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.
Wow, what is up with that interviewer? I thought you held up extremely well Mr Murray in the face of an increasingly erratic and confusing barrage of questions. I think she got increasingly flustered at her inability to fluster you.
One would be interested to know how that interviewer would have performed had her hands been strapped to her sides. Would she have been able to articulate at all? Probably not, which would have been a good thing, really.
Seconded. You did really well Craig, in face of an extremely arrogant, ignorant and what appeared to be continuously prompted “reporter”.
Huh? Care to be more specific? What was on BBC tonight and what points are undermined and how?..
Answering to Fred’s twisted logic:
Nerve agents are deadly by definition, i.e. Kim Jong Ung’s brother assassination with VX. He lasted 20 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnkw1LwXwBk
It was not the UK Gov critics whom have been repeating that Novichok was used and that it is military grade nerve agent, 8 to 10 times deadlier than VX, it was Theresa, Boris, Gavin and UK MSM. Being that the case, they are the ones that have to explain how this VERY DEADLY nerve agent managed not to kill an old guy and his healthy young daughter instantly and gave them time to drive, eat, drink, stroll, seat in a bench and then, in a very coordinated fashion, feeling sick at the same time after 4 hours of touching a contaminated door knob.
—————————————————-
fred
April 6, 2018 at 23:55
Hiroshima was a city of 340,000 people, when America dropped an atom bomb on it more than half of them survived.
Maybe atom bombs aren’t so deadly after all.
—————————————————–
If 170,000 people died, I’d say that bomb was deadly. Then again, perhaps Fred will go to any lengths to defend the establishment and all things Great (?) Britain, regardless?
I will defend common sense and logic.
.. wherever it suits you.
FTFY.
So it’s twisted logic when applied to atom bombs but not when applied to nerve agents.
How about if I said the bomb dropped on Hiroshima couldn’t have been an atomic bomb because atomic bombs kill people instantly and more than half the people were not killed?
So fred, where were those half of 340K when the bomb was dropped at the epicentre? I think you’re conflating a lot of incompatible things here!
fred. One new Russian Sarmat could deploy 15×350 kiloton nuclear warheads. That would be enough to eradicate London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Maybe even Bristol as well. Comparing a Hiroshima or Nagasaki to new nuclear weapons is like comparing a VW Beetle to a Bugatii Chiron.
The largest ever nuclear bomb was the “Tsar Bomba” which had a yield of 50 megatons and possibly up to 100 megtons. One of these would eradicate all of greater London with an air burst.
What a really horrible woman
Despite the interviewer best efforts – at best she seemed a little confused as to what she wanted – some good points were made. I think the interview was shelved because of her performance – rather than it being boring.
This and other sites will be tolerated as long as they don’t reach to much public. As long as this “subversive” content is only read by us, the very small part of the population seeking the truth and the paid trolls spying on us, everything is Ok.
Gov & MSM will never facilitate Craig’s ideas or, for that matter, all our comments, to reach the general public. Try to find an article where to comment in The Guardian, for example, and if you find it, check how fast the editors close the comments if they are not in line with the newspaper narrative. Sky already met the bar of being “impartial” by interviewing Craig live, but will not allow further broadcasting by uploading the video to its website. It doesn’t matter if the lady’s performance was good or bad or if Craig was boring or not.
They must be going after RT and Sputnik because they have too much audience.
I’m with Roger: “I think the interview was shelved because of her performance”
If Ms Burley needs some help picking out a ribbon for her hair, might I suggest a bright, yellow one. It would go ceratinly go along well with the type of journalism she and her employer apparently favour.
Oh snap! 😉
…..surprised the interviewer will be able to look for anything seeing as her head is so firmly rooted up her own backside…..
What was very annoying to me was this several times repeating in a question that mr. Skripal, daughter and policeman were victims. Take e.g. the question about wheter or not Porton Down must have had the strain of novichok to compare it to the agent actually used. Seems that this way of asking questions must be frustrating for the person interviewed. From 10:21:01.
And then this “Sorry buddy” If you are accosted in that way overhere in NL, we would say; Did we go to the same elementary school? Meaning you are definitely not my buddy and I resent of being adressed this way by you.
By the way look at her moving around, the body language is telling. Self-important unnecessary moving around, but maybe that is the way they do it at Sky. Keeping the eyeballs glued to the screen by presenting movement.
All the time interrupting him is also very anoying. Hope she found that ribbon for her hair.
Mr Murray answered this extremely rude Kate Burley with grace, a man who knows what he’s talking about to a useless interviewer, to tell mr Murray he’s not interesting is surely todays smile when she’s the most boring interviewer on tv.
If the UK government have no strain or original pattern from the original alleged batch then how was a determination made of a poisoning attempt.
Kay Burley has not quelled any fears when the full 35 questions were not broadcast so the camera dolly tracking tripod is irrelevant when the full 35 questions and the angle views were not broadcast.
You sir are indeed a true gentlemen. One must stand firm in the face of all the dis-information that is systemically disseminated to the masses through the MSM outlets. Kay Burley is nothing more than a hired gun, a blot on the profession of journalism.
You alleged that some editing took place and she goes at some length to show that editing did take place and pieces were moved around. She confirms by her contradiction.
Thank you for posting this, Mr. Murray — it was informative and quite the opposite of boring. My husband was in the next room while the interview played, so he didn’t really hear the content (rather the tone), and he said at one point in an exasperated voice, “Who IS that woman?”
what kind of news channel selects kay burley to front it? surely the primary aim is not to repel viewers?
Can we now get rid of Kay Burley as she is not interesting
Plus most of the ‘Stars’ at the BBC-Ahem-‘News’. As they are equally uninterestiing, and after this affair we know for certain that they are deeply and dangerously biased.
Stood up to a rude ignorant interviewer, found the answers balanced and informative.
The line of questioning seemed to try and oversimplify the matter and disregarded in particular other possible explanations as to who may have been responsible and what their motivation may have been ; Ukraine, Iran, ‘countries involved in middle East conflicts’.
Her lunacy towards the end in attacking his perfectly reasonable observation about the editing of a 15 minute interview down to 3.5 minutes was quite a spectacle. Difficult to understand what she was trying to get him to say, that he had seen a 15 minute interview on 3.5 minutes?? Weird .
I watched the while interview and found his answers engaging and as an interviewee he seemed informed and experienced.
She is really boring, why would Sky employ someone who’s repose is ok, ok, ok. Stupid woman
Two people involved in the interview, the boring one wore a skirt, but I have no proof both weren’t.
I thought you did an excellent job.
Clearly an attempt at a stitch up, aimed at discrediting Mr Murray. But sadly for Sky, and probably HMG, there was nothing said that could be edited to portray Craig as a tin foil hat wearer. They were probably even hoping for use of the I word in connection with possible suspects ? 🙂
There needs to be a law that people interviewed by the media get an unedited recording of the complete interview along with a recording of the interview as edited before going to air and a copyright free right to play both to any audience they can attract if they dispute the editing or subsequent commentary on the interview as Craig has done.
Sadly we are all expected to conform and accept without question what we are told by those who’d have us believe that they know what’s best. It starts as soon as we’re born, continues throughout our school years and into our adult lives. Anyone who questions the perceived wisdom of those in authority is seen as a troublemaker and strong attempts are made to discredit them. Certainly it would seem that Kay Burley’s sole aim during that interview was to ridicule you and undermine your position. This strategy is exactly the same one the MSM have been using with Jeremy Corby. People like Nigel Farage, who should be taken to task, are feted and applauded. This type of action has also led us to the untenable position we now find ourselves in with regard to Brexit. Carry on what you’re doing Craig. The interview was not “boring” but actually highlighted the failings of the so-called ‘objective’ journalism of the MSM.
This was not a boring interview!
Handled quite well considering it was obviously intended to be a stitch up. You did get drawn off into a bit of a pointless discussion around the criticisms of the other interview. Might have been better to play politician and ignore the questions and just make your own points until the interviewer moved back to a sensible topic. Sometimes a bit of push and shove with the interviewers is necessary. Although to be fair I think you know all this already but choose to play it the way you do, which is admirable. It is possible to understand the ‘game’ but not be willing to play it to get up the greasy pole. It comes at personal cost but integrity is priceless in my own view.
I did like your cunning positioning of your book on Sikunder in the background. It worked on me because I just purchased a copy!
Yes. I noticed the strategically placed copy of Sikunder Burnes. You little tinker Craig! The next thing Sky will be billing you for the ad.
Burley has obviously had training on neurolinguistic skills in the style of BLiar. Watch her hand movements Another exponent of these is Julia Middleton who founded Common Purpose.
possibly her finest moment:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9590623/April-Jones-Kay-Burley-vilified-after-telling-local-volunteers-live-on-air-they-dont-expect-to-find-her-alive.html
Kay Burley is an arrogant arse,
and you shouldn’t have been so effusive in your prise of Sky!
PRAISE!
It’s about disarming a hostile interviewer. It helps the interviewee cope with being attacked and it causes the interviewer to show how shrill they are. That is probably why they couldn’t put any parts of the interview out. It was not worth showing how pathetic she was just to try and cut a small bit of the interview to discredit Craig.
That fact that the PD CEO interview had 35 questions and they could only release that car crash of a 4 minute interview must mean the rest of it must have been painstaking to watch.
Not so much painstaking to watch as inadvertently ‘refuting their narrative’, I think.
The truth is very boring and lies are wild-eyed, dramatic and fascinating in an oddly nauseating way – so keep telling the truth, Craig, and never lose your politeness and clear-headedness (however boring).
The presenter is a study in passive-aggression. My guess is that Sky we’re hoping to have a clown fish in their net. You obviously disappointed them. Well done!
how to conduct an interview:
https://tinyurl.com/y78qgzxo
A bad interview but not your fault. The fault is squarely on the interviewer. You were simply not saying what she wanted you to.
I think you a very polite older gentleman Craig and age has instead served to sharpen your sword. It is always a very welcome thing for us Brits to have former insiders speak out on matters like this; it really should be Cricket sans the sandpaper and people like you are very much needed here. All other things considered, can we say the ‘era of the whistle blower and insider voices’ is firmly underway now? A phalanx of ‘insider’ souls with swords for tongues ready, willing and able to pipe up at appropriate moments to say ‘well actually…….’? There is safety in numbers and when whistle blowers form packs in order to gain mutual protection (see the case of Cambridge Analytica), one foresees a very shaky future for many an establishment figure.
Not remotely boring. A very credible viewpoint from Craig Murray and Kay Burley her usual cringeworthy self. Does she (and Sky) really think people are that stupid!?
Don’t answer that!