The Mind Numbing Hypocrisy of the Supreme Court 59

In July, the Supreme Court refused to hear my appeal against eight months imprisonment for Contempt of Court by the High Court of Edinburgh. And yet yesterday they issued a judgment stating in the strongest possible terms that there should be a right of appeal in Contempt of Court cases.

33. If there were no right of appeal from the decision on contempt of the First
Instance Panel, that would represent a serious lacuna in the law. That is because it is
well-accepted that there ought to be a right of appeal by the defendant in a contempt
matter that may result in imprisonment or a fine. This was expressed in very strong
terms by the 1959 Report entitled Contempt of Court by Justice (chaired by Lord
Shawcross). The Justice Report preceded section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act
1960 and said, at p 35:
“At present there is no right of appeal against any decision or
punishment for any criminal contempt whether it is
committed in the presence of the court or out of court. As no
human being is infallible, and as any sentence of
imprisonment involves a basic question of civil liberty, it is
not surprising to find that in every system of law of any
civilised State there is always a right of appeal against any
sentence of imprisonment. For contempt of court alone can
an Englishman be sent to prison by a court from whose
decision there is no appeal. … Even in enemy-occupied
territory in time of war, there must, under the Hague
Convention, always be some right of appeal or petition
against any sentence of imprisonment …”

“in every system of law of any civilised State there is always a right of appeal against any sentence of imprisonment.” That is the maxim they quoted with approval. They used it to allow an extraordinary appeal from the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court for the solicitor, Mr Tim Crosland, who had been fined £5,000. (Having agreed to hear the appeal, they found against him).

So the Supreme Court has ruled that there must be a right to appeal against imprisonment, unless your name is Craig Murray, you are connected to Julian Assange, you are a war on terror whistleblower, a fundamental Scottish Independence supporter or otherwise regarded by the state as a dissident outside the normal realm of respectability.

Remember that the fine words above are from the same Supreme Court that refused me a right of appeal. What a bunch of stinking hypocrites.


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

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

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

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

59 thoughts on “The Mind Numbing Hypocrisy of the Supreme Court

    • Willie

      Force Mr Murray, they operate through force.

      The Rule of Law is the rule of force. Understand that is what the currency is, secure your own coinage, and you have the wherewithal to move forward.

      Force is legal tender. He who has the most cash wins.

      Jiilian Assange will be tortured to death. Nothing to stop the abuse. Its an open door. That’s force.

  • ET

    It’s surreal. Would this allow you to appeal the original appeal decision despite having already served the sentence or seek compensation for the fact your appeal was denied? Does it open other avenuse of redress I haven’t thought of? Would it be worth pursuing?

  • T

    My God, these people are shameless frauds. But surely this has provided you with an open goal as regards compensation, quashing the conviction,
    etc? Have you consulted your brief?

  • Ebeneezer Scroggie

    That the judge in the Salmond case was allowed to initiate “contempt of court” proceedings against the only journalist who truthfully and responsibly reported the proceedings in open court was bad enough.

    That the same judge judged his appeal against her own judgement was much much worse. That absurdity led directly to the imprisonment of the journalist who correctly avoided identifying the alphabet witches. That same absurdity led directly to Scotland having our only political prisoner in living memory.

    Something is rotten in the state of the Scottish legal system. It stinks.

      • Giyane

        Alf Baird

        You hit the nail on the head. The only way their Lordy Lordships can acknowledge dissent is to criminalise it, while politely saying that it is not legally a criminal offence to speak the truth and a few other facetious phrases about everybody having a right to appeal.

        The entire English antiquated, Brexitised, atavistic imperialism, is like the Mary Rose, a fine example of Tudor splendour that was not seaworthy at the time, and should now be preserved in a Museum, never to be used again because it never was fit for purpose even when it was first made.

  • Republicofscotland

    Absolutely disgraceful, its no wonder you are fuming, now you know for sure they hold a grudge against you.

  • pete

    Craig, you have shown here the absurdity of the system you were unfairly subjected to. The Alphabet sisters did not deserve to keep their anonymity when they lost their case against Mr Salmond. That you were locked up for sharing the sparse details you were able to give us of Mr Salmond’s defence was grotesque. That your appeal request was heard by the same judge who held you to be in contempt is simply idiotic. That you should have the right to appeal in a contempt case, but that this does not exist in law, wanders into the realm of lunacy. I believe you have a case to claim compensation for this injustice, whatever the law might say.

    I have left my monthly donations at the amount I increased it to when you were sent to jail in the hope that you can take the matter further. Should you need further one off donations in pursuit of all the work you do for Julian Assange I will respond accordingly to any request.

  • Fred Dagg

    You are correct in all your critiques of the State, both UK and worldwide, and in the more particular cases of Julian Assange, media corruption, the rights of dispossessed peoples around the world, etc. And yet in your recent online discussion with John Pilger, Roger Waters and others on the subject of JA, there was exasperation at what further action could be taken to widen concern with the situation outside the ‘activist bubble’. It was almost as if Lenin’s “What Is To Be Done?” had not been read by anyone present…and, of course, it hasn’t because all good liberals are not only “not really Socialists” but also generally vehemently anti-Communist.

    So what? Well, the disavowal of mass, structured resistance to the mass, structured reaction of the capitalist State and its apparatuses means that your various critiques are as ‘powerful’ in the wider world as peas bouncing off the armour of a Tiger tank.

    • Ann Owen

      ‘What is to be done?’ was written by Nikolai Chernyshevsky, first published in 1863, -read by Lenin. It’s sub-title was’ Tales for New People’..I’ve just dug out my copy and will re-read it–.” This funny, hopeful, sensual novel has been an example of how fiction can change people’s lives” even after 140 years!

  • Jimmy Riddle

    I think the clue is in the word `Englishman’ stated quite clearly in the text that you quote.

    It basically means that the Supreme Court takes the fundamental rights of Englishmen seriously – but doesn’t seem particularly interested in anyone else.

    • bevin

      “..the Supreme Court takes the fundamental rights of Englishmen seriously.”

      No that is not the divide- Craig’s offences did not include his identification as a Scotsman. Those involved in his persecution were, for the most part, Scots too.
      Think about it.

      • Alf Baird

        ‘Colonialism is always a cooperative venture’ (Memmi); Scotland’s bribed commissioners and elites also ensured they protected their own status and privileges in the articles of union, whilst enslaving maist o thair ain fowk, half of whom still live in or near poverty today despite the vast wealth of the nation, which is plundered of course, as is the main purpose of colonialism.

        How it ‘works’:

      • Jimmy Riddle

        bevin – I simply don’t take the Supreme Court seriously; it is a sick joke. Yes, you are correct, the Scottish judicial system proved itself to be sick to the core and I confess I had much higher expectations. You’re right – it was Scots, one in particular, in the Scottish courts that perpetrated the outrage.

        The point at issue here is whether, when the Scottish judicial system does such a thing, deprives an innocent man of his liberty in a trial-without-jury, we can expect the London-based Supreme Court to step in and do something about it.

        I do think that part of it may well be that they (the English judges of the Supreme Court) don’t want to be seen to be interfering in Scottish affairs, overturning a decision made in Edinburgh and thus making it look as if they are treating Scotland as a colony. I think the `oh we are treated as a colony’ brand of Scots Nationalists have much to answer for in poisoning the well here.

        Whatever the reason, though, the whole judicial system is a sick joke (and independence won’t help – the English are not responsible for Nicola Sturgeon and Lady Dorrian – they are home-grown disasters).

  • Clark

    The rule of law is breaking down.

    That is because the most privileged are at long last recognising the climate and ecological emergency, but they are terrified of conceding their privilege. The wealthiest 10% of the world’s population are responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions, so fairness is out of the question. So, just like Westminster Christmas parties and the Prime Minister’s private flights to have dinner in London during COP26, it has to be one law for them, and another for the vast majority.

    With both politics and the rule of law broken, only one course remains – we must cease to cooperate with this corrupt and hypocritical system, and build an alternative.

    • Courtenay Barnett


      “With both politics and the rule of law broken, only one course remains – we must cease to cooperate with this corrupt and hypocritical system, and build an alternative”

      Could not agree more.


    • Fwl

      The rule of law is threatened by a disinterested electorate who are seemingly indifferent to cuts in the justice budget such that the Treasury and No 10 fear not the consequences of cutting court funding. At the same time there is what almost appears to be a creeping meritocratic tendency which emphasises process over justice and makes it very difficult for litigants in person who are unable to afford lawyers to make effective use of the court system. Barriers to access as if to say “don’t trouble us-sort out your own problems”.

      Look forward to seeing outcome of further appeals in CM’s case – even if it after having served his very long sentence.

      Sometimes one thinks about grand plots and plans (aka conspiracies) and people say don’t be silly such a thing could never happen without leaks. Fletcher Prouty spoke about the power of elite self-interested self-censorship. The fact that few amongst our elite are prepared to air CM’s case suggests to me that Prouty had a point. Elites know on which side their bread is buttered. It’s always a pleasant surprise to see journalists such as Peter Hitchens and Osborne speak out.

      • Clark

        – “…the power of elite self-interested self-censorship. […] Elites know on which side their bread is buttered.”

        Exactly; it’s structural. The entire system is based upon self interest, and the system elevates those who support it.

        • Fwl

          That may be human nature, which rather sadly answers the question which we used to ask ourselves as to what would I have done in 30’s Germany surely I would have stood up etc…,,

          I say ‘used to ask’ as it used to seem so black and white and it was an easy question with no danger of us actually being in that position. These days it’s a more uncomfortable question.

          That may be a sign of the times getting worse, or it may be a sign of getting old and seeing through things a bit more. Probably a mix of the two.

  • LLB

    The legal profession, a small world insult one judge as you have Assange case came back to with 8 months in the big houseLLB

  • M.J.

    Since the Supreme Court evidently decided that your case had no merit at all (so that the important question of distinguishing independent from employed journalists was not properly addressed), good luck with the ECHR appeal.

    • Peter Moritz

      “in every system of law of any civilised State, there is always a right of appeal against any sentence of imprisonment.”

      The conclusion to be drawn as to the state of the UK are obvious.
      Not that it matters anymore. Like almost all European nations and their offsprings in the Americas, they have proven over and over again that they lack any attributes that justify their being called “civilized.”

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Now colonial practices come back to the colonising country to be inflicted on home-grown dissidents. In Jamaica, where I was born, there was a journalist named Roger Mais, who wrote an article entitled ‘Now we know’. The article was a 1944 critique of Winston Churchill’s imperialist ideology. So, this was back in the ‘good ol’ days’ 1940s version of colonialism and for his critical anti-imperialist commentary, Mais was charged with ‘seditious libel’ and sentenced to six(6) months imprisonment. Ah…precedent – we lawyers call it.

    In part, very briefly, what Mais in his article said relative to Churchill was, “…what we are fighting for is that England might retain her exclusive prerogative to the conquest and enslavement of other nations..” Indeed, how impudent of Mais to have questioned such a self-evidently true and ‘noble’ notion. Most definitely to prison you must be confined in consequence of the truth you spoke to power. And now, fast forward to 2021 and we get to Murray and Assange.

    For my part, I think it an abuse of rights and compromise of fair process and justice itself with regard to what has been done to (inflicted on) Craig Murray and Julian Assange. Now there for all rational people, people with a sense of fairness and justice – to see. In a manner of speaking – again – ‘Now we know’.

  • Piotr+Berman

    “every system of law of any civilised State “

    “For contempt of court alone can an Englishman be sent to prison by a court from whose decision there is no appeal. … Even in enemy-occupied territory in time of war, there must, under the Hague Convention, always be some right of appeal or petition against any sentence of imprisonment “

    Apparently, none of those sentences are applicable to Scotland: (a) northern barbarians (they still paint their bodies?) (b) not English (c) not “in time of war”. As a Polish citizen, American resident I had no opinion about Scottish independence, but now I understand Craig better.

  • Squeeth

    Filthum filthum est. You can feel the cold when you’ve been in the management and walk away. They hate anyone who sets that example more than anything. You can molest children in Stoke Mandeville and they’ll look the other way but show everyone that the Emperor’s arse is hanging out and they’ll get you for riding a bike on the pavement.

  • Runner77

    This is the same Supreme Court that agrees with Juan Guaido who – if I can put it this way – ‘self identifies’ as the president of Venezuela despite his inconvenient lack of electoral success, and argues that he should have control over 1.6 billion euros worth of Venezuelan gold reserves.

  • Clark

    It’s well worth following Craig’s two links. The appeal to which Craig makes comparison is that of Timothy Crosland, who was fined £5000 plus £15,000 for an act of protest that had only symbolic effect. The only comparable appeal, in the second link, is that of torturer and dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was freed by then Home Secretary Jack Straw, “on health grounds”.

    In all three cases oppression and power were supported, whereas those acting for truth, justice, and humanity’s best interests were punished. In contrast, juries find in favour of humanity’s best interests. The following seems a reasonable report, so I have linked to the Guardian directly:

    • Clark

      Given that the Supreme Court would support power and money to betray the people, their apparently contradictory and hypocritical decisions regarding Craig and Timothy Crosland become consistent – they were purely cosmetic. They avoided tarring themselves by evading Craig’s case entirely. The best spin they could put on Crosland’s case was to grant an appeal against their own decision, only to find against him again. I am reminded of the people’s case against the predatory lending practices of the credit card companies.

      • Clark

        And Timothy Crosland’s act of civil disobedience was his protest against yet another pro-wealth and power, anti-humanity decision of the Supreme Court.

  • arby

    And content apparently to bring themselves into disrepute.
    Supreme Hypocrites!

    Who are we, lowlife, to expect justice! That surely remains the purview of the PTB.

    • Clark

      Ultimately, the people hold the power. But as with Scottish independence, the people have to step up and take it – it will never be gifted by the privileged minority. If the privileged did that, they wouldn’t be the privileged.

  • nevermind

    Are they teasing you Craig? Trying to get you to spend money on rubbery rigmarole? As Clark eluded earlier, there seems to be more justice in pitchforks than there is ever to be had from an establishment-biased judiciary, SSupreme, high, county, magistrates or sheriff courts.
    The powers-that-be would rather go to war than to ameliorate and or change their crumbling system.

    We are their worst enemy now and thats why they keeping control measures in place, give extra funding to the police and ignore what people opposed for a long time, such as RRnuclear mini reactors, GM foods and the decrepit state of democratic representation.

  • DunGroanin

    I found this report of the case to be curiously worthy of a deeper look yesterday but didn’t know where to post it. Now I do. Here it is.

    ‘Climate lawyer loses supreme court appeal over Heathrow leak’

    – what exactly is a “climate lawyer”

    ‘Tim Crosland, the director of environmental campaign group Plan B Earth, was found in contempt of court for prematurely revealing the court’s decision on Heathrow’s third runway 22 hours before it was made public in December 2020.

    ‘The lawyer, from Elephant and Castle in south London, previously described breaking an embargo on the judgment as “an act of civil disobedience”.’

    – this is to advertise the oncoming tide of charges of civil disobedience against the general public. Us.

    ‘his appeal was rejected by all five judges, who concluded he could have expressed his views after the judgment was made public.’

    – This is to advertise that we can only speak with permission.
    – They are right he broke a clear law. 22 hours wasn’t going to help his cause. He is wrong and clearly so. All this is doing is sending a message that even if you are a professional you will not be immune if you go against edicts of the State. It is a shot across the bows of the professional class just like the jailing of independent journalists in the U.K. and Political Prisoners. For all I know he probably thought he was doing the right thing.

    ‘“Retribution against the whistleblower is wrong. The case concerns the right to freedom of expression, which is fundamental to any democracy. I will now appeal to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.”’

    – I think there are more pressing matters for the ECHR , but why not claim that he is immune from a clear cut failure to observe the law that even that court can’t overrule!

    We are heading to full blown fascism this time

  • Martin Warren

    Mr Murray – I do not know all the details of your case, but I understood your appeal was refused because you had no valid GROUNDS for appeal, not because you had no RIGHT to appeal. There is a fundamental difference which you appear not to understand.

    • Courtenay Barnett

      Martin Warren,

      Should read the Judgment itself you will see these words:-

      “in every system of law of any civilised State there is always a right of appeal against any sentence of imprisonment.”

      Grounds are presented then argued; if the Appellant is not afforded the right to be heard therein is the problem.

      Well – maybe someone did get it wrong.

      Who might that be?

    • Aidworker1

      Hi Martin

      Please remember Craig was not permitted any arguments or witnesses whatsoever.

      The conviction was wrong by any standard – he had very many grounds to appeal.

      • Martin Warren

        Hi Aidworker
        I think you missed the point. Mr Murray appears to be claiming that he was denied his right of appeal. That is not true. It was his grounds for appeal which were deemed to be lacking. What do you think were valid grounds for appeal against either the conviction or the sentence? Typically they are; errors in law, ineffective legal representation, mistakes/misconduct by the judge, or fresh evidence. By the way, I think you are wrong that Mr Murray was not permitted any arguments.

        • Giyane

          Martin Warren

          The fresh evidence was the fact that the jury in Lady Dorrian’s courtroom in Alex Salmond’s court case found that the accusations against him were false, and logically therefore that the accusation were liars.

          Lady Dorrian by refusing to acknowledge the evidence of a jury in a court of law created another piece of fresher than fresh evidence, via that she herself refused to accept the decision of a court of law. She refused to accept the law on the grounds of the lifelong , no strings, anonymity granted to witnesses in rape cases.

          Since Lady Dorrian is not a liar, then logically this must be a mistake in the law that , even if accusations of rape are proven to be false, the personal and political anonymity of those accusers collectively including their employers who took their lies to the police, the police themselves, those who instruct the police both in Scotland and in Westminster , has to be preserved.

          Or as an old Etonian told the BBC last week:
          ” You’ll have to wait thirty years. ” , to learn what was said in cabinet. The Law is intentionally flawed in cases of rape and politics, in order to save false accusers, or politicians , sometimes wearing both hats at the same time, public humiliation and embarrassment that could cost them their future careers.

          • Martin Warren

            No Giyane, you’re wrong. You’re getting a bit confused about what happened and when. Mr Murray’s contempt hearing took place long after Alex Salmond’s trial, therefore the evidence of that jury could not possibly be regarded as fresh evidence.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    Mr Murray

    I am afraid that my life experience of over 50 years has dozens of examples of extremely stinking hypocrisy from all kinds of Establishment Actors, so your situation, whilst intolerable and no doubt extremely provocative toward you emotional sangfroid, is by no means unique.

    Since rising up the establishment requires ‘moral flexibility’, something which is always tested by the Security Services when selecting the drones they intend to ensure rapid promotion for, it is hardly to be surprising that those promoted so rapidly apply one rule to themselves and their kind and another to those who refused to be ‘morally flexible’ when young.

    There is a trigger around the age of 27 when the SS demand of their initiates that they destroy the career of someone more talented than them. I witnessed this three times, all carried out by women. So lets not have any delusions that women can’t be ever bit as hypocritical, morally flexible and plain emotionally thuggish as men.

    All that thuggery proves is that you are a thug. It doesn’t prove any worthiness, it just proves thuggery.

    That is the primary test to join the Establishment.

    Not academic prowess, not common humanity and decency. Thuggery. Becoming an electropnic peepshow pervert. Telling someone they can only work in this country under their absolute control.

    That’s the real word Mr Murray. There’s no nirvana, systems of justice, nor decency in the place of work.

    All there is is mealy mouthed lying hypocrites playing power games whilst being sick in the head.

  • Allan Howard

    As the old adage goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The thing is though that the vast majority of those who attain positions of power were more-than-likely corrupt individuals BEFORE they attained positions of power, and did so precisely because they WERE corrupt – ie ruthless and devious and duplicitous and completely devoid of empathy and a conscience. And sadistic!

    Then there are those who deceive millions with their lies and falsehoods and fabrications, as we have witnessed in relation to Julian during the course of the past ten years or so, and Jeremy Corbyn during the past six years. The forces of darkness really don’t like having a light shone on their dark deeds, or anyone who threatens their hold on power, and in Jeremy Corbyn’s case, they didn’t just go after Jeremy himself, but also the several hundred thousand people on the left who elected him leader, and ‘transformed’ HIM – a life-long anti-racist – into an anti-semite (and a friend of terrorists etc, etc), and his supporters into bullies and thugs and homophobes, and anti-semites of course. And then there was Ken Livingstone, who they demonised when he was leader of the GLC, and who was one of the first victims – what with him being the most high profile ally of Jeremy Corbyn – of the A/S black op. Just the other day I happened to come across a Daily Mail article published on the day Ken was suspended, with the headline ‘Labour in crisis over ‘anti-semitic’ scandal: MPs demand Corbyn gets his ‘head out of the sand’ after Red Ken is SUSPENDED for claiming Hitler backed moving the Jews to Israel…’, which begins as follows:

    Jeremy Corbyn tonight denied Labour was facing an anti-Semitism crisis despite being forced to suspend his old friend Ken Livingstone for claiming Hitler was a ‘Zionist’.

    Mr Livingstone made the incendiary comments…..

    And a bit further on it says:

    Ken Livingstone gave an interview to BBC Radio London in defence of Ms Shah. He made the explosive claim that Hitler was a ‘Zionist’ when he ran for election in 1932.

    And a bit further on it’s repeated again. And in a secondary article (immediately following the first), it begins by saying:

    Ken Livingstone’s suspension from Labour today for saying Hitler was a Zionist follows years of being dogged by claims he is anti-Semitic.

    And practically the whole of the MSM was dissembling and repeating the falsehood, even the Guardian. All he did was allude to an historical fact (The Haavara Agreement), but with all their faux outrage and hysteria and condemnation and falsehoods, the Deceivers transformed him into an anti-semite, and a ‘Nazi apologist’!

    If you’ve never read it, check out the interview with Norman Finkelstein published a few days later and entitled: The American Jewish scholar behind Labour’s ‘antisemitism’ scandal breaks his silence – Norman G. Finkelstein talks Naz Shah MP, Ken Livingstone, and the Labour ‘antisemitism’ controversy.

    And the same forces that sabotaged Jeremy Corbyn’s chances of winning a GE are the same forces that stitched up Craig and put him in prison.

    • Allan Howard

      It’s also well worth checking out Ken’s resignation statement, which is reproduced in full – and Ken goes into a lot of detail about what happened – on Jewish Voice for Labour’s website.

  • Penguin

    Anyone still think that nicola murell isn’t an agent of the london regime?

    That’s full alanis levels of irony there.

    • DunGroanin

      Nicola is not only an agent for the Crown she is a fully controlled apparatchik of the Global Robbers, mass murderers and blackmailers.

      Yesterday’s verdict in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial should open the whole can of worms now.

      One thing is that yet again a jury trial about sexual assault not only was able to follow a complex case with multiple victims and witnesses and reach a unanimous verdict.

      The Scottish bullshit of removing Jury trials must be defeated and the idiot who is pushing it removed from any position of responsibility in Public life for sheer ignorant dangerous nonsense for even suggesting such a anti judicial move!

      The second thing is that major revelations must now follow that links the elected governments and the controlled politicians and CEO’s of the world via the Media Barons and State security praetorians which have brought us, the world to this moment.

      I’ll start with pointing out the very few degrees of separation with – Maxwell, Campbell, Murdoch, Mossad, Epstein, Clinton, Blair, Millar (mrs Campbell), Crown, Scottish Office and Nicola Sturgeon- once again with Campbell …

      Maybe CM or some other Indy journalist can shine the light?

Comments are closed.