appeal proceeds. So the judge has refused leave to appeal and the Defence have four weeks to lodge their appeal against her finding to the Supreme Court.
Clear? Just like the bias.
@Ingwe
Strewth. So if I understand you right, and you are right, then Craig has to appeal to the Supreme Court (SC) twice – once to overturn his denial of leave to appeal to the SC, and then a second appeal to the SC against his conviction and sentence?
Didn’t somebody once say “the law is an ass”?
you’ve got it Peter!
Dorrian is making it as difficult as possible, as expensive as possible and strewn with obstacles which she hopes no doubt will let her miserable, vindictive judgement off the hook. Meanwhile the agony of not knowing what is going on is prolonged for Craig, they have strung it out already quite unnecessarily and cruelly.
Well, from elsewhere “Is this a compatibility issue appeal (ie criminal) or an appeal appeal (ie civil)? Asking for someone confused by the sui generis nature of contempt.” from someone you could expect to know the answer, and if that person is confused, and others it seems, then there’s something clearly wrong, and I would, as a member of course of that hypothetical Citizens panel, use the word “Unsafe” as far as the proceedings were concerned, and recommend the sentence be immediately reduced to community service while future appeals might take place.
And that’s all I have to say about THAT.
I’m bewildered by this regime. It presents itself and is represented by the media as ultra inclusive, empathetic and liberal. Yet here it is spitefully wrecking the life of a good man over some totally confected, inconsequential blx. The FM and her judicial proxies have had long periods to reflect on this case and retreat from their laughably unjust authoritarianism but each time have just doubled down.
Craig’s readers know he has healthy contempt for Scottish and UK elites but there can be no doubt that if he were in Nicola’s position he would be scrupulously just and compassionate even to his worst enemies. Sadly most of the public are blithely unaware of how unfairly Craig has been treated since the MSM’s paltry reporting has omitted most of the vital details and context. I pray an appeal does swiftly land on the desks of the supreme justices in London; people who are not beholden in any way to Edinburgh’s bitter, vindictive queen wasp.
Anthony
We don’t live in that time anymore. There was a coup. I believe it happened around about 2013, after the Snowden Leaks and around the Bilderberg Watford meet up. For Scotland it’s implications didn’t really hit till after the Indy ref. Remember Alex stating defiantly he would fight on, only to sheepishly announce later that day he would be stepping aside.
Elites simply will not tolerate democracy anymore. You can read it everywhere in the legacy media. Articles like “does democracy work?” And “do we need technocrats?” It’s everywhere. Those legacy papers especially the guardian are not read or supported by mass readership, they are trade papers marketed to and supported by liberal elites, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos to name the most obvious. These are the people that Nicola Sturgeon and Keir Starmer tip there hats to not the demos, who can be reliably convinced to vote against their own interests come election time.
People speak of Boris and Nicola being at loggerheads but I doubt it, I believe behind closed doors they pote themselves a big glass of Champaign each and toast the miraculous stitch up they’ve performed against the British people.
I see it the same way. The liberal west is today only nominally democratic, being dominated by finance and monopoly capital, with reality cynically distorted by billionaire-owned media.
People like Nicola incessantly boast of tolerant, democratic values while crushing even the mildest dissent, and could hardly be more judgemental, prescriptive and interventionist towards regimes that do not meet their estimable standards.
She will be remembered as one of the most emblematic figures of this Orwellian age.
The tolerance Nicola and modern politicians in general boast of is for the gay and trans kids elites may have and for Zionist murder. It goes no further than that
It may make you feel better to pretend that NS and BJ have a limited popularity but electoral events show clearly that they are becoming more popular not less so. It may also be comforting in an echo chamber type of way to blame this popularity on the manipulated media and electoral system but the left or the ‘Resistence’ has only itself to blame for not being able to recapture the agenda and to find a way to combat all these manipulated democracy.
SA
Why is the left to blame for being unable to capture the agenda in a viciously hostile media environment? You state it as if nothing were more self-evident. But it is not self-evident to me.
How, to take the present example, are the key details of Craig’s case – those outlined by Kirsten Macdonald in the previous post – to be brought to a mass audience?
So they have punted to the long grass until all the festivities are over (Biden/Windsor, G7).
That way the Brits don’t have to answer any difficult questions over “WTF is going on?”
They are not only despicable, but they are despicable cowards.
Anonymous 16th Century song. Heard by me now as if somehow a lament both by and for Scotland. In solidarity here with Craig Murray and with all other victims of this administration’s perfidy. (I note that this youtube was posted by someone on 7 Oct 2014, not long of course after our referendum):
https://youtu.be/clP2MGn9Wss
REMEMBER ME MY DEIR
(Scottish, 16th century)
Remember me my deir/dear,
I humbly you require
For my request that loves you best
With faithfull heart entire
My heart shall rest
Within your breast.
Remember me my dear.
[Remember me, alas,
And let all rigour pass
That I may prove in you some love
To my joy and solace.
True love to move I most behove;
Remember me alas.]
Remember me in pain
With unkindness near slain.
That through delay of cruel way
That in you does remain
Remit, I say; alas alway
Remember me in pain.
Remember me dear heart
That of pains has my part.
Your words unkind sink in my mind
And do increase my smart;
Yet shall ye find me true and kind!
Remember me dear heart.
Where are the NUJ, LIBERTY, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL and all the other NGO’s ? Where are the Sanctions by US and EU on Scotland? Where is Bellingcat and the Integrity Initiative co-ordination of BBC and all media outlets all outraged at this Authoritarian attack on Journalism ? Oh, sorry, they’ve all finally gone on their holidays or on NATO excersises FFS…
According to the Herald, “delivering a written verdict today on behalf of herself, Lord Menzies and Lord Turnbull, Lady Dorrian refused, as there were “no arguable points of law arising”. ”
Let’s see whether the SCUK agrees.
M.J. – I don’t expect much from any of the UK judicial system, not even the Supreme Court. Julian Assange is still in Belmarsh. I think this tells us everything we need to know. The UK is no longer has a legal system worth tuppence ha’penny.
‘no arguable points of law arising”. FFS, how can they say that with a straight face. There are no points of law in their original judgement, based as it was on personal animosity, speculation and hypothesis. Everything they claimed, without evidence, is clearly ‘arguable’, so what were the ‘points of law’? Simply a decree by them, a feudal condemnation coupled with an appeal to a supernatural belief in their own power and ability to see what is not there. They cannot be serious.
Ian – bear in mind that Lady Dorrian is absolutely mad. She *is* the law as far as she is concerned and there is nothing to argue about in *her* mind.
Single judge trials without a jury, in a specially designed court room, where the plaintiff and witnesses are concealed from any audience – this simply takes her view of herself to its logical conclusion.
Absolutely nothing arguable in her mind.
She isn’t mad. She has been selected by the Scottish government to oversee justice in cases prosecuted by the Scottish government.
Ian – yes – she was selected by the Scottish government.
This in no way implies that she is actually all right in the head – and I’m sure there are a bunch of psychiatric researchers right now who find the workings of her brain very interesting and are writing papers for intellectual psychiatry journals.
“Lord Menzies and Lord Turnbull, Lady Dorrian refused, as there were “no arguable points of law arising”. “
This is a classic case of “well they would say that, wouldn’t they”. I mean, what is the alternative, “oh, we got it wrong, please get someone to tell us how”?
For reference, the judgment of the Scottish High Court of Justiciary is here: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj3.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Appeal to the UK Supreme Court limited to a human rights point. Now personally I’d say that art. 10 ECHR is infringed here at a minimum, but at this point who knows what the Supreme Court will say?
Martinned – personally I would say that when the law is so corrupt, it is simply a waste of time nit-picking over whether art. 10 ECHR or indeed any other point on any legal statute is infringed. Rather, it is time to get out the kalasnikovs.
I’ve been saying Craig should have gone to Dublin since this whole thing started.
The problem is leftwing people still seem to think this is the UK/Scotland we grew up in. It’s not. There has been a coup, and trying to play by the old rules is only going to get ya further in the shite
I think some of that judgement, if I’m allowed to even comment on it as a potential member of that Citizens’ Panel, is a circular argument, along the lines of “We make 12-inch rulers, we design our rulers to measure 12 inches, therefore our rulers are 12-inch rulers”. Which doesn’t actually mean they’re at all accurate, nor does it mean that a putative Trading Standards wouldn’t check them out and take them off the market if they didn’t do what it said on the tin. And then there’s this:
“[4] The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not.“
This begs two questions:
Anyway, I can be of no help by the look of it, except to say that the usual logic I expect seems to me to be missing.
“the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not.“ = censored.
The following quote suggests that the press is self-regulating
(from https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/press-regulation/):
“Print media in the UK are not subject to any specific statutory controls …
Instead the press effectively regulates itself through two primary press regulators. IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) … There is also a secondary regulation body called IMPRESS.”
The judges appearing to be saying that Craig is accountable to no-one else and that this fact is relevant. That means that any independent journalism is under threat, and with it, the principle of a free press.
Dorrian should have prefaced allegation as false allegation. Surely the status of “allegation” is different prior to when ruled on by a court. Even if the court hasn’t directly ruled them as false the inference is there so its highly misleading treating them in the same way. Is there any section in Scotland’s Acts similar to this one?
Conspiring to bring false accusation
Every one who conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence, knowing that person to be innocent thereof, is liable—
(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to preventive detention, or to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:
(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term less than 3 years.
Just posted about the latest development in this whole dark saga. How deeply ironic and disgraceful that a Scottish nationalist blogger needs to apply direct to the U.K. Supreme Court to try to stay out of jail. This is what we’ve we’ve come to in Sturgeon’s Scotland – looking to London for liberation!
https://wordpress.com/post/jaggy.blog/2613
Could be a big opportunity here. Suppose Craig takes this time between now and July to seek asylum in a foreign embassy in Edinburgh, the French embassy perhaps, similar to what Julian Assange did with the Ecuadorian embassy.
It’s all publicity to shine a light on this case.
And if Craig was granted asylum, would they send the police in to get him, again similar to Julian Assange?
Think of the headlines around the world.
What I’m saying, is look for something constructive to come from this affair. Don’t just sit on your hands waiting for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. Look for other angles with this.
Thats exactly what Cretins would like him to do ! Do you expect his wife and kids to be holed up in an embassy for years ?
It was a legitimate tactic for Julian Assange who has a partner and child or children. Why was it acceptable for him to do that but unacceptable for Craig to do the same?
I wouldn’t go bandying the word cretin around if I were you (which thankfully, I’m not.)
I doubt the French embassy would give Craig asylum, I see Macron got slapped on the face today in a small French village, that’s what I like about the French they’re not afraid to let their premier know how they feel, in Scotland we are donkeys led by the nose and would never think of actually telling Sturgeon how we feel face to face let alone physically express it.
Mist001. I was calling the so called Judicary Cretins, not thee.
When Julian entered the Ecuadorian embassy he did not have a relationship with anyone, he met his partner later on and they had children.
You can’t compare the two circumstances.
As for making it a more popular global call to justice for whistleblowers, and thanks for volunteering to entice the left field of french reporting to Scotland Misty, it would make Lady Dorrian and the rabid western MSM happy to prove that Craig is an obstinate fugitive from the law. He is not!
Has Ghana got an Embassy in Edinburgh?….;)
Mist001 – French embassy? You must be joking. The food there is terrible. You expect him to live off snails and frogs legs? On the other hand, if India has an embassy in Edinburgh, that would be worth thinking about.
Mist001
What if 100 people were prepared to put their money where their mouth is & jointly but separately publish their own 100 piece jigsaw puzzle, using ingeniously cryptic references that would impress a Times crossword’er, would the Crown be obliged to prosecute them all? Would that cast a brighter & wider light on this whole travesty of injustice?
Is it too long after the trial for that to work?
I’m dying to know who was the one most blatantly proved to be a perjurer, the accuser who was not at the dinner she claimed to be.
I’d publish the sh!t out of that, just to spit in the eye of Dorrian, Sturgeon & the rest of their conspirators.
Unfortunately, I haven’t got a clue who any of them are ‘cos I’ve only read all of CM’s articles (pre censorship) & not all the articles published by the ‘immune to prosecution’ MSM, which seems to be necessary to work out who the fk these scheming fiends are.
In these days of preemptive arrests or predictive thought crimes and fantasy persecutions, maybe I’m already liable for prosecution for just ‘thinking’ this, let alone posting this comment? …. am I a domestic extremist already??? …… is that a knock at the door????
Fk ’em!…… (Note to Crown: I only mean that figuratively, just in case I get fitted up with some misogynistic hate crime…. trust me, I would rather chop me bits off rather than soil them in such a manner)
Just no.
These identities must be protected and seen to be protected, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of future potential complainants. That’s the whole point of protection – to make people feel able to go to the police. I understand that the identity you seek is protected not just by ordinary contempt of court, but by a subsequent superinjunction.
What’s really and obviously corrupt is who’s been chosen for prosecution. There are others who have offended more blatantly, and with much wider audiences, who have not been prosecuted. If your politics is mainstream-SNP-Sturgeon, you don’t get prosecuted.
Robert – I used to be in favour of the idea of protecting identities – for precisely the reason you state. But if this really is the genuine concern of Lady Dorrian, then she ought to be very careful that this protection isn’t abused.
Clearly, the name of Alex Salmond has been seriously besmirched by these allegations, even though he was acquitted. People have been peddling the `oh the evidence wasn’t strong enough’ card and the `oh the jury reached a strange decision’ card, despite the details of what went on in court. The details, as recorded by Craig Murray, were simply that there were reliable witnesses to state that every single allegation against Salmond, except one, was a pack of lies.
It seems that this information cannot be communicated to a wider audience without breaching the court order protecting the identities of the accusers.
Something very, very wrong here.
Lady Dorrian is in the process of creating a huge backlash against the idea of protecting the identities of the accusers.
Josh R – alternatively, I saved all of Craig Murray’s pieces – and I was wondering if – say – 100 of us published on our own websites the pieces that Craig was ordered to take down – would Lady Dorrian send us all to prison for 8 months?
The problem here is that she worded things in a way that makes it clear that, for her, everybody is *not* equal in the eyes of the law. Craig Murray is somehow high profile, therefore he gets imprisoned, while if the rest of us did exactly the same thing, then we wouldn’t.
Is it possible to read the magical reality judgement somewhere?
The Scottish Court just defiled itself at the behest of the Crown. Onto London. Which I have little doubt will do the same after a bit of umming and ahhing to elongate the justice denied.
And eventually to the ECHR – where the soiled pants of U.K. judiciary will be displayed for posterity.
Does that judiciary have a conscience? Or will they claim they were just following orders?
Thanks for the links above. As usual should have read comments before drunken post.
Good God are they serious?
Kindly get your solicitors to call upon Judge Leveson for counsel.
Well, quite. But the NOTW was, after all, “… regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not“, which means Leveson was clearly barking up the wrong tree, and should have waited instead for future bloggers. My Citizens Panel would contain at least one expert on “new media”, to help guide Judges in their deliberations.
The judges bizarre distinction between “official” regulated media and bloggers shows an outmoded understanding of new media. The real purpose of this distinction however is an attempt to provide cover for Garavelli, Wark and BBC, all of who revealed far more of the jigsaw and as yet, very strangely, haven’t been held to the same legal standard as Craig.
Its a far from convincing line to take and will surely be tested on appeal.
Her justification for not prosecuting those parties is painfully illogical. It was demonstrated to her in the brightest colours that mass media figures were the ones who committed the boldest infractions in terms of identification, regardless of their supposed strict regulation.
Further confirmation that this is a confused, dishonest woman promoted way above her pay grade.
Jm – it isn’t outmoded at all – it is fascist and authoritarian. In her world, journalists are only permitted to publish `news’ that is acceptable to the `Ministry of Truth’.
So – far from being outmoded, this is the way it will be in Scotland – and it is also the way it will be everywhere else too.
Please note all the dirty tricks they used to prevent reporting of the Assange case – and now they are doing their best to discredit the only journalist who made a decent job of it.
UK is not a safe for Independent Journalists. Craig has made a life for himself in Scotland for his family, with a house and children at school. He has many friends there. To walk into an Embassy would be in my mind disastrous for him and a joy for his enemies. We will support his legal costs. I hope that the conscience of one the accusers who was pressured into giving false evidence has the courage in whistle blowing ! The consequences for her won’t be as bad as not being able to sleep at night. Sleep tight Craig.
Wikikettle – yes – walking into an embassy is probably not a good move.
At the same time, I’m not sure that supporting his legal costs is such a brilliant move – since the money simply disappears into a black hole – paying advocates to advance very sensible arguments, which are then ignored / dismissed by a very corrupt judiciary.
It would (of course) be entirely different if it were trial by jury.
I like the idea of Craig Murray trying to escape to Dublin. I don’t think you need a passport to do that. Ireland is a friendly country and I’m sure his wife and children would enjoy it there.
The idea of a Just Society is to recognize everyone’s right to diversity. So that diverse people can live together, they agree on general rules for interaction – this set of rules exists in the form of a law.
In a just society, no one is above the law, but no one is below the law – this is Equality.
By treating Mr. Murray differently from other journalists, Judge Dorrian establishes Inequality.
The difference between Mr. Murray and other journalists is that he opposes the government.
Thus, I come to the logical conclusion that the Mr. Murray case is a political persecution of a dissident.
The very fact of such persecution testifies to the fact that your country is following authoritarian dictatorial methods of government.
If you don’t stop it now, you will set a precedent and this authoritarian politics will continue to evolve.
Tatyana
I usually agree with most everything you say. But here Lady Dorrian has not treated Mr Murray differenly from anyone else. Mr Murray is the only person charged – and that’s the issue. The problem and corruption is in the prosecution service.
Robert,
English is not my native language, I probably picked up inaccurate words.
From the point of view of logic, mathematics and abstract thinking:
Society of people can be viewed as a mathematical Set;
journalists are a Subset of the Set;
Mr. Murray is an element of the Subset.
Any action with an element in the absence of any action with others – is an emphasis. An element selected from a number of similar ones is treated inequally, comparing to the rest of the elements.
They tried to remove him from the Subset (see Mr. Murray’s blog on the Scottish National Journalist Union), and now they try to remove him off of the bigger Set.
So you and me think the same.
Robert – she stated explicitly in her judgements that she *had* treated Craig Murray differently. Firstly, she pointed to the `high profile’ nature – implying that the same actions taken by somebody of a lower profile would have been treated differently.
Then, in yesterday’s judgement, she stated that journalists publishing in respectable main stream media outlets, with official accreditation should be treated different from independent journalists.
Technically you are correct – since Craig Murray was the *only* person up before the beak, he wasn’t treated any differently from any other person up before the beak. But she clearly expressed the intention of treating Craig Murray differently and she made it clear that `equal in the eyes of the law’ has no place in her court room.
I appreciate giving the link to the full judgment. Just one of several points that might be made.
“(4) The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the applicant make comparisons with other press contempts, and the role of mainstream journalists, this is a factor which should be recognised”.
This is yet another astonishing statement. How can the law apply differently between a regulated” and “non-regulated” journalist? But it is the last sentence that I can’t work out grammatically or logically. What factor should be recognised, by whom and for what purpose? I assume the “factor” is being a non-mainstream-media journalist compared to a mainstream journalist. This then renders you more at risk from being punished for expressing your views?
Exactly
She genuinely believes the stenographers and attack dogs of corporate media are more ethical than Craig Murray. Not on the basis of any evidence but because one of their number wrote that they are.
Am I getting it right that Mr. Murray must get permission from Lady Dorrian to appeal to the Supreme Court of Lady Dorrian’s decision ???
Can someone explain what the idiotic joke is this?
Tatyana – this is Scottish justice at its best – which (we are led to believe) is infinitely superior to Russian justice.
Who established such a rule? Why does this order exist?
The fact of an appeal means disagreement, and disagreement in the abstract sense is a conflict, in which there is an injured party and an abuser.
How can you ask the abuser for his opinion on the involvement of an arbitrator? This is the same as asking a rapist if he will allow the victim to seek help!
This is absolute savagery! Are you there in Scotland stoning people in the streets yet?
The gendering of all this discussion (going right back to the original Salmond case that started it all) is part of the underlying problem, so I don’t think we should be making it worse by fuelling stereotypes, and associating only the male sex with troll-like personality traits.
In the UK right now there are charities and politicians who will, and who desperately need to, preach to us endlessly about violence against women and girls, but go figure, they are all silent when the abuser is exposed as a female. They are not only silent, which is criminal in itself, but hostile toward the whole idea that one sex can be as monstrous as the other. Even though everyone knows this, and you don’t really need to have lived long to know it. There is a huge amount of cognitive dissonance here. The police and other authorities will also turn a blind eye to violence against girls if a woman is involved, rather than a man.
Before I saw it with my own eyes, I too assumed that where there was any violence, it must be the man’s fault. So I know what it means to be disabused of this cognitive dissonance.
This cognitive dissonance suits politicians very well, and so gender violence is encouraged to the maximum in the UK, whether it takes the form of false allegations or handing out prison sentences predominantly to men. There is no interest whatsoever in reducing the violence. It is precisely what maintains classist sexist racist imperialist Britain!
As for whether stoning is happening in Scotland yet, I don’t know, but my guess is that unlike in former times, it will be the men and boys lying bloodied on the ground. Well, they already are, if you look at depression and suicide statistics. Nothing has been learned from the past, no progress made. We have only become bloodier and more violent as a race, and the UK, as always, leads the way.
Craig would have a lot more luck getting a sex change than trying to gain asylum in an embassy.
“Craig would have a lot more luck getting a sex change than trying to gain asylum in an embassy.”
Now there’s an idea, Craig should identify as a woman, then she can claim she’s being picked on because she’s trans.
All the times when I was raped, they were men, and not a single woman, so let’s write off the gendering to my personal experience.
Why focus on particulars? Get the point. Let’s replace the rapist with the robber.
Let’s explain this in monetary terms Tatyana: first you have to pay to have her ruling overruled by the supreme court, and then you have to pay again for the supreme courts appeal to rule on not allowing evidence and lack of jigsaw id precedents/or tests for the latter.
So her plan is to buy time and cost him money, lots of it.
Should you know of any rich oligarchs who might want to invest in truth in Scotland, this is an honorable case to support and to pursue.
I am today upping my monthly support and urge others who can afford it to do as well.
This is a clear democracy and accountability battle that must be won for the future of Scotland as an independent entity. Imho.
It does seem odd that Lady Dorrian is refusing leave to appeal her own judgement, yet she’s allowing time for the appeal to be lodged. Maybe an analogy would help …
A stern teacher, Miss Florian (no relation), is passing by a classroom when she sees a naughty boy called Gregg (no relation) writing something on a blackboard and laughing. She looks in and sees a ginger-haired girl huddled in the corner. On the blackboard he has written “Marmalade is disgusting and makes me puke!”, which she interprets as a reference to the girl’s nickname. Miss Florian – who was herself bullied as a child – is indignant, and demands that Gregg apologise to the carrot-topped girl, but he refuses, which infuriates her even more. She decides to send Gregg to detention for an hour and half that afternoon. Gregg protests that she misinterpreted the situation, and he was just writing about his food preferences. The teacher considers his plea and thinks it isn’t remotely credible so she rejects it and insists that he still has to turn up for after-school detention. Wee Gregg protests – “But that’s not fair!” – and points out that he has special reasons why he can’t do detention: e.g. he lives on a dairy farm 20 miles out in the country where there’s no late bus, and his parents would have to drive in to collect him at milking time so they’d be furious. He protests that Miss Florian misinterpreted what he wrote, and anyway it’s unfair to inconvenience his parents like that. He insists they should both go to the headmaster’s office right away for adjudication. Miss Florian thinks that would be a ridiculous waste of everybody’s time because there’s no way her interpretation could conceivably be wrong. As to the unfair inconvenience to his parents, she scolds him “You should’ve thought about that at the time!”. But Gregg still refuses to accept responsibility or punishment, and Miss Florian knows she could get in big trouble for picking on him if others turn out to take a different view, so she reluctantly allows him an extra day to take his complaint to the headmaster if he thinks he really must.
Epilogue: Gregg walks away, muttering to his friend that he’s going “to get that old cow sorted out” – “Gregg, come back here! What did you mean by that?! – “But Miss, that’s why I need to get home early: we have a lame old cow who gets left at the back of the field when the dogs round up the herd for milking and it’s my job to bring her in … honestly!” Miss Florian is getting confused by now so she scolds him for being ambiguous and walks off, mumbling to herself, worried that she might have made a serious blunder and got absorbed in her own traumatic memories of being bullied as an ugly child. Gregg smirks: everybody knows he does genuinely hate sticky jam made with orange peel … and they don’t actually have a lame cow on the farm.
Hopefully the headmaster will see that Miss Florian jumped to hasty conclusions and the punishment she meted out didn’t take account of the disproportionate effect on Gregg’s parents, so he lets Gregg go and calls in Miss Florian for a ticking off, telling her that the whole episode was unnecessary and embarrassing, and she must be more careful in future.
Your story is very funny, thank you. But there is a distinction: for schoolchildren the teacher is an educator, psychologist and priest; when in a world of capable adults we cannot expect them to dishonestly use the law and the prison system to avenge their hurt personal feelings.
He got imprisoned. That involves leaving the court in an unpleasant vehicle and sitting about in Sauchton for too long.
Lady Dorrian is in the same sinking boat as Home Secretary, Priti Patel, who introduced the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and has variously described protestors as “dreadful”, “thugs”, “hooligans” and “criminals”.
The conclusion reached by Dorrian where sanctions aimed to prevent discussion of a legitimate matter of public concern empathizes with an English Bill that plans to curtail the rights to freedom of assembly and to speech. Clauses 54-60 in Part 3 of the Bill effectively criminalise protests that cause disruption – defined in broad and vague terms – even in the case of one-person protests which to me conflates to the selective prosecution of a blogger with sanctions totally out of congruance. People found guilty of this new offence, which includes causing “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience” – or even just causing the risk that said annoyance and inconvenience will take place – are liable to be imprisoned for up to ten years if convicted on indictment or 12 months if convicted summarily.
Immediately obvious are potential contraventions of both issues with international human rights laws, chiefly Article 10,11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to freedom of assembly, association and expression.
Now where is my pitchfork?
Is this a compo for the middle class twit of the year?
At least Scottish prisons have lavvies instead of buckets nowadays.
The systems are corrupt and yes the medical system is shocking inside. You need to get to a doctor and not stop until you get medical exemption. Everything in this system takes very hard work. I’ve been through a rape, multiple assaults and child loss, and a family member died over what I’ve been through, PTSD from serious assault and harassment. People don’t believe me. I have the hard evidence to side with an already corrupt system that illegally searches and arrests you on false charges and malicious prosecution, ongoing five years through domestic violence with guys with criminal histories just because they’ve got two witnesses and screen shots which never would have been had if you got help, and the witnesses were economically coerced due to free accomm in illegal situs, one of them anyway, benefit fraud. Apart from when you’re being abused by the system, it all feels very heavy and you can’t see. Plus ppl don’t admit to what they did and used public events and force, threats, groups of men leading me to serious violent crime. I’ve got a funeral this wknd of someone who should be in hospital, not dead, over all this. I was cornered, harassed, neck nearly broken, ill from other domestic abuse, trafficking and knives from vat accident without compensation. Also I get ill as a corrupt lawyer who stole half a million from legal aid stole my dog and never got prison; his business partner is in jail for holding guns. The last corrupt lawyer I had who wasted six more months killed my child and family member thru what he did, plus the rest put a guy in jail for 13 grand for a year.
The media are their propaganda tool. They protect their own. You need to push and keep pushing till you get the help you need. Also you could state that this is all illegal anyway. They have obtained so-called ownership over us through this straw man. A birth certificate we could not consent to and that also falls under the fact they are claiming illegal ownership under modern day slavery laws.
I’m a single woman on my own with no lawyer who’s had a severe fight as I’ve been through a lot of severe targeting and abuse over this also, which has killed my family. My siblings one of whom under 18 and all family been affected. My family run venues they all use, even employ some of them. I have evidence to the lies. It’s not OK to harass women anyway, apart from that my uncle helped me then he died. Gutted I didn’t get time with him though, but those two things – pushing for medical help and going down the common law route. Also they make a big issue of screens as it feeds into their AI. Also I think because it feeds into their purposes of trafficking. Oh, also they faked a court date I’m almost certain that’s why I got an illegal arrest. I could have got help from my dad, who fell out with me as ended up with more criminal blackmail at a drug syndicated event.
Let’s face it, after abuse over all those after I saved a life and helped ppl although thru the trafficking all the wrong ppl got at me. They’ve ignored my complaints for months over wanting to know why I didn’t receive a court letter or requesting proof of it being sent as I believe they failed, one due to having a time limit. However there are other organisations you can contact including the Scottish miscarriage of justice regulatory body and police abuse organisation too.