The Lord President of Scotland’s judges, Lord Gill, has made a complete fool of himself by leading British judges in a walk-out from the Commonwealth Law Conference. The action is in protest against Julian Assange’s participation by video-link in a panel discussion on surveillance and the role of the security services.
The walk-out happened after Julian’s talk, not before it, which rather gives the impression that what Lord Gill and his fellow judges objected to was the content of Assange’s talk, rather than the fact of it. Assange stated among other points that nationalists were right to believe that MI5 were active against them in the referendum campaign.
The Assange talk proved extremely popular with lawyers and judges from all over the Commonwealth. In fact it had to be shifted to a larger room to accommodate them all. So it seems Lord Gill’s disinterest in the concept of freedom of speech is not widely shared in the Commonwealth.
What Gill and his Scottish and English colleagues could have done – and I presume actually did – was to boycott the Assange panel and simply attend other panels on at the same time. What they have now done is to boycott all the panels happening after the Assange talk is gone, at some of which some of the boycotters were due to be talking or chairing, as an attempt to mess up the conference as some childish kind of spiteful revenge.
The members of the English Supreme Court who took part in this action have demonstrated their extreme prejudice against Assange – who has exercised his right in law to claim political asylum and who has never been charged with anything.
Julian has today told me that he is concerned that their action is also prejudicial to the cases currently before the Swedish Supreme Court and the UN Committee on Arbitrary Detention. Quite why the English and Scottish judges were moved to this peculiar display of prejudice is not immediately clear; I suspect they were pushed. Lord Gill is an interesting example of the self-made lackey. If you always promote the interests of the Establishment, even a man of talent but humble origins can get to the top, provided he is an entirely unscrupulous character.
STOP PRESS
In an effort to make Lord Gill and the judges look less like asses, it is being assiduously put about that they did not know Julian was going to speak before his appearance, and he unexpectedly appeared at the session. That this is a blatant lie is easily proved. Julian’s appearance was at short notice – a week. His name was in the conference programme, and the event was announced in the Scottish Legal press the day before it happened. Everyone at the conference knew Assange was appearing, that is why the room had to be changed for a larger one.
That our judges are not just asses but lying asses ought to be the source of some concern. Where is Lallands Peat Worrier when you need him?
The phrase “at short notice” in the Guardian article suggests that the British judges did not know that a fugitive who might appear before them in court was present. If the judges had been told beforehand, I imagine that they would have boycotted the whole conference. As it was, I imagine that they did their best to withdraw with dignity and without causing disruption. If I understand what happened correctly, Assange’s face appeared on the screen, and once that session was over they were able to clear the room and not return. Other participants in the conference wouldn’t have had the same conflict of interest.
Abe
“If I understand what happened correctly, Assange’s face appeared on the screen, and once that session was over they were able to clear the room and not return.”
I am afraid you are completely wrong. The “at short notice” was about a week’s notice. Everyone knew Julian would be appearing – that is why they needed a bigger room. But I don’t blame you because the judges are trying to push the “at short notice” line to make themselves look a bit less stupid. Without success.
Hi Craig
the official line was that they were informed at the last moment; Julian Assange name did appear on the conference programme yesterday but not sure when it was added. The announcement that he was due to speak appeared in the Scottish Legal News on Tuesday so yes, they could have decided not to attend in advance of the talk.
‘the official line was that they were informed at the last moment;’.
.
Correct.
I am pretty sure that is exactly what the ‘official’ line is.
Lord Gill,is a self-important pompus fool,he was,asked last year to appear before a Holyrood committee to answer questions,on financial matters,he declined and penned a letter,in the tone of,I’m above committee matters.
He’s a very senior judge in Scotland but reading articles about him,it appears he suffers from self-importance syndrome.
I read about the video-link witn Mr Assange in Glasgow yesterday,which included,human rights lawyer, Jen Robinson,a member of Mr Assange ‘s legal team
Mafalda
Thanks – the official line is a lie. I have spoken to Julian today and he is adamant that everyone knew for a week, that his name was in the programme, and that they even had to change the rom as so many wanted to see him. The judges are lying – which is somewhat worrying in itself.
Has the British Patriot Fred called any Scottish folk Nazis yet?
Posting on my phone, so i might have missed his input.
According to reports the,Commonwealth Law Conference held in Glasgow yesterday,had an audience of,400 international lawyers.
There’s clearly a demamd for Mr Assange and when he gets the chance,to speak,people are listening to him.
No wonder certain governments want to shut him up.
Yes, the large majority of participants received him very enthusiastically.
Also until yesterday there was not much openness on the reasons for the withdrawal, as far as I know (cannot say much more).
Hmmm…Hasn’t Julian Assange been accused of rape by two women, Craig? I thought that by your reasoning that must make him automatically guilty. Oh hang on, on the other hand though I don’t think he is Jewish so I guess he must be automatically innocent then?;)
Yes Becky, by a CIA agent with close links to Israel and her ‘friend’, who has since denounced her.
But you best try and argue the facts with those debating that case around the world, unless, off course, your superior being here on earth, now where did I hear this before, demands that you keep yourself to innuendo. Mind, there’s a bit to read up about.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comments
But then, Sharon was accused of mass murder in Palestine and Lebanon, and he thrived amongst his Zionist friends.
Now let me give you a link to Neturei Karta, so you can read up a wee bit about the Apartheid that Zionism has fostered.
And don’t be too scared to think about a future without Bibi, all he needs is a little rest and a good shrink.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/naturei_karta.html
Craig, these judges, of who Lord Gill is one, would have got to know about Janners concerns, especially if senior Met officers, why do I now think of guest houses? called off the chase in the late 80’s, so what hope is there for someone principled such as Julian?
The fact that he is partial to more information than their stuffed frocks could ever comprehend, makes it obvious that their values for open source information is somewhat blinkered, the only thing they value much is a mutual surreptitiousness for their lunchtime tipple, the status quo and the odd proclivities one has become accustomed to.
They have reneged an option to widen their horizons, a somewhat sad display for someone who professes to be interested in society, law and justice.
Did anyone discretely offer them blinkers on their way out?
I do hope nobody will be fool-hardy and “murmur a judge”.
@Becky Cohen
16 Apr, 2015 – 6:53 pm
It gets boring having to keep repeating this, but please go look at the facts of the rape claims against Assange in Sweden.
The announcement in the Scottish legal press is dated 14th April, which is yesterday. The conference began on the 12th, and participants might not wish to keep up to date with the news during a conference. The downloadable conference programme itself however does mention Assange (http://www.clc2015.co.uk/userfiles/images/16%20april%20programme%20change.docx.pdf), so the question is whether this document was revised during the conference. If proof in the form of emails to third parties etc shows that it existed in its present form a week ago (mentioning Assange), one must regrettably conclude that the judges knew about Assange’s presence but did nothing till today.
PS. Just noticed that the link to the pdf indicates that it was revised today. Anyone got a link to a pdf made a week ago mentioning Assange?
PPS. The 14th was the day before yesterday, of course.
Watching leaders debate,David Cameron,not there, Nigel Farage banging on about Europe and you guessed it immigrants.
Ed Milband accusing UKIP of being dangerous,Nicola Sturgeon recieves loud applause,over Cameron dodging debate.
Nicola Sturgeon asking Ed Miliband to man up,and not be a Tory-Lite government,Ed retorting witn an attack on Sturgeon.
Sturgeon’s reposte is asking Ed where are you cuts coming from Ed changing subject
Of course labour voted with the Tories for an extra £30 billion cuts in public spending.
Natalie Bennett (Greens) fairing well,along with Lenne Wood of Plaid Cymru question,currently on housing.
The last Labour government in Scotland built 6 social houses,which was disgraceful.
Nigel Farage accusing the audience of left leaning tendencies.
As usual Farage booed……
Will he ever learn?
Quite why Craig is surprised that Supreme Court judges have shown contempt for Assange when Assange has shown contempt for their decisions is beyond me.
“Quite why Craig is surprised that Supreme Court judges have shown contempt for Assange when Assange has shown contempt for their decisions is beyond me.”
Because the decision Lord Justice Phillips presided over, just before he retired to a lucrative position in the that country of freedom and democracy, Qatar, was wrong (subsequently proved when another supreme court trial tried to use the same evidence). Because it was the Supreme Court it was the last decision, and although wrong could not be overturned. It’s pretty certain the decision was made before the appeal went to the Supreme Court in some Gentleman’s Club where the government and legal elite sup their whisky and whatnots. Almost as bad as your beloved fascists in Ukraine who today killed a writer.
http://uatoday.tv/politics/famous-ukrainian-journalist-oles-buzina-shot-dead-in-kyiv-421736.html
Ransacked the offices of a doctor, arrested him and brought down his blog.
http://en.hunternews.ru/?p=930
Yesterday killed an opposition politician.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32329512
And badly wounded a journalist in Shyrokino.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAArWm56yr8
Wake up world. If the fascists in Kiev are not removed from office we will have them all over Europe.
“one must regrettably conclude that the judges knew about Assange’s presence but did nothing till today.”
If they knew, the question begs whether they walked out en mass without prior conspiring, or whether this was ad hoc, impromptu.
My hunch is that they did talk about it beforehand over a few cases of best Chablis, how radical.
Becky is still reading.
“Has the British Patriot Fred called any Scottish folk Nazis yet?”
Fuck off and die retard.
Fucking cretins like you should have been put down at birth.
Fucking oxygen thieves.
Cunt.
“My hunch is that they did talk about it beforehand over a few cases of best Chablis, how radical.”
Now we’re talking. Yes nobody makes wine like the French. They are the master winemakers. I got a red Graves (Le M du Chateau Montgravier) for my birthday which I’m saving because I’ve had it before and know it is Impeccable. It is certainly too good for the the judiciary to quaff. Then there are a few bottles from the vineyards of organic wine producer Benjamin Darnault (including three bottles of St Chinian 2012 which they’re not getting either. In fact I don’t know any judges socially, a couple of barristers who drink beer with my academic friends, and a solicitor who drinks little but is welcome to as much of my wine as she fancies.
So although the judges get so much wrong, if it’s a good Chablis, all I can say is while they are drinking it and I’m not it is a crime.
In my 9.06 comment I used the word “evidence” when I should have used the phrase “point of law”. Sorry.
Goosestep Johnny
I have no beloved fascists
I do not support assassinations of politicians or journalists whoever the perpetrator.
You see no problem whatsoever with fascists in Russia or assassinations of politicians or jounalists there.
Wanting to see the end of corruption and political violence in Ukraine backed by Putin does not infer support of fascism – even if some of those objectives were supported by genuine fascists. Plenty of people such as Tim Snyder, Andrei Kurkov (who were both eyewitnesses to the MAidan), Timothy Garton Ash and Anne Applebaum share a similar position to myself – so I suppose they are all fascists in your extremely limited book.
I also like to see trains run on time but that does make me a supporter of Mussolini.
You on the other hand have noting to say about the assassinations, suppression of free speech, fascists and other extreme nationalists roaming the streets of Russia with encouragement, the extreme racism of the Putin regime (and I will happily use the standard of the “fascist Theresa May” (your words not mine) as my measuring stick, the extreme right wing economics of said regime or its stultifying corruption. Not a dicky bird on Putin’s rehabilitiation of Stalin and Molotov- Ribbentrop – but talk about what was lost in the Soviet Union, eulogies for Ceaucescu and Holodomor denial.
And of course now we start to get the real fascist stuff about homelands (as yet undefined), calls to invade to project such homelands and smears aimed at fifth columnists.
And at a personal level you are not above sinking into the gutter to make personal attacks on me and my family – another favourite trick of the fascists.
You also asked us to look at the evidence produced my your mates in 55 Shuskina street for the Ukraine fighters attacking MH17 – well we did and guess what we found yet another lie to add to your growing repertoire
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/russian-tv-airs-clearly-fake-image-to-claim-ukraine-shot-dow#.coVYozpgn
As for Lord Gill and the other Supreme Court Judges being wrong – lets just say that what can be asserted without evidence can be easily dismissed in the same way.
Trust that Cameron or Miliband make a better fist of forming a coalition than Bibi. LOL
Israeli coalition talks stuck
By Anshel Pfeffer, April 16, 2015
As the first deadline for forming a new government looms next week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems nowhere near building a coalition.
Of the five parties currently expected to join Likud in government, only one, United Torah Judaism (UTJ), is on the brink of signing an agreement.
Likud has agreed that the strictly-Orthodox party can take control of the Health Ministry and the Knesset Finance Committee. UTJ has also extracted a commitment on removing the criminal charges clause from the National Service law.
/..
http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/134178/israeli-coalition-talks-stuck