The Crown Office is objecting to the appearance of, and trying to block from court, ALL of my witnesses and ALL of our proposed evidence for my defence at my trial for Contempt of Court. Today I have to complete the first draft of my own witness statement. We understand the Lord Advocate may object to the hearing of my own evidence also.
I shall write more on this tomorrow. Today is very busy.
No wonder the UK wants out of the ECHR, their legal system is an embarrassment
Trial without jury and the ability to be tried and sentenced in your absence. Not something to be proud of at all..
They are considering making you Persona Non Grata and blocking/expelling you from all Courts, Prisons, The Windsor Palace, Mc-Haggis or Mc-Cullen Skink joints or any road an Ox gang doon. A Pheasant like you must not Grouse for fear of making game of himself. Attempting to attend ‘Doune the rabbit hole’ will have you charged with loitering within tent.
If Wulff’s submission were just read out by Billy Connelly Jimmy could sue Billy for stealing his funniest material for the next Edenborough Festival. Law is precious, do not make it an ass.
After being sentenced to death in his absence Brendan Behan said that they could now execute him in his absence. That will give them ideas.
Spend anything you need on attacking the charges and it will be gladly paid for you. Your future stature (and statue) will be enhanced by your integrity, persistence and glorious courage in the face of the hell they put you through. It is easy to be brave on another man’s wounds.
How can we help you with the courage, peace and righteous anger you are entitled to.?
This will be your greatest moment.
“Patience and per-sev-erance made a Bishop of his Reverence.”
How can we help you with the courage, peace and righteous anger you are entitled to.?
This will be your greatest moment.
“Patience and per-sev-erance made a Bishop of his Reverence.”
——————————–
enter a group of black robed men. “We the officials of the PFJ do hereby convey our sincere and fraternal and sisterly greetings to you Craig on this occasion of your martyrdom……….”
———————
dont listen to this havers craig.
this isnt a trial, it isnt even a hearing, next time you appear in court will be for sentencing.
we are very close to it now, a face off is coming, This will happen sooner rather than later. if bojo blinks and says ok, then the last march will be on holyrood to demand any of your subsequent convictions are squashed. I think there would be large support for this. Most folk on social media are outraged by this quite clear suspension of democracy, So much so that many refuse to even believe that this can happen. You know differently. this outrage is universal even within a fairly divided yes movement.
If bojo says no and decides to suspend all of our democracy, it isnt just scottish politicians who will get shut down. high profile bloggers like you, stu, wgd etc will be the first to get their collars felt
so even if you survive this next attack, others will very likely follow craig. at least if you’re in russia we would still have a voice somewhere. the last man standing etc.
Craig, here is an interesting documentary for which the maker was immediately arrested. It details some of the shady goings-on in US internal surveillance and electoral politics. It names names. Julian Assange gets a mention but, funnily enough, to assert his innocence.
It is well worth watching, I think.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gQWerKHWfbSl/
She was arrested before its release and about a day after that as fast as copies on Youtube went up they were pulled down. Tells a lot that.
But how do you know that Millie Weaver isn’t ‘controlled opposition’? Just the fact that she is ‘out there’ is enough to make anyone suspicious. And, wasn’t Alex Jones ‘arrested’ for ‘breaking into Bohemian Grove’, and look how that turned out.
It appears that in July 2020 Millicent F. Weaver, Charles L. Weaver Jr. (her husband) and Gavon S. Wince were convicted of Robbery; Tampering with Evidence; Obstructing Justice and Domestic Violence. The dockets are online and can be found in a jiffy. It also appears that Millie works for Alex Jones’ ‘Info Wars’.
When Sikunder Elliot Anderson Salmond takes a case the Ladies will have to be named on the charge sheet and Craig will then be languishing in Belmarch on a made up charge of supplying a sliver of a clue as to the identity of the ladies who will then be fully named by the State.
It’s Belmarsh actually and Craig will NOT be languishing there. Over our dead bodies. It is bad enough that Julian is there.
@Boindub – Belmarsh is in England. That’s a different jurisdiction. Also they don’t send people to prison “on a charge”. They might remand them into prison before trial, but they haven’t abolished trials yet. But it may not be long until not only juries are dispensed with but also trials themselves, in which case we would get internment. I predict this will happen within a year, probably before next winter is over, and of course for “hygiene” reasons – all because of a “killer virus”, most of the victims being elderly people whose relatives either don’t exist or don’t care about a damn about them, who have died in “care homes” because there are policies of a) not taking them to hospital if they get respiratory problems and b) plonking any care home resident who has managed to find their way into hospital for one reason or another and who has been infected with SARS-CoV2 (probably catching it in the hospital) back into the “care home” so they can kill everybody there. Meanwhile most hospital wards have been shut down, and many nurses are twiddling their thumbs all day, and GPs are goodness knows where – probably many of them are in Dubai. The observation “this is how it starts” is bang on the button, but it’s well underway now.
“First they came for the elderly who had no family care…”
“Also they don’t send people to prison “on a charge”. They might remand them into prison before trial, but they haven’t abolished trials yet”.
Please remind me what trial Julian Assange has had, and on what charge(s) he was found guilty.
Having skipped bail once already (and thereby causing the supporters who put up the bail to forfeit their money) Julian was never going to get bail the second time around. Would you put up your house as security for Julian’s bail and risk him skipping the country leaving you homeless? No, didn’t think so. I don’t agree with the prosecution but I certainly understand why the judge doubted whether he’d show up in court if given bail.
Not quite…..People we’re not dumped in care homes from hospital if they had covid19 .
It is still uncertain how long a person remains infectious if they have covid19 in fact it is now thought that you can react how it because there are several strains of it.
When care homes were privatised by thatcher many years ago a two tier system grew overnight
Those who were self financing and those who required state subsidy.
The standard of care changed in the two groups over time as they separated into care homes that provided for mostly self financing people and those care homes that provided mostly for people who needed state subsidy or would do before their life ended.
It took a few years for the two groups to separate but separate they did.
Those in the self financing group went to care homes that cost a good bit more and they provided better cleaner care .
The state subsidy ones which are the majority provided lesser level of care and had more residents
There has not been any state planned extermination as you suggest
It’s just that the state subsidy residents found that their care homes charges were restricted to a level that the maximum state subsidy coupled with the patients income could meet.
The self financing residents had a better service better staff who stayed in their jobs longer and were more organised and committed than those who flitted from one short term care home contract to another.
Covid19 was spread rapidly by agency staff moving from one care home to another ,several in a matter of days or weeks sometimes.
I get your drift about the state taking more power for itself and the implications that holds for us all but it’s wrong to blame government for what happened in care homes.
These care homes are private businesses many of them owned by companies outside the U.K. they had a responsibility and a code of practice to follow but as we have often seen in the past private enterprise puts profits ahead of everything except ….higher profits.
Don’t assume that just because you’re self-financing you get a better standard of service. My ex-SiL’s mother is in an aged care home in Queensland that charges $500,000 deposit (ie interest-free loan to them) to get in. When the mother entered it had just opened and they were trying to attract customers, now it’s full the standards are falling like a stone. Breakfast 6 days a week now consists of tea and toast. A survey a year or two back found that aged care homes were spending on food an average of $6 per person/day, which means that a majority were spending even less! You would be hard pressed to spend just $6 on the ingredients for one meal, let alone 3. That tells you that these aged care homes were dishing out mostly cheap fillers like bread and pasta and skimping on protein. Is it any wonder that the residents go downhill quickly in these places?
BTW the Royal Commission into the aged care industry singled out BUPA as the worst of the large aged-care providers
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/12/something-is-wrong-at-the-top-how-bupas-aged-care-homes-hit-rock-bottom#:~:text=The%20company%2C%20which%20looks%20after,than%20those%20of%20other%20providers.
Are they likely to be any different in the UK than here? The issue of part-time staff working in more than one home and spreading the virus has also been an issue here in both for-profit and charity-run homes.
The SNP government has chosen to be tried in this case. Craig has been chosen to be the victim because he represents aspects of the national movement that conventional bourgeois find unsettling- contradicting those in authority for example.
The SNP strategy is to offer the bourgeoisie the option of supporting independence for conservative reasons. The UK they are suggesting has become too radical in, for example, its leaving the EU. And the SNP, representing the respectable old fashioned professional and managerial classes, simply wants to restore the 1950s.
Crushing Craig, they reason, will not lose them any significant electoral support -nationalists will still vote for them because there is no alternative, like the left in the Labour Party they have nowhere else to go, – while it will be a very popular move among those who support the monarchy, admire the SNP for its Washington oriented Foreign Policy, obviously cleared by MI6. As a bonus they also get the support of the MeToo Puritans, the identity politicians and the snobs, who, curiously enough, like nothing better than to see ‘great men’ humbled for raising their heads, and voices, above the parapet.
They enjoyed the defenestration of Tommy Sheridan, they are loving every minute of the state’s humbling of Alex Salmond and Craig’s discomfiture is just a beginning of the next course which will be a purge of the SNP and the replacement of all radical and socialist trending voices.
Sturgeon and her ilk are filling the vacuum which arose when right wing Labour went broke . It was them who kept Corbyn from winning the election in 2017, or coming close to government when the Tories lost their majority. Like Corbyn who represented a threat, unacceptable to the Establishment, to the shibboleths of NATO, US Imperialism and neo-liberalism, Scottish Independence is a threat which the ruling class will not tolerate. The SNP, however, it is finding to be thoroughly acceptable, unthreatening and, excitingly, capable of doing things that none of the London based parties would dare to do.
This utterly specious case against Craig is one example. The attack on Salmond is another- Westminster would never have dared either.
That’s it, I fear .. An ugly combo of old-skool nulabour triangulation and Hillary fandom … “look, ahm harder and more ruthless than yon hairy arsed yoons!” Muscular Scots feminism.
You are stretching way beyond breaking point to conceive of the SNP and the bourgeoisie as if they are separate entities. The SNP has been in government for 13 years. Do you think there is dual power as there was under Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? Which class do you think the SNP represents?
Also how many “leftwing socialist” Scottish independence supporters can you name who are left wing first and nationalist second?
“none of the London based parties would dare to do” – No party is so strong in the British state as the SNP is in the Scottish administration. Generally speaking in “Westminster”, the Temple, the City, etc., there isn’t so much walking around thinking of f***ing party politics and what’s good for the party and its Project for a Glorious Future all the time, except in a mostly irrelevant part of Westminster that gets on the TV a lot, mostly among no-hopers even there, although interest rises a little just before election time in that district and even in part of the executive part of Westminster on the other side of Parliament Square. The British state isn’t a party state.
“The attack on Salmond is another- Westminster would never have dared either.”
There you go again. I’d encourage a reappraisal of how you use the concept of “Westminster”. Nobody in London talks like that. Nobody says “Westminster is doing a blogger for contempt”. The best paid lawyers mostly work in the City.
Also on the relation between Brexit and Scottish nationalism, the key point is that if Britain leaves the EU without (much of) a deal, and even if it doesn’t then when the crash comes for some other reason, the nationalists will seek to make capital out of the hardship in Scotland by blaming foreigners for, because that’s what nationalists do. Alec Salmond was overjoyed at the EUref result… “the stars have aligned for us”… And remember that in 1933 Germany actually still had some productive capacity.
Nationalists like Gandhi and Mandela or ones like Churchill and Obama?
Or even Stalin when it suited him.
Aye It’s an age old struggle Bevin, and it’s always the same struggle no matter how much smoke liberals want to throw around it.
It’s a struggle we keep losing. One has to wonder if we deserve to win.
“ And the SNP, representing the respectable old fashioned professional and managerial classes, simply wants to restore the 1950s.”
—————
Of course!
The 1950s when the SNP leaders, Robert McIntyre and Jimmy Halliday championed identity politics like “Trans rights” as a cover for their strategy to create a Scottish feminocracy.
Not a lot of people know that, Bevin. Thank you for instructing us.
Natural confusion, what with a lot of us wearing kilts you know. Colonel Blink used to have the same problem. “Arf arf” as he would say.
Trial? What trial? They’ll just ask you to attend for your sentencing. How utterly appalling this whole thing is.
For anyone interested in watching to original version, a torrent of The Trial of Alex Salmond has been uploaded at 08-18 08:41.
What stupid moron decided to make that in x265. Hardly any devices play in that format *smh*. Deleted! Can’t be bothered with that nonsense.
It’s a temporal distortion caused by imbalance in the space/time continuum. Synchronising the Wark drive and the Impulse engines should sort it. Wark off-line meantime.
[ MOD: Personal details removed ]
—
“What about them” by itself seems no real defense but it does allude to something which seems relevant i.e. if the authorties have in effect given a clean bill of health to other very well publicized outlets who have written in an even more overt manner than the defendant then this is evidence that he is subject to a criminal conspiracy.
c. 1995 I am sitting in Hamilton Sheriff court awaiting my case re an accountant whose bill I refused to pay because of gross errors. In those days his bill was no big issue but I never liked shoddy service and so .. Anyhow after a couple of packed small claim court deferred hearings (as best I can remember) I entered the same court again but this time it was empty. A gentleman was led in somewhat theatrically with a guard holding his arm. He said that the only reason he was there was that he had exposed a multi–milion pound fraud within the Crown Office. He began to read a quotation from Lord Denning who described what happens when the judiciary itself becomes corrupt but I can never forget the look of hate on the face of Sheriff who cut him off and silenced him.
Even his furniture was now impounded by the Sheriff and it was decades later I thought one possible meaning was “if we can do this to the likes of him then look what we can do to a nobody like you” It might seem over the top but there was a multi-milion pound side issue which they possibly feared me raising
By a strange “coincidence” many years later I had to attend a mass in Motherwell Cathedral of a friend (by this time I had long been ejected by the corrupted homo Church) and the priest (another mighty strange coincidence and another story) began the service by announcing that one of his notable parishioners had suddenly died that morning i.e. the sheriff who seemingly crucified that gentleman in Hamilton Sheriff Court decades before.
Jesus had to be judged by the corrupt sanhedrin as did Sir Roger Scruton in a way a few years ago (Board of Deputies) as did that guy in Hamilton Sheriff Court seem to be c. 1995.
[ MOD: Address removed ]
I don’t know if you can edit your post/comment but you have put your full address at the bottom and it’s available to the public.
I always felt terrible about what i witnessed in Hamilton Sheriff Court. I am in the home straight and I have to come before the judgment seat. I do not fear what they can do to me, I only wish they knew what faces them after this very short life.
Good man John, and what an intriguing story. The last few weeks so many people have told me hair-raising stories about the Crown office going back decades.
Craig.
On a similar theme, Australia is righteously
prosecutingpersecuting Bernard Collaery and Witness K, the 2 whistle blowers who exposed Australia’s despicable behavior in bugging the East Timorese negotiating the sea bed treaty for the Waters between East Timor and Australia.Following the post I made yesterday I hope the mod doesnt mind me making a public note on a “just in case basis”:
At around 12 midday today a person opened the electronic door of the communal entrance of the tower as I approached and asked me where I lived (over a hundred other tennants). When I told him he said he had been at my door wanting to check the smoke alarm. When this has happened in the past an appointment letter was always sent out in advance.
When we reached my door a notice had been placed (which I have kept) threatening legal action if I did not contact them within 5 days . It was issued by Prospect Community Housing who are an Edinburgh organisation whereas I am a tenant of NLC in Motherwell. It also said this had been the second visit to gain access which is a straightforward untruth.
When he entered the flat he looked in every room and not just at the smoke alarm. This has never happened before in the previous 19 years I have lived here.
Sounds suspiciously like one of Shatnersrug’s “liberals wanting to throw smoke around”.
Ah Ian… ITS A CRACKRRRRR!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qu0_5XA9QeI/maxresdefault.jpg
I’m a bit slow on the uptake I think. I had wondered about you updating us on even the smaller details of your case. I have only just realised that ensuring that any developments happen in the full glare of the public eye afford you some protection against the worst excesses of what could be a kangaroo court.
I can only hope that a real journalist will decide to use your blog as source material when reporting on this. Although this is DEFINTELY the triumph of hope over experience. Good luck!
This is seriously damaging totally hellish . How the hell can you get a fair trial? I Do Not Understand this … Are you unable to appeal or something? just not right ..???? I have no idea how you are handling this especially your mental health…And what about all the evidence witnesses stacked up against you it’s just not on The very very very best of Luck Craig.
Rather strange if I may say so.
An accused person’s witness not being permitted to give evidence under oath. Even if at worst the evidence was merely circumstantial, it might very well have bearing on the issue(s) at hand – at least if it is heard.
Thirty-five years as a trial lawyer and due to retire in another two years and never seen something quite like this.
Never encountered anything quite like Craig Murray’s case. Yet, did have one where I was cited for contempt of court for reason of documenting the scandalous facts about a Chief Justice. I was cited for reason of ‘scandalising’ the court. My friend, another lawyer, was sent to prison for three months; Amnesty International intervened and the British Government was compelled to release him less he be declared a ‘prisoner of conscience’. We turned around and sued and won.
Well, let us all hope that Craig Murray does not get a closer look at the inside of Her Majesty’s Prison.
This issue reminds me somewhat of how in super injunction cases once the cat was out of the bag and enough people knew anyway the application for the super injunction would be kind of superfluous and would fall away, but how did the Judge come to decide that the cat was out / that enough people knew anyway; was evidence ever adduced on such submissions or was it all anecdotal with counsel referring to allusions in the media from which it might be assumed that anyone and everyone could figure it out.
The real question is: what is the prosecution alleging as specific examples of “information likely to disclose the identity”? because without having those the defendant cannot prepare their defense. It is somewhat like saying “we prosecute you for theft, and we’ll tell you which theft during the trial”.
C Murray in “second category of evidence” is trying to prove a negative, that is he is trying to prove by a few examples that none of the information he published was likely to disclose the identity. This means that the prosecution has not provided any specific examples. If that is true it is hard to see how the prosecution can win the case.
Sometimes in lesser jurisdictions prosecutions may be motivated not by the likelyhood of conviction, but the desire to teach a lesson to any wannabe troublemaker that stepping out of line has consequences. I find it hard to believe that can happen in Scotland.
Does it matter? The truth is irrelevant nowadays.
I see the BBBC stating that sturgeon was unaware of the rule that female civil servants couldn’t work alone with Salmond.
A clear statement that such a policy was in place when the prosecution witness stated it to be a lie, every defence witness stated it to be a lie and even the revolting evans whore states it to be a lie.
“prosecutions may be motivated not by the likelyhood of conviction, but the desire to teach a lesson to any wannabe troublemaker that stepping out of line has consequences”.
Is this not the major and only morally justifiable reason for a prosecution? We prosecute burglars so’s to scare them and other potential burglars away from burglary.
“prosecutions may be motivated not by the likelyhood of conviction […]”
«Is this not the major and only morally justifiable reason for a prosecution? We prosecute burglars so’s to scare them and other potential burglars»
There is a huge difference between [convicted] “burglars”, “other potential burglars” and *suspected* (as in “likelyhood of conviction”) burglars. What you seem to really mean here is “We prosecute potential burglars regardless of likelyhood of conviction so’s to scare them”.
«away from burglary.»
Then as a contribution to scaring away potential criminals (and *everybody* is a potential criminal) away from rape and supporting terrorism, please make sure to be prosecuted for rape and supporting terrorism :-). If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear. 🙂
Do you have a lawyer Craig?
Because it looks to me like you are in dire need of a really good one.
Jings, now you tell him, Graham.
Ian, have you been at the Whisky?
So that’s your secret.
I do not believe that Craig posted material that would identify any of the alphabet sisters. Not for us, and lots of average ordinary people like us. For people who already were involved or had access to other information, well maybe they could glean something from Craig’s writings but that’s because they already knew anyway. He should be allowed to prove that your average blog reader could not deduce who any of the women were from what he said. I have certainly been unable to, and I tried. I did, however, get one of the women from DG and well Kirsty Wark announced it on BBC2 to a much wider audience than this blog has, or maybe not these days when so many have sussed the BBC for what it really is. The whole thing is disgusting but it is extremely unfair that people who already knew who the women were and therefore had an advantage are able to determine if the women could be identified from what was written by Craig. How can they know what I could or could not work out!
As Craig himself says, he needs a Craig Murray. If the worst happens and I am seriously hoping it does not, we need someone to pull all Craig’s supporters together as he will need us.
Having lived through a similar situation as Alex Salmond and Craig Murray where a corrupt and untrue case was made against me, by the Scottish Government no less, I know full well the toll this is taking on Craig’s mental health. I hope for him, and Alex Salmond there is some comfort in our support.
well spoken easily confused, it is harrowing to see an alleged warning not to be alone with AS, proven to be wrong in court, is being amplified by news harlots such as Kirsty Wark and the BBC.
Thank you, Easily Confused. I managed to identify 2 of the complainants as the result of Kirsty Wark’s jigsaw completion and Google.
Given the current Holyroood machinations, might I suggest that we need some disambiguation? The Scottish Government is both the political party in power, and the Whitehall-appointed Civil Service Scotland.
When we refer to the Westminster Government, we (I, at least) automatically think of the Tory party, giving no thought to the attendant bureaucracy.
So who stitched you up, the SNP or Whitehall? I could ask Craig the same question. All I can do is offer him my sincere best wishes. COPFS fiddles while Scotland burns.
Best wishes, Craig.
I hold Nicola Sturgeon responsible at the highest level for what happened to me, but it was her policies and procedures and civil servants that did the dirty work. But I am recovered. Everything comes to pass even though the scars remain!
Out of Affric
” So, who stitched you up… ? ”
There are plenty of potential harrassers for every speaker of truth, and some take exception to truth -telling per se, like they are allergic to it.
We have the Woke feminists, the disgruntled Foreign Office, the Assange- obsessed Yanks, the Scottish minister for justice who supports Muslim Brotherhood, the Unionists, Zionists, and as I say , foaming mad presstitutes who don’t like being thwarted by Craig’s anti- integrity Initiative narrative.
These all have power and influence, but there might be others such as Freemasons in the Scottish Police. It’s not really binary imho.
Giyane,
I agree with what you state, and am not a member or supporter of any of your identified groups or organisations. However, at the risk of obscurantism, there does in general, seem to be a binary element in critical evaluation of the Scottish and UK (de facto English) governments.
eg. Nicola Sturgeon – 0 children : Boris Johnson – ? children
And, at the risk of false equivalence, it appears much easier (for the dead-tree media) to go after a ‘nippy sweetie’ than an establishment lothario.
That said, what Craig Murray is being subjected to does not square with an open and accountable democracy.
Boris Johnson’s number of children is greater than zero, but I can’t see what he has got to do with the contempt of court case against Craig or the state of play in Salmond versus Sturgeon.
In other news, that farmer who owns land in Applecross wins the “I’m a Much Bigger Plonker than the Prime Minister” award hands down. I would much prefer to be stuck in a lift with Boris Johnson than with him.
What actually annoyed the fool? Was it
a) that two people climbed over a fence rather than using a gate [*]?
b) that they entered the fenced land at all?
c) that they drove a few tent pegs into the ground?
d) that they did it without “telling” him first?
e) that something happened involving him that he didn’t get a grant for?
I reckon it’s e), and that he made up for it by pocketing some money from the Daily Mail, but is nonetheless still annoyed because he didn’t get even more money. What a plonker!
The Heil really excelled itself in how in a single article
* they mentioned FIVE TIMES that Carrie Symonds is 32
* they helpfully ensured that their readers didn’t confuse the prime minister with any other chap called Boris Johnson by referring to him as “(the) PM, 56”
* they also mentioned FIVE times that the couple’s dog is a “rescue” dog.
You know where you are with the Heil:
* “he’s giving her one”
* did they do it on the heather?
* “oh what a sweet mongrel dog, not like my three Petit Basset Griffon Vendéens that cost £900 each”.
Can’t people criticise Boris Johnson for doing something he actually deserves to be criticised for, rather than come out with this kind of cr*p? I mean it’s not as if he has done a James Callaghan who smirked on returrn from a trip to the Caribbean in 1979 to say he didn’t think anybody except a few journalists were very “jealous” of him.
Note
*) I bet the farmer got a grant for that gate.
N_
This ‘clearance’ was altogether different from the ones that took place 200 years ago. You employ a great deal of jaundiced supposition with regard to the local landowner,
Send Eddie Mair round to determine whether he’s a ‘nasty piece of work’.
«I do not believe that Craig posted material that would identify any of the alphabet sisters.»
Note that the law says “information likely to disclose the identity” and I think that whether disclosure happened or not using that information does not matter.
‘Note that the law says “information likely to disclose the identity”…’
As one might expect, at the critical point the law becomes soft and pliable. Of course, what is “likely” is purely and wholly a matter of opinion – in this case, the judge’s opinion.
Reminiscent, though, of HMG’s official view that the Skripal affair was “highly likely” to have been brought about by Russian poisoners.
In my mind, ever since the Skripal affair, “highly likely” (when used by members or employees of HMG) means “not”.
Perhaps that is also true of “likely”.
A French rights group is asking the new French justice minister to offer political asylum in France to Julian Assange, describing him as “the world’s best-known political prisoner”.
The new French justice minister (Eric Dupond-Moretti) was actually part of Julian’s legal team before joining the government last month and had himself asked a previous government to offer Julian asylum in France but Francois Hollande rejected the request.
The justice minister apparently doesn’t have jurisdiction over political asylum, but he may be able to increase political support for Julian in France and elsewhere.
Here, Julian is due back in court on Monday, September 7, according to this AFP report.
https://guardian.ng/news/world/rights-group-seeks-asylum-for-assange-in-france/
Sent to BBC and acknowledged
Re ‘The trial of Alex Salmond’ 18 Aug BBC 2
I found the program to be heavily biased against Mr Salmond and Warks comments and presentation well below of BBC standards.
“what does this say to the ‘me too’ movement”. It says that the Jury (with 8 women and a Woman Judge ) found that the Women lied in a group set up against Salmond and may have helped destroy the ‘me too’ . Their word alone is not to be believed as they have shown here. This I regret.
Her selection of statements and presentation throughout the program were personal bias.
Will the Scottish court now attack her for giving clues as to the women involved.? I assume Mr Salmond sues.
———-
«“what does this say to the ‘me too’ movement”. It says that the Jury (with 8 women and a Woman Judge ) found that the Women lied in a group set up against Salmond and may have helped destroy the ‘me too’ . Their word alone is not to be believed as they have shown here.»
From the #metoo point of view this trial shows that the law and courts are so biased by the patriarchy in favour of abusers and rapists that even the “testimony” of several “victims” could not get a “monster” convicted.
The #metoo solution to that could be making conviction automatic upon presentation of witness statements, unless the criminal can prove beyond any doubt that he was not physically present at the alleged events, but only if any specific times and dates are indicated in the witness statements.
This pretty much already happens in cases of abuse of minors, where numerous generic allegations count as proof, under the “better safe than sorry” and “there is no smoke without fire” principles. 🙁
BTW in some other wiser jurisdictions *accusers* (and defendants) are not considered witnesses and consequently accusers (and defendants) are not allowed to testify under oath, and in some the accused has a legally recognized right to lie at will during a trial, while accusers are prosecuted if they make malicious accusations (for attempting to pervert justice rather than being false witnesses).
This is getting even more ridiculous.
It would appear that Mr Wolffe and his team are attempting to create a Kangaroo Court, where no defence is allowed. One definition of that is: “a court where the outcome is pre-determined by the reputation of the defendant, and the trial shall not be fair”.
That would look to me like a contempt of justice.
(Copy to Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Humza Yousaf MSP)
Given that the Lord Advocate, although officially independent, is accountable to the Scottish Parliament for the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service, it is reasonable to ask about the process of accountability, how that process can be started, and by whom.
Although I’ve been active in Scottish politics for more than 50 years, I haven’t been able to identify any of the “alphabet sisters”, although the BBC’s Kirst Wark has now told me where to look. As this monumental farce has developed, I have become more curious to the extent that I now really, really, want to know all those names, every single one.
“I have become more curious to the extent that I now really, really, want to know all those names, every single one”.
Just possess your soul in patience, Bill, until their trial for perjury.
Oh wait…
Smacks of some sort of crappy dictatorship if the prosecution can block defence witnesses. That may be naive!!
Craig’s evidence is relevant, and any decision that doesn’t take it into account is perverse:
https://scotlandisdifferent.wordpress.com
Update to the above: nasty holes in the prosecution’s arguments:
https://scotlandisdifferent.wordpress.com
I normally get a heads up from Craig’s Facebook that he’s got a new post on his blog… but not recently. Wonder why?
Something is going on with FB, but I don’t know what. Peter A Bell has been blocked and has left, I tried sharing one of his blogs on Scottish Independence and got a message saying it could not be shared as it goes against FB community standards. I have of course expressed my concern at this, that Scottish Independence is against their community standards, no response yet.
Totally other people on FB also got warnings for posts nothing to do with Scotland / UK, but for links to a new – controversial – documentary on “plandemic”.
Why people persist with Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin or whatever bastard offshoot of Microsoft, Google, Apple or whatever, I really don’t know. They’ve made it plain that, under the guise of preserving “American Democracy” (ignore the oxymoron), they will decide what is acceptable and what isn’t.
Very funny cartoon on Wings. Copied here.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/img466.jpg
‘Wherever the law ends, tyranny begins.’ ‘Even magistrates must abide by the law.’ (1689) That is still applicable in 2020..
From: The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed.) (John Locke)
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/115
It’s a long and noble tradition, Mary. Even those who, in their time, taught the Divine Right of Kings, acknowledged that even the king was under the law.
“The king has no equal within his realm. Subjects cannot be the equals of the ruler, because he would thereby lose his rule, since equal can have no authority over equal, nor a fortiori a superior, because he would then be subject to those subjected to him. The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because the law makes the king…”
Henry de Bracton (medieval English lawyer ca 1210-1268)
Could this be the first example of the lickspittle arse licking civil servant “in his own words”
Tom Welsh
” Equal can have no authority over equal ”
Once you have convinced people that God delegates His Waqalat/ Ultimate Authority to a Son, it’s easy to convince them to accept the authority of priests, governments and feudal overlords.
God states many times in His Qur’an that spying on people is totally unacceptable, but our government and our Muslim clergy have decided to over-ride and over-rule both natural justice and God’s Ultimate Authority.
The desire for control over others is a temptation which unfortunately afflicts psychopaths, a very small proportion of humanity. Whenever psychopaths have exceeded the limit of their authority, the Papal system, the Ottoman Empire, the British divine rule of kings, the sheer intolerability of life under psychopathic tyranny ends up in regicide.
That’s our history. A fact that the current psychopaths choose deliberately to ignore.
The legacy of 1640 informs me as a Briton and as a human being that we are living under tyranny now.
It makes me laugh that the BBC spews out garbage about Russian and Chinese tyranny, when it is absolutely obvious to us all that our google searches and our private lives are being spied on by a malign state psychopathy, and in my case by a malign religious psychopathy.
The stench of hypocrisy is overpowering.
The British government has always been corrupt, every single department. The British government have always been that small kid that is the bully’s friend, the despicable piece of shit, nobody can ever remember their name. Hey, Britain was an aristocracy, enough said.
We all knew they were corrupt. The killing of Kelly was the most unacceptable of their crimes, but hey, they wanted war regardless of what the people paying the bill wanted, Yes, arrogant cunts, the lot of them, and it will not change until blood is shed and the current politicians are dead along with their system. But modern Britians don’t have that in them, hence the current government-created crisis.
Totally agree with you about David Kelly. It’s yet another reason for Scotland to disentangle itself from the wrong crowd.
55% and rising!
So what about Willie McRae??
Did you know that Dr Kelly’s remains were disinterred and cremated? No evidence remains of the crimes of the ‘state’. The papers in his case we’re locked away for 70 years.
An application for the review of the Attorney General’s decision not to grant an inquest for Dr Kelly was refused by Judge Nicol in the High Court. It is the rule that anyone who dies from unnatural causes is given an inquest.
Dr David Kelly was murdered.
Yes, Dr David Kelly was murdered. (excellent book on the topic: An Inconvenient Death by Miles Goslett)
And, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians also were murdered by the UK, US and their allies in the illegal invasion. Also, 179 UK service personnel needlessly died.
And yet, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Alistair Cambell, et al still walk the streets free men.
Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings continue the slaughter with their incompetence and barely concealed crimes
Proof, if needed, that the whole establishment system is criminally corrupt.
“Dr David Kelly was murdered.” I don’t think anyone disputes that. Something we are all agreed on.
Surely a good lawyer will argue that every accused has the right to state their case.
Depute Prentice is asking that you be refused this right.
Fair enough he can ask
But QC Wolffe should refuse the Depute request on the grounds of natural justice
It will be interesting to see what excuse they come up with if they deprive you of natural justice
Sorry that you are the guinea pig here
The request by Depute Prentice will be seen by other legal professionals around the world this is not something that they can hide I don’t believe Prentices request will be granted I think it’s just a ruse to put the frighteners on you they’re trying their best to give you the impression that they are all powerful and can do as they please but they will find that they cannot do as they please , sooner or later erroneous decisions will bring them down.
I don’t think they will take that risk
Call their bluff
.
I believe that this trial is profoundly important because it is becoming clear due to significant public interest that the repute of the Scottish Judiciary looks to be the first defendant.
Craig has merely been caught in the cross-hairs of some civil servants and/or lawyers temporarily in their position, with their claws on some of the levers of power.
I guarantee this much: the civil servants who have authored this process against Craig shall be subject to the most rigorous of independent public audits. They have let off ALL of the Unionist orientated people Scott free and harassing this poor soul to his wits end. Once the infracting civil sevants have a new boss (and their impunity protection removed) their actions, every “t” crossed and “i” dotted shall be forensically investigated.
For those with any doubt about this, cast your mind back to the Westminster MP and Lords Expenses Scandal. How many MPs and Lords ended up serving prison sentences?
Nobody, but nobody is above the law. How DARE those with some transient power at this time, conduct a process that in and of itself risks bringing the Scottish Legal system into disrepute.
I have known people give their lives to uphold the law. They would be turning in their graves to see what has become of our legal process.
There is something PROFOUNDLY wrong at the heart of Scots Law just now. I hope and pray there are sufficient decent and honourable people left within the legal establishment such as Judge Lady Dorian and the jury at Alex Salmond’s trial who recognise the aroma of political stitch-up when they smell it.
Cui Bono.
Al-Stuart
Cui bono?
This fake news about the US postal service possibly favouring the Democrats is notice in advance that the next US election will be edited by algorithms like our one in December.
When a government like has been Johnson’s has literally no legitimacy and practically no respect, it sends out a repulsive message to every other corner of government administration that corruption rules ok.
It’s written on the big walls in big brown letters that Brexited Britsin has become a banana state presided over by carpet- or mask-baggers, and open for exploitation of every single piece of available land.
Scotland is land. You cannot expect a ruthless state that has successively lost every proxy terror war in the last 40 years, through it’s stupid policy of slash and burn proxy terror, to give up a land mass attached like a Siamese twin to the top of its head.
Sturgeon is no surgeon. Any volunteers? Anybody even suggesting the idea of clinical removal of Scotland from the body pokitick of Blighty will inevitably get clapped in jail.
Today’s Scottish Mail on Sunday Headlines:-
Tomorrow’s Papers Today – Salmond to sue BBC over sex trial ‘outrage’: Furious former First Minister consults lawyers over explosive documentary
I now know the surname of one of the Women Complainants in the Salmond trial. Nothing to do with Craig’s blog, or so called ‘jigsaw identification’. The BBC obligingly broadcast the name during ‘The trial of Alex Salmond’ programme. This was quickly picked up by a number of internet sources. I was given instructions on how to Google this to find out more about this woman.I did not bother. The BBC has removed the name from the programme, and it has also been removed from the subsequent internet comments. Like it or not, this woman’s name is now very much in the Public Domain; even without the internet, informal gossip will spread this far and wide.
Where does this leave Craig, with the Crown Office’s accusation of ‘likely’ jigsaw identification? His trial has been postponed to October. I do not see how the Crown Office prosecutors can possibly procede with the case against Craig, based on ‘likely’ jigsaw identification, if they are not going to prosecute the BBC for supidly identifying one of the women complainants by name.
100% agree. Charging him was already an outrage in light of all obvious clues mass media supplied during the Salmond trial and its efforts to prejudice the outcome. But now Wark and Co have outright named one of the accusers there is no longer even a shred of justification for pursuing this persecution of Craig. If the Scottish legal system is to maintain an iota of credibility this case must be dismissed pronto.
really??
link to that?
I think I noticed a comment that would have made identification of one person very easy but I don’t think the prog actually uttered the name.(pretty sure would have noticed that) However it has been so easy to identify that one person from all the other articles that she may as well self-identify. I am pretty sure I saw that this person is due to appear in the enquiry.
Alex Salmond is to sue Kirsty Wark and her husband over that character assassination of a programme that was passed of by the BBC as fair and proper.
Meanwhile I just cant get my head around the Crown Office blocking Craig’s evidence and witnesses for his defence, Salmond’s jury acquittal showed the best of the Scottish judiciary, Craig’s disgraceful hatchet jobs,does a complete U-turn on that and portrays it as some sort of Kafkaesque, 1984, tinpot dictatorship judiciary.
https://mobile.twitter.com/tradasro/status/1297327574834655233
Yes, excellent news RoS, will the AS camp now collaborate and help in Craigs case, maybe now is the time to provide a united front.
A bit of history on Wark and Clements.
‘He and his wife, the Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark, had created Scotland’s first “super-indie” producer, when they merged their production company, Wark Clements, with the fellow indie Ideal World to form IWC. RDF bought it for £14m in 2005 and Clements agreed to stay for three years, pocketing £2m in cash and shares. But then he announced his intention to up sticks for STV.
Constructive dismissal
There was a court case, a personal and professional nadir, during which evidence revealed that he got his wife’s personal assistant to hack into a colleague’s email account. Clements sued for constructive dismissal, lost the case and had to pay about £450,000 in legal costs. He appealed but a peace deal was struck with RDF that meant that Clements could start at STV three months earlier. His settlement that allowed him to sign on at STV also bars him from discussing it.’
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/07/alan-clements-stv-interview
Wark is a director of Scottish Ballet. One of many. https://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC065497/SCOTTISH-BALLET/companies-house-data
My question is: “who put Wark and Clements up to this and why” ?
Good to see that Alex Salmond is, at last, responding to the lies.
Wark Clements’ financial management was seriously deficient, according to evidence in a court case involving Alan Clements (Kirtsy Wark’s husband). The court heard that Sue Oriel, who ran IWC, told a Sunday Herald editor that:
“Mr Clements had a reputation as the architect of the success of IWC as a business and the absolute reverse was true; when the merger took place Wark Clements was a shambles and didn’t have a set of accounts it could rely on; the business lost just short of £1 million in trading losses in the year prior to the merger; one of Mr Clements’ productions “the Gathering Place ” was probably the worst documentary ever produced; although Mr Clements had great ideas and was a fantastic salesman he [failed] on execution … needed to get other people to finish them off and then he “gets in at the end and signs the production off. The valuable contributor in the merger between Wark Clements and Ideal World was Ideal World; Wark Clements did not get any repeat business which was a problem for them; Mr Clements himself was a phenomenal egomaniac and his personal standing was the most important thing to him; the most important thing for him was that he had a ticket to the top table – that was more important than anything else and that was where he wanted to be.”
I would be surprised if Scottish Ballet is not a recipient of funds from the Scottish government.
I’ve been tidying my shed , come in for a well-earned cuppa, and I’m now being massaged by the pure sweet tones of Scottish feminists on Radio 4 in what is for many people a News hour.
Yes, a new batch of SNP workers came into the party after Salmond left; yes, they wanted to create a Me Too movement inside the SNP; yes, they chose Salmond as their target; but No, they haven’t yet mentioned that they made up the charges from thin air and No, they don’t see why targeting a retiring politician with made-up charges should make anyone angry; and No, if you had heard those charges about a foreign party leader in a foreign country about whom you knew absolutely zero, why would you think the accusers were lying?
Definitely the Scots are dim-witted in the extreme for not buying the tripe served up to the about the man they love and know to be a bit if a wag and an immense source of inspiration and energy.
Come on Scots, get your spinach out. There’s a bunch of rabid feminists out on the BBC, telling me you’re too stupid to understand their proven lies.