Beyond any doubt, it would have been Dominic Raab’s personal decision to grant a fake diplomatic immunity to Anne Sacoolas and permit her to leave the country. I have watched with sheer horror the Tory crocodile tears, the ministerial meetings with Harry Dunn’s brave but distraught family, and the PR pretence that the UK is seeking Anne Sacoolas’ return, now that she is safely back at CIA HQ. It is perhaps the most nauseating display of individual hypocrisy I have ever seen in politics. The callous abuse of Harry Dunn’s suffering family and the sheer cynicism of the patent charade that the government is supporting them, leave me deeply depressed – and very angry.
It may surprise you, but I have known and worked with some Tories who were at heart honorable men. The centre of this government is estranged from the very concept of personal honour.
The Permanent Secretary of the FCO, Simon McDonald, in appearing virtually before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee this week, stated in evidence that the initial advice from FCO Legal Advisers was that Anne Sacoolas did not have diplomatic immunity, but that this legal advice changed after discussion with the US State Department. Crucially McDonald stated that the legal advice had gone to three FCO ministers including Raab, but he does not seem to have stated who made the actual decision to let Sacoolas go – largely because nobody on the Committee seems to have asked him the right question. With a CIA officer killing a young British lad, it is from my personal FCO experience inconceivable this was not Raab’s call.
I have explained, from long before there was any acknowledgement of the fact in the mainstream media, that Anne Sacoolas did not qualify for diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention. That specifically reserves immunity for families to diplomatic agents carrying diplomatic rank, which Sacoolas’ husband never had.
Please read my detailed explanation here, or the rest of this article will be hard going.
The Foreign Office Must Be Challenged Over Sacoolas’ Immunity
The British government claims that there is a secret bilateral treaty governing the status of American spies at RAF Croughton, under which Anne Sacoolas does have immunity.
Now I want you to follow this very closely. I apologise that, if you are unfamiliar with the concepts, it is difficult to get your head around.
You will recall that in the Julian Assange case, the British government is claiming that Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty of 2007, which bans “political” extradition, has no force in law. The British government argues that this is because an international treaty the UK has entered into only has legal force in the UK if it is specifically incorporated into law by UK legislation; and the 2007 UK/US Extradition Treaty never was so incorporated. The UK government argues that the 2007 Treaty depends on the 2003 Extradition Act, but as the 2003 Act is (they claim) incompatible with Article 4 of the 2007 Treaty, then Article 4 must fall. Political extradition would therefore become possible.
The UK government position in the Assange case is that the UK government’s treaty commitments are legally void unless specifically passed into UK legislation.
Well – very definitely no “secret treaty” over RAF Croughton has ever been incorporated into UK law. The only legal basis on which Dominic Raab could give Anne Sacoolas immunity is the Diplomatic Privileges Act of 1964, which incorporates the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations into UK law. And Ms Sacoolas’ so-called immunity is incompatible with the Vienna Convention as her husband is not a diplomatic agent carrying diplomatic rank. He could only be technical and administrative staff of the US Embassy (itself a dubious claim). The families of Technical and Administrative staff do not have any immunity under the Vienna Convention. Therefore Dominic Raab had no legal power to grant Anne Sacoolas immunity. There is no UK law that confers that power upon him, whatever any secret treaty might say.
In short, the British government is arguing the opposite in the Sacoolas case to its argument in the Assange case. It claims a secret bilateral treaty with the US could alone give Dominic Raab the legal power to grant Ms Sacoolas immunity. While in the Assange case it argues that a bilateral treaty with the USA carries no legal force.
I should straighten one wrinkle. I understand that the current fig leaf which UK government lawyers are attempting to shrink behind is the provision in the 1964 Diplomatic Privileges Act authorising bilateral arrangements which confer immunities over and above those conferred by the Vienna Convention. There is indeed such a provision, at article 7 of the Act.
But note this: it only provides for special bilateral arrangements already in place “at the commencement of the Act”, ie before 1964. Furthermore those bilateral arrangements must, as specified in the legislation, be listed in the London Gazette. I searched the Gazette, which was as little fun as it sounds. Journalism is tough work if you do it properly, which is presumably why the media no longer even pretend to do it. Eventually I tracked down the list of bilateral arrangements under the Diplomatic Privileges Act on page 8,292 of Issue 4,351 of the London Gazette.
Special bilateral arrangements with the USA were indeed gazetted (and now you know where that term comes from).
But note that this special arrangement for US technical and administrative staff only applies to clause 7 (b) of the Act, not 7(A). That is it only confers exemption from taxation. In effect, the only right Mr Sacoolas was granted was the right to buy duty free booze – a right which may well have its part to play in the death of Harry Dunn. There was no diplomatic immunity for Sacoolas, let alone his family, irrespective of what the FCO might claim.
There is no secret treaty over RAF Croughton, or arrangement for diplomatic immunity there, ever posted in the London Gazette under the 1964 Act or ever embodied in any other primary or secondary UK legislation. The initial FCO legal advice, that Anne Sacoolas had no immunity, was very plainly correct.
The evidence given by Simon McDonald was that a secret treaty purported to give full immunity to spies like Sacoolas, but that this treaty had been recently amended to remove their immunity. However, McDonald continued, in removing the immunity for spies it had not stated that it also removed immunity for their families, so that remained. He called this “apparently illogical” and “a recondite piece of law”.
It is in fact utter nonsense. The only families who have Vienna Convention immunity are the families of diplomatic agents having diplomatic rank. They only have diplomatic immunity through the diplomatic agent. A family cannot have diplomatic immunity while the (alleged) Embassy staff member on whom that immunity depends does not. It is not just illogical, it is impossible in terms of the Vienna Convention, and diplomatic immunity can only be conferred through the incorporation of the Vienna Convention into UK law in the 1964 Diplomatic Privileges Act. All of which Simon McDonald knows very well.
My own interpretation is that McDonald was obviously calling into ridicule a case for which he has great personal distaste, by making bare its absurdity whilst appearing to defend it as a loyal civil servant. Which is as absurd as the rest of this disgusting quagmire of immorality.
I am very grateful to those of you who responded to my call to put in Freedom of Information requests on the UK government position re the applicability of Article 4 of the 2007 UK/US Extradition Treaty. The first results are starting to come through. As suspected the government are being as obstructive and unhelpful as possible.
The FCO has stated that it does hold material on the internal assessment of the official UK government view from 2003 to 2007 of the compatibility of Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty of 2007 with the Extradition Act of 2003. However it is refusing to retrieve and release the material on grounds of excessive cost, claiming it would take more than the mandated 3.5 man days to process the request.
As all the material in question from those dates will be electronically stored, I know they are lying about excessive time and cost. We are looking to break down the request into several smaller chunks to parcel out. It is however very instructive already that the FCO is admitting it does hold the information. This confirms what I explained, that internal FCO systems, to my certain and direct knowledge, make it impossible that the 2007 US/UK Extradition Treaty could have been ratified by the UK without a preceding very thorough Whitehall assessment of the enforceability of all of its provisions in UK law.
Unfortunately I now have my own quite severe legal difficulties to which I need to attend. I was very keen to get this material to help the Harry Dunn campaign finished and published, which is why I am completing this article at 5.30am after writing it all night. I regret that the haste required has made my explanation of a technically complex subject not as straightforward nor as elegant as I would usually try to achieve. It also means that you need to follow the links and read some of the past material I had written, rather than my setting it out all afresh in a self-sufficient article as I would have wished. I do apologise for this, but will explain the difficult circumstances shortly.
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.
——————————————
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:
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.
Keep going Craig and look after yourself. Dangerous days. To think that my father’s generation fought against Fascism.
_____
The Soaraway Sun reveals that the Brazilian wife of Raab, Erika, worked for Alphabet Inc, aka Messrs Larry Page and Sergey Brin, aka Google, until recently.
‘Erika continued to work in Marketing after finishing her studies, going onto become Marketing Executive at Google.
However, she left earlier in 2020.’
Her departure precipitated by hubby’s elevation?
.
My father helped secure the West’s border with the USSR at he Czech border by rushing across Germany’s south with a 300-mile rush across it in a month by the 87th Division, reminiscent of William Sherman’s rush across southern Georgia to the sea in a1864 month to knock the Confederacy out of the Civil War.
But he never got credit for it, and it was never acknowledged.
The two cases of Dunn and Assange relating to our extradition arrangements with the US illustrate what we all fear and that is that this country, especially post Brexit will be an appendage to the US. I think the process has been carefully orchestrated for many years with a secret Atlanticist agenda. It is probably no accident that all of this is happening at a time when mysteriously, the country supposedly elected by a landslide, the most Atlanticist anti EU government to relentlessly complete this agenda despite the ineptitude and singular lack of success of Boris’ leadership skill pre election. That is why Corbyn has to be got rid of at all costs, it was even openly stated by Pompeo during the election campaign.
The first result of this concerted alignment is that the two countries now share the two worst records in dealing with the Covid-19 epidemic,
The US is going to lose Europe, so it needs its base for reconquest, like the USSR needed a Cuba!
Please enlighten us about the USSR plans for reconquest from Cuba.
There’s been a double tragedy in this case. The main one was obviously the death of the young rider, the other was that rather than finding the root causes the Governments have gone out of their ways to hide behind their secretive mantles.
Some day we might toss a coin and decide which side we all drive on. Having worked rotations for twenty years sharing driving daily for a month on one side and then the same on the other I found one side as good as the other. On a few occasions I found myself turning onto a main road from an unmarked road or a track and heading for the wrong side. This happened at home and abroad but I was fortunate that I had time to correct my mistake.
In my experience, American companies take driving in host countries seriously with refresher training maybe twice a year. If you are not in compliance they will impound your vehicle until you get updated.
Do the UK government insist that they drive on the left inside their bases in this country.? It would make things a bit safer.
Come off it, British state is supine before American Caesar because of Suez, it has nothing to do with Exit. You lost, deal with it.
– “…this country, especially post Brexit will be an appendage to the US.”
“Airstrip One”
Well the laws are there, but the people in charge cherry pick their use to suit their goals. It’s blindingly obvious, but how can you hold government to account? Any elected public servant should be removable through petition and referendum within the relevant electorate imo, and if so done, never allowed to run for public office again. Not that their machinations would disappear, but there needs to be some way to force out leaders due to specific failures. Now they’ll all move on soon enough, and next election cycle this just won’t feature on anyone’s mind.
Ilya
What you are describing is only possible in a true democracy. Cherry picking of laws is the prerogative of governments. especially when they have huge majorities and can change the laws quickly and sometimes retrospectively. This country is showing that there are no true checks on a government which is intent to rule by diktat.
@ SA
Bit fake lamenting a lack of democracy and accountability when you endorse the creation of a police state under the guise of fighting a virus!
There is no intention to create a police state, is there? The Tories had to be forced into imposing this lockdown by an alarmed public and most ministers want to exit from it ASAP because they place little value on human life. The Tory government’s intention was (and likely still is) to let CV-19 just rip through the population in order to protect corporate profit and if that resulted in a mass culling of pensioners then – in the words of Brexit Hero Dominic Cummings – “too bad. …”
It’s not ancient history. We know how they wanted this to play out and probably still do.
“There is no intention to create a police state, is there?”
How do you know this?
“The Tories had to be forced into imposing this lockdown by an alarmed public” or they were told to get in line.
Surely you know the difference between a system and an application of that system in an emergency or has your total admiration for trump impaired your discriminating abilities. Fake is a Trumpism, well done.
Craig, it would be helpful if you could let us know if you have been charged with CoC or not. If you can’t comment, a simple “no comment” will suffice…
Mods I posted this before I read the article. I guess I now have my answer. Please delete or not as you see fit.
Yes he has
BBC News: Alex Salmond trial: Blogger faces contempt of court proceedings – https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-52412137
I am afraid the time has come to remove all vestiges of Parliamentary protocol and call Dominic Raab an unprincipled, dishonorable, traitorous cocksucker to US torturers and do so whenever and wherever it will be made public. I hope the Conservative Association of his constituency pick up on this description and make suitable moves to ensure that their local reputation is not irredeemably smeared. They might seek advice from the former constituency of Tim Yeo…..
Dominic Raab is acting on behalf of America in direct contravention of the interests of those he is employed to serve. He is therefore a turncoat. He should b treated the way turncoats should be treated, which is with contempt, utterly lack of courtesy in any way and certainly with no right to walk down the street without feeling unduly threatened.
He is unfit to be an MP, unfit to be a Minister of the UK Crown and absolutely unfit to continue to hold a UK Passport.
He should be given 28 days to pack his bags, go and live in America and never return to these shores.
‘…Dominic Raab an unprincipled, dishonorable, traitorous cocksucker to US torturers …’
Well said, Dr Jagger.
I think that goes for every MP, in any party, who puts sucking up to the Imperial Master before respecting the law of the land. That goes for the disgraceful treatment of Julian Assange too. Both are insults to the principles of Justice. And goodness knows how much worse it will get when we are totally dependent on the USA following a hard Brexit. It’s clear leaving the EU can only reduce our sovereignty, and our self respect.
Bramble;
And so it goes for Kair Starmer as well.
… and do not let anyone for one moment think that the new leader of the opposition will raise an objection regarding Mr Assange’s plight when the time comes for his extradition to be considered further. With the Tories one generally knows what to expect, but with this individual who is on record as supporting Judge Baraitser there is everything to fear. Let’s hope Mr Assange’s legal team are as competent in their research analysis as Mr Murray has demonstrated. It would also be interesting to know if the H O C Foreign Affairs Committee were as conversant with the rulings they were questioning the Permanent Secretary on, for if they were not to know the correct questions to ask, they were hardly likely to get the desired answers.
What I do not understand is why she did not simply fess up, with the excuse her kid(s) were bickering in the car, she momentarily lost concentration and forgot she was supposed to drive on the left. Express deep remorse. Presumably her insurance policy would cover any claim, she would get someone like Baraitser as the judge, token fine, slapped wrist, at most a suspended sentence. Then she could go home.
Agreed. She almost certainly would have got away with just a slapped wrist. It was an accident after all.
The truth is this country is and always has been rotten to the core they example comes from the top well the top is is the most corrupt of all with their 30 to 100 years secrets acts covering up their crimes until after their death they are allowed to break the law with impunity one of the latest examples is We are told to isolate but Prince Charles leaves England with an entourage of 70 and goes to Scotland he is not charged with anything while people in parks near their homes were being fined??? I have not heard anything about Prince Phillip being charged about the car crash he caused either??? But the biggest criminals of all is us who meekly allow this to happen???
She could have been intoxicated.
Perhaps but it’s better to rub people’s noses in it. Civis Americanus sum.
Maybe it wasn’t her that made the decision to flee !
Maybe Anne Sacoolas was not the driver.
Because it would be revealed what she was really doing in the UK. Her husband is not the more interesting element of this couple.
Craig,
Having read your article I then checked online and the only paper featuring your being charged with contempt of court is the Times. Nothing in the Scotsman, National or Herald that I can see.
This is shocking, if you need additional funds I will add to my monthly donation.
I have not checked myself, but maybe that is because they know they should be charged with contempt as well.
The Times is the conduit for our Intelligence agencies attacking Salmond and the cause of Scottish independence in general. The Times ran the story on the DPP being handed a file on allegations made against Salmond in their “patch”. As the alleged incidents involved the alphabet sisters it is to be presumed (hoped) that nothing further will be heard.
Meanwhile, the instigator of the Contempt of Court (Garavelli) and the MSM outlets who continue to refuse to take down archived articles that identify “Witness D” continue to go about their business untroubled by Police Scotland.
“Our”?
We pay ’em. I make no claim that they act in “our” service.
It is in The National
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18402728.blogger-charged-contempt-court-alex-salmond-trial/
I’m amazed that the PF is actually going to proceed with that absurd contempt of court allegation, given that the mainstream media have provided far more clues to the identity of at least one of the Gang of Nine. Will we see the prosecution of the Times and the Guardian for their greater disclosures? How about the journo who tweeted the actual name of one of the Gang, not just a clue to her identity? Don’t hold your breath, they’re not going to upset the poodles of the MSM. Is it because they’ve been denied Alex Salmond’s scalp that they’re now after yours as a consolation prize? Or is it because you published their threatening letter? After all it’s impossible to conduct a proper Star Chamber if the victims keep publicising that it exists!
I have a vague memory of reading about a successful defence of the information already being in the public domain. Of course, in this case, the subscribers of the MSM are not the same public that it is desired to mislead.
It would appear that the ‘messengers’ in the AS trial are now fair game. First they went for Gordon Jackson, now they are going after Craig Murray.
It’s all very well them trying to go after Gordon Jackson, but as I recall, Cowley always had a hotline to the minister.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair#Transmission_of_a_secret_dossier_to_the_judges
“The British government claims that there is a secret bilateral treaty governing the status of American spies at RAF Croughton, under which Anne Sacoolas does have immunity.”
Well fancy that! They’ve dusted of the second dossier of the Dreyfus case.
– “It may surprise you, but I have known and worked with some Tories who were at heart honorable men”
I remember when Craig presented his testimony to the JCHR at Portcullis House, it was the Tory who seemed genuinely disgusted by torture, while the New Labour rep just kept invalidating and casting doubt.
Clark It was only Lord Onslow, a member of the JCHR, who showed any emotion when Craig gave his evidence on torture. That included hearing of Craig’s sight of of body of a human who had been immersed in boiling water until the body turned blue. The UK had been complicit in the CIA’s use of torture in Uzbekistan. Q. When did the UK become the poodle of the US?
Craig here on p 9. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/152.pdf
https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2009/04/human-rights-inquiry-hears-from-former-ambassador-on-torture/
Lord Onslow lived in Surrey in Clandon Park which is now a NT property. He used to be seen driving around in his carriage drawn by two ponies. An English eccentric of the old school (ancestors had been parliamentarians and Speakers) but a decent man with a humanitarian heart. He died in 2011. His ponies and horses still graze in the surrounding farmland. Very sad that he died at the age of only 73.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/22/the-earl-of-onslow-obituary (nasty little Michael White there)
There was a big fire in the house five years ago and the fire service was hindered by the lack of a good water supply. It was found that a screw had pierced an electric cable inside a wooden electricity supply cupboard. The house is now just a shell. The restoration has never taken place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandon_Park_House
Craig’s job is to inform and educate. They also went after Norman Finkelstein, taking away his job and even his flat. We, your readers will hopefully be able to support you financially Craig. I can’t see how any of your supporting readership can carry on watching the TV pay the fee.
Seconded.
We will indeed. Altogether too much opportunistic legal extortion to prevent the disclosure of actual information these days. Now the judiciary seems keen to follow in the sordid footsteps of other serial libel litigators. Look forward to donating to a crowdfunder if needed.
Norman Finkelstein was taken down by a Zionist, Alan Dershowitz, and more importantly, his tenure was lost. Yet another decent human was lost to the Palestinians and to their cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
Disgusted to read that you are being charged with CoC over the AS trial.
Huge question for me, is why they are not targetting certain individuals in the main stream media… though I guess we know the answer to that.
I suppose it’s presumptuous to assume that a whole slew of state-security/corporate media churnalists are also in the same difficulty referenced in the latter part of your article?
This is the UK (or its plaything Scotland) I have always assumed and since affirmed that laws are made for and by the rich and powerful and to empower faceless, nameless petty power-mad bureaucrats and do-badders. Only the few then can count on even the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, or even the UKs own Human Rights Act ever being applicable, letter or spirit, here or to them. We are living in a rogue-state going clean off the rails, further trials seem inevitable, with justice itself in such rank disrepute, but its end-days hopefully, inevitably must be nearing. The compact with us the citizens is broken, injustice not rectified, but further injustice piled on renders all law null and void. A state of anarchy exists, protect and survive for one day the tables will be turned the accusers, the accused.
There’s an obvious Catch-22 here. If the accusers in one case whose identities are protected perjure themselves, can they ever be held to account in a public court without then their identities necessarily being revealed? If not they’re given carte blanche, they’re untouchable.
Very good point Tony M, you have put your finger on it.
It has been made illegal to name the Alphabet Sisters, so they cannot be charged, themselves with contempt
because it is illegal to name them.
I think it is known as circular thinking.
It is quite something that catch 22.
I’ve finally got round to subscribing and will contribute further if the need arrises.
O/T.
Craig I’m reading in the National that you’ve be charged with regards you allegedly revealing the identity of one the complainers in the Alex Salmond farce, and your excellent reports on the terrible travesty and unjust handling of Julian Assange.
This is a disgraceful attempt by the courts (on who’s orders) to try and shut you up. Umpteen newspapers have given out more information than yourself, you personally did not reveal anything that was untoward.
Take care Craig.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18402728.blogger-charged-contempt-court-alex-salmond-trial/
Dear Mr Murray
You will undoubtedly need financial support and I will support you as far as is possible. I can’t say, be more than happy to support you, because I am stunned, flabbergasted, horrified, sick at heart. Please do your best to bear up. We cannot afford to lose your voice at the moment. Especially at this moment.
Secret treaties are explicitly banned by Article 102 of the UN Charter:
“Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.”
(Supporters of “queen and country”, please note: the text says “as soon as possible“. It does not say “as soon as feasible”, or “as soon as reasonably possible given how the Foreign Office views the circumstances.”)
As well as the arrangement concerning the CIA in Britain, another interesting case of a secret treaty is Britain’s relationship with Israel. Theresa May wrote in her letter to known liar and traitor (now reappointed to the cabinet as Home Secretary) Priti Patel that Britain and Israel were “close allies”. So where’s the treaty? What are the terms of the alliance? Does anyone know? When was it agreed? Presumably it can’t have been before the Six Day War during which Britain formally declared neutrality, or the Yom Kippur war when the EEC did.
With further hypocrisy, Theresa May went on to say that cooperation between the respective monarchist and ethnic-supremacist regimes must occur “formally” and “through official channels”.
The second para of Article 102 is interesting too:
“No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.”
Do the posh boys of the Foreign Office understand? Read my lips. It doesn’t matter what f*cking school you went to. You are NOT ALLOWED to agree secret treaties.
Is this the trick? :
All the other journalists, up to and including Garavelli will claim to have published the evidence which should not have been published, in all innocence. Some of them may claim to be embarrassed to learn that they had committed such an elementary professional error, and deeply chagrined to realise that they could not even make an open apology without drawing attention to the essential clue. Then along came that bounder Murray, who, they will say, actually committed the contempt by commenting on the sentence in Garavelli’s piece, and therefore calling attention to it.
So, it would seem the U.K. government have not been straight with the U.K. populace.
I thought it weird how Anne Sacoolas was whisked out of England on an American military aircraft, to Langley, Virginia.
It was nothing to do with her husband having diplomatic immunity, whatsoever.
She was a CIA operative.
The reason to get her away from the English law system was if she took the stand, a question could be put to her,
“Anne, how many people have you killed?”
Craig, let us know when it’s the best time to donate to your site in order to fight the establishment re. these ludicrous charges.
Good afternoon Craig,
I hope you and the Murray Clan are keeping safe and well.
Thank you for the excellent article regarding the hypocrisy and worse that has been exhibited by the FCO and police in this tragic case.
For what it is worth, I believe a person that should be alongside Dominic Raab is the hopeless, hapless Chief Constable of Northants. This man is an embarrassment to the uniform and even Pritti Patels malfunctioning Home Office must surely be looking at ways to remove him.
Here are four video clips that provide excellent evidence should the matter reach an independent inquiry or similar public account organisation.
The first bolsters the core of your essay….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBLMqqHF-Bs
The second shows what a happens when a power hungry narcissistic incompetent fool is put in charge of a police force. He wants to deploy police officers to check whether the contents of your shopping bags have “lawful” and “essential” items in them (implied by the clumsy use of a double-negative subliminal message)…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McVG4ZzjLxM
This is the same fool in uniform backtracking after being chastened by the Home Secretary. His mea culpa? Using clumsy words!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9OnmYjBxcTs
Craig, this is the man that has his fingerprints all over the Scoulas mess. I don’t even think he was behaving as a malicious actor from the State. Just a sad, overpromoted Napoleon complex idiot that has caused the Dunn family a great amount of avoidable distress.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WGquMaiNUU8
A relatively simple solution: report Nick Adderley to a separate police force for allegedly breaching the peace and neglecting his duty. Craig, I think that would assuage some of the damage this incompetent police officer has wrought.
Excellent article, especially given the time constraints and pressure. I can only hope the difficulties you allude to don’t involve the government coming after you for any one of a number of reasons.
jesus christ, reading the comments above i see that you are being charged for practicing journalism. this is as much of a travesty as the dunn case. let a drunken murderer skate on spurious legal grounds while charging an honest journalist for doing his duty.
Honesty is the most egregious crime of all on their circles.
.
Hi again Craig,
Am just reading the shocking news about attempts to “take you down”. To shut you up. Literally, orally and possibly custodially.
This has the aroma rodent. A Leslie Evans type civil servant stitch up of those who are digging a little too deep in their quest for some justice and truth. The citizen journalists who actually provide a decent, public service.
Craig, sometimes it is better to go on the OFFENSIVE that remain at the defence.
To that end, might I respectfully suggest you seek judicial relief from the nearest available sheriff? The enigma of obtaining justice from an organisation that would be responsible for investigating itself is clear. But that may be the point here. It may even hold the key to a mutually beneficial outcome. The backroom amateur 77th Brigade wannabes currently squatting guy close to Bute House need to be given their jitters and you sir need to be protected from this offensive abuse of power by those unworthy to hold high office. Craig, were it not for your reporting, half of Scotland would still believe the egregious lies of that Coven, the members of witch (sic) tried to jail the finest First Minister this country has ever had.
45% of Scotland want rid of Westminster governance. A Helluva lot of people in Scotland are wise to the gerrymandering that goes on in London.
Maybe the crucial point here is to publicise what we suspect is going on at the CPS. They are likely to have shot themselves in the foot by coming after you.
Rather than wait for a “show trial” I would be tempted to launch a crowdfunder to issue pre-emptive proceedings against the PRECISE (named) civil service individuals who have their fingerprints all over this squalid effort to close you down.
If anyone doubts that the best form of defence is attack (legal attack through the justice system) then I would suggest spending a few hours of their lockdown time sending some freedom of information requests to Police Scotland and the London Met Police (and CPS etc) to find out how much it costs them, (paid by the taxpayer) to settle all of the MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE cases that the Establishment have lost and are covering up via multi million pound settlements…
https://tinyurl.com/CraigMurrayDefence1
Am off for a cup of tea. Though feel like taking a shower as this stitch-up of Craig Murray by those paid to uphold the law makes me feel dirty. Am disgusted at this.
Craig, we’re behind you all the way. Let us know when we can donate to help.
you are not alone Craig , you have many friends out there .
To add my support here – behind you all the way and very strongly appreciative of what you are doing and the risks you are taking.
We live in a time when in-your-face hypocrisy for the political class is a daily occurrence. Obviously not a technical crime, and obviously the majority of people are just more concerned about day-to-day living than voting in a new group of hypocrites.
Those that make the rules, can break them whenever required. Sir, you are an honourable Don Quixote of La Escocia.
While I do not know of your legal issues, those in power will use your adherence to honourable legal “principles” & “rules” to break you financially and psychologically, like Julian, as they know they control power, have unlimited resources and …….well, you simply do not.
Ah, I see where you’ve gone wrong! Sometimes people in our satellites get confused about this. The executing legislation is Section 202 of the National Security Act, which gives CIA officers impunity for vehicular homicide along with all other sorts, torture, use of banned weapons, and universal jurisdiction crimes up to and including crimes against humanity and peace. That’s US law, so it’s understandable you’ve overlooked it. The implementing regs are of course, state secrets, but if anyone wants to satisfy themselves that it applies to our little P-5 buddy, we will be happy to supply them with a digitally-authenticated copies of our hi-res videos of British officials and royals shagging nine-year-olds.
I believe it was section 102 of the National Security Act that established the CIA.
Good luck if you ever want to contact the Scarlet Pimpernel herself the Sheriff-Principal of Edinburgh and the Lothians, Mhairi Stephen QC. I’ve being trying to send her a document since February concerning grave injustices in her name, but have been fobbed off over and over by her many minions.