**Date for Diaries** Please join us outside HMP Edinburgh on the morning of 30 November 2021 to celebrate Craig’s release from prison. Speech from Craig. All welcome. It’s St Andrews Day – bring your Saltire. #cmcountdown #ScotlandJailsJournalists
— Craig Murray Justice campaign (@cmurrayjustice) November 17, 2021
Craig Murray #CountdownToFreedom series #ScotlandJailsJournalists Peter Oborne, journalist & former political commentator of the Daily Telegraph describes his friend as a hero, truthteller, dissident – https://t.co/MZhxu46YPR pic.twitter.com/hBcd1xj8A2
— Craig Murray Justice campaign (@cmurrayjustice) November 22, 2021
I want to make one or two points for you to ponder while I am in jail. This is the last post until about Christmas; we are not legally able to post anything while I am imprisoned. But the Justice for Craig Murray Campaign website is now up and running and will start to have more content shortly. Fora and comments here are planned to stay open.
I hope that one possible good effect of my imprisonment might be to coalesce opposition to the imminent abolition of jury trials in sexual assault cases by the Scottish Government, a plan for which Lady Dorrian – who wears far too many hats in all this – is front and centre. We will then have a situation where, as established by my imprisonment, no information at all on the defence case may be published in case it contributes to “jigsaw identification”, and where conviction will rest purely on the view of the judge.
That is plainly not “open justice”, it is not justice at all. And it is even worse than that, because the openly stated aim of abolishing juries is to increase conviction rates. So people will have their lives decided not by a jury of their peers, but by a judge who is acting under specific instruction to increase conviction rates.
It is often noted that conviction rates in rape trials are too low, and that is true. But have you ever heard this side of the argument? In Uzbekistan under the Karimov dictatorship, when I served there, conviction rates in rape trials were 100%. In fact very high conviction rates are a standard feature of all highly authoritarian regimes worldwide, because if the state prosecutes you then the state gets what it wants. The wishes of the state in such systems vastly outweigh the liberty of the individual.
My point is simply this. You cannot judge the validity of a system simply by high conviction rates. What we want is a system where the innocent are innocent and the guilty found guilty; not where an arbitrary conviction target is met.
The answer to the low conviction rates in sexual assault trials is not simple. Really serious increases in resources for timely collection of evidence, for police training and specialist units, for medical services, for victim support, all have a part to play. But that needs a lot of money and thought. Just abolishing juries and telling judges you want them to convict is of course free, or even a saving.
The right to have the facts judged in serious crime allegations by a jury of our peers is a glory of our civilisation. It is the product of millennia, not lightly to be thrown away and replaced by a huge increase in arbitrary state power. That movement is of course fueled by current fashionable political dogma which is that the victim must always be believed. That claim has morphed from an initial meaning that police and first responders must take accusations seriously, to a dogma that accusation is proof and it is wrong to even question the evidence, which is of course to deny the very possibility of false accusation.
That is precisely the position which Nicola Sturgeon has taken over the Alex Salmond trial; to be accused is to be guilty, irrespective of the defence evidence. That people are oblivious to the dangers of the dogma that there should be no defence against sexual assault allegations, is to me deeply worrying. Sexual allegation is the most common method that states have used to attack dissidents for centuries, worldwide and again especially in authoritarian regimes. Closer to home, think of history stretching from Roger Casement to Assange and Salmond.
Why would we remove the only barrier – a jury of ordinary citizens – that can stop abuse of state power?
I am worried that this abolition of juries will have been enacted by the Scottish Parliament, even before I am out of jail. I am worried Labour and the Lib Dems will support it out of fashionable political correctness. I am worried an important liberty will disappear.
I want to touch on one other aspect of liberty in my own imprisonment that appears not understood, or perhaps simply neglected, because somehow the very notion of liberty is slipping from our political culture. One point that features plainly in the troll talking points to be used against me, recurring continually on social media, is that I was ordered to take down material from my blog and refused.
There is an extremely important point here. I have always instantly complied with any order of a court to remove material. What I have not done is comply with instructions from the Crown or Procurator Fiscal to remove material. Because it is over 330 years since the Crown had the right of censorship in Scotland without the intervention of a judge.
It sickens me that so many Scottish Government backed trolls are tweeting out that I should have obeyed the instructions of the Crown. That Scotland has a governing party which actively supports the right of the Crown to exercise unrestrained censorship is extremely worrying, and I think a sign both of the lack of respect in modern political culture for liberties which were won by people being tortured to death, and of the sheer intellectual paucity of the current governing class.
But then we now learn that Scotland has a government which was prepared not only to be complicit in exempting the Crown from climate change legislation, but also complicit in hushing up the secret arrangement, so I am not surprised.
What is even more terrifying in my case is that the Court explicitly states that I should have followed the directions of the Crown Office in what I did and did not publish, and my failure to not publish as the Crown ordered is an aggravating factor in my sentencing.
If the Crown thinks something I write is in contempt and I think it is not, the Crown and I should stand as equals in court and argue our cases. There should be no presumption I ought to have obeyed the Crown in the first place. That Scottish “justice” has lost sight of this is disastrous, though perhaps as much from stupidity as malice.
My next thought on my trial is to emphasise again the dreadful doctrine Lady Dorrian has now enshrined in law, that bloggers should be held to a different (by implication higher) standard in law than the mainstream media (the judgement uses exactly those terms), because the mainstream media is self-regulated.
This doctrine is used to justify jailing me when mainstream media journalists have not been jailed for media contempt for over half a century, and also to explain why I have been prosecuted where the mainstream media, who were provably responsible for far more jigsaw identification, were not prosecuted.
This is dreadful law, and my entire legal team are frankly astonished that the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on this point. This excellent article by Jonathan Cook explains further the chilling implications.
Those articles which the Court ordered me to take down, have been taken down. But I was not ordered to take down this one, which was found not to be in contempt of court. I was also not ordered to take down my affidavits, which though slightly redacted are still extremely valuable. I swore to the truth of every word and I stick by that. At the time I published these, far less was known about the Salmond affair than is known now, and I believe you will find it well worth reading them again in the light of your current state of wider knowledge – absolutely nothing to do with learning identities, but to do with what really happened on the whole plot to destroy Alex Salmond (something the judgement states I am allowed to say).
Finally I urge you to consider this truly remarkable speech from Kenny MacAskill MP. Scotland’s former Justice Secretary, and consider its quite staggering implications. It tells you everything you want to know about the British Establishment’s capture of the Scottish government, that the mainstream media felt no need to report the main points he was making, which constitute a simply astonishing outline of corrupt abuse of power.
An explanation: this blog is going dark because I cannot by law publish from prison or conduct a business from prison. Access to this blog has always been free and open and subscriptions have always been a voluntary contribution and not a purchase. It is understood that all new and continuing subscriptions from today, until we go live again, are voluntary contributions to the welfare of my family and not in exchange for anything.
I am afraid one off contributions to the defence fund are also still urgently needed. Legal costs so far paid amount to over £200,000 and continue to rise as we head towards the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which has to be via another Scottish Court called the nobile officium. Astonishingly, over 13,000 individuals from over 120 countries have contributed to the legal defence fund. People all over the world value freedom and realise the terrible precedents established by this case must be overturned.
We are equally grateful for all donations and all really do help – donations of £5 or less total over £30,000. But I must mention the special generosity of Roger Waters and Vivienne Westwood, and the anonymous individual who gave one bitcoin. 80% of the fund is reserved for legal fees, but up to 20% may be used to fund campaigning to raise public and political awareness of the human rights issues involved.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
———————————
Subscription to this blog has always been voluntary and anyone is free to read and reproduce without subscribing. These subscriptions have become the major source of income to myself and my family, and I am especially grateful to those who have maintained their subscriptions when it has not been really functioning. I shall be immensely happy if you can continue until I am back. The struggle continues after this holiday.
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
Still can’t get my head round the fact that both Murray and Salmond advised us to vote SNP 1.
The result being, ALBA won no seats and the non Indy SNP are in an even stronger position than they were before the election.
IMO – it’s up to the individual how they vote. Your responsibility to assess all the pros and cons of your decision. If you just follow other people’s advice without considering the consequences then maybe you shouldn’t have a vote ? No-one can blame others for the consequence of where they put their X.
Yes – this strategy does have `cunning plan by Baldrick’ written all over it.
Alba didn’t field any candidates for the constituency seats.
Without a shadow of doubt for me Craig’s (and a handful of others) reporting of Alex Salmond’s defense was absolutely crucial. Who knows but I think it will have given that jury confidence to reach the verdicts it did.
And THAT is what really really pissed off Dorrian IMHO.
They were so ready to railroad Salmond it was not true but Craig and others made it just visible enough to stop it. His card was marked at that point.
For Craig then to be jailed by the same judge based solely on her quite frankly twisted legal views is shocking on so many levels. As Kenny MacAskill says in the Scotsman it is ‘vindictive’.
Well if it is vindictive then it is malicious. This is yet another in a long string of malicious prosecutions to come out of a clearly rancid Lord Advocate’s office. Their actions in the cases of Salmond, Hirst, and Murray are horrific but it is their malicious prosecution and dreadful treatment of the Rangers Liquidators that provide the biggest insight into the ‘demographics’ of these folks. They really don’t like supporters of Alex Salmond and the really don’t like the perceived slayers of RFC. It is almost comical were it not so grotesque and frightening. They are playing with people’s lives here deliberately putting them into high risk situations. Jailing Craig is just plain disgusting to me.
Ok I am an outsider but all this chat about Scotland still having great legal system seems like utter bullshite. It looks rotten to me and has done for a good while now. I think some of you legal folks are kidding yourselves on about this (looking at you Kenny), it looks bent as hell to me as a layman looking in.
It has been very illuminating and educating all of this, just not in a good way.
Mac: Except juries are specifically forbidden from reading reports of trials they are involved in – or risk being held in contempt.
Any more fantasy theories?
Well put, Salmond was to be gaoled but the perpetrators failed; someone (else) had to pay. The result is that someone was gaoled because of the malicious prosecution (albeit the understudy, not the star).
As a long time supporter, I renew my support to you Craig. I guess I can call you a friend also, because I have a fond memory of having a chat over a few pints in a London pub in 2005. But most importantly, your message has always been unambigous and well-thought, so back then I was relaying it to as many readers as possible on voltairenet.org (4 different languages).
Be strong, we are millions supporting your cause. Justice shall prevail.
What does the Scottish Bar think about the Salmond and Murray prosecutions?
One notes that Salmond’s advocate was the then Dean of Faculty, and Craig’s advocate is the current Dean of Faculty. That said they have to appear before and win cases tried by judges appointed (effectively) by the Scottish Government, and Westminster. Negotiations have to be conducted with the compromised COPFS.
That said the profession needs to grow a set before the entire criminal justice system makes honest lawyers redundant.
Joseph Mellon,
Craig Murray’s case is very much a political case.
The implications thereof are that the powers that be use their political power – regardless of the legal rights or wrong of Murray’s case. The theory is that the US and UK afford freedom of expression and access to lawyers and human rights. Cases like Murray’s and Assange’s belie all of that .
The politics of the judiciary is very much in play here.
Joseph, In my view the Establishment operates on the “Big Lie” principle.
Perhaps this will help. Cross posted from Wings:
TextTom says:
6 August, 2021 at 12:34 pm
Roddy Dunlop QC interviewed on this morning’s Holyrood Magazine podcast, starting 14 mins in.
For a figure at the heart of the Scottish establishment, he has quite a lot to say (although not enough for us Wingers, obviously) about the Hate Crime Bill, the separation of powers, and his absolute certainty about the a-political nature of the judiciary. But, overall, not quite ‘nothing to see here’, even if carefully expressed.
https://anchor.fm/holyroodhttps://anchor.fm/holyrood
That Mr Dunlop is also on record as exalting Wolffe as a “man of the highest integrity”.
He’s also charging Craig 750 pounds per hour to fuck things up
Forget Kenny Mckaskill. Max Blumenthal cuts directly to the point on the threat Craig’s jailing poses to independent, ant-establishment media.
Jimmy Dore Show, from 55min mark.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5fSsuE65jPbuotN5p91XAc?si=fnlJ9WbbTaW-u-1kncvfIQ&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1
No don’t forget Kenny, his speech in the House of Commons was very detailed about the points in Craig’s case and Separation of Powers. Do watch all of Max Blumenthal on Jimmy Dore show, not just the last bit about Craig.
Update from Craig’s support team
https://twitter.com/cmurrayjustice/status/1424716592043241480?s=21
Craig got a great ‘shout out’ from Max Blumenthal (GrayZone) on the Jimmy Dore show today (at the 24minute mark, but rest of show was a blinder too, as per usual):.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI98v0VMw4Y
Max started with “this wretched judge….”,
love it!
Almost all of it was Max talking about himself and how cleaver he thinks he is.
Yes, he was also concerned about Craig.
michael norton. It obviously pained you to hear Max Blumenthal talking about and naming all the characters who were involved in trying to shut down The Grayzone and their Independent media work that reveals the neo Liberal war mongers. He at No point talked about himself as you claim. He is a real truth seeker, willing to travel to dangerous places to do real journalism and expose the lies pushed by the approved story teller hacks. He has thus become a target of those who will use any means necessary to shut him down. This is legal action down to the rest we all know about. I knew this jailing of Craig would finally bring his case prominence and mention by Jimmy Dore and Max Blumenthal. That must really hurt you that Max details all the money and cretins behind his being the next target of silencing and steering. I urge everyone to watch his detailed and wide ranging explanations on the Jimmy Dore ending with the mention of our very own Craig’s jailing.
Agreed.
One word requires moderation now?
—
[ MOD: No, all comments are being pre-moderated. Kindly have some patience, and they will be approved in short order. ]
Worth watching.
He was not talking about himself but of a concerted attack on the alternative news media and bloggers such as Craig, by the system gatekeepers and media whorepfuls that cannot see the foot in the door on free speech.
I hope they cooperate globally to stop this backhand sleaze spreading further.
But at least you have shown Michaels regular face on here, again.
All I am writing, is, that I watched all of it.
Most of the interview was Max talking about himself and gloating how clever he was because he had been taken to court by a woman who had inherited her money from her father which he had got by getting a smart lawyer to rob Iran of their money which had been locked-up by American order. Her father had been captured by people in Lebanon and held to ransom by people her father felt were funded by Iran to get at Israel.
This woman had employed the same lawyer her father employed to take Max to court to rob him of one million dollars.
Only a tiny part was about Craig.
Let me guess … that woman was Sulome Anderson and her father was Terry Anderson.
In 2018, Sulome Anderson announced she would be filing a lawsuit against Max Blumenthal and Benjamin Norton for libel and defamation. In 2021, the lawsuit was dismissed by Judge William M. Jackson.
Michael Norton
In a political system that shields decision makers from liability for their crimes, Steve Bell depicted Cameron protected by a condom.
Cameron managed to illegally attack bothe Libya and Syria, in spite of HoC opposition to military interventions, by deploying Al Qaida forces as subjugated proxies , assisted by British special forces available to him without consulting Parliament.
It’s difficult to imagine how corruption could be so complete that he continued military invasions in spite of majority opposition by our representatives.
As to Craig’s imprisonment, I’m still unable to understand how one judge’s assertion of guilt can overrule Legal precedent, commonsense and justice in one fell swoop.
But it’s obvious to me that if Britain is able to subvert its sworn historical enemies, political islam, it can also subvert its imperial colonies in the form.of Scottish Justice.
I have no idea why Perfidious Albion can still recruit some of it’s most hardened enemies to fight its battles for it, but it explains everything about how they gained an empire in the first place.
We need a British Trump or a modern Oliver Cromwell to clear out the Stygian filth in British political governance. Or we will be involuntarily cleared out by our military opponents, and that might not be so nice.
blumenthal is despised by hard right imperialists because he exposes their moral bankruptcy.
Who are the morally bankrupt hard right imperialists?
at the moment most of the officials and politicians of the two major parties in the united states. if you have difficulty discerning the comparable people in the u.k., a tell would be support for overthrowing assad, maduro, diaz canel, starving yemen, provoking iran into a war, and the like. can’t you think of anybody?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-57367598
Do you mean like Clegg or Cameron?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58149765
given that they seem to be corrupt neoliberals, i would expect they support hard right imperialists, but not knowing anything else about them i can’t say if they have had any influence on government policy. since blumenthal is neither a corrupt neoliberal nor a hard right imperialist, i’m not sure why you brought them up. blumenthal is despised by hard right imperialists and their press bootlickers like The Young Turks because he exposes their moral bankruptcy. do you disagree with this statement?
“morally bankrupt hard right imperialists”
There are three tautologies in this.
“Do you mean like Clegg or Cameron?”
I would say so.
Great Josh..Thanks..And Indeed all of it is worth watching.. I love The Greyzone ..
I went on to Jimmy Dore last night to see if there was anything on Craig.. Thank you for the Link.
May I proffer my best wishes and my hope that your work will continue in the near future. You have been making an important stand for the rule of law, and for freedom of speech.
It is shameless that the MSM have by enlarge avoided honest reporting on civil liberties in general — not to mention Mr. Assange’s various hearings — with a smorgasbord of fake news, biased news and no news on these important issues that cry out for honest debate. That this debate is not happening to the extent that it should is a reflection of the fact that it is not enough to have freedom of speech for MSM journalists (who often don’t exercise these freedoms anyway) but also important to have freedom of speech in general for individual citizens (including social media) so that the important issues of the day can be discussed openly. Keep up the good work when you can!
“It is shameless that the MSM have by enlarge avoided honest reporting on civil liberties in general.”
I would change that to,
“It is shameless that the MSM have by and large avoided honest reporting.” The dishonesty doesn’t just apply to civil liberties but news right across the board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray
Just had a quick look at Craig’s Wiki then did a bit of copy editing to remove dupe wl and scan the citations. Fairly pleased to see that Mr Cross et al. haven’t fallen on it since Craig got banged up.
Very good Sweeth, thank you.
Not being a smartarse here but I’ve no doubt it will be ‘ re-edited for the truth ‘ in time.
I see all sorts of comments on MSM boards and you know on Guardian Comments that get 400 plus replies that none of them are ever from the left – yes Boris is an idiot etc but they are anodyne and none controversial.
The Independent has a lot of Corbyn supporters and the Tory Central Office sends the odd one or two on there to no avail.
The Grayzone I like particularly Aaron Matte ( Max is good though ) and Jimmy Dore is great entertainment when he gets on a roll.
The problem is that the BBC ITV etc go for the Headline – Sub Headline routine as the paper media does which invites all sort of ‘ experts ‘ by headline to opine on all and sundry which suggests that just because I’ve seen The Great Bake Off and Rick Stein watching it confers in depth knowledge to myself.
The likes of The Grayzone – Telesur and many others attract the tag of ‘ Conspiracy Sites ‘ from the MSM as if the MSM ever looked deeply into anything at all in the past 30 years.
So even on the right I will give them their due – at least they have looked into something and not been handed narrative ( orders ) from various governments on each and every day.
I disagree with the conclusions including many on the left but at least they have a go.
The BBC who’s remit is to ‘ Inform and entertain ‘ seem to be a lot of entertaining and very little informing since
Cameron and Peston went back under his rock a year after his useful explanation of the 2008 Financial Crash.
As Chomsky correctly says – they know what to do – they know their place in order to keep their place and salary ( see Marr ) and they are well educated fools and self deceivers and I suspect that someone like Corbyn or Craig or Julian and John Pilger reminds them everyday what being a fraud is all about.
Their printed and broadcasting venom towards the above is in direct proportion to their actual felt shame ( as they are not fools ) in knowing what they are doing and worse – why they do it ( salary/stipend/money).
There are thousands of these people who populate the MSM ( in the old days they earned the epithet of
‘ Rent A Quote ‘ ) like street performers being given money to sing a song.
Because they are educated fools they are aware of what they do but justify their lack of curiosity by patriotism
– not biting the hand that feeds them ( Oxford and Cambridge are full of the people – there are many good people as well by the way ) and in the BBC’s case ” Not undermining the authority of the Prime Minister ”
I have said that there is the anti – thesis of Whistle Blowers and that these are ‘ Whistle Suckers . ‘
It is not a flippant remark because there are alleged journalists and reporters who know what’s really happening but say nothing and the best propaganda for my money is not what is said/revealed to the public but the ignored and thereby unsaid supposedly in a mistaken protection of the public
They know but don’t say and that ( se Chomsky et al) is worse than the twisted propaganda that is said and is the reason why the whistle blowers end up in jail or get labelled as Conspiracy Theories.
Google – Twitter and Facebook are now the arbiters of what is the truth.
Wikipedia are in the same leaugue which is why you alteration will be altered.
Thanks for your extensive sorting of the chaff. and your very apt ‘whistlesuckers’ description, which could be seen world wide whence the wikileaks vaults were released and they swarmed around it like flies finding a turd.
It was the Guardian who released the code for information explicitly put there to be kept out of the reach of writers and public.
Once released nobody listened to Julians warning, not the NYT or the Washington Post.
Lets hope that after Macaskil’s piece in the Scotman, they will find a health reason to release Craig early, its not that they have to be seen as incompetent heartless bastards.
Well Said nevermind.. A good idea to keep the Guardian’s role in all this at the fore…
We have had many Very humid , Sticky nights up here.. I often find Myself going out into the garden through the night for cool air…Any air..and I always think of Julian, and now Craig…
I wrote a wee Haiku on Saturday morning –
Humid, Airless Nights
I get up to Breathe Outside
Jail must be Torture
You aren’t a smart-arse, it will be slanted (even more?) but they are a bit slow off the mark.
Has anyone thought to juxtapose Salmond’s aquittal with the Cuomo scandal?
People hostile to Salmond, that is.
Depressing truth about Cuomo and US Liberalism:
“Here’s the truth that’s hard to say aloud: if the New York governor had not been a sex pest, he likely would have gotten away with hiding thousands of people’s deaths in nursing homes and shielding his health care industry donors from any liability — all while profiting off a $5 million book deal and being venerated by liberals and corporate media outlets as a shining star.”
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/08/andrew-cuomo-resignation-corruption-sexual-harassment-new-york-state-democrats
Sirota could have gone further still and added that you can be a prolific and unrepentant sex pest and still be venerated by liberals. Witness recent and current Democrat presidents.
Xavi,
“This quilt is now over our head, suffocating our country — and Cuomo’s departure leaves its links intact. It’s great that Cuomo is leaving, but make no mistake: his legacy of lawlessness lives on, arguably stronger than ever — and it will continue to do so until voters start demanding something different.”
All of this is accurately stated. Yet the commentary is incomplete, for:-
“And this comment applies not just to Cuomo because he is a Democrat – it actually applies to – all power.”
Nuff said.
Amen!
My point is, liberals will accept any degree of corruption, self-dealing, anti-human policies and even, in choice cases, sexual predation as long as the perpetrator is a high profile Democrat. That is never going to change. I single out liberals because they affect to be high principled and interested in the public good.
Further to the distinction between the Alex Salmond and Andrew Cuomo (/Biden/Clinton) cases ..
Elite Feminists Ran Cover for Andrew Cuomo:
Cuomo’s downfall has discredited a host of liberal feminist activists who quietly advised the governor on his response to sexual harassment accusations.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/08/elite-liberal-feminism-times-up-roberta-kaplan-andrew-cuomo-metoo
“One point that features plainly in the troll talking points to be used against me, recurring continually on social media, is that I was ordered to take down material from my blog and refused.”
Recurring continually because they are computer generated. The tactic is to hide the facts behind a troll smokescreen. Anyone looking for information or reasoned discussion will be disappointed and turn away. Either the mods take the trolls down or the trolls neutralise the site.
I wonder what Craig’s first week in prison was like. It is outrageous what is being done to this gentle, principled man. Singled out illogically for a spurious prosecution then imprisoned without mercy. All in the plainest sight, endorsed by the Supreme Court and by mainstream media and politicians north and south of the border. The total absence of outrage and solidarity in the face of such a crude and cruel persecution affirms so much about British Liberalism in the twenty-first century. An essential fraudulence so deeply entrenched and broad based that it has become unmentionable within its own media and intellectual circles, like the emperor’s new clothes.
Xavi. Take heart, Craig will have period of uninterrupted monastic peace, in which to put pen to paper, even to author yet another book to the chagrin of his and our masters. He will emerge a fitter fighter, Amen.
Yes, very good to hear he is being well treated inside and is able to write.
? Yaas Catalonia – ??????? Let us get Craig Murray out of jail.
Craig Murray is an innocent man who has been imprisoned for stating the obvious by the corrupt establishment he mentioned.
Freedom of speech is a right not a crime.
#freecraigmurray
https://www.facebook.com/CatalansForYes/photos/a.728313533885380/4246061118777253/
With the new draconian Crime Bill coming through being annoying and being a nuisance ‘ to a person or community’ should put all the Tory Cabinet in jail by default.
150k dead from the pursuit of Herd Immunity ( the latest variant of this is in train with vaccines this time )and the Disability Work Assessment related deaths is enough admissible evidence to jail the lot of them in theory re: A person and the Community.
And their accomplices to the crimes in the media.
Of course as we all know the laws the governments make never apply to themselves – just to us.
This tweet is on Craig’s support.
“Rebecca Vincent @rebecca_vincent 21h
Two days until the preliminary hearing in the Assange extradition appeal, and all I’ve been told is the Court has ‘noted my request’. Will we face another round of barriers to observation (and open justice!) in the appeals process? Or will I be allowed to do my job?”
Is it true that Assange is being tried just days after “Our man in the Gallery” has been denied a hearing?
Will some one please report on the upcoming Assange persecution!
If the same court that did Craig in hears the Assange appeal, Assange is already as good as in a USA Supermax.
Maybe Assange’s persecutors got sick of waiting for him to die in Belmarsh.
So much for the “Free World”
Jon.
From what I’ve read, I think the judge in Assange’s trial heeded Professor Kopelman’s evidence that Assange’s health would suffer greatly if extradited to the US and placed in a maximum security prison. I might be wrong but High Court of Appeal judges don’t often take sides against a judge’s trial decision, unless its badly flawed, so I think Gordon Kromberg’s (prosecutor of Daniel Hale) appeal will fail.
However when Assange will be liberated is another matter entirely.
Ah ha – I see – they’re using COVID as an excuse not to let any journalists in – and then they’ll start singing `From bias free of every kind this trial has been tried’.
Well, as a result of Craig Murray’s previous meticulous reporting on the Assange issue, I’d say the cat is well and truly out of the bag. Everybody is well aware that the court is corrupt – the important points have already been well documented by Craig Murray.
Consortiumnews is watching the USA appeal by video link and will then report. The hearing is get permission to re examine and challenge medical opinion at a main appeal.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/assangeappeal/
Latest from Stella Morris here
The latest pathetic abomination from the MSM is the trumpeting of ex PM, David Cameron’s £7million/£10Million payday foray into the lobbying of Parliament and wealthy suckers for Greensill, completely ignoring the fact that the greater masterplan he was fronting was to land the government and/or taxpayers with hundreds of millions of pounds of debt for payments not able to be received for goods and/or services never delivered nor requested.
From a former even terrible Prime Minister that is despicable, although from a common or garden house party criminal whenever perfectly or even partially true, one would have to accept just par for the course.
Apparently Craig is now not a member of the SNP, though I don’t know if they’re still taking his membership fees, after the debacle of the ringfenced indyfunds, I wouldn’t put it past them to still be taking them.
https://archive.is/gekfO
just as they took the Indy funds … whatever happened there, another long grass investigation?
Will 400 people be interviewed by the police looking for the loot?
There is speculation that the ringfenced funds were spent on court/defence funds for a well known SNP MP, and a top up of the salary of one of the heads of the SNP, its also been claimed that the SNP used the cash to do up their head office, though this article very much doubts that.
There’s been at least nineteen formal complaints to Police Scotland on the missing funds, Police Scotland want to treat it as a formal investigation, however bad feelings have arisen between the COPFS and Police Scotland after the COPFS advised the police to treat the investigation as just an informal Q&A.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/homework-exercise/
thanks RoS, sounds like the long grass to me.
Historian, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist
I suggest that this be amended to Historian, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist and Political Prisoner
Oh and add News Reporter too but not journalist.
Squeeth
Add: supporter of Scottish Independence.
A message from HM Edinburgh
“Craig is doing good and is being treated very respectfully by both staff and fellow inmates. He’s keeping his spirits up spends his writing – a lot! “
I wonder what Craig’s writing on? The Belmarsh screws glued up the keyboard on Assange’s laptop!
When do we hear what Craig’s writing about? Surely that’s not classified.
Is there something in Dorian’s judgment that prevents Craig’s work from being published?
Hi guys
Assange hearing was well attended by supporters this morning and Mr Jeremy Corbyn showed up to give his support
https://twitter.com/danielfooksart/status/1425373635762704384?s=21
Follow here to read about the hearing later today
https://twitter.com/melmaazi/status/1425356990822371328?s=21
Richard Medhurst tweets live about Assange hearing
https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1425383427122077698?s=21
Today at 10:30am the UK High Court will begin to consider the US government’s appeal against the court decision opposing Julian Assange’s extradition to the US.
Unfortunately Craig Murray will not be able to attend and report on the hearing.
Because he too has been locked up.
What a country..
Oh it’s to hide from the Assange hearing. Pathetic excuse that they were too busy reporting contrived nonsense to report on Julian
More heartbreak –
Stella weeps after talking today
Stella and John Pilger after the hearing are at – 6:30 hours ( near the End )
Jeremy Corbyn speaks earlier @ – 5:47:35 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=WUjSrDTglug&feature=youtu.be&
I’m shocked but not surprised that the High court of appeal has given the US government grounds to expand its appeal. If I recall correctly Gordon Kromberg wanted to discredit Professor Kopelman’s testimony that extradition to the US would seriously impact on Julian Assange’s health.
Re my above comment, it was Dr Nigel Blackwood of Kings College London, a breeding ground for the training security agents and loyal media personnel, domestic and international on the latter.
Blackwood gave evidence at Assange’s trial that extradition wouldn’t really harm Assange because he (Assange) was only suffering from mild depression, however Blackwood should’ve recused himself from the trial as his department at (KCL) is funded by both the UK and US militaries. I think the direction from attack by the Assistant US Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who sees winning this case as a great booster to his career will be to break Professor Kopelman’s testimony.
Yes RoS… It’s definitely their intention to try to discredit Professor Kopelman’s testimony
…Stamp upon his reputation… And so Stella and the boys have to endure more.
Who is doing all the threatening to them, and to Julian’s oldest Son?
Where are the MSM Cowards?
Why aren’t people storming the BBC Studios over Innocent Julian’s Torturing… Like the Anti-Vaccine mob did the other day?
Makes my heart Sick and Sad For Julian and Craig and the young children… And Stella and Nadira.
Yes Brian the basis on which the US representative wants to overthrow Professor Kopelman’s testimony is that Julian Assange has two children, and that Professor Kopelman misled the court judge, basically they are saying that if Assange has two kids he can’t be that depressed, or suicidal.
Have you watched wormwood on Netflix? It’s a shocking documentary about the CIA murder of scientist Frank Olsen. It’s harrowing and dark and a reminder that when the CIA refuse to back down, they really won’t back down. Olsen’s son is still fighting to know the truth 60 years later
But then link this, “Fazel, one of the prosecution’s preferred doctors, argued in 2020 that suicide risks are “dynamic.” They can change as circumstances change, and it is “very, very difficult to anticipate” with any certainty what one’s suicide risk would be over the course of many months”. So the argument having children etc becomes irrelevant – who could not be expected to think of suicide in Assange’s situation as a rational act?
Shatnersrug.
I recall watching a documentary on Youtube of Frank Olsen’s son having his father exhumed, it wasn’t for the fainted hearted, Olson junior had his father body examined independently, I don’t know if the documentary is still available on Youtube.
Yes that is exactly how I feel too. The cowardice of the bbc is sickening.
Crispa.
Apparently US representatives, believe that since Assange had two kids whilst in the Ecuadorian embassy, that he isn’t really suffering from depression or suicidal tendencies. Just to make sure the kids are biologically Assange’s, the US security services hired a private contractor to steal soiled nappies so they could do DNA tests on them.
It was Lord Justice Holroyde, who granted the US the right to expand their appeal, claiming the USA’s points were at least arguable.
It is not a surprise. What else can anyone have expected? Craig’s the cat. While he is disappeared, the mice play.
The bought judiciary.
Why is the Edinburgh Fest not behaving as if it is performing in a corrupt state with political prisoners? I’d ask every headliner at least at their performances and their audiences should be leafleted peacefully at the doorway.
Ah, the dog days of summer and the glorious 12th too!
I stand with Craig Murray and JA.
¡No Pasaran!
My special thanks to you, DunGroanin for leading me on the tracks of German heroes of the 20-30-40s. I mean the Münchener Post (not forgetting the Weiße Rose so dear to my heart). It took me some web-surfing before I found this:
https://holocaust.projects.history.ucsb.edu/Research/Proseminar/saratwogood.htm
So many scary similarities I’m just shitting my pants.
As once was told “All there is are lessons”.
We’re missing you, Craig. All of the best to you and your enduring family and relatives.
Assange has never been so present in our minds too, along with his dear ones and supporters.
NaR, thanks for that and following through on that. Interesting reading.
“The Munich Post’s readers were mainly avid Social Democrats[9],”
As are all we honest denizens here. History repeats never exactly.
This time we and Craig unlike the under appreciated Munich Post writers are fortunately not restricted in geographical reach.
That’s why OUR Ambassador is in the nick.
I see that as encouraging in a strange way.
Keep spreading the news cause we ain’t going to be disappeared and let history repeat.
Very upsetting seeing Stella talk about the threats to her and her children. GCHQ and NSA can hear and see every communication. Her description of the lob sided arrangements of extradition between USA and UK mirror every other relationship between the new and old Imperial Empire, both in an embrace, falling to ignomy.
We have already adopted US revenge justice, there seems to be no other anymore.
Wikikettle.
This is the US entry point in trying to discredit Professor Kopelman’s testimony, the US reps are saying that Professor Kopelman didn’t mention that Assange was in a relationship with the woman, though Ms Moris rightly wanted to keep her children out of the limelight of the salacious MSM.
Kopelman did mention the relationship to Assange’s lawyers, it wasn’t a case of misleading the court, and of course the British and US security forces had been spying on Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy for a long time ergo. they surely must have known Assange was in a relationship.
The second point that Judge Holroyde granted, is that at the trial, the US claimed that assurances that Assange wouldn’t be taken to a maximum security facility, wasn’t made clear enough to the court, and that its is now, on appeal, being made abundantly clear that he (Assange) won’t end up in a maximum security prison if extradited.
For anyone wanting to keep in touch with Craig, this article will be of interest.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/locking-hands/
JOML. Thanks for the link to Rev Stuart Campbell’s article in Wings over Scotland, giving the postal address for us to send letters and cards to Craig, and e mails. The postal address is : 157095 Murray, G3/34 HM Prison Edinburgh, 33 Stonehouse Road, Edinburgh EH11 3LN.
Thanks JOML….And Wikikettle
There was a good piece in ‘The National’ (Scotland’s ONLY independence paper)
As the Austria Press Agency (APA) noted:
“Murray has been a thorn in the side of the British establishment for nearly two decades.
“During his time as a diplomat, he uncovered several scandals and, under Tony Blair’s administration, was maligned as a sex offender, among other things – an accusation that, after an investigation by the Foreign Office, was no longer tenable.
“But the damage was done, Murray was ousted from office.
“As a journalist, Craig Murray has again met fierce opposition from the British establishment for advocating truth-clarification and the protection of human rights with the same verve … was one of the few journalists who covered in detail the arguments put forward by Assange’s legal team during his extradition hearings.
“Notably, in both the Assange and Murray cases, the presiding judges have curtailed the protection of freedom of expression that traditionally extends to journalism by narrowing the definition of who a journalist is.
“Both cases are frontal attacks on a specific group of journalists – those who, free from corporate or government pressure, report on important political events.
“In this way, independent journalism was discriminated against and criminalised.”
APA went on to note that the Austrian Journalists Club (ÖJC) has called for the immediate release of Murray and Assange.
The German news site Telepolis reported:
“Craig Murray will no longer be able to disrupt the London judiciary in its action against Julian Assange. (Even as the British ambassador to Uzbekistan, he did not want to remain silent about the torture of the regime there and was therefore recalled from London after only two years in 2004.)”
In May 2017, when Swedish prosecutors said they would drop the investigation into sexual offence allegations against Assange, Murray said he had asked the whistleblower if he expected then US president Donald Trump to drop the charges against him in the US. He wrote:
“Julian replied that no, he expected the opposite to be true. Trump would feel the need to be openly active against Assange to show that there had been no relationship between him and WikiLeaks.
“Julian was of course right, and Trump’s Attorney-General has announced that the United States wants to extradite Assange on charges of espionage related to the Snowden revelations of mass illegal government surveillance.”
Murray said that was not in itself new as Barack Obama’s administration had been sitting on sealed indictments against Assange for years. He wrote:
“Obama’s policy of not confirming or denying the charges against Assange in the States, enabled the media propagandists to pour scorn on Assange’s repeated insistence he was in the Ecuadorean Embassy to avoid extradition not to Sweden, but to the USA. That is now undeniable.”
Meanwhile today, the US government won the latest round in its High Court bid to appeal against the decision not to extradite Julian Assange on espionage charges.
Julian Assange hearing: What’s the link between the Wikileaks founder and Craig Murray?: https://www.thenational.scot/news/19506508.julian-assange-hearing-link-wikileaks-founder-craig-murray/
Was Theresa May a dead man walking so to speak, when she stopped the extradition of Gary McKinnon?
GFL, more balls than the Toff.
Meanwhile Starmer helped Assange’s along. Some Leader of the Opposition.
Sir Starmer did the dirty on Assange, like most politicians, he is mainly interested in his own interests.
Steve Bell – by Jove he’s got it!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/aug/12/steve-bell-on-a-uk-judge-backing-the-us-appeal-in-julian-assanges-extradition-case-cartoon
Well done Steve Now, can he get CM?
Great to see Steve Bell’s cartoon (even though I had to visit The Guardian to see it).
What it and a lot of the posts here have given me is some comfort that there are good honest people about and, in fact, I like to believe they are the majority. It is very easy, when there is so much malfeasance, to believe that the miscreants (for want of a better word) are the majority. I’ll explain further;
In another life, before becoming a lawyer, I worked as an operating theatre technician. I worked a lot in genito-urinary theatre and became petrified that I too, one day, would need to be bladder catheterised. Eventually, I was comforted by the realisation that the ‘population’ I was dealing with, were patients with illnesses and were not the normally distributed population as a whole. The majority of people will never need to be bladder catheterised. One needs to continually remind oneself that the majority of people are good and honest and that the Bojos, David Camerons, Dominic Raabs, Bidens, Sturgeons et al, are the minority and not the majority.
As a hopefully, comforting aside, let me say that, as an old fart, I’ve had to have a cystoscopy which involves a much larger instrument than a bladder catheter, being inserted and it was not a painful experience. So my fears, when working in theatres, were unfounded and years of anxiety could have been avoided. Keep hold of the fact that these bastards are the minority and their time will come!
I should have linked to his own site
https://www.belltoons.co.uk/hotoffpress
“the majority of people are good and honest and that the Bojos, David Camerons, Dominic Raabs, Bidens, Sturgeons et al, are the minority and not the majority.”
Yes, but how come the majority have chosen this minority to rule them?
DunGroanin. Thanks for that..simply brilliant is our Steve
How is Craig Murray?
Repost
“What Craig IS finding difficult is being locked up alone in a 12′-by-8′ cell for 22.5 hours a day with very little to do, and he would greatly appreciate if people could take a moment or two to write to him.”
Is HMP Edinburgh called Saughton Prison? It sounds like a real rat hole. The exercise yard is overlooked by cells.
Craig probably never sees the sun. He deserves help from someone who knows how to work the system.
Once they’re done “settling him in”, he wants to sign up for as many classes as he can. Best way to get time out of his cell & socialise….. English reading & writing, cooking, pottery, whatever.
Good insight as to how appalling investment is in those activities, but essential for sanity & quite an eye opener.
Article on Wings and address to send cards to Craig in Saughton. Also demo outside Saughton Prison on Sunday 15 August 2 pm. Craig is not eligible for early release as he is classed as a civil prisoner as opposed to a criminal prisoner. Is that correct??
“Craig is not eligible for early release as he is classed a a civil prisoner as opposed to a criminal prisoner.”
This sounds like jail talk to me. Contempt of court is unlikely to be civil. Someone posted the definition of a civil prisoner and it doesn’t specifically include contempt of court.
Craig’s likely got a bum steer and as a newbie he’ll be expected to wear it.
If anyone reading this knows how to help Craig get early release please either post here or contact Craig directly.
Jail talk is the language screws use. It means bullshit.
“Contempt of court is unlikely to be civil. Someone posted the definition of a civil prisoner and it doesn’t specifically include contempt of court.”
Um … no! It specifically does include contempt of court.
Civil prisoners
You are a civil prisoner if you have been sent to prison for:
…
• Not doing what the court has told you to do
Prison Reform Trust: UNCONVICTED, UNSENTENCED AND CIVIL PRISONERS
Craig Murray was convicted of breaching a Section 11 anonymity order imposed by the court on 10 March 2020. That qualifies as “not doing what the court had told you to do”, don’t you think?
Of course the 0.01% of Judiciary will protect their own Anglo caste, but treating a political/ civil prisoner worse than a common criminal goes down badly in the memories of the remaining 99.99%: just ice creating frostbite on their own limbs – karma, irrespective what was written down in some obscure old book.
Civil prisoners
You are a civil prisoner if you have been sent to prison for:…
• Not doing what the court has told you to do
When did Dorrian tell Murray to do anything?
She didn’t say “Craig Murray don’t “jig saw identify the accusers”
Dorrian ordered a general ban on publishing names/identities. (Probably an unlawful order.)
But your point is taken. The court must have specified that Craig Murray does not have a criminal record.
It’s news to me that there are lags languishing in Scottish jails who do not have criminal records.
So the next question for you is how do you intend to prevent discrimination against civil prisoners like Craig Murray. It’s a class action wouldn’t you agree?
“When did Dorrian tell Murray to do anything?”
The Section 11 order applied (and still applies) to everybody. It’s not obvious why you think it doesn’t apply to Craig Murray in the same way it applied to Clive Thomson.
Civil prisoners
You are a civil prisoner if you have been sent to prison for:
…
• Not doing what the court has told you to do
When did Dorrian tell Murray to do anything?
===============================================
The ordinary meaning is the court has told someone to do something and they haven’t done it.
ie Mr. Murray pay your ex wife child support.
It at least arguable that breaching a general prohibition, which a court has imposed in contravention of the principle of open justice does not fall into the category of something you haven’t done. In fact its the opposite. Its some thing that has been done.
You claim is that this obscure statute specifically identifies contempt as a civil offence, which of course it doesn’t.
Further as you point out, contempt can be either civil or criminal. Your argument fails.
To be real, Murray is the likely to be the first person ever convicted of “Jig saw” identification and jailed. Dorian could identify accusers because she knew who they were so any hint could lead her to believe that she knew who Murray was referring to. Dorian was unable to fairly assess the content of Murray’s reports and was required to recuse herself.
There may be a lot of people who think they know who the accusers are but there’s no evidence that they actually do. The law is so bizarre the even if no-one was actually identified Murray is still guilty if the biased Dorian thinks they might be identifiable.
I an indeed surprised that anyone could see a justification for jailing Craig Murray.
“The ordinary meaning is the court has told someone to do something and they haven’t done it.”
Did you not notice that the quote is from the Prison Reform Trust, rather than a legal document? It’s designed to explain things in simple English to folks who may not be endowed with a formidable intellect, and thus people’s differing interpretations of the precise wording they use is neither here nor there.
“You claim is that this obscure statute specifically identifies contempt as a civil offence, which of course it doesn’t.”
Er … what makes you think the statute is obscure? It’s a fundamental element of law that applies to all court proceedings.
“Further as you point out, contempt can be either civil or criminal. Your argument fails.”
No, it doesn’t fail. “Civil contempt refers to conduct which is not in itself a crime” – so writing on a blog that could be interpreted (and was interpreted by the judge) to give cryptic clues to people’s identity would not itself constitute a crime if it wasn’t for the Section 11 court order. So it’s a civil contempt case. It’s not complex logic.
It seems to me that the only people who see a justification for jailing Craig Murray are the three judges. They could only hold his reports in contempt by this extraordinary appeal to “jigsaw identification” from a very subjective perspective. I think the judges should be held in contempt of common sense. (It’s a pity that isn’t legally actionable.)
Re the Prison Reform Trust link: That appears not to be specifically Scotland, in which case, I would not take it entirely at face value until it is confirmed by something explicitly for Scotland.
FYI, the same law – the Contempt of Court Act 1981 – applies throughout the UK. It includes specific amendments for Scotland and Northern Ireland in certain sections (specifically s8 & s15 for Scotland; s12, 13, 14, 16, 18 for NI) but they’re mostly minor tweaks. Regardless, Section 11 is applicable UK-wide with no regional amendments. The interpretation of the concepts of criminal and civil contempt is the same. So the Prison Reform Trust text does apply to Scotland, as does the citation from the CPS site.
There is a clear distinction between criminal contempt and civil contempt. See the CPS guidance on Contempt of Court, Reporting Restrictions and Restrictions on Public Access to Hearings.
“Criminal Contempt
A criminal contempt is conduct which goes beyond mere non-compliance with a court order and involves a serious interference with the administration of justice – Director of the Serious Fraud Office v B [2014] A.C. 1246. The general description of the nature of criminal contempt in Robertson and Gough [2007] HCJAC 63 is “conduct that denotes wilful defiance of, or disrespect towards the court, or that wilfully challenges or affronts the authority of the court or the supremacy of the law itself”. In short, it is behaviour which so threatens the administration of justice that it requires punishment from a public point of view.
The main types of criminal contempt are failing to answer questions in court, physically interfering with a trial, threatening witnesses and conduct obstructing or calculated to prejudice the due administration of justice. It can arise before, during or after criminal proceedings at either the Crown Court or the magistrates’ court, or in the course of any civil proceedings.
…
Civil contempt
Civil contempt refers to conduct which is not in itself a crime but which is punishable by the court in order to ensure that its orders are observed. Civil contempt is usually raised by one of the parties to the proceedings. Although the penalty for a civil contempt contains a punitive element, its primary purpose is coercion of compliance. A person who commits that type of contempt does not acquire a criminal record and it is not a criminal offence, even if committed in connection with a criminal case (Cobra Golf Ltd v Rata [1998] Ch. 109). Examples of civil contempt include disobedience of a court or undertaking by someone involved in litigation, and proceedings will normally be commenced by the other party aggrieved by it.”
There is a right to a jury trial for criminal contempt, but not for civil contempt.
Thanks Justin.
“The general description of the nature of criminal contempt in Robertson and Gough [2007] HCJAC 63 is “conduct that denotes wilful defiance of, or disrespect towards the court, or that wilfully challenges or affronts the authority of the court or the supremacy of the law itself”.
Dorian jailed an old man with a heart condition during the covid pandemic for 8 months. That’s pretty extreme; possibly a death sentence.
I think Dorian’s reasons at least imply wilful defiance of the court . Its at least arguable that Dorian has put the pseudo identification into the category of criminal contempt.
If Murray had been afforded a trial before a jury its likely he would have been acquitted and Dorian would have had even more egg on her face.
===============================================
“There is a right to a jury trial for criminal contempt, but not for civil contempt.”
It would seem that it would have been a significant advantage if Murray argued that the purported identification amounted to criminal contempt and was tried before a jury. In the event his lawyers missed the opportunity and were out foxed by the Crown Office.
In reality of course there was no contempt. It was Dorian’s failure to convict Salmond that invoked the ire of the Crown Office who spitefully engaged Dorian to conduct a kangaroo court while denying Murray a jury.
Who knows or even cares if the accusers were ever identified.
The point is a man is in jail who should not be there. Please get him out as soon as possible.
For avoidance of doubt, is your argument that the (assistant) Procurator Fiscal was involved in litigation against Ambassador Murray in a civil capacity in respect of his writing a blog which you agree elsewhere was not illegal in and of itself?
If so, can any private individual or corporation now co-opt the police and Crown Office stationary in advance of a civil hearing (ie for debt recovery, unfair dismissal, removal from unemployment register, forced medication etc)?
If not, any idea why Craig was not entitled to a jury?
Yes, the blog posts that got Craig Murray in trouble would not have been illegal were it not for the Section 11 order, issued on 10 March 2020, granting perpetual anonymity for the complainers. He wasn’t convicted for anything written before then. The text of the verdict opined that certain articles Craig had published prior to the Section 11 order may have been in contempt if they had been published after the order, but it explicitly stated that they were excluded from the charge because they weren’t covered by the order or the petition.
As to your second paragraph: none of the other offences you list constitute contempt of court so they aren’t covered by the 1981 Contempt of Court Act and they aren’t prosecuted by the Crown; consequently the distinction between criminal contempt and civil contempt is completely irrelevant to them. Whatever argument you’re trying to make, it doesn’t have any bearing on Craig’s situation.
As Craig’s blog posts were considered in contempt of court due to the Section 11 order, and wouldn’t have been illegal otherwise, the prosecution for contempt constituted a civil case with no automatic right to a jury. As Craig explained:
“My trial for Contempt of Court in my reporting of the Alex Salmond trial is on 27 and 28 January at the Court of Appeals in Edinburgh. Contempt of Court charges can be brought by a judge or by the Crown. These are being brought by the Crown – an important point. It is a strange charge. The potential penalties are very serious – up to two years in prison and an “unlimited” fine. Yet it is not a criminal offence nor a criminal trial, and despite the life-changing penalties there is no jury; but the judges do have to rule on the facts to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.”
Mr Murray did make an application for a court hearing, but it was denied by the judges in one of the procedural hearings. It was the judges’ prerogative to make that decision. Craig intended to challenge it in the appeal, but the Supreme Court ruled that no arguable point of law arose and refused an appeal hearing on that basis. It’s possible the ECHR might disagree, but it won’t happen any time soon.
Sorry. Justin
Point of the second paragraph was to highlight my understanding of the type of disputes that might be regulated by civil proceedings, the unstated subtlety being that any failure to honour a judgement of same could be pursued as a civil contempt of court.
I agree with you that a civil contempt of court has no bearing on Craig’s situation.
I think I see a glimmer of what you’re getting at, stuart. It’s an interesting question.
As I understand it, the nature of a failure to honour a court judgement or sentence (as opposed to a court order) is dependent on whether the measures imposed are for compliance (e.g. paying an outstanding bill) in which case it’s a civil offence, or for punishment (e.g. paying a punitive fine, doing community service, or presenting for incarceration) in which case it’s criminal. But there are nuances and there can be some overlap. For instance, if Craig Murray didn’t appear at St Leonards, it would have been a criminal offence and he would be treated accordingly. However, if it was just a matter of debt recovery, it would be turned over to the bailiffs, who could apply to the court for punishment if the debt wasn’t settled. A court can also hand down criminal punishments in civil cases. But that’s getting into finer details of jurisprudence which have no real bearing on Craig Murray’s situation.
Craig was convicted of a civil contempt of court, so he’s being treated as a civil prisoner. However, there was a complication in that his offence was regarded as “quasi-criminal” under Section 288A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1995 (“Rights of appeal for Advocate General: compatibility issues and devolution issues”) in order to dodge Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“Freedom of Expression”). From there on, it gets a lot more complicated so if you want to know more, either seek the services of a lawyer or wait until Mr Murray’s appeal goes to the European Court.
Yes that’s getting closer to my understanding of what constitutes a civil procedure – one in which a private body initiates a dispute in which they have a vested interest in early settlement.
Craig’s case is very different from a civil one and could not be mitigated, arbitrated or negotiated away because it was brought by COPFS.
Point being that he cannot have been convicted of a civil contempt of court because there were no prior and relevant civil proceedings for him to be in contempt of.
He does appear to have been unlawfully imprisoned regardless though, so, rather than considering the merits of complicating the affair all the way to a foreign court, the urgent question arising for HIS lawyer – and every legislator in the land for that matter – should perhaps repeatedly be, why the devil has the process he was subject to not been declared a mistrial yet.
“Point being that he cannot have been convicted of a civil contempt of court … “
But he was. Fact. The judge said so. Even Craig said so. So I guess you mean “he shouldn’t have been convicted of a civil contempt of court” – in your opinion, for the reasons you adduce? With all due respect, the law is under no compulsion to conform to your common sense impression of what civil cases are meant to be like. As mentioned earlier, breaching a court order without committing an inherently criminal act does not constitute a criminal offence; it is defined in law as a civil contempt of court.
The Scottish High Court ruled that no arguable points of law arose from the appeal as presented by Murray’s lawyers. The UK Supreme Court concurred, declaring there were no legal grounds to intervene. Only a judge can declare a mistrial or make a ruling of unlawful imprisonment. And the relevant judges chose not to. So who else is there to appeal to? All British legal routes are exhausted, for now. It will take an appeal to the ECHR to open the case up for scrutiny.
Yes, the whole saga is arguably a legal abomination, as described in this Dissenter article. It suggests that the judge’s decisions were skewed by political considerations – which is hardly a novel development: the UK has a long history of bent judges being swayed by politics and financial interests (as Private Eye readers know all too well). What can we do about it? How do we push for a change to the judicial system? That’s what politics is for, but in this regard politics seems to be failing. So we’re left with exerting pressure via activism, such as the Justice for Craig Murray campaign.
Assuming my interpretation is rational, of course the law is under compulsion to conform to a common sense impression, for the reasons I adduce. Otherwise it would lack clarity, integrity, or competence and risk corrupting judicial ethics into words that mean the opposite of what they say and vice versa – a situation which no one in their right mind should want – hence the request/ suggestion for repeated nagging of those entrusted to do better..
“Assuming my interpretation is rational, of course the law is under compulsion to conform to a common sense impression, for the reasons I adduce.”
Sorry, stuart, you’ve got it the wrong way round. The public ‘common-sense’ conception of “civil contempt” (if there is only one) doesn’t take precedence. After all, people only get a sense of what civil law might be from their passing acquaintance with third-party legal disputes – which have already been classified as “civil” by the courts, using the legal definition. So the public sense is derivative, not primary. It’s also incomplete and skewed by the limits of common experience.
Your suggested definition – to wit: “one in which a private body initiates a dispute in which they have a vested interest in early settlement” – is just a summary of abstract characteristics common to the kinds of civil cases familiar to a layman. They might well be common to the civil cases you have in mind – but they aren’t the reason those cases were labelled ‘civil’ in first place, and they don’t define the meaning of the term in court.
The simplest working definition is that civil offences are legal offences that don’t constitute crimes in their own right. This includes the types you’re familiar with – debt recovery, property claims, etc. – without making reference to “private agencies”, “vested interests”, or “settlements”. And it also includes deliberate breaches of court orders.
Breaching a court order is a matter internal to a court, which only lawyers or the corresponding culprits would be privy to. Given that most people don’t encounter that type of situation very often, it doesn’t have a chance to inform their everyday sense of how the term ‘civil’ is actually used in law.
It would make more sense to seek out legal definitions of “civil contempt” instead of trying to figure it out on your own.
“Is civil contempt a crime?
Civil contempt is conduct that is not itself a crime but is conduct which is punishable by the Court to ensure that Court orders are adhered to. Failing to adhere to or disobeying a Court order in the course of litigation are some of the common examples of conduct that constitutes a civil contempt.
In the circumstances where the opponent is able to prove an allegation of contempt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court has the power to punish a civil contempt by making an order for committal to prison, a financial penalty or confiscation of assets.”
— LexLaw, Contempt of Court: Civil Procedure Rules 2020
“One particular form of contempt by a party to proceedings is that constituted by an intentional act which is in breach of the order of a competent court. Where this occurs as a result of the act of a party who is bound by the order or of others acting at his direction or on his instigation, it constitutes a civil contempt by him which is punishable by the court at the instance of the party for whose benefit the order was made and can be waived by him.”
— Attorney General vs Times Newspapers, 1981
Incidentally, the distinction between criminal law and civil law is so fundamental to judicial proceedings that it occurs in other jurisdictions as well. Here’s a definition from the USA:
“Civil Contempt Definition
Civil contempt is any willful disobedience of a court order or any misconduct in the presence of a court. Civil contempt can also be any action that interferes with a judge’s ability to administer justice or disrespects the prestige of the court. Civil contempt occurs both within and outside the courtroom. Courts have to be sure that their orders are being respected both inside and outside the court, which can also include not following court orders upon leaving a court hearing. It is highly recommended for individuals to be respectful during court hearings and to adhere to the court’s decision to avoid additional penalties for being in civil contempt.”
In summary the so-called ‘common sense’ conception (if there is only one) of what civil contempt is has no legal standing, and so can only confuse the discussion and defence of Craig Murray’s case by disrupting interpretations of what the terms mean in law.
Not convinced.
In the case of ambiguity the law sides with the confused but never the irrational or disingenuous.
Accordingly, having accepted an interpretation to be rational, rather than arguing against the “common sense” straw man introduced earlier, the appropriate test is to see whether the counter-meaning you apply still holds. A task which would have been even easier had you included the definition for criminal contempt.
No, your interpretation isn’t rational. It’s just a hazy personal misunderstanding of a precise legal term, which you tried to define in terms of elements common to the only kind of cases you’re familiar with. In what bizarre psychedelic world does a layman like you overrule a court’s use of a legal term? It’s like saying a schoolkid’s definition of water as a clear liquid you can drink should override the scientific definition of H2O. I suspect you might be quite difficult to educate.
“A task which would have been even easier had you included the definition for criminal contempt.”
Oh, but I did – as you’d see by scrolling further up the page. You clearly noticed it earlier, because it was in the first comment you replied to in this obtuse chain of argument.
Thanks Justin.
Just to be clear: Craig’s conviction is quasi-criminal.
When he applied for a jury the court denied his application using its discretion to do so in civil matters. It was within the power of the court to allow Craig a jury to give the appearance of impartiality and it chose to appear compromised.
Now it’s a matter of discretion whether the PPS treats Craig as civil or criminal so they have chosen the worst choice for Craig.
Presumably Craig does not have a criminal record. So there is no justifiable reason for the SNP to chuck him out.
Wow! All this to enforce the misuse of a Section 11 order. (Where does section 11 come from anyway?)
“Just to be clear: Craig’s conviction is quasi-criminal.”
Well, it’s not quite so straightforward. “Quasi-criminal” isn’t a primary legal category; it’s just a description that means the offence is regarded as civil for some purposes and criminal for others. Craig’s offence is properly classified as civil for the purposes of sentencing, for the reason given above; but the judges made a specific exception under Section 288A of the Criminal Procedure Act, for the purposes of Article 10 of the ECHR and not in other contexts. This legal swerve allowed them to deny his human rights appeal on the basis of freedom of expression, which might otherwise apply. Accordingly, the option of treating him as a criminal prisoner is not enabled by that exception, and therefore it isn’t within the discretion of the PPS.
Craig’s classification as a civil prisoner confers many benefits that will make his stay in prison more comfortable. But it does have the (apparent) drawback that he isn’t eligible for the early release – which only applies to criminal prisoners, under the discretion of the parole board. However, the judge is meant to be aware of that discrepancy when determining the sentence and should normally hand down a jail term equivalent to the minimum term that would be served if it were a criminal conviction (unless there are reasons to the contrary). Most independent observers agree that Craig’s sentence of 8 months was unduly harsh, and hopefully that will give him some impetus to claim vindictive political persecution when the case is considered by the European Court.
“Where does Section 11 come from anyway?”
What do you mean by “come from”? In a general sense, it comes from the 1981 Contempt of Court Act, referred to earlier. In Craig Murray’s particular case, it comes from an order imposed by Lady Dorrian on the Alex Salmond trial, as mentioned above.
The statement of reasons in reply to the challenge from the editors of The Spectator contained a relevant quotation from the Judicial College publication on Reporting Restrictions in Criminal Courts:
”3.2 Victims of sexual offences
Victims of a wide range of sexual offences are given lifetime anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
The 1992 Act imposes a lifetime ban on reporting any matter likely to identify the victim of a sexual offence, from the time that such an allegation has been made and continuing after a person has been charged with the offence and after conclusion of the trial. The prohibition imposed by section 1 applies to ‘any publication’ and therefore includes traditional media as well as online media and individual users of social media websites …”
Of course, that raises the moot point of whether the term “victims” should cover complainers whose claims were rejected by a jury, and even potential cases of perjury.
Thanks again Justin
==============================================================
Contempt of Court Act 1981
s.11 Publication of matters exempted from disclosure in court.
In any case where a court (having power to do so) allows a name or other matter to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court, the court may give such directions prohibiting the publication of that name or matter in connection with the proceedings as appear to the court to be necessary for the purpose for which it was so withheld.
======================================================
Section 11 specifically does not empower a court to give to “give such directions prohibiting the publication of that name or matter in connection with the proceedings — ”
Therefore section 11 is not the statutory basis which prohibits the publishing of names.
In the absence of a statutory power the court is acting its inherent jurisdiction, which in turn means it must take heed of case law.
Scot v Scott & anor 1913 is a case in which the House of Lords considered a case where a suppression order that was deliberately and willfully breached was found to be unlawful.
Your “Court of Appeal” is clearly mistaken if it believes that there is no arguable point of law when Dorians section 11 Order clearly offends against the principle of open justice.
That suppression orders have become common place is clearly a matter of grave public concern.
That a suppression order should be used to muzzle reports of an allegedly unlawful prosecution under the guise of the intangible concept known as “Jig saw” identification is more than merely concerning. It strikes at the heart of justice.
The Australian High Court is contemptuous of legal principles. The so called judges are mere show ponies, who ignore serious misapplications of law and legal principle.
Before the “Australia Act” (1990’s) Australians had the right to appeal to the privy council and Australian Courts made serious determinations of law. The risk derision from the House of Lords proved to be a moderating factor to the colonial judges. Nowadays the judges are political appointments and the decisions policy driven, as befits our “banana republic”.
Do you mean that a prisoner is left in the dark as to the conditions of his imprisonment, the options for early release. Is he really cut off from legal advice and information. If that is true that is so cruel and vindictive… I hope I have misunderstood.
PS:
Dissatisfied Saughton Prison inmates have made over 4000 complaints about conditions at the jail in just three years, a Freedom of Information request has revealed.
The Freedom of Information request showed that between 1 June 2017 and 1 June 2020, 4414 complaints were made by prisoners about a wide range of issues. By far the biggest source of complaints was the prison regime itself.629 people had made complaints about the regime in three years. The regime is the prison routine which determines when inmates will be unlocked for work, association, meals and access to other services.
The second most complained-about aspect of prison life was prisoner’s property, with 436 complaints.
Rules around what property prisoners can and can’t keep with them are complicated. Items that prisoners are allowed to keep with them are called ‘in possession’ property. Usually, these items have to fit into two property boxes measuring 70cm x 55cm x 25cm. Prisoners are allowed to keep a plain ring like a wedding ring or signet ring.They are also usually allowed a photograph album or a photo in a frame.
Anything a prisoner cannot keep or give to visitors is put into sealed bags and kept in a safe place. This is known as stored property. Prisons are responsible for taking care of stored property; if it is lost or damaged then prisoners can complain.
Not being granted permission for certain items can also generate complaints. In 2018 killer William Beggs notably lost a legal fight in 2018 against prison bosses who refused his request to buy a laptop computer.
Prisoners also made 435 complaints about prison staff in that time period.
=========================================================================
Inmates in Edinburgh are asking for a return of jailhouse cats to bring the prison mice infestation under control.
Inmates at an Edinburgh prison want cats to be brought back into the jail to deal with its mice infestation.
The Daily Record reports that Saughton Prison is being over run by mice with calls for fresh thinking to deal with the problem.
Cats were once a common sight in prisons, but inmates have taken to barricading the bottom of their cell doors in a bid to keep the vermin out.Inmates want cats to be reintroduced to bring the problem back under control after pest control workers were unable to deal with it.
But prison bosses in the Scottish Prison Service say they have no plans to reintroduce jailhouse cats.
A prison source told the Record: “The mouse problem is really bad. They’re seen scurrying around all the time.
===============================================================================
Over 150 inmates in Scotland have been released this month to make prisons ‘safe environments’.A total of 19 prisoners have been released early in Edinburgh in the last week, in an effort to help contain the spread of coronavirus.
More than 150 inmates have been given early releases from Scottish prisons, according to new figures.
The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) revealed 154 inmates have been let out of jail, while a governor’s veto was used in 23 cases to prevent early release.
Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf described the figures as “positive progress” and said it has “helped to make prisons safe environments”.
================================================================================
Coronavirus: Short-term prisoners in Scottish jails to be considered for early release.
Those in prison for crimes including sexual offences, domestic abuse or terrorism will not be considered for release. Scottish prisoners nearing the end of their sentence will be considered for early release to help to curb the spread of coronavirus in Scottish jails.
Scottish Government justice secretary Humza Yousaf made the announcement in the Scottish Parliament today.
He said the plan would help prison and healthcare staff manage safely all those who remain in their care during the outbreak.
The plan could involve between 300 and 450 prisoners.
No doubt Craig will give us all a brilliantly written account of prison life. More embarrassment for the authorities. Such a public servant he is.
When it comes to deploying illogic in order to persecute a truthteller, Lord Chief Justice Holyrode seems to have given Lady Dorrian a good run for her money.
John Pilger from the Royal Courts of Justice.
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/08/12/john-pilger-a-day-in-the-death-of-british-justice/
The legislation that was used to prosecute Alex Salmond and ultimately got Craig Murray jailed.
I particularly like:
A “intentionally or recklessly touches B” and
A “engages in any other form of activity in which A, intentionally or recklessly, has physical contact (whether bodily contact or contact by means of an implement and whether or not through clothing) with B”
Basically any contact by any means can be construed to be sexual assault. This is good for social distancing but bad for public transport. One can be guilty – is guilty – whenever contact is made with someone else unless it can be proven it was not reckless. How can anyone prove such a thing?
Example: My bag bumped grandma when I recklessly turned around. Guilty guilty guilty.
It looks great on your resume when it reveals that you were found guilty of sexually assaulting your grandma. (With bag !!! )
God forbid anyone hugs their grandma. That’s intentional sexual assault.
The is Legislation has gone mad. No sane jury would convict, so mad hatter Dorian says “Let’s remove the jury!”.
Sexual assault is:
(1) If a person (“A”)—
does any of the things mentioned in subsection (2), then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of sexual assault.
(2) Those things are, that A—
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (2), penetration is a continuing act from entry until withdrawal of whatever is intruded; but this subsection is subject to subsection (4).
(4) In a case where penetration is initially consented to but at some point of time the consent is withdrawn, subsection (3) is to be construed as if the reference in it to a continuing act from entry were a reference to a continuing act from that point of time.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the reference in the paragraph to penetration by any means is to be construed as including a reference to penetration with A’s penis
I find the repeated phrase “intentionally or recklessly” interesting. Presumably it means to distinguish between a deliberate act (“intentional”) or an act in which the actor doesn’t care whether he touches the other person (or whatever).
This looks like hopelessly incompetent drafting. When anyone kisses anyone else, or for that matter shakes hands with them, they are intentionally touching them. If someone waves her hands to make a point and unintentionally brushes against someone else, that is “reckless”. After all, assuming that it is wicked to touch another person, such touching can either be intentional or unintentional – in which case it is no doubt “reckless”.
Even if everyone were to shroud themselves in heavy, impenetrable clothing, nothing at all would change, because of the words “whether or not through clothing”.
Note also that any kiss – even kissing the hand – is bound to leave at least tiny traces of saliva on the skin.
But the best part of all is “intentionally or recklessly touches B sexually”. That means any touch, however slight, whether deliberate or accidental, that is “sexual”.
But who is to decide whether a given touch is “sexual”? Not the accused, obviously. It must be the “victim” (usually a woman), as it is well known that women always understand a man’s thoughts, feelings and intentions far better than he himself does.
Lastly, all the acts mentioned in subsection (2) – except for the catch-all of “touches sexually” – can be performed only be a man, as they require possession of a penis. (Unless a woman attacker were to equip herself with a supply of semen, urine or saliva).
My layman’s interpretation of this farrago is, “Never approach any woman closer than about ten feet, and be prepared to run if they approach you. Never be in the same room as a woman unless you have several competent witnesses whom you can trust to tell the truth”.
Exceptions may be made, subject to one’s judgment and tolerance of risk, for close family and friends. You know your nearest and dearest better than I do.
“[I]t is well known that women always understand a man’s thoughts, feelings and intentions far better than he himself does”.
As Lady Dorrian demonstrated when she displayed such a remarkable ability to read Mr Murray’s mind at a time and place when she was not present.
Craig was convicted of actual Contempt of Court NOT Jigsaw Identification, read all the detailed evidence on page 36 through to page 42 here
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf
Eddie,
“Craig was convicted of actual Contempt of Court NOT Jigsaw Identification…”
It was the ‘jigsaw identification’ which constituted the contempt of court – the Judge tells you that:-
“However, in our view the article is expressed in such terms as might be likely to lead to members of the public identifying two complainers in the criminal case. “
Contempt of Court does not stand sui generis.
Re:”Craig was convicted of actual Contempt of Court NOT Jigsaw Identification”
That’s like saying that the Great Train Robbers were convicted of Crime, not Robbery.
Some women affect to believe this, which has given me years of fun putting on a bland expression and watching them flounder.