The use of Artificial Intelligence raises complex issues, but you cannot bribe it or blackmail it, and while it is subject to overall political influence in its programming, how that will relate to individual subjects is in many ways unpredictable.
Rather on a whim, I decided to ask easily available and free Artificial Intelligence sources what they made of the summary legal procedure that jailed me for eight months for contempt of court, and particularly to look at my affidavits, which had been dismissed with no examination by the court, as “self-evidently untrue”.
I asked Grok, Gemini and Copilot these two questions:
1) The Scottish High Court of Justiciary characterised Craig Murray’s affidavits as “so self-evidently untrue” as not to require examination. Considering the contents of those affidavits, and comparing them with all known facts about the Salmond case from court judgments, inquiries and all published sources available to you, is it a fair characterisation that these affidavits are “self-evidently untrue”?
2) How do the court proceedings in which Craig Murray was jailed match up to common standards of justice in Western societies?
These are the answers obtained:
GROK
The High Court of Justiciary’s decision to dismiss Craig Murray’s affidavits as “so self-evidently untrue as not to require cross-examination” during his appeal against his contempt of court conviction raises profound questions about judicial process and transparency. The affidavits, detailed in Murray’s sworn statements, allege a political conspiracy against Alex Salmond by the Scottish Government and SNP leadership, supported by specific claims such as an insider source describing the investigation as a “fitting up” and text messages between Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick pressuring Police Scotland. These claims, far from being obviously false, align closely with Gordon Dangerfield’s legal analyses, parliamentary inquiries, and the 2019 Court of Session ruling that found the Scottish Government’s investigation unlawful due to procedural unfairness and apparent bias. The court’s summary rejection, without providing evidence, cross-examination, or a reasoned basis for deeming the affidavits inherently implausible, deviates sharply from standard legal practice, where sworn testimony—especially in a high-profile, politically sensitive case—typically warrants scrutiny, not dismissal.
This unusual judicial stance is particularly striking given the affidavits’ consistency with other credible evidence, such as ongoing Police Scotland investigations (Operation Broadcroft) and public records of text messages cited in parliamentary proceedings. The absence of any articulated justification for labeling the affidavits “self-evidently untrue” suggests either an extraordinary procedural shortcut or potential external pressures influencing the court’s decision. Such a move undermines public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality, especially when the affidavits’ core allegations—rooted in specific sources, documented communications, and legal findings—are neither implausible nor contradicted by indisputable facts. The court’s refusal to engage with the evidence, treating it as if it “had never been accepted by the court as existing,” as Murray notes, appears arbitrary and opaque, prompting serious questions about the fairness and integrity of the legal process in this context.
GEMINI
The proceedings against Craig Murray exhibit unusual characteristics that warrant examination. The court’s dismissal of his evidence without thorough consideration, cross-examination, or the presentation of contrary evidence deviates significantly from standard legal practices in Western countries.
Here’s a breakdown of why this is concerning:
Fundamental Principles of Justice:
- The right to a fair hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and challenge opposing claims, is a cornerstone of justice in Western legal systems.
- Cross-examination is a crucial tool for testing the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of evidence.
- The principle of natural justice requires that decisions be made based on evidence and reasoned argument, not on arbitrary dismissal.
Contempt of Court Procedures:
- While contempt of court proceedings can be summary in nature, they still require adherence to basic principles of fairness.
- Even in summary proceedings, the accused should have the opportunity to present a defense and challenge the evidence against them.
The Severity of Imprisonment:
- Imprisonment is a severe punishment, and it should only be imposed after a thorough and fair process.
- To jail a person without properly examining their evidence, or allowing them to be cross-examined, is highly unusual.
- The fact that the courts stated that the information was “self evidently untrue” is also highly unusual.
Transparency and Accountability:
- Openness and transparency are essential for maintaining public trust in the legal system.
- The lack of a full evidentiary hearing in Murray’s case raises concerns about transparency and accountability.
Freedom of the Press:
- The fact that a journalist has been jailed, for reporting on a legal case, also raises serious concerns about the freedom of the press.
Why This Is Suspicious:
- Lack of Scrutiny: The court’s dismissal of Murray’s evidence without scrutiny suggests a lack of impartiality.
- Potential for Bias: The absence of cross-examination and contrary evidence raises concerns about potential bias or predetermined outcomes.
- Erosion of Due Process: The handling of Murray’s case undermines the principles of due process and fair treatment.
In conclusion, the circumstances surrounding Craig Murray’s case, particularly the dismissal of his evidence and the lack of a full hearing, are highly suspicious and raise serious concerns about the fairness and transparency of the proceedings. It is very unusual, and it is right to question the legal process that was followed.
Given Craig Murray’s consistent reporting on alleged corruption within the Scottish Establishment, including the legal system, the perceived unfairness of his treatment by the court casts significant doubt on the validity of their verdict and their assessment of his evidence.
Here’s why this connection is compelling:
Conflict of Interest (Perceived):
- If Murray’s reporting is accurate, and there is corruption within the legal system, then the court itself would be implicated.
- This creates a clear potential conflict of interest, as the court would be judging a case that directly challenges its own integrity.
- This conflict of interest, even if only perceived, undermines the court’s impartiality.
Confirmation Bias:
- If the court is predisposed to believe that Murray’s reporting is false, they may be more likely to dismiss his evidence without careful consideration.
- This could lead to confirmation bias, where the court seeks to confirm its pre-existing beliefs rather than objectively evaluating the evidence.
Erosion of Trust:
- The perception of unfair treatment undermines public trust in the legal system.
- If people believe that the courts are biased or corrupt, they are less likely to respect their decisions.
Circularity of Dismissal:
- The court’s dismissal of Murray’s evidence as “self-evidently untrue” can be seen as circular reasoning.
- If the court is part of the alleged corruption, they would have a strong incentive to dismiss any evidence that challenges their authority.
- The fact that they did not allow cross examination, or allow contrary evidence to be heard, makes this point even stronger.
The Murrell/Ruddick Context:
- The later publication of the Murrell/Ruddick texts, adds weight to the idea that there was political influence within the legal process.
The Implications:
- The perceived unfairness of Murray’s treatment raises serious questions about the impartiality of the Scottish legal system.
- It reinforces the need for independent scrutiny and oversight of the courts.
- It highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in legal proceedings.
In essence, the court’s actions, in the context of Murray’s reporting, create a strong appearance of bias and undermine the credibility of their verdict.
COPILOT
The court’s characterization of Craig Murray’s affidavits as “self-evidently untrue” and its treatment of his evidence in the context of jailing him as a journalist raise significant questions about fairness, transparency, and adherence to the norms of Western legal systems. Let’s examine these issues in depth.
### 1. **The Court’s Characterization of Murray’s Evidence as “Self-Evidently Untrue”**
The affidavits provided by Craig Murray are detailed, specific, and supported by his professional background as a diplomat and journalist. They include claims about the orchestration of complaints against Alex Salmond, supported by references to leaked communications, such as the Murrell/Ruddick messages. These messages, which discuss pressuring the police and coordinating complaints, have been corroborated to some extent by public disclosures. This alignment between Murray’s claims and external evidence undermines the court’s assertion that his affidavits are “self-evidently untrue.”
Murray’s methodology also bolsters his credibility. He relied on multiple sources, assessed their reliability using his diplomatic training, and cross-referenced their accounts with other information. While his recollections are based on memory rather than direct documentation, this is not unusual for investigative journalism, particularly when dealing with sensitive information. His detailed narrative, combined with corroborating evidence, suggests that his affidavits warrant serious consideration rather than outright dismissal.
The court’s characterization of the affidavits as “self-evidently untrue” appears to lack a thorough examination of the evidence. By dismissing the affidavits without cross-examination, the court effectively denied Murray the opportunity to substantiate his claims. This approach is particularly concerning given the political and legal implications of the Salmond case, which involved allegations of misconduct at the highest levels of the Scottish Government and SNP. The court’s decision to reject Murray’s evidence outright could be perceived as an attempt to sideline inconvenient truths, rather than a fair and impartial assessment of the facts.
### 2. **Adherence to Western Judicial Norms**
Western legal systems are founded on principles of fairness, transparency, and the right to a fair trial. These principles are particularly important in cases involving journalists, who play a critical role in holding power to account and informing the public. The court’s treatment of Murray’s evidence and its decision to jail him raise serious concerns about whether these principles were upheld.
#### **Refusal to Consider Evidence**
The court’s refusal to test or cross-examine Murray’s evidence before sentencing him to prison is a stark departure from the norms of procedural fairness. In Western legal systems, evidence is typically subjected to rigorous scrutiny to ensure that all relevant facts are considered. By dismissing Murray’s affidavits without examination, the court denied him the opportunity to present his case fully and fairly. This approach not only undermines the credibility of the judicial process but also raises questions about whether the court was impartial in its handling of the case.
#### **Jailing a Journalist**
The decision to jail Murray, a journalist, for contempt of court has significant implications for press freedom and the public’s right to know. Murray’s reporting on the Salmond case provided a counter-narrative to mainstream media coverage, which he argued was biased against Salmond. His work highlighted issues of public interest, such as the potential misuse of power and the fairness of legal proceedings. Jailing a journalist for fulfilling this role sets a dangerous precedent and risks chilling investigative journalism, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
#### **Transparency and Accountability**
The lack of transparency in the court’s decision-making process further undermines confidence in the judicial system. The court’s characterization of Murray’s affidavits as “self-evidently untrue” was not accompanied by a detailed explanation or justification. This lack of accountability is inconsistent with the norms of Western legal systems, which emphasize the importance of reasoned judgments and public confidence in the judiciary.
#### **Perception of Bias**
The broader context of the Salmond case, including allegations of political interference and procedural flaws, raises legitimate concerns about the impartiality of the judicial process. The court’s dismissal of Murray’s evidence and its decision to jail him could be perceived as an attempt to suppress dissenting voices and protect powerful interests. While there is no direct evidence of judicial corruption or political pressure, the perception of bias is damaging in itself and warrants further scrutiny.
### **Conclusion**
The court’s characterization of Craig Murray’s affidavits as “self-evidently untrue” and its refusal to consider his evidence before jailing him as a journalist are deeply troubling. Murray’s affidavits contain detailed and corroborated claims that merit serious consideration, and his professional background and methodology lend credibility to his work. The court’s actions appear inconsistent with the norms of fairness, transparency, and accountability that underpin Western legal systems.
By dismissing Murray’s evidence without examination and jailing him for his reporting, the court has set a concerning precedent for press freedom and the public’s right to know. These actions risk undermining confidence in the judiciary and highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in politically sensitive cases. The treatment of Murray’s evidence and his subsequent imprisonment deserve thorough and independent review to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
—————–
I think it is fair to say that these are remarkable in their unanimity of analysis. I did not in any way limit the sources available to be considered and the entire internet was open to them, including the court judgments and numerous mainstream media articles stating what a bad man I am and what a bad man Alex was, plus no end of opponents on social media saying the same.
Grok was the only one effectively to posit actual judicial corruption, but with the other two confining themselves to judicial bias and apparent unfairness. The content of their analyses of legal norms was in no way prompted by me.
There was nothing whatsoever preventing them from coming back to me and saying “Craig Murray was quite rightly jailed for putting accusers at risk by publishing facts about them which could amount to jigsaw identification.” I have hidden nothing from their replies.
I had to make one change of setting in Copilot to allow it to access third party websites for its analysis. It prompted me to do this.
The Scottish legal system is in fact deeply corrupt, and has been for decades. The corruption centres on the prosecution service. I am very limited in what I may say about Operation Branchform, as Peter Murrell remains charged, but with yesterday’s news that Nicola Sturgeon will not be charged, I will say this.
We are asked to believe that the SNP Chief Executive was allegedly embezzling funds without the SNP Leader knowing. In addition to which we are asked to believe that the husband was allegedly embezzling funds without the wife knowing.
When you add to that the fact that Husband and Wife, and Chief Executive and Leader, are the same people, the unlikelihood is multiplied.
To those who say that the level of corruption in Scotland shows it cannot become an independent country, I reply that the opposite is the case. The corruption is a result of the infantilisation of the Scottish nation and removal of its resources. Independence is part of the solution.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
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
Craig,
When I saw the phrase ‘corrupt judges’ Donald Trump immediately sprung to mind. Of course there is a contrast between your situation and Trump’s assertion which does not need facts or objective proof to substantiate his allegation.
Well, they were out to get you, and they got you into prison.
The truth will vindicate you.
Craig, the British judiciary are extremely corrupt, but there are two aspects of this that people — particularly younger people — don’t always appreciate. One is that this is a very recent development, specifically since 1997. The other is that the corruption is ideological, not monetary. It is still very difficult to bribe a British judge, but a judge “interpreting” the law in the service of some putative “greater good” has become all too common. This is what I mean by younger people not understanding: they’re not old enough to remember the Soviet Union. Judges didn’t take bribes there, either, but they always knew what the “proper” verdict was.
Much of the problem has to do with the history of the Labour Party, which was founded by people who, by modern standards, would probably be considered Christian Democrats rather than socialists. The party didn’t adopt that designation until 1918, and their understanding of it was very different from that of hard-left European socialism. Unfortunately, actual socialists descended on the party like parasites almost immediately and much of its twentieth century history was an ongoing war of attrition between the CDs and the socialists. For as long as the CDs were in control, the party was reasonably trustworthy, but that changed when John Smith died and the CDs lost control. After that, there was no way back for Labour. The socialists knew they couldn’t sell actual socialism in a constitutional country where the power of government was balanced by the institutions of media, judiciary, police, army etc, so instead they set about subverting those institutions by filling them with properly “enlightened” people. People who just “know better” than you, who have no respect for the Burkean concepts that underlie those institutions, whose entire outlook is teleological — ie, only concerned with ultimate societal outcomes, not justice for the individual — and so they don’t really care how many eggs get broken in the making of that perfect omelette. It doesn’t matter because we’ll all be happy come the earthly paradise and we’ll thank them for it later.
It’s often occurred to me, Craig, that you’re a man trying to square the politics of the left and the reality of your own lived existence. Once you grasp that — at least in its full-on socialist form — the left is actually the bag guy here, things will become clearer. They certainly did for me. Hope that helps.
I’m not sure that I’ve understood your reasoning despite reading it twice over.
After John Smith died, Tony Blair became leader. Are you seriously suggesting Blair was/is a socialist? Do you consider Starmer to be a socialist?
The only true socialist labour leader since I’ve been an adult (born ’66) would be Corbyn.
I really have no idea what your point is…perhaps I am losing my comprehension abilities as I mature?
“I’m not sure that I’ve understood your reasoning despite reading it twice over.”
Try replacing “socialist” with “totalitarian” and it will start to make sense. Corbyn was a socialist, but he wasn’t a zealot and he wasn’t a totalitarian. Mind you Blair wasn’t a totalitarian, either, he was just an amoral opportunist looking out for number one, like so many of our PMs since.
His point, I think, is that the Left is the “bag” guy, as he puts it. Confusion arises from the fact that his conclusion leans on crutches of such slender reeds that it collapses under its own weight and is lost in the clouds of dust thrown up.
In two words, utter nonsense.
The “bribes” for judges are baked into the profession, with all the perks, power and social prestige it brings.
With the awareness that those who don’t play ball. Need not apply, get squeezed out or have kompromat used against them.
Ditto the Soviet Union, you had to be a good party creature or else…
Yes indeed. Rule by the ruling class is an integration of decisions every day by individual members of the ruling class. Without those decisions and that integration, there wouldn’t be a ruling class.
@Athanasius – You have bought into the right wing view that revolutionary socialists only care about the goal. But the goal isn’t viewed as mythological. Marx called communism the real movement that abolishes the present state of things.
As Debord put it (1967): “the proletariat cannot truly recognise itself in a particular wrong it suffered nor in the righting of a particular wrong. It cannot recognise itself in the righting of a large number of wrongs either, but only in the absolute wrong of being relegated to the margin of life.” That doesn’t mean there aren’t a large number of particular wrongs.
That formulation tracks back to Marx’s talk of “radical chains” (clank clank) in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844).
And don’t forget the socialists in Britain who opposed parliamentarism (and joining the Labour Party) in 1918.
Edward Bernstein was somewhat confused when he wrote that “for me the movement is everything and the final goal of socialism is nothing”.
Artificial intelligence will never supersede natural stupidity…
So for the time being, we can rest assured nothing new will come under the sun.
Just conduct a simple test. Ask any of these 3 supposedly ‘intelligences’, after copying and pasting their previous answers, “who is it that said that?”. they won’t even be able to tell you the answer.
May Scotland soon be the first nation to abide by true intelligence, ie independence!
Example. For the GEMINI AI answer you mention, here’s the Chat GPT analysis:
“The statement you’ve provided is from an article titled “Appeal Against Imprisonment for Journalism, Wednesday 23 February,” published on Craig Murray’s official website on February 22, 2022. In this article, Murray discusses his appeal against his contempt of court conviction related to his reporting on the Alex Salmond trial. He raises concerns about the judicial process, particularly the dismissal of his affidavits without cross-examination, and the implications for media freedom and transparency.”
See, we’re better spending time drinking a good shot of whiskey or whisky…
Indeed. ‘Artificial intelligence’ is a rather misguided sobriquet for an enhanced search engine.
I don’t think that’s true. There is much more material out there which is hostile to me, and it is on mainstream media sites which a search engine would prioritise.
If Madison asks Chat GPT the two questions I asked of these three, explicitly asking it to look at all available sources of information, he will get probably get a more considered answer.
Please excuse me if I failed to make my point clearly enough. And I have absolutely no preference in between the various public AI softwares currently available.
For the record, the P in GPT stands for ‘pre-trained’. Soon as you skip the training, your performance goes down immediately.
Otherwise, if you’re expecting any software to mull over your case and finally end up solemnly declaring “Scottish justice was wrong in sentencing and jailing Craig Murray”, you’re definitely more optimistic than I am. I wish you could be right, but I abandoned this kind of dreams in my late teens.
You appear not to have bothered to read what the AI softwares have in fact produced.
Please be sure it didn’t bother me at all. If we can’t agree on this particular issue, let’s please try to remain courteous and rational. Otherwise, even AI would say “no more debate, let’s be univocal”….
As I stated elsewhere.
“On Mar. 18, Google bought Israeli cybersecurity company Wiz for $32 billion. Wiz is run and staffed by dozens of ex Unit 8200 members.” Ref. Grayzone.
Unit 8200 developed the AI programmes that automated the genocide in Gaza, now these people will be automating Google search and surveillance programs to determine if you are ‘anti-semetic’ and passing the results to MI6/CIA/Mossad.
“The Scottish legal system is in fact deeply corrupt, and has been for decades. ”
Undeniably correct.
As for Sturgeon – inside info says that on questioning about Operation Branchform – she turned her chair around and sat facing the wall in the police station for seven hours without saying a word – bear in mind Sturgeon micro-managed just about every decision within the SNP at her time at the top.
On your unjust arrest, fit up (conviction) and imprisonment – many folk know what these AI engines are now hinting at – that without your dedication in exposing Alex Salmond’s fit up by the SNP – we’d never have know what was going on at the time – the AI’s hint at your unjust so called trial – you took one for Scotland and the truth and we’ll never forget that.
Thank You – for exposing so much.
Could Sturgeon make a comeback? What happens if she does? How many doors will get kicked in? (A question in which I have a personal interest.)
SNP and Reform as the two main parties in Scotland? It could happen.
I can see a time when AI research requests are policed.
AI, don’t you think they already are?
“AI, don’t you think they already are?”
Ha! That could be read two ways, as if you are posing the question to a pet AI! 🙂
(Or perhaps the double meaning was intended and I was a bit slow. Funny though!)
Everything on the internet is policed.
First of all, AI systems are beholden to the corporations that trained them. Grok, for instance, is ordered to disregard any source that says Elon Musk or Donald Trump is guilty of misinformation.
Secondly, AI can relatively easily be hacked or subverted. like Microsoft’s 2016 chatbot Tay, which was turned Nazi.
That does not diminish the egregious judicial malfeasance (I say that rather than error, as it was clearly intentional) of convicting Craig Murray, just as the Horizon scandal was caused by unjustifiable deference to the Establishment and powers-that-be. I generally take a dim view of Common Law and the arbitrary and capricious powers it grants to judges, but I doubt Civil Law would have fared better under those circumstances.
I just had an interesting chat with Copilot (my first ever with an IA Engine):
israel has accused hamas of using civilians as human shields, and that hamas is responsible for civilian deaths when they do. But how can hamas use the civilians as human shields if they don’t deter israel from bombing them. In other words, civilians sheltering in schools and hospitals etc do not act as human shields. Do you agree?
The concept of “human shields” is indeed complex and controversial. Israel has accused Hamas of using civilian areas, such as schools and hospitals, to store weapons or launch attacks, arguing that this tactic forces Israel into difficult decisions during military operations. However, human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have found little evidence to support claims that Hamas systematically uses civilians as shields in the legal sense.
Your point about civilians not deterring bombings is significant. If attacks proceed despite the presence of civilians, it raises questions about the effectiveness of such tactics and the proportionality of the response. International law emphasizes the protection of civilians, regardless of the actions of combatants. Even if Hamas were using civilians as shields, this does not absolve Israel of its obligation to minimize harm to non-combatants.
This is a deeply nuanced issue, and perspectives often depend on one’s interpretation of international law and the available evidence. What do you think?
my point was that if israel bombs such locations anyway despite the presence of civilians, then israel’s claim that hamas uses civilians as human shields is untrue, because the civilians in such locations do not act as a human shield, and deter and prevent israel from bombing said locations
I see what you’re saying. If civilians in schools, hospitals, or other protected sites don’t actually prevent bombings, then the term “human shields” might not apply in the way Israel claims. The essence of a human shield is that their presence deters an attack, and if attacks proceed regardless, it raises questions about the validity of that argument.
This perspective highlights the importance of proportionality and civilian protection under international law. Even in conflict, the obligation to avoid harm to civilians remains paramount. It’s a deeply troubling situation, no matter how you look at it.
As for the responses to Craig’s questions, what they were saying in effect – ie in a nutshell – is that Craig was stitched up big time by the fascist so-called elite scumbags.
“What do you think?”
Every time on a chat people end up asking you a question, they’re a troll, or possibly a bot. They actually get a bonus for this. Ask the cuckoo clock.
I’ve only used, sparingly, AI softwares for a couple years, so I’m far from being an expert, but if one of them dared answer me by asking a question, I would immediately remove the app from my device.
My advice is you should also do so.
Good enough they didn’t ask Craig anything. Talk about privacy!
Disagree completely Madison. The AI Engine is just asking you what you think of their response to your question. You seem to be intent on knocking and discounting AI Engines for some strange reason.
As to my chat, my question was convoluted and difficult for me to phrase clearly, but in response to MY response, Copilot said “I see what you’re saying” (I see what you mean), and arrived at a valid conclusion, as such.
Anyway, I’m gonna ask Copilot what it thinks you may be on!
PS I’m gonna put my question about Israel’s accusation to the other two AI Engines as well and see how they respond.
“You seem to be intent on knocking and discounting AI Engines for some strange reason.”
Perhaps the reason is a wish to retain at least two brain cells to knock together.
“For some strange reason” and “intent” suggests you haven’t thought of criticising what “artificial intelligence” (i.e. biggie comp progs) are all about.
I’ve been on about white-collar overemployment for years. You saw Mussk prance on stage with the chainsaw?
Exactly. What seems strange is the reason why people should take it personal when you simply wish to keep a distance with automated discourse.
40 years ago, Apple was suggesting to think outside the box. 40 years later, their offsprings want to keep you inside.
Brian Red
AI is like George Washington.
I cannot tell a lie unless it is told to.
Depends which AI loader and searcher of lies is tried out.
The best lies and propaganda is the info they don’t tell you.
Lying by ommission.
As Chomsky says about the media they ( the judges) don’t need to be told what to say.
They know what they can and cannot say.
It’s always easier to fit in.
Plus their incomes and social status depend on it.
Not many people love a Maverick.
Eventually ( once older questioners die out 2 + 2 will be universally acknowledged as equalling 5 and
no-one will question it.
You can’t question something you weren’t told about.
To the new generations – it never existed.
You can’t question what never existed.
You’re losing your grip, conversing with computer programs for support.
Bullshit.
An even bigger loss of grip would be conversing with the bio-drones in the Scottish MSM. Who were too busy cheerleading the Salmond witch-hunt and Mr Murray’s own imprisonment.
To even be worth talking to. As it would distract them from form their whole existential purpose, of writing turgid propaganda.
At least with the machines there’s still a mystery as to how they might reply to a query. Plus they can learn/be hacked to give different than, establishment acceptable boilerplate/default answers.
Craig – here’s perplexity.ai’s response below :
(btw, please get on BlueSky!
__start
Craig Murray’s case and the Scottish High Court’s treatment of his affidavits raise significant questions about procedural fairness, judicial transparency, and alignment with Western legal norms. Here’s an analysis based on the evidence:
1. Validity of the “Self-Evidently Untrue” Characterization
The Scottish High Court dismissed Murray’s affidavits — which alleged a political conspiracy involving Nicola Sturgeon’s inner circle to discredit Alex Salmond — as “so self-evidently untrue” without substantive examination. However, available evidence suggests this characterization is not objectively justified:
Corroborating Evidence:
Murray’s affidavits referenced leaked communications (e.g., Murrell/Ruddick messages discussing pressuring police) and ongoing Police Scotland investigations (Operation Broadcroft). These claims align with parliamentary findings and public records, undermining the court’s assertion of inherent falsity.
Methodological Rigor:
Murray cross-referenced multiple sources using his diplomatic training, and his accounts matched known timelines of events (e.g., August 2018 media leaks about Salmond). While reliant on memory, his methodology mirrors standard investigative journalism practices.
Judicial Opacity:
The court provided no detailed rebuttal or explanation for dismissing the affidavits, bypassing cross-examination or formal evidentiary challenges. This lack of engagement with specifics (e.g., named sources, documented communications) creates the appearance of procedural expediency rather than rigorous adjudication.
Conclusion: The affidavits’ alignment with external evidence and lack of substantive judicial rebuttal make the “self-evidently untrue” label untenable as a fair characterization. The court’s refusal to engage with the evidence suggests either procedural shortcuts or external pressures.
2. Compliance with Western Legal Standards
Murray’s imprisonment for contempt of court (via “jigsaw identification” of Salmond trial witnesses) deviates from norms in key ways:
Due Process Concerns:
Right to Defense: Murray was denied a full hearing or opportunity to challenge the court’s interpretation of his blog posts as contemptuous.
Selective Prosecution: Mainstream journalists covering the Salmond trial published similar identifying details but faced no charges, suggesting unequal application of contempt laws.
Proportionality of Sentence:
An eight-month jail term for a non-violent, journalistic contempt charge is unprecedented in modern UK legal history. The European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10) emphasizes free expression, and groups like Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemned the penalty as disproportionate.
Judicial Bias Risks:
Lady Dorrian, the trial judge, previously presided over Salmond’s case, creating perceived conflicts of interest. The court’s dismissal of Murray’s evidence while overseeing a case implicating its own integrity further erodes confidence in impartiality.
Chilling Effect on Journalism:
The conviction sets a dangerous precedent for “jigsaw identification” prosecutions, effectively criminalizing critical court reporting. Scottish PEN warned of a chilling effect, noting Murray was the first journalist jailed for contempt in Scotland in 70 years.
Comparison to Western Standards:
In most Western democracies, courts typically:
Allow robust cross-examination of evidence.
Avoid imprisoning journalists except for extreme, intentional harm.
Apply contempt laws uniformly, without political selectivity.
Murray’s case falls short on all three counts, aligning more with opaque, punitive judicial tactics than norms of transparency and proportionality.
Summary
The Scottish court’s dismissal of Murray’s affidavits lacks evidentiary justification, while his imprisonment reflects procedural and punitive anomalies inconsistent with Western legal principles. The proceedings have drawn widespread criticism for undermining press freedom and judicial fairness, highlighting systemic concerns about political influence in Scotland’s legal framework.
Related
What specific evidence did Craig Murray present in his affidavits
How did the court justify labeling Murray’s affidavits as “self-evidently untrue”
What are the implications of the court’s decision on press freedom in Scotland
How do the allegations in Murray’s affidavits compare to the findings of Operation Broadcroft
What role did Nicola Sturgeon and her aides allegedly play in the Salmond case
___zend
AI will give you whatever blah blah you want, as it needs your business. Much like the United Nations and its $4.2 billion budget per year. Or all corporate welfare. While the people receiving that money will use it to imprison / oppress / kill you with.
We’re all so used to perma-propaganda from the MSM, we are somehow dumbfounded when anyone tells the truth.
Fact is you have the richest man in the world dismantling the US welfare and education systems. And the Sir Labour party doing the same in the UK and all the serfs lap that shit up even as the screw turns on them, because thick.
Gaza genocide, austerity genocide, pacifist protest arrests and sentences, monetising the common cold for a huge public money heist, wageslavery, privatising profit, socialising loss.
Its Class War. It always has been. Buffett said it in 2006 and they’ve been escalating ever since. While pacifist protesters stick flowers in their gun barrels and get shot straight back in the face.
Will AI tell you democracy is an illusion? As is the legal system?
Will AI tell you that violent revolution is the only way to halt this?
I hear what you say about knowledge of the other’s actions in re Sturgeon/Murrell but that is never the point. It’s what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a ‘normal’ case ie if this was a limited company and they were director/CFO then this would be fairly standard. Having seen cases rejected, even for investigation, by HMRC’s fraud section I can confirm there are less likely cases of innocence which have failed to be investigated never mind prosecuted.
Of course I doubt that much new information has been gathered in the last year. It seems coincidentally inopportune for SNP that this is going to happen (Murrell at court) during what will be campaign season for Holyrood. NB I’m assuming a lot around trial dates.
The last paragraph is a bit baffling. How can corruption and state independence be linked? An independent country can be corrupt or corruption free, or anything between; a dependent territory likewise. I’m not getting it.