I have managed to get hold of a copy, which you can see here, of my lengthy interview with Sky News about the Skripals yesterday, which Sky refused to put online because they allege I was boring. With the warning you might therefore be very bored, you may watch it if you wish.
Kay Burley then appeared to suggest in reply to persistent questioning from Teymoor Nabili that Sky News could not put the interview online as they did not record it and do not hold a copy, which is plainly untrue (and would be illegal under their broadcast license).
My perspective on the interview itself was that the interviewer became aggressive and sarcastic, increasingly shrill as the apparent effort to discredit me was not going well, and resorting eventually to asking about any old extraneous matter but the Skripals. I strongly suspect it was not me being boring, but the strange performance by Kay Burley, which motivated Sky to bury the interview.
But you must judge for yourself.
It is my policy when invited by journalists, to give considered and courteous answers to the particular questions which they ask. This is as opposed to what politicians do, which is to spout pre-prepared soundbites irrespective of what they are asked.
I appreciate that mine is a very old-fashioned approach, and may lead you to be frustrated about areas I did not cover. I also make no attempt to look slick or sound glib. I realise in this modern age that may not be good PR, but my belief remains that in the long term people will see me as a polite and thoughtful old gentleman, and feel less disposed to share the obvious contempt towards me of the media and politician classes.
kay burley shilling for the empire…. craig murray 1, kay burley 0….
right out of the gate she maintains the empires position… she is due a promotion!
this^
Indeed. She refers to Craig’s “conspiracy theory” in one of her dismissive tweets. Far too fond of the sound of her own shouty voice to listen to his measured, reasonable answers. The whole experience was similar to the way Corbyn was booed and shouted down in the House of Commons.
just watched the video in full, yes i was bored, bored at the rudeness of Burley trying to intimidate and bully you Craig, clearly the interview was NOT designed to discuss the Skripal saga but designed to rubbish you for daring to question the Porton Down/Aitkenhead interview, i guess that’s why they really invited you there, the way she said at 16:14 ”if you accept that we can move on” supports it, the off-handed way she treated you combined with her insulting twitter remarks just confirms she is an intellectual minnow, these types like her have an over-inflated opinion of their importance, she simply read from a pre-printed piece of paper she was holding, that’s not interviewing it’s what we called reading out loud in my schooldays.
Shades of the jordan peterson interview were apparent in your interview Craig
Jones, you are absolutely right. The interview started to grate after a few minutes and Burley’s voice was hard to ignore as she made facile comment after facile comment. Swanning around a studio, throwing neat little barbs, not listening to reasoned answers (she never had any intention of that of course), A dreadful, amateurish and spoiled woman. I wonder if she is NCTJ-qualified?
Don’t be upset Craig. We live in a global police state.
Wonder if Sky will use your time to interview MI6 informer on WMD, like CURVEBALL back in 2003?
Now I know why I don’t watch Sky News. Kay Burkey clearly wanted to muddy the waters regarding the interview with the head of Porton Down and the editing down to just over 3 minutes where at least one answer broadcast followed a different question and Kay Burley ended up being so patronising she was embarrassing. Craig Murray gave a very clear account of his thoughts and known facts of this case, which Kay clearly at times couldn’t quite grasp or refused to. She was embarrassing, Craig was neither embarrassing or boring unless you have heard the story too many tines. Lots of interviews would be dropped if that were the criteria used.
You are wasting your time with people like this. They are professional liars and dissemblers and are fully immune to all forms of reason.
There is only language that they understand and this is it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IkZVGqER-8
Liked that. Thanks!
Well Craig, your interviewer is not a lady I am familiar with, and from that evidence, and the link provided somewhere in the comments to a variety of her ‘moments’, I am glad she is unfamiliar to me.
Thanks for your forbearance during the interview – and, weirdly perhaps, thanks to rolling news in general and in this case Sky in particular, for having the need to fill time with interviews that allow people like you to give clear and explained answers. Not having the interview available now sort supports the conspiracy theories!
Many thanks for digging this out, Craig.
I was impressed by you when I watched it live.
Even more pleased that it will now go global.
PS: Are we now seeing the Skripal dead cat, instead of being chucked on the media table in Lynton Crosby diversionary style, having a new life of its own in attracting the curiosity of all the world’s pet lovers to what really happened in Salisbury?
Well done Craig.. Especially getting in Very Important points, Like why we should be Cautious about Gov Claims ( Iraq ) ..How Russia saved Syria…And Brilliant Handling of their Intended BIG trap.. Camera Angles..!6 / 37 Questions.
I get the George G.. technique.. But I think the interview was Pulled because of Craig’s meticulous Obsevations..That Sky Hates the Public hear
The Grand Posturings of .Kay Burley were Laughable
You were superb how you managed to keep your cool and argue your case coherently in the face of her shrill hectoring tone. What a nasty woman.
That woman is a terrible interviewer…my husband has left the room in disgust, stating be cannot listen to her any more!
Yes I think we know the truth as to why this aggressive Sky Presenter’s piece was not aired.
I cannot believe her reply to you Craig….she is extremely rude, patronising and clearly dishonest. I’m guessing a good puppet though.
Well Craig – Bored? Fwiw I just watched it and was riveted! Ms Stiletto looked and sounded skewered – all that striding around was hilarious. Don’t pander to the b****** though, it only encourages them. Jolly well done.
So, Is everyone commenting here okay with the idea that Russia annexed Crimea?
Answering a question with a question:
Is it OK for our government to use lies and deceits to achieve their objectives of killing civilians and destroying a country (Iraq), or without the burden of proof isolate and punish Russia further?
thank you for trolling Arby
Are you ok with the UK annexing more than 1/3rd of the globe, committing genocide on more than continent, being the largest slave trader in the world and never apologising or admiting the crimes the UK committed against humanity?
Yes, I am.
The West was trying to isolate Russia from the Black Sea, and had Georgia attack Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the hope of doing so, but Putin beat its nutty President to the punch by seizing the tunnel to them under the Caucasus first.
Putin then regained control of the USSR’s bases in the Crimea by poular demand.
The West has been trying to destroy Russia during its Cold War with it.
Stop your whataboutery.
Well I certainly can’t speak for everyone here, but personally yes, I am OK with it. If for nothing else it should be remembered that the population of Crimea before the change was about 66% Russian and only 15% Ukrainian. Many of those Russians were also retirees and their families from Russian military service having been based at arguably Russia’s most essential military base which happens to be it’s naval base in, wait for it, Crimea. That population is also reputedly very patriotic towards Russia, which would hardly be unexpected. You have come to this site so, unless you are a professional troll, you appear to be ready to look further than the MSM, I suspect if you did so in the case of Crimea you too wouldn’t ask that question.
Yes I am because Crimea belonged to Russia until Krutchev, a Ukrainian, decided to hand it over to Ukraine.
I don’t think the term is terribly important. Annexation, reunification, outrageous thievery, glorious unilateral democratic realignment, grim unilateral realignment by force… One thing is obvious: no significant military power on Earth would have allowed the end of the Sevastopol-for-gas arrangement, with the loss of a giant naval asset to a regime moving into alignment with a hostile alliance. Realistically, geopolitically, the response to the threat to Sevastopol could have been infinitely worse than the annexation, or whatever anyone prefers to call it.
Russia annexed the Crimea in the late 18th Century under Katherine the Great.
After nigh on 200 years of being part of Russia, Khrushchev (a bit of an Ukrainophile) “gave” it to the Ukrainian SSR. I dont know what the Crimeans thought of that at the time but as good comrades maybe they didnt mind so much.
Evidently they did mind watching their democratically elected President and Government being overthrown in a violent facist coup though (see Right Sector/Svoboda party etc) because the population (70% Ethnic Russian?) voted to secede from Ukraine and furthermore rejoin Russia.
To the those who say this was a fit up by Russia to keep the Naval base please consider the population make up. Clearly this would have happened even without the Naval base. They just watched a load of Stepan Bandera loving facists violently overthrow their Government!
Ukraine is just another example of the 1984 style propaganda designed to demonise Russia. The normal thing for so called democratic nations to do would be to be outraged by a facist coup but these are not normal days. Instead we support it and impose sanctions against the country that was outraged.
And if anyone brings up “corruption” yes corruption is bad but Porosckenko and his goons are as corrupt as any who went before. That has stayed the same. What we saw was a Western backed facist coup designed to install a Western looking Govt instead of an Eastern one. “Democracy” is not the point of Regime Change – having a country in your pocket is.
Thats my probably very simplistic view. So yes Russia annexed Crimea a very long time ago
Yes I’m fine with the idea that Russia “annexed Crimea”.
The reasons for this are that:
1. Crimea was part of Russia until the 1950s.
2. Crimea is inhabited by ethnic Russians.
3. Crimea was arbitrarily handed over to Ukraine by Kruschev in 1954.
4. The Crimeans were never consulted on whether they wanted to become part of Ukraine.
5. Modern Crimeans would clearly rather be governed by Russia than by a fascist regime in Ukraine that is also a Western sockpuppet.
I hope that answers your question. You probably know a million times more about Crimea now than you did when you asked it.
Yes I am. I had no problem with Kosovo’s independence either. Mind you, Kosovo didn’t even bother with a referendum, the KLA leadership just declared independence after NATO’s illegal bombing of Yugoslavia. And of course, I think the Serbs in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina also have the right to secede. So I am being consistent. The inconsistency, shall I say hypocrisy, is on the side which is OK with the independence of Kosovo, South Sudan, Ukraine, and the Baltic midgets, but whinges about that of Crimea.
A masterclass in (politely) responding to a pushy and manipulative interviewer. Small wonder that they didn’t air it.
I am feeling really sorry that you had to go through this interview. Painful to watch, but again there would have been a petition going around to sack her (again!) after this interview which is probably why they didn’t air it. Very true after Iraq’s WMD it’s hard to believe what is force fed to us by “experts” with no proof. Let’s see what happens in a few months!
This issue of the editing of the interview touches on my professional area of expertise, and I can tell you for certain that, whilst they would often run two cameras, what isn’t done is run two different audio feeds – and that last clip was beyond question recorded with the mic in a different position and different settings. You can clearly hear the difference in the way it captures both his voice and the acoustic of the room. I would offer the opinion, given the difference in gain particularly, that it was done hastily and without proper attention or time to re-set it up..
Even if you were running a second mic on the long shot camera as a backup, you would still use the audio from your primary camera even if you were to sync it to a picture from the secondary camera. It would be very poor from the point of view of technical standards to have your audio jumping about like that, and Sky News are simply not that inept.
I am in no doubt that last clip was a later addition with the equipment re-assembled after the end of the ‘main’ interview.
great input, thanks
Thank you Ian Gibson for your professional input, most interesting!
The interviewer is nasty.
she is predictable – lots of soft ball questions first (hook), as the interviewee relaxes she throws in something that is of little importance but is given emphasis and inordinate amount of time for interviewee to accept unconditionally – the interviewee knows that any answer is open to manipulation so wont answer directly. this looks shifty and evasive. so now the context and issue and focus of the interview has changed from where it initially began and the interviewee has been made to look odd, and thats all they wanted in the public psyche.
usually there is video available for a split screen – if the interview is effective from point of the guest – the video is played and it will have negative or harmful images that play against the guests commentary.thus the guest is seen as being untruthful or a supporter of violence/terrorism etc — both sky and bbc use this tactic.
the point at 16 minutes is that what youre stating is that the context of the final comment was out of sync with the question asked. what kay was doing was to get you to say the 3 minute sky edit was not presented in a way to manipulate viewers. but the point is that the sky edit was made for the purpose of implying that russia was behind the nerve agent.
First Half,
Amazing performance by Kay Burley, whilst Craig Murray is playing very close to the net, and sending her tennis balls back. No aggression. Craig is being very Diplomatic, replying well it could have been Russia, it could have been the Ukraine…
Then Kay Burley Goes for The Hard Shot – I mean this was like Virginia Wade at her finishest She Really Thrashed The Ball at Craig Murray at around 3 mins 56
“Was it Britain”?
Still Craig Murray – leaps, stretches, jumps up, and returns the tennis ball…He is a very clever man.
Now Kay Burley is all over the court, losing her words, almost stammerring – and she is a top Professional.
Is the second half as good as this?
I need a break. i don’t normally watch TV.
Craig Murray in excellent form.
Tony
Extremely rude.
I don’t own have a television, but Sky News apparently is all about … Sky.
And Sky-the-corporation itself is all about chemical warfare; what else must we call the drug assisted wins by cyclist Chris Froome.
The interviewer did seem overly aggressive (not to mention good-looking). But I have a problem with comparing the UK’s secret intelligence in this case with that from the gulf war: the UK wasn’t under pressure from the USA here. Blair’s government may have felt under pressure then to slant secret intelligence to make a case for war because Bush wanted it. But there was no such trans-Atlantic pressure here. So why would the USA agree to expel 60 Russian diplomats?
I wonder if the Russian manual for assasins is not a blind – a piece of disinformation, put out so that the real source may remain secret.
You know what, M.J.?
I’m beginning to wonder if the Brits have been under pressure from the US in this case. Why, just as the story goes into a terminal tailspin with the good news that both Julia and Sergei Fiddler are well on the road to recovery, even if cousin Viktoria can’t see them again just yet, why does the US suddenly pile into the Oligarchs, today of all days?
Curiouser and curiouser, to quote Lewis Carroll again.
.
syria > iran/lebanon .. russia is the block.
Would be interested to know what was good looking. I guess I missed that.
Yes. Hmm. Good looking? I think someone might have some sh!t in their eye.
MJ
Blair was no innocent in the Iraq catastrophe. He
was a willing player. An odious egotistical god bothering freak who saw his name writ large in the pages of history. He really thought he was doing good and would be remembered for ever as a great man. This shameless twat is still striding the globe thinking he is a good man. The deluded c***
Shame Craig’s comments don’t have a ‘like’ facility. I enjoy seeing Blair described as what he is.
Thanks Stonky. Could you ever imagine a more shameless reptile? This man actually exists and we carry his shame for him.
“Now if you’ll excuse me I need to chose a ribbon for my hair. Have a lovely day.”
I think she needs to be taken to one side and reminded how to address customers.
Just don’t mind that individual. Aquila non Captat Muscas.
Thank you Mr Murray, not at all boring, in fact I found it very interesting.
Why not send Kay a friendly message at this video of her showing off her workout at the gym.
I went for: No thank you Kay. I’m going to watch you get shredded by Craig Murray.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BhE22xpBhm1/?taken-by=kayburley_
Fnar!
@kayburley No thanks to the exercise vid, I’m watching you being a dickhead and Craig Murray taking no notice.
Please keep it friendly(if sarcastic) otherwise they might turn it around and use anything abusive against Craig.
What? you mean actually sign in and register to comment? Are you sane? She sends out these pictures so blokes comment on her pierced belly button?
And she mixes this look at me, look at my biceps, pecs, shoulders stuff with being allowed near serious news?
@ kayburley Craig Murray had you sweating, without the burn.
I thought at first she was lifting her own body weight which would have been impressive if done that slowly & smoothly. However it becomes clear that she’s perhaps kneeling on some kind of moving platform so much less impressive & somewhat boring!
I think they had you on to have you on. I think that their motive was to try to railroad you into refuting yourself over the edited version of the questions they asked the Porton Novistooge. I think that was why she speeded up her remarks and set up a straw man that you had insinuated foul play by them over the editing, rather than that the edit was rather convenient for the state case whoever did it. If I were you I wouldn’t be on telly but if I was, I’d pursue a bent interviewer the first time they used a diversion tactic and point out that they were interrupting, changing the subject, making false claims about me or what i was purported to say and keep banging on about it for the rest of the “interview”.
She is awful and this is her condescending style. I remember she brought an interviewee to tears live on TV by conveying information about his kids which was not what he had been brought into the studio to discuss.
I’m from Poland and generally have no idea who the hell is Kay Burley (ofc, I know google). My impressions? I swear – it seems impossible, but this narcissistic scarecrow is more arrogant, brazen and boorish than Polish politicians. Incredible.
“narcissistic scarecrow” sums up KB perfectly
Total Blinder from Craig.
” I was in the Foreign Office when he had Intelligence”
Then Craig goes in for the attack…gets even closer to the camera, and lays it out straight.
Iraq’s WMD’s were a comple pack of lies.
Watch it. I am not a stenographer, and I am not going to translate it.
Buy it – I did – It’s a Page turner. The second most exciting book I have ever read.
“Murder in Samarkand – A British Ambassador’s Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror Paperback – 1 Feb 2007”
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Samarkand-Ambassadors-Controversial-Defiance/dp/1845962214
Tony
Where interviewers with an agenda mostly fail is assuming that their subject has an agenda of their own outside of the truth. Here appears to be a spectator gladly offering his input, while remaining well outside the web she is trying to spin…and simply acheived by maintaining a clear mind in pursuit of the truth via the standards of proof, logic and reason.
Compelling stuff, not boring.
This sort of “interviewing” is why I cancelled my Sky subscription of 11 years standing and I’m so happy I did watching her again. She desperately wanted you to say it was Russia, good for you standing your ground! I don’t know what happened to the Skripals either, but I can tell you this: if Russia wanted them dead, they’d have been dead on that bench. This farce of a “deadly nerve agent” “attack” “by Russia” would be comical if it wasn’t so embarrassing for our country and if Theresa May and Boris Johnson think the British People are stupid to believe this nonsense, they’re in for a rude awakening. Connect the dots. Spectacularly disastrous false flag! Thanks for posting. You were great. Kay Burley was her usual aggressive, sarcastic and shrill self – I laughed out loud, that’s her to a T!
God bless. x
moon of alabama’s latest on this – food poisoning it would appear..
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/the-best-explanation-for-the-skripal-drama-is-food-poisoning.html#more
the detective too?