I am still frankly stunned that I was found in contempt of court. I maintain that I carefully identified nobody and, as empirically proven, the MSM did far more than I in revealing identities. I also believe that the terms of the Opinion would make it simply impossible to report anything except the prosecution case in any sexual assault trial – and that MSM journalists are entirely sanguine about this because they believe that in practice the ruling would only be used against dissidents, and never against them.
It is very difficult for me to try to explain why, in my own case, what has happened has much wider bad consequences, because it simply looks like special pleading. I am therefore very pleased that legal analyst Alexander Mercouris has written this important piece at Consortium News, and I should be grateful to you for reading it.
—————————————————–
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
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 by bank transfer or standing order:
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
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
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.
So is Craig now possibly barred…discredited . from reporting any further hearings re Assange eg in USA? Part of the plot? And could not any application to be an accredited journalist of sorts be “scotched” very likely be not granted by such bodies….unless reporters without borders might accept him ……?
“Accredited journalists” means practically nothing. Those who don’t claim such an exalted status are subject to exactly the same laws. If you want to write stuff and show it to people, then do it. Don’t play roles.
Not entirely correct !
As Craig demonstrated when he attempted to report on the Assange Trial where only accredited journalists were ‘permitted’.
Having spent a while putting together the following response for the excellent Alexander Mercouris’ Consortium News page, I am frustrated to find comments are now closed. So I will just post my contribution (exactly as written) here instead —
Many thanks to Alexander Mercouris for this and his related previous article.
Craig Murray is a man of immense humanity, integrity, insightfulness, journalistic energy and courage. If we fail to support him through this current crisis it can only be through ignorance or timidity on our part.
Alexander Mercouris writes:
“The case against Murray has resulted in a judgement convicting him of contempt of court. He is now at serious risk of up to two years in prison with sentencing set for May 7. Before discussing the judgement itself there is a point to be made about one aspect of the Court’s conduct that is seriously worrying. There was an eight-week gap between Murray’s trial and the announcement of his conviction. The trial lasted only one day, the evidence was limited in its extent and it was largely agreed by the prosecution and defence lawyers. It is not clear why the Court needed two months to deliver its judgment. Normally after such a trial, judgment would be delivered in a few days or a week at most. The delay seemed both cruel and unnecessary to Murray and his family.”
It should moreover be noted of course that a) “an unlimited fine” is also possible under the Contempt of Court charge, b) no jury is present at a Contempt of Court trial, and c) Craig has been carrying the stress of all this for over a year.
From Craig’s blog (dated March 5, 2020 [sic] — referring to his fraught efforts to attend and report on Alex Salmond’s trial):
“On Monday morning at 6am I shall again be queuing up outside a courtroom. I never had any intention this blog would become so concentrated on court reporting, but then I never expected the state to be trying to put so many of my friends in prison. Nor had I expected at this stage in my life to be threatened with prison myself. The Procurator Fiscal’s office in Scotland wrote to me to say that they are considering prosecuting me for contempt of court.”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-alex-salmond-trial-and-censorship/
Late the following month Craig wrote (24 April 2020) —
“I know of four pro-Independence folk who were last week phoned or visited by Police Scotland and threatened with contempt of court proceedings over social media postings they had made weeks back on the Alex Salmond case. Then on Monday, a Scottish journalist I know had his home raided by five policemen, who confiscated (and still have) all his computers and phones. They said they were from the ‘Alex Salmond team’ and investigating his postings on the Alex Salmond case. […] Then on Tuesday morning, a large Police van full of police pulled up onto the pavement right outside my front gate, actually while I was talking on the phone to a senior political figure about the raid on my friend. The police just sat in the van staring at my house. I contacted my lawyers who contacted the Crown Office. The police van pulled away and my lawyers contacted me back to say that the Crown Office had told them I would be charged, or officially ‘cited’, with Contempt of Court, but they agreed there was no need for a search of my home or to remove my devices, or for vans full of police. On Thursday two plain clothes police arrived and handed me the indictment. Shortly thereafter, an email arrived from The Times newspaper, saying that the Crown Office had ‘confirmed’ that I had been charged with contempt of court. In the case of my friend whose house was raided, he was contacted by the Daily Record just before the raid even happened! […] The indictment specifies up to two years in jail and an unlimited fine as the punishment sought from the court. I think the public interest, and my own interest, in it being public is very substantial. The state believes it has finally discovered a way to put me in prison without the inconvenient hurdle of a jury of my peers. Contempt of Court is just decided by a judge.”
Alexander Mercouris also writes:
“[B]ut given the fraught political atmosphere in Scotland […] I can easily see how in that situation [ie the potential pretext of blaming Craig Murray’s reporting for any retrial of Salmond] the Scottish prosecuting authorities and the Courts might have buckled under pressure, and been swept along. With the Court’s decision to reject this part of the prosecution’s case, that disastrous outcome has been avoided.”
Any hint of structural willowy compliance here surely needs viewed in the light of the fact that the Scottish (Crown Office) Lord Advocate is also a member of Nicola Sturgeon’s Cabinet. Addressing this dual-role problematic indeed formed the nub of David Davis MP’s recent speech in the Westminster Parliament (16 March 2021) —
HANSARD transcript:
The [Holyrood] inquiry has come up against endless impediments in its efforts to fulfil its remit. Those difficulties can be traced back to the Scotland Act 1998, in which the British Government of the day and this House decided to devolve power to the Scottish Parliament but failed to do it properly. Those failures were broadly on three fronts. First, this House failed to guarantee separation of powers to Scotland. We have known for centuries that separation of powers is fundamental to a functioning democracy, yet in Scotland, the Lord Advocate both leads the prosecution service and serves in the Scottish Cabinet. That leaves him conflicted and compromised, with his Department’s independence undermined.”
https://archive.is/rnM1o
YOUTUBE (22 mins):
https://youtu.be/DmUBy74A7Tw
The separation of powers is something I have never seen any supporter of Scottish independence address.
In short, they don’t want to sort Scotland out. They couldn’t care less what happens in Scotland so long as the country is “independent”, and most of them don’t even know what “independence” means. As the Sex Pistols wrote, “I dunno what I want, but I know how to get it.”
Hopefully some big scandals await us in the next month which will collapse the SNP’s voteshare, but if they win a majority of seats and votes at Holyrood then probably the fact that many hundreds of thousands of especially younger Scots have sat at home for most of the past year picking their smartphones – not an activity known to be good for mental acuity – will have had something to do with it.
As soon as you even ask “How about sorting Scotland out?”, the issue of what is moving – not hypothetically but right now – towards a one-party dictatorship comes to the fore.
All that most of them want is a bigoted nationalistic flag fest, akin to an Orange walk or a 12th July fireworks show but where the enemy isn’t the Catholics but the English.
Scottish independence would mean a stronger SNP. That will not necessarily be true if independence were to come about in 10 years’ time or 20 years’ time, but it is true now. Independence supporters either support that idea because they like the SNP, or they don’t care, or they black it out and tell themselves it isn’t true, just as they convince themselves of all sorts of other codswallop, e.g. that most Londoners are Tories, or that Scotland is an English colony rather in the way that the Gold Coast in Africa was a British colony, or that the economy would improve if a hard border were erected against England while Scotland begged to be allowed into EFTA.
As I have said before, independence would mean the end of this blog and the jailing of this blog’s author even regardless of the current contempt of court case. If anybody thinks the SNP if it got a whole country in its pocket would allow blogs such as this one to operate, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. We have already seen the party-state try to abolish jury trial and try to jail Mark Hirst for being “threatening and abusive” when he said perjurers would get their comeuppance.
As for David Davis, he is getting long in the tooth and he didn’t seem to want to be merely a “caretaker” prime minister during the Brexit show, but he remains quite an interesting character. We should remember his unexpected resignation to fight a by-election in his constituency in 2008, triggered by a parliamentary vote on the Counter-Terrorism Bill. He may yet be a big figure in opposition to “vaccine passports”.
What a load of unadulterated garbage; nonsense from start to finish. I’m not sure where to even start, such is the utter ineptitude and, frankly, laughably moronic entirety of that mind-numbing tripe.
The reason you’re not sure where to start may be because you can’t start anywhere. But you can post a two-liner full of insults – and they’re not even original or impressive ones. Clearly a man of your times.
Hopefully, you will be cleared by the UK Supreme Court.
The irony of it.
Scottish independence supporter jailed by a Scottish court, freed by a UK court.
If you are not cleared, you will be a political prisoner, like Julian Assange.
In which case, don’t expect the utterly corrupt Amnesty International to come to your rescue.
Note that the procedure for a defendant is to apply to the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Then if they say no, the next step is to apply to the Supreme Court itself for leave to appeal to it.
At the moment we don’t know what the HCJ will say. Their options are
1) to say the Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction;
2) to say it does but they aren’t granting leave;
3) to grant leave;
4) to delay.
Which option they take will be a political decision. It will be taken by the commanding heights of the SNP who control the Scottish courts. They’ve abused every other judicial process, and they are likely to abuse this one too.
We are a month away from an election and so a “political decision” means a decision on the basis of what wins voteshare for the SNP (and to a lesser extent for its little Alba helper).
We can be absolutely sure that Nicola Sturgeon and the gang around her are not just looking to defend their position; they are looking to advance it. They may very well come out with the extremely nasty jeer that here is a former London ambassador running to London for help.
They could choose any of the above 4 options. My guess is that they will decide that the tastiest two are 1) (deny jurisdiction) and 3) (grant leave). Anything that turns this into Scotland versus England helps them. (Cf. anything that turns an issue into whites versus blacks, or whites versus the Pakistani British, helps the BNP.)
It also has to be observed that Alec Salmond seems to be keeping his gob shut about this case. Rather than saying anything about it, he’s trying to keep Sturgeon in office, advocating a gaming of the electoral sytem that if he will loonily present as the creation of a “supermajority” – a term that most of his voters probably don’t know the meaning of.
N_
Craig can not be constrained to choose between the tiny range of options offered by a bent lawyer and lying politician in a small town on the periphery of a bent country temporarily taken over by a clown called Bojo by rigging an election like a magician on TV.
The Tories have created a bent voting system by privatising it and appointing their own grandee to run it. The SNP have used false allegations against Alex Salmond to reverse their policies 180 degrees, while pretending to the electorate to have retained Salmond’s left wing ideology.
If these two perversions of international Law go unchallenged by the international community that means Britain’s status as a member of the UN will allow it to pursue the next chapter of its war-mongering CV, moving from the trashing of the Middle East to the trashing of the rest of the world by illegal wars along with the US.
Craig is a highly respected member of the diplomatic world who , like the rest of the world, opposes USUKIS illegality, oligarchy, and exceptionalism. Even if he is sent to prison , the EU has heard enough from Joe Biden already to see clearly the US is buttering up Britain to fight its wars in the Indo Pacific region, and to understand what that means for world peace in the next 40 years: another 40 years of continuous trashing , but this time in the East.
Already China has sanctioned a selection of Rah rah Tories, who are trying to marginalize China by attacking Huawei and criticising Chinese domestic policy. China has only to award Craig Murray with a Honorary Professorship in Modern Politics for his work and experience, for the lies of Nicola Twanky and Lordy Avocado to fall apart.
I’m not saying that will happen if these two pantomime politicians act reasonably in this contempt of court case. But if they think they can get away with incarcerating Craig on false charges, they will feel the full wrath of the international community. Somehow I don’t think having to buy all Chinese goods through trusted third parties, like the EU, is Bojo’s Brexit dream of British freedom.
Sanctions can be applied both ways.
The Mercouris article and the comments on it are certainly insightful, pointing out:
I am totally unsurprised that Craig is still “stunned” by the judgment, but let us hope we can all provide the support needed to get it overturned. And as Mercouris also clearly points out, the ramifications for press freedom and journalism are wide reaching, and poor Julian Assange will not stand a cat in hell chance of surviving his ordeal as a political prisoner either.
Is there any support for Craig’s case from the NUJ or any other British, Scottish, or international journalists’ group?
Mercouris keeps going on about the US First Amendment.
Hamish McGlumpha, Priti Patel’s family might or might not have had a “superiority complex” in colonial Africa.
But are you suggesting that she has a “”superiority complex” over the majority white population of the UK?
She came here as a child, so if she has any “superiority complex”, it must have developed while passing through the English institutions of education.
Not very different from other Tory leaders.
It is her own personal character and mentality, and nothing to do with the country in Africa she left as a child.
She’s just a crook. Don’t look to deeply into it. She knows there’s votes in them that reactionary loons
I believe she was born in England.
As wiki and others have it
Patel was born in London 1972
In the 1960s, her parents emigrated to the UK
They established a chain of newsagents in London and the South East of England.[8][9]
She first joined the Conservative Party as a teenager
After graduating, Patel became an intern at Conservative Central Office
From 1995 to 1997, Patel headed the press office of the Referendum Party,
in 1997, Patel left to join the Conservative Party
In 2000, Patel left the employment of the Conservative Party to work for Weber Shandwick,
Patel was one of seven Weber Shandwick employees who worked on British American Tobacco (BAT)—a major account. The team had been tasked with helping BAT manage the company’s public image during the controversy around the Burma factory being used as source of funds by its military dictatorship and poor payment to factory workers. The crisis eventually ended with BAT pulling out of Burma in 2003. The article went on to quote BAT employees who felt that though a majority of Weber Shandwick employees were uncomfortable working with them, Patel’s group was fairly relaxed. The article also quoted internal documents specifying that a part of Patel’s job was also to lobby MEPs against EU tobacco regulations. She worked for Weber Shandwick for three years.[19]
Patel then moved to the British multinational alcoholic beverages company, Diageo, and worked in corporate relations between 2003 and 2007.[20] In 2007, she rejoined Weber Shandwick as Director of Corporate and Public Affairs practices. According to their press release, during her time at Diageo, Patel had “worked on international public policy issues related to the wider impact of alcohol in society.”[21]
Along with fellow Conservative MPs Kwasi Kwarteng, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Liz Truss, Patel was considered one of the “Class of 2010” who represented the party’s “new Right”.[27] Together, they co-authored Britannia Unchained, a book published in 2012
was sworn of the Privy Council on 14 May 2015.
Following Cameron’s announcement of a referendum on the UK’s continuing membership of the European Union (EU), Patel was touted[by whom?] as a likely “poster girl” for the Vote Leave campaign.[40]
On 3 November 2017, the BBC’s Diplomatic correspondent James Landale broke the news that Patel had held meetings in Israel in August 2017 without telling the Foreign Office. She was accompanied by Lord Polak, honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). The meetings, up to a dozen in number, took place while Patel was on a “private holiday”. Patel met Yair Lapid, the leader of Israel’s centrist Yesh Atid party, and reportedly made visits to several organisations where official departmental business was discussed. The BBC reported that “According to one source, at least one of the meetings was held at the suggestion of the Israeli ambassador to London. In contrast, British diplomats in Israel were not informed about Ms Patel’s plans.”[55]
Interesting about Patel working for PR firm Weber Shandwick on the British American Tobacco account. BAT is all about persuading people to take substances. Useful background when the British government has become a PR machine for a few vaccine manufacturers, and all sorts of propaganda levers are being pulled to increase the market.
It is also interesting, and needs confirming, that she was born English not Ugandan and that her parents were here in the 60’s.
Idi Amin’s expulsions seem to have happened after both these events and hence throws that part of Patel mythology into doubt.
I have more to reveal but will wait for the appropriate article /comment / troll to land.
PS yes the BAT angle / Nottingham seat (not her ‘home’ ) is also curious – when you consider that it was Ken Clark’s business directorship and constituency backyard.
Was he involved in her hot housing or was it against his wishes.
Just saying …
Home Secretary Priti Patel was dubbed “a nothing person” and “a complete and utter nightmare”. Alan Duncan writes she was not popular among officials when she served as secretary of state for international development.
“They hate Priti, mainly because she seems to hate all of them”, he wrote.
He also describes Patel as a “complete and utter nightmare” and the “Wicked Witch of Witham,”
https://sputniknews.com/uk/202104031082529003-clown-johnson-frightened-rabbit-may-ex-minister-savages-top-uk-politicians-in-explosive-memoir/
Did the lions of Nottingham roar when she walked across the main square?
I am quite certain that the Court release was a leak by an anti court parson.
It was planned to release on April Fools day as a rather poor joke.
No other explanation is possible since Judges are Honourable people.
“Judges are Honourable people”,
just like Brutus and Cassius…
Talking of legal matters. In her own words, the first minister said:
“I know some of the women that made complaints against him and I therefore know that having him put himself forward like this is not making things easier for them.”
She stated under oath to the Parliamentary Enquiry that she didn’t know who all of the women were, and that the ones she didn’t know, she didn’t know them well.
She lies as easily as breathing. An evil woman who needs to experience the full weight of justice.
At least there finally seems to be some movement on the case of the, “ring-fenced,” funds she and her fake husband embezzled.
@Penguin
“She stated under oath to the Parliamentary Enquiry that she didn’t know who all of the woman were, and that the ones she didn’t know, she didn’t know them well.“
Is that a typo? Just wondering whether she said the ones she DID know she didn’t know well. If she only knew a person under a pseudonym (letter of the alphabet) and didn’t know their identity, then how she could know whether she knew them well or not? Or are we talking about her knowledge at more than one point in time?
Is she going to lie so much that she suddenly goes “pop” as “everyone” starts to see her as nothing but a big bag of lies? See also her personal life. If her back goes against the wall, got to wonder what she might try in order to stay out of prison. Just how long has this woman got left in politics?
Of course she knows them. What they are finding difficult is the knowledge that their plot didn’t work, and may yet be exposed.
Ian
Twa Corbies have already pecked their eyeballs out. The whole world now knows the rotten system of Devolution with its politicised criminal Prosecution Service , imposed on Scotland by the relics of Empire1 England. They also fully understand how Salmond’s red-headed heiress has tried to game those Henry VIII powers to put dissenters like Craig in prison.
They also know that England is going through an uncomfortable fascist phase in which it might erupt into fully fledged Nazism. Or should that be Assadism, the ability to incarcerate and torture every voice of dissent in order to proclaim electoral victory. With The Hate Crime Bill, the tools of Nazism are present.
The only thing they don’t know yet , but which is absolutely obvious to me as an outsider, is that Scotland will roundly reject both SNP and English Tory / Labour 24/7 spying Nazi Parties and flock to the Greens in a protest vote.
The best thing about Scotland is its grasping the thistle of green energy and it’s rejection of illegal oil and mineral wars. If England is so green, why has it secured Iraq, Brunei, Libya Somslia and Saudi oil for its consumption later?
The Scots can surely see that once the Hate Crime powers get endorsed by an election win, they will be rigourously enforced. Turkeys don’t normally vote for Xmas.
If I bother to vote and that is a big IF it will be for the Greens. As a protest vote. There is no way in hell that I am voting for The Scottish Nazi Party. And neither will be I be voting for the equally repugnant Lab or Cons. What puts me of voting is that I am effectively endorsing that shower of schect that sits in Holyrood. What I definitely would vote for is for the abolishment of the Scottish Parliament. I would love to see it go… along with Sturgeon, Hazmat and his totalitarian Hate Crime Bill.
having read the piece by alexander mercouris i am suprised i am not angry and ready to scale the establishment’s walls armed with a rusty dagger i bought in argentina a lifetime ago and reek havoc
upon those inside after all my mother’s maiden name was Murray.but,and after another lifetime abroard
i look upon the power’s that be in the uk as the same evil bastards who caused my great grandfather to leave
his home in cork and walk to dublin and then on to liverpool,the same evil bastards who own the judiciary
whose only interest is in holding power and the money that comes with it.
what they are doing to you craig is another attack on Scotland and should be read about in every home in Scotland .it is that important.my best wishes to you craig and i hope the people of Scotland have the sense
to vote for freedom.
Yes it’s an attack on Scotland but the conclusion you draw suggests something seriously wrong with your logic. You don’t weaken your enemy, let alone defeat them. by making them stronger.
1. The court’s supposed ‘objective test’ looks rather subjective to me. (And was it even a ‘test’?)
2. I agree with earlier commentators that the judges decision in this matter, given their deep involvement in related cases, including knowledge of complainers identities, raises the risk of apparent bias. The wilful dismissal of Craig’s affidavit would appear to demonstrate apparent bias. The ‘creation’ of a dubious ‘objective test’ may be another example.
‘Apparent bias’:
“The modern law of apparent bias was settled by Lord Hope in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, where Lord Hope indicated that the ‘question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased’. In a subsequent case (Davidson v Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHL 34) Lord Bingham remarked that what ‘…disqualifies the judge is the presence of some factor which could prevent the bringing of an objective judgment to bear, which could distort the judge’s judgment’. For: ‘In maintaining the confidence of the parties and the public in the integrity of the judicial process, it is necessary that judicial tribunals should be independent and impartial, and also that they should appear to be so’. The judge must therefore ‘…be free of any influence which could prevent the bringing of an objective judgment to bear or which could distort the judge’s judgment, and must appear to be so’.”
[https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/automatic-disqualification-and-apparent-bias-/64222.article]
Alf Baird
Well said. You are right, Nicola Sturgeon’s generation cannot distinguish between words like objective and subjective, borrow and lend, or challenge and refute.
They are wholly uneducated in the meanings of words and merely select what they understand to sound good. It would be a very bad idea for Scotland to be governed by someone who wants words to mean what they want them to mean, instead of their actual meanings.
Three judges all deliberately making the wrong interpretation of the English language is what happens when the Justice Minister, the Lord Advocate and the First Minister threaten and control the judiciary. In the tin-pot , Alice in Wonderland, Devolved administration of Scotland.
If it was a nuclear power station, red flashing lights, buzzer, warnings to evacuate, explosions , sparks and fire would all tell the objective viewer that Scotland’s devolution is about to explode like Fukushima.
But you know what? The BBC recently put out a ‘From our own correspondent’ propaganda piece that nothing serious ever happened at Fukushima. No meltdown, no pollution in the Pacific or on Japan. Nothing to see here.
Scottish Unionism is doing a Fukushima, but because the MSM are in full control of the narrative, nothing ever happened here.
If you listened to the MSM, one would think that a shadowy group of businessmen are behind the coup in Myanmar. Indeed yes, their names are Joe Biden, Erdogan, Prince Muhammad bin Salman and Bojo Haram, all creating the same old same old narrative for launching another illegal war. From this you also know that the covid crisis is over. Business as normal in the disunited States of America.as it goes into civil war.
Giyane, I too was curious about the upset in Myanmar until I read elsewhere that the Country is rich in some of the Rare Earth Metals that are much in demand these days, especially by those who do not have enough of their own.
Rare earths metal supply and reserves are dominated by China, Mynamar is not listed as having any at all…
https://www.statista.com/statistics/277268/rare-earth-reserves-by-country/
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/critical-metals-investing/rare-earth-investing/rare-earth-reserves-country/
Although perhaps unrefined ore is exported to China where its refined, nonetheless, price rises started last year before the 1st Feb coup.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rare-earths-myanmar-idUSKBN2BI1HR
There is clearly a global supply limit meaning the so called ‘renewable energy’ revolution is barely going to be a fart in a hurricane.
http://energyskeptic.com/2021/renewables-not-enough-minerals-energy-time-or-clean-and-green/
Natasha, although they may not be listed as having significant reserves, they do indeed, provide REM bearing ores onto China for processing. Googling: Myanmar Rare Earth production, links to many references.
Alf,
Also, I can’t stop thinking about the recent announcement of Lady Dorrian’s pet project – to have sexual assault charges tried without jury or cross-examination. She’s obviously been planning this for a while (I have heard the proposals being muttered about maybe ten years ago?). So, imagine not getting enough support for your pet project (and not having the sense to realise there are some serious flaws with the proposal) – what better boost to support is there, for there to be a high profile sexual allegations case?
Of course, it’s not a good look the fact that all the allegations were false; entirely fabricated. This information is nicely subdued if any information on the defence of the case is removed from the public domain.
Lady Dorrian, by accepting the Alex Salmond case, got her high profile sexual allegations case, and she didn’t need to compromise herself by being responsible for the verdict, and continued to keep up momentum on the publicity by accepting Craig’s contempt of court case to subdue negative publicity (that the allegations were false) – a nonsense ruling for the sole purpose of censoring the defence reporting.
The judiciary may still be independent, but they still have their own self-interest and I wonder at the ability of a judge to be impartial on anything when they’ll happily put ordinary people through hell just because it might look better for their own projects.
So, not just apparent bias, but I suspect actual bias – and I suspect that now Craig has removed the ‘offending’ articles – the ones that show clearly that all the allegations were entirely fabricated, (as was shown in court) – then Lady Dorrian may go easy on any sentencing. The political timing of her actions doesn’t give me any faith in her impartiality either. It’s quite possible she is waiting to see if Nicola Sturgeon retains her role – then Lady Dorrian can keep suppressing any knowledge of the falsity of the allegations, and keep promoting the summary execution of anyone complained about – if Sturgeon is out of office after the election, that little cover-up may not be possible.
Using the case of false allegations to support a project that intends to remove the checks and balances in court to test the veracity of allegations, is not a winning formula (if people would just take a moment to think about it).
I think it’s right that anyone should be able to complain about anything – I believe it is the responsibility of the officials receiving the complaint to test the reasonableness and veracity of it. In Alex Samond’s case each and every official failed in their duty – the Scottish Government, COPFS, the police, the courts, and the media. It will take a while for the enormity of their failings – and the intended purpose of throwing away due process for the sake of a variety of self-interested pet projects – to trickle through to the public consciousness.
I do hope that all those people blandly repeating the accusation that Alex Salmond is ‘not suitable for office’ because of some unspecified ‘behaviour’ are very sure they are happy to side with people punting false allegations, and understand the ramifications of it in wider society – do we believe any and every allegation that’s put forward, or is it only some (more equal than others) people’s allegations we are to believe – and if the accused has to apologise for things they never even did, at what point does any and every allegation become unbelievable?
Yes, we really need to stamp out any and all sexual harassment, or any kind of bullying and abuse – but this isn’t the right way to go about it and, I’d suggest, will not have the intended outcome (assuming the intention is to stamp these things out, an assumption that’s far from certain).
Contrary
Yes, the very idea of judges proposing getting rid of juries and leaving trial decisions entirely to judges alone seems to reflect a high degree of self-interest and hence ‘apparent bias’, if not also a degree of arrogance.
We should learn from reports such as Elitist Scotland? which found that those we permit to hold most of the powerful positions in society are still drawn from a very small and privileged social group (i.e. mainly the 3% going to private schools/elite uni’s), who one might also expect conform to certain cultural ‘values’ that differ from much of rest of the population. The end result of this ‘cultural division of labour’ in our ‘justice’ sector seems to be that Scotland already has the highest prison population per head in Western Europe and I suspect that getting rid of juries would make even that deplorable record a lot worse.
thanks craig…Alexander Mercouris article is quite good, but it misses the main point… this is the elephant in the room that no one is allowed to discuss.. the fact is it doesn’t matter that craig murray or julian assange are not guilty of anything.. what matters is that they have to be silenced by the powers of corruption that are the powers making the rules and calling the shots.. sad to say, but the justice system in the uk, usa and a number of other countries is completely beholden to an agenda which has nothing to do with anything other then censoring alternative viewpoints… and if that isn’t enough, there will be state powers going after those offering an alternative viewpoint in full force… so it is the state enforcing conformist behaviour that is not allowed to question the same state and power… the courts just do the dirty work here for an agenda is fairly obvious to see at work… power corrupts and that is clearly the case here in it’s selective application of rules or laws it deems relevant..
James,
You might care to read C. Wright Mills book, ‘The Power Elite’. It was written in 1956 and informs of the interrelated dominant power structures in the US of the military, the industrial and the political elites. I would add (my thought – not Wright saying it) the judiciary to the ‘political elite’ and then from the UK use the book by Professor J.A.G. Griffith entitled, ‘The Politics of the Judiciary’ – a classic and an eye opener – to explain how all political systems have an adjunct judiciary branch which in appropriate circumstances spring into action to keep dissenters under control (Assange and Murray’s case would be illustrative of this process at work).
Nothing I have just said actually contests and/or challenges your perspective.
If you are acquainted with the foregoing analyses – then my apology – for, just to say that, I do respect a strong theoretical framework within which to join the socio-economic and political and military jigsaw puzzle together.
thanks courtenay! i will look up the book – written the same year i was born! much appreciated… it would be good if someone put into words what is going on here, as i believe i am not that great at articulation, but i do believe i can see what is at work and it stinks to high heavens… thank you!
thanks also for the other book mention – by j.a.g. griffith which i am unfamiliar with as well.. much appreciated… i have to read things a few different times sometimes to appreciate them better.. thank you..
Thanks. The Griffith book was unfamiliar to me. After some searching, I found it online at The Politics of the Judiciary
It is a sizable elephant James and Craig with a large corps of apostles is leading it by the tail. Accordingly the British military know and call to mind that Scotland’s independence is a security problem for the United States and the U.S. is pressuring government for a resolution..
The argument is specious on several grounds. First it implies that the US needs or even wants the UK’s nuclear deterrent. Strategically, the UK deterrent is wholly dependent on US support for its missiles, warheads and targeting information. The UK does not actually own its Trident missiles but leases them from the US. British subs must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming.
There seems no practical reason why the Royal Navy could not relocate its nuclear subs to America if the latter were anxious to keep the British deterrent.
We know SNP’s defence spokesperson, Stewart McDonald, is something of a Nato hawk and an outspoken critic of Russian pressure on the Baltic States and Ukraine. The SNP said that Scotland would be in NATO, but at the same time the Yes campaign repudiated nuclear weapons. However, NATO relies on nuclear deterrence, provided by some of its members for the benefit of all, as the ultimate guarantee of security against a potential nuclear-armed foe.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) predicted Britain’s enemies will use the “uncertainty and distraction” that would follow a vote for Scottish separation for their own ends.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) warned of significant upheaval for the armed forces, with the cost alone of removing Trident nuclear submarines from Scotland likely to be well in excess of £5.5 billion. They also questioned how the armed forces could be divided between Scotland and the rest of Britain, saying they are a “totally integrated, pan-UK organisation.”
To many including me all this military noise is hogwash, to Northwood and the Chief of Joint Operations, independence is a major threat to national security.
Mark Golding. Their fantasy idea of a threat to be countered by a revenge WMD is in keeping with their Religious belief that salvation will come from The Rapture. So we a led by war planners who are Kamikaze Suicide Bombers. In my view, we are very close to a sequence of events in many countries where a war can start. For example: in Ukraine, the neo fascists want to attack the Russian speaking republics. This they hope will bring a Russian intervention, which in turn will bring in US troops and pressure on Germany to cancel Nord Stream. So US achieves it two goals: cancellation of Nord Stream and entry of its troops into Ukraine. Notwithstanding the same scenarios in Syria, Taiwan, Korea and many more.
It is interesting that in their ruling, the judges said that concerning the question of whether something you said was “likely” to make the identification of a witness possible, they weren’t concerned with “statistical probability” (which according to wiki is “relative frequency over a long series of events” which does sound like an objective test, based on real data) but what they call an “objective test”. I wonder if by the latter they mean the subjective opinion of someone involved in law enforcement, i.e. no objective test at all.
Anyway, good luck with your appeal.
Yes, a subjective (and hence potentially biased) opinion seems evident, there being no empirical or evidential objective ‘testing’ as such, as anyone who has examined a good number of PhD thesis’s would quickly see.
Professions that depend on their status as justifying credibility will invariably be found wanting when placed under close scrutiny.
My understanding was that the criterion for “objectivity” (taken from another case) that the judges decided on was not statistical probability but one in which any tom, dick or harry with sufficient knowledge of the context and aided by the articles could easily name one or other of the complainants. They then studied the articles, which included the original “fan fiction” which were taken together wide apart in time to decide if that criterion was met using the concept of a “jigsaw”.
Bizarre thinking. If you started a jigsaw in January you would have difficulty in finding any linking pieces by resuming in March and waiting again until August to add another linking piece I would have thought.
Also it is clear that the judges saw the “fan fiction” piece as thinly disguised referencing to real people in real time. But as “fiction” that can only be their subjective interpretation as readers. As George Gissing, the late 19th century writer of “realist” fiction wearily often had to point out that the views of his characters were not necessarily his own. He was simply reflecting reality through his fiction. The same argument would apply.
The notion that the judiciary is independent and neutral is nonsense. In 1977, Professor JAG Griffith wrote ‘The Politics of the Judicary’ which has been revised and updated. I read it as a young law student and remembered its potent arguments through the entirety of career in the law.
The judges, for the most part, are from the same class and share the same backgrounds i.e. Oxbridge and public schools before that. The magistrate’s courts said to be drawn ‘from the people’ also reflect the bias in favour of business and pro-business views. For many years they were known as ‘police courts’ because the magistrates simply found what the police said in evidence as being true despite often glaring porkies and contradictions between officers.
Anyone who really believes that there are independent judges and that the courts aren’t political are at best naïve or at worst stupid. The fact that there are a few judges who appear progressive and there are judgments that suggest fairness, doesn’t alter the truth of the general proposition that the judiciary is part of the system, the independence doesn’t stand up to serious scrutiny and the constitutional ‘safe guard’ of the separation of powers is non-existent.
Sorry to hear about this terrible verdict Craig. Just hoping you are able to get justice from the Supreme Court.
Perhaps a Vatican or Catholic media organisation might bestow the sanctuary of journalistic accreditation on CM.
If that’s what anyone wants, here’s the relevant info:
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/accrediti/pubblico/accredito.html
One of the extremely devious machinations of this kangaroo court of the Lord Marsupial is the trying to con the public of its legitimacy by announcing that social workers will investigate Craig’s family circumstances. This is pure smoke and mirrors to make it look as though due process is being made and the verdict is perfectly normal and un-political.
Like a child murderer expressing distress and anxious concern over the victim they have just buried in a shallow grave and raped. Nicola Sturgeon is scraping the bottom.of the barrell in Lady Macbethian deceit when her cabinet slave whitewashed his corruption in this mockery of Justice like the monkey grinding the organ in the gin dens of Hogarth.
I never thought I would see a political appointee of the Crown stoop so low. But, Hey this is Northern Ireland.
The entire machinery of the British military, intelligence services and justice system will be thrown against the break-up of the Union. Strap yourselves in guys / dolls, and enjoy the ride!
The ‘objective test’ used to convict is similar to a thought crime or to sinfull thought in the Catholic Church which you must confess. All are ‘victimless crimes’ if they are crimes at all.
SA
Scotland of all places in Britain is Irish Christianity which explodes at the suggestion of confessing to an intermediary between human and supreme being.
Thought crime in all its manifestations is alien to the traditions of Britain’s Northern Heritage.
Therefore I would suggest that Nicola Sturgeon’s government’s introduction of thought crimes to Scottish legislature is deliberately and intentionally divisive. It follows that the Masterchef of divide and rule , the Crown, has a hand on the kitchen implement that introduced thought crime into Scottish Law.
Thought crimes must be confessed, but not to a kangaroo court, of Scottish freemasonry, nor Islamist freemasonry, nor EU freemasonry, all trying to use the law to their own political ends. The Law is there to protect from injustice, not to make injustice.
Y’all are missing the bigger point.
In Scotland, a grown-ass adult can make a serious accusation of CRIMINAL behavior in a “public” court that is attended by the public, and yet no one is allowed to say the name of the person making the accusation, even AFTER the trial is over. WTF?
What the hell kind of legal system is that? You can accuse someone of a serious crime but they can’t even say your name? Even in the Middle Ages, peasants had the right to accuse a noble of a crime.
Yes, Sam, I was astonished by that too.
I think it’s a special case of Orwell’s “some animals are more equal than others”. (Which must be one of the very best things ever said or written).
Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law – but “victims” (a class defined by the powers that be) are more equal than the rest. One might suspect that men – especially white men of a certain age who are not part of the power structure but retain their logical faculties – are a good deal less equal.
I don’t think that pointing out wider bad consequences will be seen as special pleading.
Craig, please consider going to exile now. I beg. I don’t think I have to point out the obvious that nobody (including the prosecutor and his/her mom) thinks you’re guilty of anything. I don’t think this is even about silencing you. This is a demonstration for other dissidents. “We can fcuk you.” They did that with Assange. They tried that with Alex Salmond (so far unsuccessfully but pls notice the pattern of bullshxt sexual assault allegations). But if you go to any other European country, that would give the British government and all its clowns a supreme headache. Then you can wish them good luck for bringing up “objective tests” in their extradition requests. Remember, they don’t accuse you of actually disclosing the identities but with some abstract bullshot. If you stay, you go to jail. That’s it.
Who are you nyolci? That is the most foolish and idiotic urge I have witnessed during the whole of this sad and worrying crisis.
Who are you mark golding? That is the most foolish and idiotic post I have witnessed during the whole of this sad and worrying crisis.
It should be crystal clear by now what this particular strategy is.
If any individual (or, in principle, group of people) is causing the powers that be irritation, then:
It worked for Assange, and it’s not yet entirely clear that it won’t tarnish Salmond’s reputation enough to put him out of politics.
I too am frankly stunned that you were found in contempt of court, Craig. I listened in to the virtual hearing, and it was my strong impression that the judge focused (highlighted) the point of law that she was going to cite to absolve you of the contempt charge (the fact that the court KNEW in advance and did nothing to prevent the possible damage to the case). In fact, it seemed to me that she was emphasizing this point for the benefit of your defense team. Here’s your defense…. use it!
A short while after this, I was pleased to see that Alexander Mercouris, someone I respect for his even-handed approach in political and legal affairs, appeared to have the same perception of the judge’s comments as me:
“Murray has made clear that he would have obeyed a Court order to stop reporting if one had been made made. He has in fact always shown respect for the Court. Had an order been sought in a timely way, and had that order been granted, Murray would have complied with it, and would have stopped reporting, in which case it is difficult to see how he could now be prosecuted.
I heard no clear explanation from the prosecution for this delay at Murray’s trial. I personally find this delay very strange. It seemed to me that the judge was puzzled by it also. Certainly I don’t think the prosecution should delay taking action when doing so might cause someone acting in good faith to commit an inadvertent crime. One might almost be forgiven for thinking that the prosecution did it deliberately, holding off until the last moment so that Murray might commit a contempt of court which would justify his prosecution.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/02/08/letter-from-london-craig-murray-independence-for-scotland-and-a-trial-in-edinburgh/
I thought, Alexander also thought, and the judge also appeared to think, that this was sufficient defense against the contempt charge. Was the judge “got to” after the proceeding? I think so, Craig. This bogus contempt of court charge is the equivalent of the “rape charges” against Assange. I believe it is a bad faith prosecution of a political opponent.
I share in your pain over this, Craig. It is a gross injustice. I send you a virtual hug in sympathy, plus a donation to help in your fight against this injustice.
The whole affair shows contempt of law.
Alec Salmond is coming out as a right toe-rag – not even publicly helping those who helped him, but preferring to help lying Nicola Sturgeon.
One is still allowed to comment on judges’ decisions in Scotland. One can say one does not agree with their decisions.
“Alec Salmond is coming out as a right toe-rag…”
Politician. Worse still, party leader.
Don’t know how you can say that when Sturgeon, quite bizarrely, has accused Salmond and Alba of trying to ‘game the system’ by urging a SNP/Alba split-ticket. They claim it risks making the voting system ‘unrepresentative’, which is utter tosh when any outcome will be the result of real voters exercising their democratic right under the system, as is. If Sturgeon and [Pete] Wishart are serious about independence they wouldn’t be making this absurd pleading, in effect, on behalf of Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems. Looks like they’re scared of Alba,… should it gain enough list support they’ll call the SNP’s bluff on independence.
And as if the Tories, in the form of British–Belizean businessman Lord Michael Ashcroft throwing literally millions at the key marginals and doggedly defending FPTP, haven’t been ‘gaming the UK democratic system’ for years. One of the reasons Corbyn got smashed was because his opponents were playing dirty while he kept things civil. Independence isn’t going to be won by fighting under Queensberry rules.
The UK media’s doom-laden Alba predictions and polling are complete nonsense.
They’re clearly trying kill ALBA off before it’s had a chance to present its case. Given the SNP constituency vote looks solid, gifting the 2nd ‘party preference’ vote to ALBA should be a no-brainer for pro-inde SNP supporters. The talk of a ‘supermajority’ isn’t a political buzzword, it’s real thing and it’s how to hold Sturgeon to her promise. As mentioned before, Sturgeon is already shifting her wording on a referendum from ‘will hold’ to ‘hopes to hold’ a referendum in the first half of the next term.
Pete Wishart seems more interested in attacking pro-inde bloggers whose only ‘crime’ as he sees it is in expressing their frustration with the SNP’s snail -like pace towards independence. Echoes of the PLP’s attacks on the left . Remember Tom Watson calling the 580,000 members variously: a rabble, Trots, entryists, dogs. ‘othering’ seems to be the chosen denigration method of the vicious centrist ….
Because these types of time-serving politicians represent a kind of vicious centrism – ie., they’re defending sweet-FA in terms of values, for they’ve no discernible guiding political ideology, but my, they’re defending it very, very viciously.
Presumably this is aimed at Craig et al : https://petewishart.wordpress.com/2021/03/13/meet-the-bloggers/
Quote :
Their fantasy world has also become just that little bit more sinister and deranged with their followers adopting all sort of rightist QAnon imagery and conspiracy theories, with the threat of ‘storms’ descending on the unbelievers
Politicians happily using silly QAnon followers to discredit those questioning events like Douma, where multiple terrified OPCW whistleblowers have come forward saying they were threatened, is why things are so fucked up in the US and UK.
Quote:
Their advice is to not vote for the SNP on the list and to abstain on the constituency vote.
—-
If that’s the case, then that’s stupid position to take. But Pete’s analysis, that a trying to leverage the MMP system, to gain an pro-independence supermajority would somehow be akin to ‘cheating the system’ is equally naive. Does he really think the unionists and esp. the ruthless Tories, would pause for a second in leverage the system if they could, to stop a pro-inde majority?
Wishart again attacking Alba tonight on Twitter. He and his colleagues know how the electoral system works, so what sort stupid tribalism is it which compels some in the SNP to wish to instead gift Labour and the Tories votes over strengthening pro-inde representation?
For SNP voters Alba are like taking out an insurance policy; they’ll make sure it does exactly what it says on the tin.
N_N_Not again already!
You’ll be wanting every public questioning of AS to add it to their set script next I suppose?
« Said to be from Tuareg, a nomadic North African tribesman. »
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” Orwell of course.
21st-century Britain to a tee.
LOL x “don’t tell me what to think! I can’t think for myself quite skilfully already..” “we’re all doomed”.
Knowing that hope is lost at least gives fuel to the torch that guides us to find the lost cause. I found hope, eventually.
Nicola Stugeon gamed most systems in Scotland while trying to frame Alex Salmond: the SNP’s, the bureaucratic, the public prosecutor’s, the police’s , the parliamentary and the press: she knows what she is talking about too well. She even gamed the gender “system”.
The SNP’s leadership claim that having two pro-independence parties is ‘gaming the system’ doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. How many pro-unionist parties are there?
If the accusation from the SNP’s leadership is they and Alba basically want the same thing, why doesn’t the same logic apply to the Tories Labour and Lib Dem’s whose differences are largely cosmetic, especially now that Scottish Labour are once again a branch office run from London run by Tory fanboys’ Starmer and Evans.
As Mr Biden said recently, there is absolutely nothing a man can do that a woman cannot do as well – or better.
While it would obviously be a gross abuse of white male privilege to mention such functions as producing sperm or doing a clean and jerk with 200 kg, maybe we should humbly admit that Ms Sturgeon has proved that a woman can connive, plot, manipulate and backstab far better than any man.
The SNP leadership is pointing to the GRA (Gender Recognition Act) opposition and saying this shows opponents are ‘social conservatives’.
Not true. It shows many independence supporters think that the SNP has latched onto ‘woke’ in lieu of having a discernible political philosophy. Woke is often just virtue signalling – It’s popular with the centrist mob because it cost nothing. And behind ‘woke’ is often a new set of rules and restrictions placed on the majority, on what they say etc; thus really, it isn’t socially progressive, it’s thinly veiled authoritarianism.
Biden is not a man, he’s a weasel who will say anything to garner the votes of self identified “progressives”.
If you need a hole in your roof fixed it won’t be fixed by a woman. Proving not that it can’t be done by a woman but that women won’t do that kind of work.
” as empirically proven, the MSM did far more”.
But Alex Salmond and you Craig did things counter to the desires of powers that be in Scotland. It is not surprising that the powers that be tried to defame Salmond and they moved against you because you were publishing the wrong story. They did not move against the MSM because the MSM is on their side.
What we have here is selective prosecution used to punish dissidents.
Had they chosen to prosecute sections of the MSM for jigsaw identification they may well have won as they won against you but they did not choose to do so because the components of the MSM are pushing the correct line of Salmond defamation as an unconvicted sex pest.
Maybe Alex Salmond should sue someone for defamation including both media the alphabet soup of complaining women.
“What we have here is selective prosecution used to punish dissidents”.
In other words, the executive can switch the justice system on and off like a chandelier. Worse still, it appears to be getting close to a point where it can even dictate the outcome of trials. (With the help of the coronavirus panic, which has served as an excuse for excluding the public and letting cases be tried by judges without juries).
The 10 year running Dutch PM Mark Rutte was this week finally caught in his own web of lies covered by selective memory losses live in parliament, so that makes two north European Establishment Zeppelins deflated.
Might make up for Craig’s possible incarnation.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/04/dutch-pm-survives-no-confidence-vote-but-is-seriously-damaged/
“…that makes two north European Establishment Zeppelins deflated”.
It doesn’t matter; there are hundreds more in line to replace them.
The only way to stop such misconduct is to make the SOP impossible. (It’s already illegal, but nobody pays any attention).
Sure, there are more sly $hephards in backup, but these inescapable deflations were in front of millions of sheep, waking a number of them up from lapping MSM grass up without a single pause. They will not believe the next perfect Barbie of Ken Leader so easily again.
If the First Minister is not the largest party in Scotland, I wonder what effect this will have on the proceedings?
Is CM going to be standing as an Alba Candidate who may then get elected and the Court may then disqualify?
On the 9th April forty years ago Bobby Sands was elected to Westminister as an MP whilst on hunger strike in N.Ireland’s H-block prison. An article in the Irish times shares differing people’s views on that event and Bobby Sands.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/what-bobby-sands-means-to-me-the-hunger-strikers-chose-to-die-daddy-didn-t-1.4525223
I was a teenager (just) at the time and what I remember was the almost constant coverage of the riots and Maggie Thatcher. Strange times.
The Jigsaw analogy:
As I understand it, no Crown witnesses were produced to testify that they identified any of the Complainants from what Craig Murray wrote.
It was the judges themselves who decided Craig gave pieces of a jigsaw that enabled identification of some of the Complainers and the jigsaw was more of an (easier) Peppa Pig jigsaw.
Sticking with the jigsaw comparison. It’s always easier to do a jigsaw when you already seen the picture on the box for reference. You can also compare a brainteaser where you already know the answer then work out how the clues lead to the answer. It’s easier to do it that way.
It’s harder to do a jigsaw puzzle when you don’t have the picture already so don’t know what the completed picture identifies until AFTER you complete the jigsaw. Or you have to work out the brainteaser’s answer from the clues.
If I understand it correctly, the judges already knew the identities of the Complainers so worked backwards rather than being in the position of a member of the public who does not already have the complete picture.
In my opinion it makes it harder for a Court to judge fairly in those circumstances. Is it possible to avoid being influenced in your thinking if you are working FROM the position of ALREADY knowing the Complainers identities before you consider (possible) jigsaw pieces?
Excellent point for any appeal court, but are there any judges available on the British Isles who do not yet know real names of these false B,C, D etc. accusers, as they usually consume MSM and Establishment fodder?
And, who is going to validate your jigsaw solution ?
The pieces do not appear to be unique to the uninformed.
We’re just making the common mistake of applying logic, again !
Colin Alexander
Jigsaw identification is a psychological projection of the Ruling Class addiction to spying on us peeps.
Who in their right mind is interested in civil servants?
Are they so beautiful or creative, so timid or cute, to excite the interest of any ordinary person?
The only people even vaguely interested in them are those who already follow Scottish government politics and they already know who they are from insider gossip. It is a completely fatuous accusation.
Sometimes I lose my wallet. Is anybody in my street interested in my wallet ? Do they have a prurient interest in my debts, to compare them with their own accounts? It usually turns up where I last put it.
It is the absolute fatuousness of the legal argument that brings the entire Scottish Justice system into gross disrepute.
Colin, I agree, and this surely brings the matter into the realms of ‘apparent bias’.
There is also the matter of copfs admission to malicious prosecution, relating to other cases, and what we appear to be seeing is what some might view as ‘a pattern of behaviour’ in this regard, in relation to the selective prosecutions of prominent independence campaigners, a common feature of which appears to be dubious ‘evidence’ and/or spurious ‘objective tests’.
These appear to be features (i.e. bias and malice) of what might be regarded as a rather oppressive colonial type justice system, which is anything but just. Such practices inevitably reflect the desire of a people for independence and liberation from institutionalised forms of oppression.
Mr Murray and others have highlighted how the Scottish legal Establishment has shredded its own reputation in recent times.
As I understand matters, Mr Murray has alleged a deliberate political conspiracy to jail an innocent man (Alex Salmond). (If true this would possibly involve criminality and / or gross incompetence of the most serious nature in the highest parts of the Scottish political AND legal Establishment too.). The judges are part of that same legal Establishment. The judges had the job of judging Mr Murray without bias and without having pre-judged any matters.
Scottish judges take this oath: “I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”. Were the judges able to avoid bias or prejudice when judging Craig Murray ? Was he not already pre-judged during the Alex Salmond trial to NOT be a journalist ? If the journalistic Article 10 defence was important (along with Article 6 regarding justice being seen to be done in reporting trials) then would it be fair if the same judge is effectively marking their own homework regarding the decision as to whether Craig Murray is a journalist or not?
Were the judges affected by negative feelings about Craig Murray’s extremely serious and potentially incredibly damaging allegations against the Scottish legal Establishment ? I cannot say they were or were not.
But, I’m sure Craig Murray and many others with greater knowledge than I, believe there are several grounds for appealing the court’s ruling.
Ok, Alex Salmond’s behavior with women has been dissected under a microscope; when is it Nicola Sturgeon’s turn? As a lesbian she certainly does not represent any passive- traditional female role judging from her shark like political maneuvering (sorry gents).
Lots of woke press in England too, right 😉
There is no evidence she is a lesbian and even if she were so what? You and N not only tell on yourselves with this stuff but provide easy ammunition for all the enemies of Craig Murray. Surprised the moderators of this site can’t see that.
Antonym
Sorry, I don’t want to know about Nicola Sturgeon’s predilections or personal habits. That Labour MP who got his wife to drive when he was over the limit, people started talking about his sexual habits. WTF has his sexual fantasies got to do with lying to the police.
Craig Murray has more integrity and intelligence than the entire Scottish Masonic Lodge of government.
BTW what bit of themselves do lesbian politicians have to insert into the dead pig’s mouth to get elected to the Scottish parliament?
Antonym, I was going to post this but since you got here first I’ll get in the convoy.
This being Sunday time for a sermon…ah effit!
It’s Easter Sunday let these gods arise by themselves themselves today.
Or listen to the reverend’s at Wings he has been orating since Friday and it is good.
Today. I’m too busy watching the big game, what a scorching start and we have a new team! Though it has some of the old dogs as it’s core of mettle – have they got anything left in their legs?
They launched a charge towards the Indy line and scored an opening try with the launch of Alba.
The ‘English’ restarted, as team Scotland still trying to get enough players on the field, absorb the counterattack and wait for the ball to come back to hand.
It does! and a crafty up and under missile has it coming down upon the English, sorry Scottish, womanhood’s star player – wee murrell who really should have been playing for Scotland but had decided long ago that she was more of a blairbabe kind of guy and she fancied herself in a dashing beard.
Down it comes like a 600 thousand pounder super majority cannon shell – he/her knows that several burly fast moving attackers are going to be tackling them hard the moment she catches the ball she is directly under.
They/Their beard whimpers and looks very nervous and tries to sidestep and get some cover tacklers in the way . Libby rushes out with her Sigourney/Ripley snarl of ‘get away from her you bitch!’ war cry which looks mor Dick Emery than anything else.
Tom Tom the faulty direction finder general his fellow Rottweilers of the ‘free’ as in ‘Not’, press, form an illegal wall in front of their mighty licklewickle girl/guy chameleon entity as the bomb lands in her sporon.
Time goes into slo-mo – the blocking dogs swatted as if they weren’t there, the thumping face distorting force irresistible , as it takes the Indy ball, the sporran and the man backwards towards the line out for more points. The facial hair taking fright knowing it was always there to be ripped off to shock the troops but it is still going to hurt – like a pointless Brazilian waxing.
That was just the first few minutes folks we got a classic in the making – historical even – time to get the spider web poet man to write a new song.
Happy Easter Sunday one and all (yup even the demented order following goons – you are also merely human)
For these without any sense of humour (it’s genetic apparently) who take everything literally (it’s not your fault, you were born that way) I make it clear the above is just ME trying to be funny. Sorry if it upsets any pearl clutchers.
DunGroanin, you failed to mention the ‘mad hatter’ coming from the side, again, trying to get the ball, just once, to show it off to the sputnik crowd and box his way to the lectern to lecture, and take the shilling, off course, but is he doing it for the Union splitting the other teams?
If that’s a sly cryptic dig at Salmond(?), it’s surely misguided.
Fair to say Craig Murray and Alex Salmond must know more than anyone commenting here regarding Sturgeon’s psychology and specifically her real views on delivering independence. He [Salmond] wouldn’t be putting himself through this secondary post-trial press inquisition if he didn’t feel it absolutely necessary. Accusations that he’s doing this on an ego trip, or ‘in revenge’, are demonstrably bogus, since Alba aren’t seeking to damage the SNP at constituency level.
Not for me to instruct anyone, but given the SNP could well lose their majority,. Alba not only makes sense in terms of holding the SNP to account but it makes sense in terms of ensuring there is a pro-inde majority.
Gorgeous George, catch phrase ‘come grab me , I’m a pussy cat’
Is as most of us watchers know a very long term DS goon – ever since he started popping up with the ME.
What the Scots thought they were doing in their obviously alcohol and tremadole induced brain fug electing him the first time – I expect they will be clear headed about it this time.
Quiet today innit? 77th/ii/CabinetOffice wallahs obviously reluctantly been given the day off as per ancient contract. So having had my fun as above how about the latest bit of MSM blind eyeing re the narrative control of an independent Scotland? Ready?
“ DELETED “?
Some panicky tongue ripping of academia that doesn’t quite sing a long with the choir in the echo chamber – it is dire how the MSM isn’t bovvered.
From https://latestnewspost.com/news/world/united-kingdom/westminster-refuses-to-deny-it-pushed-academics-to-delete-blog-on-indy-scotland/
“Scotland satisfies all the international legal criteria for statehood, with one exception: it lacks the formal authority to enter into foreign relations, even though it has the literal ability to do so.”
The post, published on the London School of Economics British Politics and Policy website, was co-authored by Geoffrey Chapman who advises the Department for International Trade on economics.
He and co-author Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott, of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
The Government was later pressed by Business for Scotland, which says it believes that Westminster intervened to demand the blog was deleted.
Presented with those allegations, the Government refused to deny that it had pressured the authors to remove the blog post, only repeating that it had not reflected the views of the UK Government. ‘
? ? ? ?
Part of that deleted post appeared on Reddit and is as follows:
“By contrasting Scotland and England to the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic’s ‘Velvet Divorce’, Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott and Geoffrey Chapman suggest that an independent Scotland will continue growing real GDP per capita despite higher trade costs.
In light of the ongoing challenges facing the UK, the idea of Scottish independence seems unpalatable to many, but the news implies strong support. The Scottish government has recently published draft legislation for the holding of another referendum. Numerous polls suggest that a majority vote for independence would occur should this referendum go ahead. Although polls do not necessarily reflect what people will actually vote for at a particular moment in time, the political momentum for another referendum is growing. This pressure will be amplified should the SNP win a majority in the upcoming Scottish Parliamentary elections.
While this remains unclear, the Scottish Parliament may have the constitutional authority to legislate for another referendum without the involvement of the UK government and Parliament. This question can only be definitively settled with a ruling from the UK Supreme Court, one that might not come. Litigating this matter is not necessarily desirable. The courts afford deference to the Scottish Parliament, and there are reasons for being hesitant towards becoming entangled with, and potentially hindering, the legislative process of a democratically elected parliament.
If the current UK government opposes such a course of action, the ways in which the law may prevent the Scottish Parliament alone from legislating for a (non-binding) referendum will need to be clearly articulated. This would be a challenging case to make, because arguing that holding another referendum affects the UK assumes the potential result, which cannot be known in advance. The result of a referendum cannot retroactively determine the legality of holding it. And even if favouring independence, the force of such a result would be more political than legal. This is because the UK Parliament would need to become involved in order to give legal effect to that result, similar to how it was necessary in order to give legal effect to the EU referendum result.
Scotland could also attempt unilateral secession from the UK, which would arguably flout constitutional law and make the applicable international law more relevant. At present, Scotland satisfies all the international legal criteria for statehood, with one exception: it lacks the formal authority to enter into foreign relations, even though it has the literal ability to do so. Consequently, if Scotland demonstrated independence from UK authority in the course of conducting international relations, Scotland would be more likely recognised as a state by other states and international organisations. Furthermore, if voting at the UN General Assembly is anything to go by, we see no immediate reasons why other states would side with a UK position (assuming it opposed secession).
While becoming independent would have immediate economic costs, the long-term view suggests there are benefits. By contrasting Scotland and England to the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic’s ‘Velvet Divorce’, our research suggests that an independent Scotland will continue growing real GDP per capita despite higher trade costs. Following the ‘Velvet Divorce’ in 1993, the Czech and Slovak Republics faced additional border costs in their bilateral trade, not least because the Czech Republic kept the Czech Koruna, whereas the Slovak Republic adopted the Euro. By analysing the bilateral comprehensive trade costs from the ESCAP-World Bank Trade Cost Database, we note that for the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic’s trade costs have always been lower than Germany’s (which becomes the largest trading partner for both states post-independence). In 1995, trade costs between the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic were equivalent to 35%, whereas between the Czech Republic and Germany, trade costs were equivalent to 56%. The Slovak Republic presents with similar patterns in that trade costs between the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic have always been lower than trade costs between the Slovak Republic and Germany.
In the years post-independence, it is apparent that the Czech Republic substituted their exports and imports away from the Slovak Republic; the Slovak Republic did the same, substituting their exports and imports away from the Czech Republic, both in favour of Germany. Despite international trade rebalancing in favour of Germany, a trade partner with higher trade costs, real GDP per capita continued growing. It is contextually important to note that for the economically smaller state, the Slovak Republic quite quickly (over six or so years) substituted away from what was its much larger, more significant, export partner to what was a much smaller partner. That is to say, the Slovak Republic’s exports to Germany were nearly three times less than to the Czech Republic in 1993, but as of 2019, the Slovak Republic’s exports to Germany were nearly two times greater than to the Czech Republic. While the change was less significant regarding the Slovak Republic’s imports, the same shift occurred.
Extrapolating the above to England and Scotland, we look at key indicators of macroeconomic policy for Scotland (see Table 1) compared to the Czech and Slovak Republics. Where Scottish estimates could not be found or calculated, we include UK data as a proxy, included in square brackets. According to official statistics, Scotland’s current GDP increased steadily between 1998 and 2019, climbing from £85,204 million to £177,106 million (equivalent to 107.9% growth for the period, or 5% annually).
Regarding the available trade data between 2002 and 2018, Scotland’s export shares are relatively stable. In 2002, Scotland exported 23% to the EU, 18% to non-EU, and 58% to the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK’s share peaked in 2007 at 67%, when the EU received 16% and non-EU 17%. However, the rest of the UK’s share has tapered off since and as of 2018, was standing at 60% (with the EU receiving 19% and non-EU 21%). Since 2007, counterbalancing the downward trajectory of the rest of the UK’s share has been an increasing trend in Scotland’s non-EU trade, rising from 17% to 21% in 2018. Scotland’s top five international export destinations accounted for £15.1 billion of all exports in 2018, with the top five markets being the US, France, Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. The US remains Scotland’s top international export destination, accounting for an estimated £5.5 billion in 2018.
Moreover, Scotland’s exports to the EU grew by an average of 4% per year over the last five years, and since 2010, growth to the EU outpaced growth to the rest of the world and the rest of the UK by a significant margin. Scotland is not only becoming more economically integrated with the EU (see here), but seemingly also with non-EU partners. Scotland’s historic economic performance has been strong, which bodes well for a small, open and independent Scotland. With modest population growth alongside good GDP growth, supported by stable participation in international trade, it seems Scotland is in a far better initial condition than either the Czech or Slovak Republics, and can therefore expect similar (if not better) post-independence outcomes.
In light of long-run economic growth and stability, it might be worthwhile for Scotland to attempt entering into foreign relations with other states and international organisations if there was no cooperation from the UK to take forward another referendum result favouring independence. A key factor is that if the UK did not respect any future referendum result favouring independence, unilateral Scottish secession would become more legitimate, meaning international recognition of Scotland as an independent state would arguably be more likely. Although the UK currently respects the right of Scots to self-determination, this would no longer be the case if the UK did not take the appropriate steps to implement a referendum result favouring independence.
With regional stability in the interests of all parties, any referendum favouring Scottish independence should be enacted through a staged approach to secession in compliance with constitutional law to minimise the economic cost on the UK and Scotland. The rule of law should be at the heart of any Scottish secession to allow for the best possible economic outcomes for people in Scotland and the UK. Such a process also depends on the politics between the UK and Scottish governments being cooperative, open-minded, and transparent. Nevertheless, although political amicability between the UK and Scotland is preferable, it is not indispensable for Scotland to become independent and continue prospering thereafter, particularly if Scotland negotiates access to the EU single market.
Considering Scotland has all the necessary machinery in place to become an independent state, we see no obvious reasons why Scotland would not succeed economically if it were to do so, especially if achieved within the bounds of the law. Although our findings might be controversial to some, we hope to show that Scottish independence, while not inevitable, is far more nuanced a matter than many have claimed. There exist several options worth pursuing for the parties to this debate.”