Reporting the Alex Salmond Trial 261

 in Uncategorized by

Imagine you had not seen the reporting of the Julian Assange hearing by myself or by any other citizen journalist. Imagine you had only seen the reports of the mainstream media. What impression would you have of that hearing solely from the MSM and how would it differ from the impression you have now?

Every fact I reported from the Assange hearing was just that, a fact. Nobody, anywhere, has made a single claim that anything I reported to have happened, did not happen. Yet the mainstream media simply did not report 99% of the facts of the case which I reported.

Then realise this. For all the key evidential parts of Alex Salmond’s trial, the public and citizen journalists will be excluded and only the MSM will be permitted to be there. How thorough, how accurate and how fair do you think MSM reporting of the case will be? The MSM hate Alex Salmond as a danger to the status quo, just as they hate Julian Assange.

At least for the Assange trial I could queue from 6am and get in with the public. The public will themselves be excluded from the Salmond evidence sessions. I went to the court on Thursday and was told not to queue on Monday as there will be no parts of the trial open to the public that day. I was told to queue from early Tuesday morning with the possibility of a brief admission to the courtroom for the public at some point on that day, by no means guaranteed.

I have therefore applied to be admitted to the trial as a journalist. This is the email I sent to the courts service. I apologise that circumstances compelled me to blow my own trumpet, but the application is quite true if embarrassingly immodest. I am indeed the most widely read journalist resident in Scotland. The fact my journalism does not reach its audience by the medium of dead trees, or by TV news broadcast to an ever-shrinking audience of gullible old people, does not change that.

CRAIG MURRAY
To: [email protected]

Thu, 5 Mar at 16:53

Sirs,

I am arguably the most read journalist resident in Scotland. We have undoubtedly the most popular and most read new media website in Scotland, https://www.craigmurray.org.uk.
Our regular readership is higher than the regular readership of the Scotsman or Herald, and on a good day higher than any Scottish newspaper. I have 75,000 followers on Twitter.

Last week our daily coverage of the Julian Assange hearing reached many millions of readers all around the world.

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 1

Many hundreds of thousands followed the hearing on my own website, and in the English language the article was republished on hundreds of websites worldwide, as proven by a google search of an unique exact phrase from the article, which gives 869 returns
.
My Assange hearing articles last week were in addition translated and republished in languages including French, German, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese (Iberian and Brazilian), Norwegian, Japanese and probably several others of which I do not know.

It is not just a question of quantity. This is reporting of the highest quality. My Assange case reporting was commended in the strongest terms by some of the UK’s most famous journalists, including Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger

former Daily Mail chief columnist Peter Oborne

And the legendary investigative journalist John Pilger

I would therefore be grateful if you would organise media accreditation for me to cover the Salmond case. In the modern world, the best journalists and those with the biggest audiences no longer work for the corporate or state media. Plainly, I am a journalist.

Craig Murray

The response to my email was of course to send me a form to fill, and that form made absolutely plain that it expected “journalists” to be from the established corporate and state media. Amusingly it also said the media organisation must have “balanced journalism”. That is of course another lie by the authorities. They have accredited the BBC, Sky and the Daily Telegraph, for example. They have not the slightest interest in balance, merely in excluding non right wing thinkers.

I have not heard back yet on my application. There is an irony that this blog might be regarded as a significant medium of publication for purposes of being threatened with jail for (ridiculous) alleged contempt of court, but not be regarded as a publication for the purposes of attending in court.

I still await a decision. If my accreditation is not accepted, my ability to report proceedings will be severely constrained. My strong suspicion is that being a good and accurate reporter with a wide international readership will appear to the authorities precisely the grounds on which they should try to exclude me. If excluded, I will provide what reporting I can, in any event, and gain entry at least to that part where the public are admitted, while finding ways to report what I cannot directly witness: I already know a great deal more than I am permitted to tell you about the facts of the case.

——————————————

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:

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

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>

261 thoughts on “Reporting the Alex Salmond Trial”

1 2 3 4
  • Alext

    I am obviously uninformed of the Scottish laws but how is it possible that the public would not be allowed?

    • James Cook

      I too am confused. Is not allowing the public to view the trial related to protecting the identity of the accuser(s)?

    • Tom Welsh

      I imagine they will argue that the corporate MSM can be relied upon to provide complete, fair “balanced” reporting.

      If you are not employed by an officially approved MSM corporation, you are not a proper journalist.

      If you are employed by an officially approved MSM corporation, you will write only what the powers that be want to see published. (If you know what’s good for you).

      ‘Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are…”

      ‘Chomsky: “I’m not saying you’re self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting”’.

      – Transcript of interview between Noam Chomsky and Andrew Marr (Feb. 14, 1996) https://scratchindog.blogspot.com/2015/07/transcript-of-interview-between-noam.html

    • Tom Welsh

      As I keep saying, the UK is a free country – except for all the things you are not allowed to do or say.

      Try to imagine all the laws of the UK in the form of a set of books. They would certainly fill an entire room with bookshelves from floor to ceiling.

      Now understand that every line in every of those books lays down something you are obliged to do, or that you are forbidden to do.

      Now contemplate, once more, the proposition that the UK is a free country. You will see that that is a purely formal statement with no correspondence to reality.

    • Stonky

      Alext I have a degree in Scots Law from a proper university. And I can’t think of any legitimate grounds for excluding the public from the Salmond trial.

      • Lorna Campbell

        Would agree with that, Stonky. It is usually just in matters of state security. Perhaps they are worried that Twitter will dominate proceedings, and, to be fair, it probably would, and the alleged victims’ identities are guaranteed by law to be protected, so that might well be the reason. Some vicious people take great delight in so-called ‘naming and shaming’ of alleged victims and or alleged perpetrators, when it suits their own particular prejudices. I suspect prejudice will be in overdrive in this case, in both directions. So long as justice is done and seen to be done (Mr Salmond, like the women involved here, will have lawyers acting for him, and support, too, if he has asked for it so, perhaps, we shouldn’t be unduly bothered. If there is to be a lack of justice based on the evidence for either side, that would be very worrying indeed.

        • Stateside

          Well, in many States in the USA the courts reveal the names and addresses of the jurors after the conclusion of the trial.

    • Cubby

      “The court has the power under statute to exclude the press, along with the public, in cases involving a charge of rape or other charges of a sexual nature. Section 92(3) of the criminal procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.”

      It is a power it is not mandatory. What is the definition of the press I guess is the question for Craig.

      Do all the accusers want their identity kept secret is another question.

      • craig Post author

        There is a very good reason for keeping the accusers’ identity secret in this case. It is no exaggeration to say the fate of a nation hangs upon their success in doing just that.

        • A C Bruce

          Does “a nation” refer to Scotland, Craig? (post at 03.31 March 8)

          Sorry, I’m not being nasty or anything – probably a bit dim/confused. I just don’t believe, as some people do, that the UK is a nation but it can be a bit unclear as to what is meant. The fate of the UK worries me not a jot but Scotland’s fate is a different matter.

      • Cubby

        My understanding is that if a member of the press is allowed in to the court they will be expected to keep the accusers identities secret. If they do not they will no doubt be sacked and the newspaper will probably not be allowed access to any other case in the future but no legal proceedings will be/can be taken against the individual reporter or editor. It is a matter of trust between the court and the media allowed access. Do they trust Craig? Perhaps the First Minister satire is working against Craig covering the case. I did in a previous post make the point that Craig may not be allowed to cover the case but the moderator on Craig’s site did not publish it.

        However, any individual not formally allowed access to the court for reporting purposes can and will be prosecuted if they divulge the identities. I am sure Craig knows this.

        So anyone advocating he should divulge the accusers identities, if he knows them, is trying to get Craig in trouble either on purpose or through ignorance. If Craig feels strongly enough to go down this road then let it be his choice – do not pressurise him.

        • Antonym

          Will the accuser’s identity stay secret even to the under trial person – Alex Salmond?
          If so something is Rotten in the state of Scotland.

          • Cubby

            Antonym

            I am pretty sure Alex Salmond and his legal team are well aware of the identity of the accusers.

      • Tom Welsh

        While I understand that my personal opinion carries absolutely no weight, surely it is wrong in principle for any trial to be held in secret.

        Obviously people who claim to have been raped or otherwise maltreated would much prefer their cases to be handled in secrecy. But how can that perfectly reasonable preference defeat the need for charges and accusations to be made public? “Hard cases make bad law”, and all this secrecy looks like bad law to me.

        Moreover, the wish of the alleged victim for secrecy too often coincides with the preferences of the authorities.

        Lord Acton was exactly right when said that, “Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice: nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity”.

        From the othe side of the pond, an equally authoritative view:

        “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman”.

        – US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941)

  • Hugh Chubb-Tyke

    “Imagine you had not seen the reporting of the Julian Assange hearing by myself…”

    It was rigorous, eye-opening and accomplished via great effort. Outstanding.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Reporting two(2) – no – three(3) other important – super important trials:-

    IF THE US SUPREME COURT ABANDONS PRECEDENT HERE – THEN WE CAN BE ASSURED THAT THE US IS WAY UP THAT STREAM WITHOUT A JUDICIAL PADDLE.

    MAY I ADD THAT THERE ARE TWO(2) IMPORTANT CASES ADVANCING WHICH SHALL SIGNAL THE JURISPRUDENTILA PATH OF THE WESTERN WORLD:-]

    THE JULIAN ASSANGE UK EXTRADITION APPLICATION:-
    THE TRUMP APPLICATIONS AND HEARINGS WHICH I REFERENCE BELOW.
    LET US SEE WHICH WAY THE WINDS BLOW.

    Trump Is Counting on the Supreme Court to Save Him
    The Atlantic
    The president’s remarkable lawsuit against his own accountants and bankers can succeed only if the conservative majority intervenes on his behalf. Read the full story – Read the full story:-

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/mazars-lawsuit/607540/

  • JOML

    The trial of James Stewart is evidence that justice in Scotland is not guaranteed, where ‘British interests’ are involved. Trials can be a sham and it looks like history is repeating itself.

    • Cubby

      I doubt it will look like the Stewart trial but if the public are not admitted how do we know how it will look?

      The murder victim was a Campbell. The judge was a Campbell and the majority of the jury were Campbells. The Campbells of course were very loyal to the British state. A kangaroo court – a British state Kangaroo trial in Scotland. It was intended to be a warning to Scots to toe the British line.

      A disgrace for the legal system in the 18th century. Are things better today? Certainly hope so.

      • Lorna Campbell

        Yes, as a Campbell, I can say that it is. I’m not on the jury. I cannot imagine how they managed to pick a presumably ‘neutral’ jury in the first place.

        • Isobel

          Assuming Salmond’s trial follows normal procedure it should be just a case of 15 members of the public whose names are on the electoral resigter drawn from a fish bowl out of those who bothered to answer their ‘jury citation’ from the 90 ‘cited’ for each trial set down.

          • Cubby

            And if by “bad luck” 12 of the 15 jurors hate Alex Salmonds’guts. Make no mistake a large percentage of the population in Scotland hate his guts.

            I have been on three juries in the past and the attitude of some jurors was a disgrace.

          • Mockingbird

            The jury system is a crapshoot. Juries are motivated by bias, emotion and prejudice. Salmond will be keenly aware of that.

          • Lorna Campbell

            Just being ironic, Isobel. and, perhaps, too flippant. I know how juries are selected. Sorry.

  • William

    Watch yersel Craig but keep Scotland Truthful! If our Courts contrive to block your reports it will damn them in the eyes of every Scot. This Establishment disease of avoiding fact is the very antithesis of the Scottish contribution to the modern World! It bodes ill for the future of our children and grandchildren!

  • Cubby

    There is something rotten in the state of Scotland.

    Treachery abounds.

    Shakespeare would make a grand play of this.

    • Isobel

      There are no transcripts of trials in Scotland but they are recorded for use in for example Appeal hearings.

  • Graham Harris Graham

    Thank you for all your hard work on reporting these trials Craig.

    There are so few places left where I can read about events & believe what I am being told. This blog is one of them. I don’t always agree with that about which you write but I believe that you believe it to be true. That for now is sufficient. Thus I canceled my subscription tonight & then started a new one but doubled the amount.

    I cannot be alone with my suspicion that the trial of Alex Salmond is part of plot to eliminate what the British State views as a serious threat to its grip on Scotland’s assets & wealth without which, it would be in serious economic trouble. Its loss of territory & the image that it likes to project across the globe would also be greatly diminished. Scotland really is the last major possession of Empire. Scotland’s independence would therefore be viewed as a huge psychological stab in The Establishment’s eye.

    Sadly, England suffers from chronic low productivity, decades long negative trade balances, miserable inequality, worsening living standards & crushing debt, much of it mitigated by Scotland’s surplus wealth from its energy, food & drink sectors. The damage to England from Brexit will be severe & long lasting but nothing compared to the loss of Scotland.

    Westminster, The Establishment & various apparatus of the British State will continue to subvert Scotland’s drift towards independence. And while I think Scotland’s independence is inevitable, we the people & those elected to represent us will pay a heavy price long before we are able to extract ourselves from the UK.

    You keep doing what you do & we will continue to support you.

    • Cubby

      GHG

      Excellent post. I would just add that this trial will affect A. Salmond ( no matter the verdict) and probably the SNP but it will not affect the drive for independence from YES supporters in a negative way but may possibly affect it in a positive way.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    “For all the key evidential parts of Alex Salmond’s trial, the public and citizen journalists will be excluded and only the MSM will be permitted to be there.”

    So what is the point of it then? Why not simply just publish the agreed verdict at the start of the show trial, and again in High definition at the end, using the same script that was decided before the start?

    There is something very strange going on at the moment, that I do not understand. Hardly anyone we know, is any different to normal with regards to anyone getting a bad cold, or flu, and maybe great great grannie going into hospital for awhile, cos they think she may have pneumonia, but is then released as OK, and she gets better.

    So is this Coranaviolence, any different to the normal psy-ops?

    How come it seems to be operating at a Global Level, but hardly anyone – beyond what is normal seems to be ill..and life more or less continues the same, except a manic obsession, even were we live, for some people to buy as much toilet paper as possible . If this nonsense, where no medical authority has suggested yet it gives you the sh1its, more an attack on your lungs – like getting a bad cold cough cough – which is pretty normal for this time of the year??? What surprises me, is that even normal investigative websites, like Moon Of Alabama have fallen for this nonsense, whilst OffGuardian has been the height of investigative journalism, and there is only about 3 or 4 of them. Someone, guess who? has been doing almost remorseless Denial of Service attacks on them. I might send them some money again. They are only trying to write and publish what they and their contributors have researched and think is close to the truth, and they all accept, that they could be wrong, but are simply working on all the objective evidence that is available. They are not doing it for money. They are doing it for Truth. People like them, give me hope for the future for my grandchildren. I guess some of them used to be paid to work for The Guardian, but then resigned, cos they couldn’t take the lies and the propaganda any more, especially when Luke turned up. Monbiot was bad enough, but everyone has their limits.

    https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/05/coronavirus-the-only-thing-spreading-exponentially-is-fear/

    Tony

  • Roddy Smith

    Thank you for your genuinely objective reporting. To exclude honest reporters from the Salmond trial indicates the influence from those Establishment figures who need Scotland’s wealth to continue to finance their unearned riches with resulting power and privilege. Your independent reporting and social media are changing that undemocratic position, hence the Establishment’s need to limit reporting to those outlets that voice its propaganda that attempts to undermine the Independence movement. Without truly independent reporting we edge ever closer to a fascist state of existence. Thank you for your integrity and bravery when prosecution threatens for possible contempt of court procedings for ignoring controls to mask the truth that should take inherent pride of place in a true democracy.

  • MBC

    Is Libby Brooks going to be the reporter from the Press Association? She wrote the Guardianarticle.

  • Antonym

    So what are they trying to hide from the public eye?
    Are their facts too shaky?

    Their motive is clear: Salmond is about the only person on the British Isles capable of ending the “Union”, so he must be stopped at any cost.

  • Bruce

    Craig, a random paranoid thought here (hopefully unfounded). Is it possible there is a d-notice in effect regarding the Assange case? Will you identifying as media/a journalist put you in breach of the assange d-notice (if there is one). What is the penalty for breaching a d-notice?

    From a random citizen concerned for your wellbeing.

    • SA

      I thought D notices were voluntary and the press had to participate in a committee led by the services.

  • iain

    Hope you are successful in gaining entry because the MSM remit is to portray Salmond as Scotland’s Harvey Weinstein and use that to smear the idea of an independent Scotland. If only their voices are reporting on the trial the repercussions could be serious.

  • Mist001

    It says in the Grauniad this morning that: “While there is no general prohibition on identifying sexual offence complainers in Scotland, editorial convention dictates that they are not”

    Is this true? It’s only convention (tradition) and not a legal requirement? There are no come backs if an individual decided to name the complainants?

    Everyone knows Alex Salmonds’ name and the circumstances of this trial and yet the complainants are permitted anonymity simply because someone thinks it’s the right thing to do, not because it would be illegal to do otherwise.

    If so, then what are you waiting for? If they won’t play ball with you by effectively banning the public from attending the trial, why should you play ball with them?

    • Cubby

      It is of course very easy for Mist001 to push this suggestion as he lives in France well away from the arm of the law in Scotland. Craig would be prosecuted if he followed Mist001s advice if he was not allowed access to the court.
      People deemed members of the public can and have been prosecuted for divulging identies to the wider public such as a blog or on social media. In Craigs case I very much doubt it would be a monetary fine even though the Scotgov is wanting to reduce short prison sentences.

    • Tom Welsh

      I wouldn’t believe anything at all that The Grauniad says.

      Still less in a legal matter.

  • DiggerUK

    It is normal for those working as journalists to be members of The National Union of Journalists in the UK.
    Many NUJ members are also members of the International Federation of Journalists, do you have membership of either of these organisations Craig. They could assist you in this matter…_

  • Neil

    Craig,

    I have some weird idea buried deep in the back of my brain that you held an NUJ card? If true, that might be worth mentioning in you application?

    Ah well, just a thought.

    PS. Many thanks for your masterly reporting on the Assange case.

    • craig Post author

      I had a temporary freelance NUJ card for 3 years but it has expired. I should like to join the NUJ but their membership rules are also outdated and based around employment by the mainstream media, from which you must draw half of your income to qualify.

      I discussed the problem with the Secretary General of the organisation at the Assange trial and he suggested I apply for Associate membership. The problem is that specifically states it does not entitle you to a Press card.

  • Mary

    Good for RT, They have kept him on.

    The politics of Scotland and England have never been more divergent, with Scotland pro European and leftwards, while England turns to the populist right of Boris Johnson and the Brexiteers. The Alex Salmond Show interviews author and MP Kenny MacAskill on his new book on the radical politics of Scotland from the Napoleonic period to the rising of 1820, while commentator George Kerevan, who has been both a Labour Councillor and an SNP MP, analyses the radical politics of modern Scotland.
    5th March 2020
    https://www.rt.com/shows/alex-salmond-show/482339-radical-scotland-kenny-macaskill/

  • Rhys Jaggar

    I today will be ‘giving a statement of my own volition to the police’ about an incident which happened 4 months ago, where I was verbally threatened with violence three times and at the third time of asking, responded vituperatively with a very forthright expression.

    I reported the incident to the Chair of the association where the incident took place, downgraded the official complaint to something I thought would mean that face could be saved and life could go on, heard nothing further about it and assumed that the finessing had worked.

    I must now respond to a complaint, four months on that ‘I threatened the complainant with a weapon’.

    It is interesting that this was not raised contemporaneously and makes one wonder what the new motivation might be.

    One assumes that vehement, vigorous and firm denial of the charges, allied to supplying the contemporaneous report I filed with the relevant Chairman, will be enough to see this scurrilous false allegation off.

    But in the world we live in now, who knows?

    I am about to see whether I am an Assange, a Salmond, in miniature.

    The world is a funny place when those who threaten to deck someone three times in a loud voice can then make accusations to police that they were ‘threatened with a weapon’.

    But I guess freedoms come with a price tag………

    • Bruce

      Sounds like the classic “accuse your enemy/victim of that which you are guilty”.

      Hope it works out well for you Rhys.

    • Tom Welsh

      If there are no reliable witnesses, I would presume that no legal action would be possible.

      Any malicious person can invent complaints about someone they dislike or have reason to harm.

      But it’s probably too much to expect that such elementary common sense and fairness would cut any ice in this vile world of ours.

      (Actually it’s not the world that is vile, but some of the people in it. “Where every prospect pleases/And only Man is vile”).

    • Ian Foulds

      Good luck and stay strong. Only principled people have the right to and can overcome/ take control of a society where it would appear that the ‘animals are running the farm’. (ref. Mr. Orwell)

  • Monster

    I wonder if it is the same organisation pulling the legal strings in Scotland as they did with their puppet Vanessa Baraitser in London. National security is their business after all. Craig has done a magnificent job which MSM journalists are incapable of. Floreat Craig(a)!

  • Republicofscotland

    “Then realise this. For all the key evidential parts of Alex Salmond’s trial, the public and citizen journalists will be excluded and only the MSM will be permitted to be there. How thorough, how accurate and how fair do you think MSM reporting of the case will be? ”

    This is unfu#king believable, its pretty obvious that it will be a stick up, and reported in the compliant unionist media as a victory for justice.

  • Merkin Scot

    The MSM headlines will have been written some time ago and distributed to the relevant editors.
    Deputy Dug on Boris channel this morning shows ‘you couldn’t make it up’ died a long time ago.

  • James

    Craig Murray – I strongly appreciate the work you have done on the Assange case and also what you are doing with the Salmond case.

    I prefer Scotland to belong to the UK rather than be independent.

    The one thing that convinces me a priori of Salmond’s innocence is the way they are going about this – if it was a `fair’ prosecution, then they would not need to resort to these tricks of excluding the public.

    I have one question – which perhaps somebody here can answer: did Alec Salmond have any part in passing the legislation which makes it possible to have a trial `behind closed doors’ and one where the identity of the accusers is kept secret?

    • Cubby

      James

      Your question.

      If you look at my post above (8th March 1.40am) I refer to the criminal procedure (Scotland) act 1995.

      In 1995 there was no devolution/ no Scottish parliament. Alex Salmond was not First Minister then. So the answer should be no.

  • Republicofscotland

    They’ve probably looked at your excellent coverage of the Assange fit up in Woolwich and thought to themselves, we’d better not let that happen here.

    Right now I’m absolutely appalled and disgusted by the the Scottish judiciary actions on not letting the public in, I’ve read about closed courts on childrens hearing, but to me its unclear in this matter, today victims can give evidence via screens in room outside the courts, so other than allowing for misrepresentation of the case by hand picked journalists, I see no valid reason why the public gallery should be closed to well the public, its not as if the defendant is a terrorist or mass murderer.

    Also is there not some way to legally challenge this say writing to the say the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC asking for some clarity on the matter.

  • Republicofscotland

    “while finding ways to report what I cannot directly witness: I already know a great deal more than I am permitted to tell you about the facts of the case.”

    We await you blowing open this fetid can of worms post trial, though I’m hoping what you reveal doesn’t damage, (may make it stronger in the long run, who knows) our chance for independence.

    • Cubby

      ROS

      You can still be prosecuted for revealing the identities after the trial has been concluded.

        • Cubby

          ROS

          Correct but unfortunately if the information revealed still leads the public to be able to identify the accusers identities or identity then a prosecution can and has previously proceeded. A very fine line will have to be tread to avoid prosecution.

  • djm

    Inferring the BBC & Sky & DT are “right wing”………..HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    & breathe

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • alexT

    Interesting.

    Did the court already rule on the non-public proceedings? I guess that’s something that can be challenged by the defendant? Unless minors are involved my personal view is that public trials should be afforded to the accused.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.