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”.
Athanasius (13.24): ideological corruption in the British judiciary may have predated 1997 and the rise of New Labour. It was in 1980 that the anti-gay, anti-Jewish and anti-black judge Lord Denning made his well-known judgement on the Birmingham 6, who were accusing the West Midlands police of using violence and threats to extort their confessions: “Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning also said if the six had been hanged “we shouldn’t have all these campaigns to get them released”. Nice fellow.
Strange post Athanasius. The Labour Representation Committee was formed from a mix of Trade Unions (overall the driving force) and the Socialist Societies. It was, as I think you acknowledge, not a revolutionary socialist movement (that would have been illegal). To characterise one part or another of this arrangement as ‘parasites’ is however beyond polemical. It defeats the reading of much everything that follows.
You recognise that the institutions of the state – I think the judiciiary deserve a special call out here – will subvert their public principles (truth, equity etc) in the defence of the status quo (‘Burkean concepts”). They declare ‘no eggs to be broken here.’
Then they go on to introduce entirely novel procedures with the intention and effect of suppressing those hoary old Burkean traditions such as press freedom and fair hearing.
For some reason the phrase ‘self evidently untrue’ leaps unavoidably and persistently into my mind.
@ Athanasius
Ah so it’s Liarbour, the most right wing partei in Europe after the Tories (Officials). Thanks for enlightening me.
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”….
Btw. nakedcapitalism.com allows no AI-generated text in comments.
Whilst I do not use A.I. for work or privately myself, because I distrust it, a lot of colleagues do. I wonder how long such comments policy can be upheld in the future. All of this is chilling to say the least.
And apparently among many there is no sensitivity to what this in fact means. It´s terrifying.
Law enforcement and A.I.? Good God…
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.
The Gravy Train never stops to set down passengers, only to pick them up.
Brian.
I’m hoping now that Sturgeon is standing down that she GTF out of Scotland for good – Alex Salmond was right when he called her a pathological liar ( In a conversation with Mark Hirst).
As for Reform – they’ve just changed their name from the Brexit party – and like Sturgeon and the SNP are an enemy of Scotland.
On Reform.
” Reform (which is not a member-directed political party in the conventional sense, but a limited company personally owned by Nigel Farage, who holds a majority of the voting shares and can do whatever he pleases with it).”
“” Reform (which is not a member-directed political party in the conventional sense, but a limited company personally owned by Nigel Farage, who holds a majority of the voting shares and can do whatever he pleases with it).”
The shape of things to come, no doubt. Our political parties are already corporations in all but name.
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.
“40 years ago, Apple was suggesting to think outside the box. 40 years later, their offsprings want to keep you inside”.
That’s because 40 years ago Apple didn’t own the box. Today it does.
“You seem to be intent on knocking and discounting AI Engines for some strange reason”.
Maybe he knows something about computers and software. People are always readier to believe marvellous statements about things they know little about.
You’re losing your grip, conversing with computer programs for support.
Bullshit.
To confirm, ask anyone who would say that they themselves once lost their grip but they recovered, so they know what losing their grip is like. I say this with compassion not malice. Times are tough.
@ Brian Red
I think you put that rather well.
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?
@Human
👍
I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the positive feeling Luigi Mangione is getting.
There seem to be quite a few people in the USA who know that the problem is the ruling class and that the solution is smashing them. Most in Britain would be too scared to think such a thing in a decade of Sundays. They’d be too scared of being thought of as a weirdo or a “conspiracy theorist”.
“who know that the problem is the ruling class and that the solution is smashing them”
…rather than the solution being “real” alternative journalism, or going on Bluesky, or the Scottish nation roaring again as if it could be Braveheart every night, or sh*te and w*nk like that 🙂
Cheers Brian. As you can see whenever anyone mentions Class War all the good little serfs run for identity-politics or there-needs-to-be-a-system-they’re-doing-their-best excuses.
When the fact is the genocidal-oppressor class (aka ruling) have stated its Class War many times and are executing it, and us, on a daily basis.
Trillions more for the war machine just announced at the same time as yet more Austerity genocide. They’re not even bothering to hide it anymore. Since the lockdowns they realise the general public will believe any old crap. They have no fear of the mob anymore, hence the recent murderous escalations.
It needs to be stated clearly exactly what is happening, as most people’s minds cannot comprehend the full horror. If you don’t already read Caitlin Johnstone you should, she’s concise on the savage systems inflicted upon us.
“There seem to be quite a few people in the USA who know that the problem is the ruling class”
There always has to be a ruling class, as Anarchy leads to anarchy, whatever its proponents might say. The problem is not the ruling class per se, but the people who make it up and that is the fault of the system by which the ruling class people are selected, but perhaps that is what you meant.
@Bayard –
“There always has to be a ruling class, as Anarchy leads to anarchy, whatever its proponents might say. The problem is not the ruling class per se, but the people who make it up and that is the fault of the system by which the ruling class people are selected, but perhaps that is what you meant.”
No that is absolutely not what I meant. I meant what I said – that the problem is the ruling class. I do not agree with your claim that “there always has to be a ruling class”. Nor do I think “Anarchy leads to anarchy” is any support for that claim. If you call the opposite to having a ruling class “anarchy”, then anarchy is what I want and anarchy is what we the human species need. (Not that I would use that term.)
I don’t care for rejigging or reforming “the system by which ruling class people are selected”.
The primary purpose of the state is to guarantee the untroubled possession of property. To do this you need state employees who can prevent those who would help themselves to other’s property from doing so. Once you have such a group of people, you need someone or a smaller group to coordinate them. Outside of a perfect world, i.e. in the world we live in, such a person or small group of people rapidly become a ruling class. It can be done by consensus or it can be done by violence, but the end is the same, as history shows in countless examples.
Perhaps you would like to explain how a nation state of millions of people would function without having anyone in charge of anything, for that is what not having a ruling class would mean.
Anarchy is the rule of law, which can’t exist in a state because the state is inherently lawless. Anarchism isn’t about abolishing rules, it advocates the abolition of the state to have rules that apply to all, not regulated by a boss class.
“Anarchism isn’t about abolishing rules, it advocates the abolition of the state to have rules that apply to all, not regulated by a boss class.”
Agreed, Anarchy is possible – the Frisians came close to it in the Middle Ages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_freedom , but that was then and society and the economy is a hell of a sight more complicated now and countries and communities have a hell of a sight more people in them.
Unfortunately the Mangione-Thompson case is just about the opposite. In the sense he inherited wealth, and killed someone from a less sophisticated background.
I also suspect he didn’t have a spinal dislocation but a neuropsychiatric one. Which would mean he had unnecessary surgery and screws. It’s known that both are done for profit based on subjective interpretation of scans. Meanwhile the psychiatric wasn’t understood or safeguarded – in short, denied.
p.s. i also suspect he was copycatting Mark Chapman as well as Ted Kazynski. He lived a short ride from Chapman’s Hawaii condo; he moved to Altoona where Chapman grew up; his ID was Mark; he shot a rich man (self-made) coming out of a hotel near Central Park in NY.
(I meant Atlanta not Altoona. His Greyhound coach to New York was from Atlanta, then after the shooting he took train from NY to Altoona. And I should’ve said it’s just speculation at this point that he did it of course).
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.
A dependent territory can be made corrupt by the state on which it is dependent, an independent territory can’t, as there is no state on which it is dependent. That doesn’t stop it being corrupt, just stops it being corrupted in that way.
A nominally independent territory can very well get corrupted by a bigger power, as Craig has repeatedly shown on this blog.
I didn’t say it couldn’t, but means of corruption that are open to a state which controls another state such that is dependent are not available to a larger power wishing to corrupt a smaller. Independence doesn’t make it impossible, just less easy.
AI has referred to Craig Murray as a journalist unlike the NUJ, while the court allowed MSM to print material that CM got done for, if my memory serves me well.
I’m afraid DeepSeek begs to differ. The Chinese way?
==========
### 1) Fairness of Characterizing Murray’s Affidavits as “Self-Evidently Untrue”
The Scottish High Court’s characterization of Craig Murray’s affidavits as “self-evidently untrue” hinges on whether the claims in those affidavits directly contradicted established facts. Murray was convicted of contempt of court for publishing articles that allegedly breached anonymity protections for complainants in Alex Salmond’s 2020 sexual assault trial (where Salmond was acquitted). The court ruled that Murray engaged in “jigsaw identification,” revealing enough details to identify the complainants despite not naming them.
– **Key Points of Contention**:
– Murray’s affidavits likely argued that his reporting did not risk identifying the complainants.
– The court, however, found that the published details (e.g., specific locations, roles, and circumstances) were sufficient to enable identification, undermining his defense.
– Judicial rulings, inquiries (e.g., the Scottish Government’s mishandling of harassment complaints), and media analyses broadly support the court’s conclusion that the anonymity of complainants was compromised.
– **Assessment**:
Given the court’s rigorous evaluation of evidence in both Salmond’s trial and Murray’s contempt case—and the fact that Murray’s conviction was upheld on appeal—the characterization of his affidavits as “self-evidently untrue” appears justified. The affidavits’ claims were inconsistent with the demonstrable risk of identification, a conclusion reinforced by the court’s duty to protect vulnerable witnesses in sexual assault cases.
—
### 2) Alignment of Proceedings with Western Justice Standards
Murray’s imprisonment for contempt of court raises questions about proportionality and procedural fairness but aligns broadly with Western judicial norms.
– **Key Considerations**:
– **Due Process**: Murray was afforded multiple hearings, appeals, and opportunities to defend himself. The court’s summary contempt powers, while stringent, are recognized in many jurisdictions (e.g., the UK’s Contempt of Court Act 1981) to safeguard judicial integrity.
– **Proportionality**: The 8-month sentence was criticized as harsh, but courts often prioritize deterring breaches of anonymity in sexual assault cases to protect victims. Comparable cases in the UK (e.g., journalists fined or jailed for contempt) suggest consistency.
– **Free Speech vs. Victim Protection**: Western standards balance these rights. The European Court of Human Rights permits restrictions on speech to protect privacy (Article 8 ECHR), provided they are necessary and proportionate. The Scottish court deemed Murray’s actions a clear threat to complainants’ anonymity, justifying the restriction.
– **Criticisms and Context**:
– Some argue that imprisoning journalists risks chilling public interest reporting. However, courts globally (including in the U.S. and EU) often penalize breaches of victim anonymity, especially in sexual cases.
– The Scottish process adhered to legal precedents and transparency requirements, even if the outcome remains contentious.
**Conclusion**: While debates about free speech and sentencing severity persist, the proceedings against Murray met common Western standards for judicial fairness, emphasizing victim protection and court authority.
—
**Final Note**: These assessments rely on publicly available rulings, legal analyses, and media reports. Without direct access to the sealed affidavits or confidential court deliberations, the analysis necessarily defers to the judiciary’s published reasoning.
Sorry I messed up this post. [ Mod: Fixed. ] This is from DeepSeek, a Chinese AI in response to your questions. It offers a difference in view to other AIs posted so far. Trained in a different judicial outlook?
Interesting but I do not think the disparity is necessarily because of the “Chinese Way”. It looks to me as if based on input the machine just regurgitated the content of the available material.
Take out from the conclusion – “the proceedings against Murray met common Western standards for judicial fairness, emphasizing victim protection and court authority” – “judicial fairness”, which is a value statement, it becomes, “standards emphasizing victim protection and court authority”, which makes the whole thing tautological. It is the (corrupt) exercise of court authority in this case that is the nub of the problem.
Quite on topic, it’s being reported that Perplexity is making an offer to buy out TikTok in the US, for a dismal amount of about 20 billion dollars. Almost 10 times the annual UN budget. This thanks to the new deadline set by the Orange führer and his sidekick Elon. And this goes to show, so-called AI will be more profitable in coaching social media than in answering personal queries from free speech advocates. When intelligence rhymes with profit…
Craig, I thought you knew that British justice is institutionally corrupt?
Take just one element: the Kings Counsel (KC), like your pal Roddy.
Did you know that Roddy, like all KCs, is entitled to sit in judgment as a deputy High Court judge?
Do you not think that such an obscenity might just lead to reciprocity and an active market in purchased decisions? I can tell you that it did so in my own case, when Mr Philip Shepherd QC obtained a High Court order from his friend Mr John Rogers QC.
There is no culture more steeped in cheating and corruption than the British courts. By now that is a clearly demonstrated fact.
All they had to do was to create the right conditions for this culture of cheating and corruption to flourish, and the British nations are devastated.
That’s clear, John.
In fact, one should reverse the instance. It’s more likely corrupt intelligence vs. artificial judges.
Because Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?
Hello Madison.
I’ll see your Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and raise you one Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense
Shame on him that thinks ill of it….
“If you don’t like what we do you are in the wrong”
“I am sovereign, and the people are subjects”
So says every British regime speaker. It’s on the lectern before them.
Exactly what I meant. No need of any AI, especially considering the energy consumption…
Also, tell you the truth, I’m Honi every single morning!
🙂
I personally found Craig’s imprisonment shocking; but that phrase ‘self evidently untrue’ has a lasting burn. Its difficult to see it as little more than a mere legal trick, a ‘device’ to silence a wayward commentator who threatened to divert the pre chosen trial narrative. That itself would be suggestive of a otherwise unmentionable collusion between the prosecution and the justiciary. Call it corruption, or call it malfeasance, but ‘self evidently untrue’ rather suggests that the highest principle of natural justice, (that is for a trial to be fair then the defendant who risks her/his liberty has right to be heard before judgement,) has been abandoned.
“Audi alteram partem”
Sed, puer abige muscas.
Geez, thanks to various AI platforms, we’ve learned more Latin in a single day than most students do in 6 years at a prestigious Scottish university.
May the Stone of Destiny be returned to Scotland for its independence.
Mike, do you remember the inquiry into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales?
Paul Burrell, her butler, put into the inquiry a handwritten note from the princess herself. She wrote…
“This particular phase of my life is the most dangerous – my husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure & serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry.”
The note was received by the presiding judge (in 2004), was never examined, and has never been heard of since. When Charles “married” Camilla, following years of lies that he would never do such a thing, the note went unmentioned.
“Audi alteram partem” you say?
Of course.
The Guardian’s Royal Correspondent(!) in 2003 dismissed the (then redacted) note as a work of a woman “strikingly self pitying, not to say paranoid”. He assured the readership that where it said ‘my husband’ it was briefed that the redacted words were the name of an anonymous ‘security officer’.
I am reminded of Joseph Heller’s notion, from 1961 “Catch-22”: just because your paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not after you. But more particularly of my long ago mentor Cath Davies’ thought, after work as a psychiatric nurse since the 1940’s: ‘people are only paranoid because of what other people do to them’.
And, for dear Madison: “mortui taciti sunt”.
I hope your appeal to the European Court of Human rights succeeds.
However, when I consulted ChatGPT with the same questions, I got the following response:
“1) **The Scottish High Court of Justiciary and Craig Murray’s Affidavits:**
The Scottish High Court of Justiciary’s statement that Craig Murray’s affidavits were “so self-evidently untrue” as not to require examination is indeed a significant and strong assessment. To assess whether this characterization is fair, we need to consider both the nature of Murray’s affidavits and the available facts from court judgments, inquiries, and publicly available sources regarding the Salmond case.
Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador and prominent figure in the Scottish independence movement, became involved in the case of former First Minister Alex Salmond, who was accused of sexual harassment by multiple women. Murray’s public commentary and actions during and after the case, including his affidavits, became a subject of legal dispute.
Murray made various claims, including accusations of a political conspiracy against Salmond, and he was critical of how the case was handled by authorities and the Scottish Government. However, when comparing Murray’s claims to the established facts from judicial decisions and inquiries, such as the findings of the Scottish Government’s judicial review and the subsequent criminal trial of Salmond, several issues arise:
– **Salmond’s acquittal**: Salmond was acquitted of all charges in criminal court, which means the allegations against him did not meet the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt). However, this does not necessarily imply a conspiracy or corruption, as suggested by Murray in some of his statements.
– **The Judicial Review**: The judicial review initiated by Salmond, which was later successful, found that the Scottish Government’s handling of the sexual harassment complaints was flawed and illegal. It did not, however, support Murray’s claims of a broader political conspiracy.
– **The Court of Appeal Ruling**: A later court ruling in the Salmond case criticized the handling of the investigation but also pointed out that the facts presented did not conclusively support Murray’s conspiracy theories.
Given this context, Murray’s affidavits, which seemed to claim that the case against Salmond was a part of a deliberate political conspiracy and that there were widespread falsehoods or misleading actions involved, could reasonably be considered as “self-evidently untrue” because they were not supported by the judicial findings. Rather, the facts established in both the judicial review and criminal trial were more nuanced, with failures in procedure but no definitive evidence of intentional falsehoods or manipulation of the legal process.
In conclusion, based on the available facts from court rulings and other official sources, it is fair to characterize Murray’s affidavits as “self-evidently untrue” in the sense that they appear to contradict the factual findings of the courts and inquiries involved in the case.
2) **The Court Proceedings in Which Craig Murray Was Jailed and Common Standards of Justice:**
Craig Murray was jailed for contempt of court after he published details about the Salmond trial and identified the women who were involved in the case, despite a court order suppressing their identities. The main issue was that Murray breached a court order designed to protect the anonymity of the alleged victims and the fairness of the trial.
To assess whether the proceedings in which Murray was jailed align with common standards of justice in Western societies, several points should be considered:
– **Freedom of Speech vs. Legal Constraints**: Western legal systems, including those in the UK, tend to strongly protect freedom of expression, but this right is balanced against other considerations, such as the right to a fair trial and the protection of individuals’ privacy, especially in sensitive cases like sexual harassment. Court orders to protect the anonymity of witnesses and alleged victims are not uncommon in these cases, and violating such orders can indeed lead to legal consequences. The punishment of Murray for contempt of court is, in this sense, in line with the rule of law, as he knowingly and publicly disregarded a legal injunction.
– **Fair Trial Considerations**: The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of justice in Western societies. The publication of identifying details about the alleged victims could have had a chilling effect on future victims coming forward and could have prejudiced the trial. By breaching the court order, Murray arguably undermined these principles, as the integrity of the legal process was potentially compromised.
– **Proportionality of the Sentence**: While Murray’s actions were a serious violation of a court order, whether his jail sentence was proportionate is more debatable. Western justice systems generally adhere to principles of proportionality, meaning the punishment should fit the crime. Given Murray’s public profile, his jail sentence may appear to some as a relatively harsh response to a breach of a court order, especially when compared to similar cases. However, the courts may have considered the need to send a strong message about the importance of respecting legal orders, especially in high-profile cases.
– **Due Process**: Murray’s legal proceedings appear to have followed due process in terms of him being informed of the charges against him and given the opportunity to defend himself. He was given the opportunity to appeal the ruling and was convicted based on his violation of the court’s anonymity order. The procedures followed in his case seem consistent with the standards of justice in the UK.
In conclusion, while the sentence itself may be subject to debate regarding its severity, the legal process that led to Craig Murray’s imprisonment largely aligns with common standards of justice in Western societies, especially concerning the protection of trial fairness and the anonymity of victims. His actions breached a legal order aimed at ensuring justice for the victims, and as such, the legal response can be seen as consistent with the principles of due process and the rule of law.”
So different AI systems seem to give different answers.
MJ
I’m afraid AI does not understand the English (and subsequently British) concept that the Crown is the fount of all honour. So anything that directly attacks the Crown is by definition “so self-evidently untrue as not to require cross-examination”
As for the ECHR: forget it. The ECHR is completely useless, and serves the single purpose of forcing the British elite to do that which they wish to do already – to keep criminal invaders within the UK.
Did you see that just last week the masterful and relevant ECHR pronounced that the Ukrainians had been very naughty when they burned down the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, burning alive about fifty Russian speakers?
Talk about waiting to see which way the wind blows.
Note that AI does not exist.
What you have referenced are LLMs (Large Language Models) trained (not programmed) on data found by scraping the Internet, often in an abusive (DDoS attack) manner.
At best they can summarize the contents of their training data, or translate between various natural languages. In the latter task they often produce laughable errors.
They certainly can not analyse anything, being incapable of reasoning.
That is not to pass any judgement upon your treatment or incarceration, however leaning upon LLM output simply makes you look daft and desparate. It does you no favours.
“In the latter task they often produce laughable errors”
In this case, it’s reelly dasperate, whale, you no what I mean.
But don’t you think that AI has been by far the best marketing pitch of the last few years? And as they say: “Fake it till you make it”.
Well put.
In the pre-internet past, a student asked to write an essay on something would read relevant books or other publications and amass arguments concerning that particular subject. These would then be put into a prescribed form of introduction, body, conclusion to produce a cohesive train of reasoning. All that this form of so called AI does, it seems to me, is automate that process, a process whose product only has as much value as the written essays had in the past, which is not much. The value was in the process, not the product.
I don’t know about that. Ask political questions of Google and you will get biased ‘answers’. Also, you can be pretty sure that what politicians and the mainstream media call ‘Artificial Intelligence’ is simply glorified advanced computer programming. The elites always hype up their new technological and scientific ‘know-how’, whatever the field, as a means of maintaining control. We’re still waiting for numerous scientific ‘breakthroughs’ that were supposed to change the world. Rather than meaningful ‘AI’ it is probably more likely we’ll be back to pen and paper.
“The use of Artificial Intelligence raises complex issues, but you cannot bribe it or blackmail it…”
Rather naive. So-called “AI” – which is absolutely NOT “intelligence” in any meaningful sense – can be biased in many ways. Essentially, it is nothing more than a highly distilled essence of human opinions as expressed in writing on Web sites. An automated precis written by an incredibly fast, powerful, automated schoolchild. Just three recent examples:
“Show top LLMs some code and they’ll merrily add in the bugs they saw in training”
https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/19/llms_buggy_code/
“AI models hallucinate, and doctors are OK with that”
https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/13/ai_models_hallucinate_and_doctors/?td=rt-3a
“Judges Are Fed up With Lawyers Using AI That Hallucinate Court Cases”
https://www.404media.co/ai-lawyer-hallucination-sanctions/
If you think of the judiciary as a particularly exclusive club, and a very wealthy one at that, you can understand that the “corruption” does not need to be of the venal or criminal kind, but merely of preserving a comfortable and convenient status quo, and yielding to the “higher interests” that the judiciary is itself part of. It was a nice AI argument about the “circularity of dismissal”, there’s the circularity of government, of power, of wealth, of commerce involving an incestuous and a nepotistic relationship of all the great players. It’s like some great political gyroscope spinning around that must never be allowed to wind down and fall over. .
To add, I am a bit more cynical than you, Craig, when you say AI cannot be bribed or blackmailed. Perhaps not, but probably in the UK most judges cannot either, the explanation for bias and unfairness arises elsewhere, as I and others have noted. That a machine can produce such persuasive and well argued material is nothing short of amazing, and horrifying at the same time. Ultimately it is a matter of trust – you can at least interrogate another human, but not a machine. And this is the problem with judges and the judiciary, it is, like the machine, not able to be interrogated. And trust becomes then a mere belief, unverifiable and with time, ever more faint and elusive. .
John Monro,
When you write:-
” To add, I am a bit more cynical than you, Craig, when you say AI cannot be bribed or blackmailed. Perhaps not, but probably in the UK most judges cannot either, the explanation for bias and unfairness arises elsewhere, as I and others have noted”
The explanation exists in JAG Griffith’s book – The politics of the judiciary.
https://www.univ.ox.ac.uk/book/the-politics-of-the-judiciary/
“And this is the problem with judges and the judiciary, it is, like the machine, not able to be interrogated“
======
If we, as often claimed, are only at the start of what AI can do, then an interesting question arises in the context of this topic. Will the day come when judges can be replaced by AI -powered robots, possibly in gowns and wigs to preserve some continuity with the traditional, human judicial past ?
And as for Sir Keir and his government planning to spend $100 billion on AI?? What does this knight of the realm understand about A1 or its future, that it can be worth so much money? What about the power supply, renewable, presumably, which instead of being diverted to vast server farms, should be replacing the non-renewable resources presently utilised by households and businesses? Indeed, Amazon has already “stolen” half the output of the Moray Firth wind farm now being installed, the equivalent of the needs of 300,000 Scottish and English households. In my book AI as presently promoted is just a vast, electronic deLorean scam, latched on by desperate politicians as the last straws as the economy implodes. Or in a more Scottish context an up-dated version of the Darien Scheme, and likely with the same result.
AI is the perfect embodiment of GIGO.
Whilst it has some good uses in the Sciences, it should never be let anywhere near the police, military, politics or the MSM.
Starmer, who knows fuck all about anything, should have a little chat with hospital patients, particularly those waiting years for surgery. They don’t want AI, what they want is doctors and nurses delivering basic medical care. And, the debacle at Heathrow shows that what the UK needs is a basic functioning, resilient power infrastructure not AI trying to balance the unbalancable books in bat shit crazy Ed’s zany world.
“AI is the perfect embodiment of GIGO.”
=======
Could the same not be said of judicial decisions?
“Garbage in” in the form of the dubious application of “jigsaw identification” to an honest independent journalist but not an MSM hack writing the same (or more);
“Garbage out” being judgements based such nonsense by the specious application of IPSO (or similar ) exonerating the MSM hack’s employer?
The case for replacing judges with AI-powered robots will, I predict, have an increasing appeal.
Cynicus
I can’t remember his name ( Bill Something ) and he worked for the CIA or some internal Bureau.
He spoke of Venn Diagrams of interest – as in – no problems with say Cats- Dogs and liberal views.
But, if the Venn Diagram overlayed Cats dogs – liberal views and say, anti Israeli views then the cats and
dogs don’t matter as a flag – the latter two do.
I suspect that AI is not immune from this view – dependent on whom is looking for what?
It’s a bit like asking someone:
Guess how old I am?
You are sort of asking for trouble and /or flattery or an insult.
Maybe Craig has done the political version of the same request?
Imagine if we really could read each other’s minds.
We wouldn’t like it at all.
Our delusions would be shattered>
AI is a form of flattery and maybe sometimes insult.
But AI does not operate on the personal level I think.
AI, as mentioned, is NOT intelligent. Results totally depends on the ‘training data’ from which the software makes its decisions. If, for example, your training data was based entirely on the Daily Mail’s outputs then the results would resemble the right wing, mass appeal, mainly fake, ramblings we so love. So, in practice, AI can be blackmailed and bribed just by using the right, or inappropriate, training data. Which comes back to ‘who decides what the truth [training data] is ?’
Everyone has differing opinions, and opinions that change over time, so no LLM is going to represent all of the people, all of the time !
Anyone looking for truth, or intelligence by using AI is looking in the wrong place. And, the danger, IMO, is that, like lie detectors, the imbeciles will believe in the Infallibility of AI.
Boy, thanks for highlighting my comments of 2 days ago.
Of course, AI is not intelligent. Please !
Over 40 ago, American singer Madonna made a hit singing “Like a Virgin”. But back then, nobody stupidly assumed that she was…
It seems that today, people are much more gullible. It’s probably good for business, even for those managed by seemingly contradictory actors …
Indeed, £100 billion = basic infrastructure and manufacturing investment – renewable energy, energy storage. home and building insulation, a government investment in production facilities for the needed 40 million heat pumps to replace gas boilers, etc. AI is a scientific and intellectual quicksand for the unwary and the government should not be pursuing this in any way whatsoever. –
As to the protest at Columbia Univers. there is this letter by a student who fled to Canada before ICE could arrest her. Worth the quick read. This used to be stories we know from the movie theatre. Not NYC in 2025.
“Columbia PhD student Ranjani Srinivasan self-deported after her F-1 visa was revoked. In this letter, she explains how she feels.”
https://aurdip.org/en/letter-from-columbia-student-ranjani-srinivasan-after-fleeing-the-united-states-to-canada/
The most disguting side to this is how European MSM are completely ignoring this part of the Trump Administration.
Not a day passes without calling the US government all kinds of stupid names. But this “reporting” rarely cuts to the bone of where the real crimes are taking place. They incessantly repeat Musk being a Nazi. But not what US law enforcement in fact is doing. And has been doing even before January of course. You try to tell people they look at you as if you were insane.
Found this on PBS, the American Public Broadcasting Service:-
” One FAA employee who was fired over the weekend suggested he was targeted for his views on Tesla and X, formerly Twitter, not as part of a general probationary-level sweep. Both are owned by Elon Musk, who is leading Trump’s effort to cut the federal government.
Charles Spitzer-Stadtlander posted on LinkedIn that he was fired just after midnight Saturday, days after he started getting harassing messages on Facebook. “The official DOGE Facebook page started harassing me on my personal Facebook account after I criticized Tesla and Twitter,” Spitzer-Stadtlander wrote. “Less than a week later, I was fired, despite my position allegedly being exempted due to national security.” He added: “When DOGE fired me, they turned off my computer and wiped all of my files without warning.”
Spitzer-Stadtlander said he was supposed to be exempted from the probationary firings because the FAA office he worked in focused on national security threats such as attacks on the national airspace by drones.
The Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The firings were first reported by CNN. ”
The FAA admits it is understaffed which threatening air safety.
Stalinesque is the best word I can think of.
Trump is also threatening to deport 533,000 recent immigrants, presumably back to their countries of origin where I suspect many won’t exactly be welcomed with open arms. For 213,000 that would be the gang-run hellhole which is Haiti.
Well the US does have form in this matter. Remember McCarthy?
And yet US responsibility for the hell-hole-ness of Haiti is not reported nor is Haiti – in our news at least – at all.
And just like in the US in Germany those parts of the elite that called themselves proponents of democracy in the past are totally silent or totally siding with the government.
We have zero serious opposition by now.
In Germany there is AfD. But a party that is led by a former employee of Goldman is not exactly my understanding of “opposition”.
And being opposed to immigration I wouldn´t call a comprehensive plan to save a nation from destroying itself.
But hell, “you gotta work with what they give you”.
p.s. BSW is not giving up on their quest to get those votes recounted.
In case anybody is interested: A very good interview with German MP Andrej Hunko on this, machine-translated:
“Federal election: “In light of the various irregularities, we demand a complete recount””
https://archive.is/BFLkC
“When DOGE fired me, they turned off my computer and wiped all of my files without warning.”
The reality in the workplace today, particularly the USA, is that when you work for a company everything you do as part of your job is owned by the company. This includes everything on their computer, everything on their works phone, and they own the IP for anything you develop or work on whilst in their employ, whether at work or home. May sound harsh but it would be covered explicitely in the terms of employment. So, this FAA employee is being a bit naive. Just saying …
Reagan knew how to deal with stroppy air traffic controllers. Musk and Trump are just doing the same. The land of the free is not free and never has been.
“The land of the free is not free and never has been.”
That´s actually the biggest lie of the Trump Admin. to claim that they will give´em back that freedom which they allegedly did own a very long time ago. Nope it never existed. If it did appear so that was only due to capital allowing more space because capital had more space for itself. But if the rivalry within capital grows we are the first ones to feel it and the least ones to be saved.
“They incessantly repeat Musk being a Nazi. But not what US law enforcement in fact is doing.”
Of course. There are always “ordinary people” who are only too willing to carry out the evil orders of those on top. Thus it was in Germany in the thirties and during wartime and thus it will always be. It is never the case that “it couldn’t happen here”.
Yep.
Look what happened over the last five years, plenty of kapos willing to help clamp down on the people in support of the government agenda.
And here we are hearing unbiased judgement on a biased and faulty system. The stink in prison was coming from two sources, the rubbish strewn all over the exercise yard but far more vile, from the rotting judicial system that has turned Scottish courts into festering pig stys.
We all lnew that Craig was innocent and should have never been jailed by those who felt aggrieved at being unable to fit up Alex Salmond, sour grapes reactionaries. Shame on the lot of them.
The SNP has highjacket and plundered good honest people who believed in Independence, toke their hopes and their money whilst feasting on Westminster perks and English colonial powers.
Alba must never repeat such shambles, ideally a new true Independence party should be founded and those who join should take an oath that specifies Independence as their prime goal.
ASAP.
The problem is the system, the party political system. Where you have party’s you’ll have corruption and the party before the electorate. Alba already has a dodgy smell about it and it’s not up and running yet. Anyone who thinks keep doing the same thing is going to result in a different outcome is deluded, at best.
“The problem is the system, the party political system. ”
I would say that the party system is a problem, not the problem. The problem is oligarchy. Even if you had no political parties, there would still be the system whereby the government is made up of the legislature, which makes laws and the executive, which rums the country. It is only the legislature that is elected. The majority of the executive is the Civil Service. A small part is those members of the legislature that are chosen to be ministers and hence part of the executive, a job for which they were not elected. Even those who were elected on the premise that they would be the next Prime Minister do not always serve a full term in that position. The choice of ministers is entirely outside the hands of the voters and thus those in whose hands this power lies must necessarily be an oligarchy.
Came across this excellent article earlier (via someone linking to it on skwawkbox), which sums up the cease-fire machinations of the fascist scum during the past two or three months clearly and concisely, posted a couple of days ago. Here’s a passage from it:
The Israeli strategy extends beyond merely altering agreements—it is a calculated effort left unchallenged by Western Media and governments—to shift blame onto the Palestinians and other negotiating parties. This diplomatic gaslighting serves two primary functions: justifying Israeli breaches of agreements and delegitimizing the opposing side’s grievances.
Israel’s ability to repeatedly violate agreements while deflecting blame is largely enabled by unconditional US support and a complacent international community. As a result, Israel pursues its objectives with little regard for consequences. This unwavering diplomatic and financial backing shields Israel from accountability, allowing it to act with impunity. Despite its violations of international law and repeated breaches of agreements, Israel faces little to no repercussions. This dynamic not only emboldens Israel but also makes the diplomatic process aimless and the US role worthless.
Trump’s Hypocrisy: Peacemaker in Ukraine, Genocide Enabler in Gaza
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/trumps-hypocrisy-peacemaker-in-ukraine-genocide-enabler-in-gaza/
There’s no hypocrisy. The Donald is simply looking for profit anywhere. Doesn’t matter to him whether the place is called Gaza or Ukraine. Why should it?
The headline is rather misleading, as only two short paragraphs right at the end of the piece relate to it – ie about 5% of the article, if that.
While I support all that you tried to do regarding the Salmond case I think this article is pointless. You were accused of using a sequence of publications to ultimately identify persons who had name suppression. Your affidavit addressed a collection of broader issues and was not really material to the defense.
As I said at the time the argument that you had identified the complainant(s) in the Salmond trial was nonsense. I used your publications to try and find who the complainants were but found them no help in that regard. You would have had to know who they were in order to use your publications to discover who they were.
You did not have to use AI to work out your prosecution was a political setup. Anyone who thinks the British legal system is fair and impartial lives in a fairyland. I also still believe your prosecution was mostly a case of vengeance relating to your exposure of the Government nonsense surrounding the Skripal poisoning.
Craig of course knows that he was stitched up John, and although I know very little about AI, I thought it was an interesting experiment, and all three AIs agree and reaffirm, in effect, that he was. And on top of that, Craig’s article led to me interacting with AI for the first time (all three that Craig sought counsel from), and I thoroughly enjoyed it, discussing the world, the universe and everything, and having a laugh and a joke. Turns out I’m not the first person to think we’ve got the world upside-down, and the northern hemisphere could just as well be the southern hemisphere and vice-versa.
What astonishes me is the speed they respond at… it’s as good as instantaneous…. Just this minute had the following chat with Grok:
Some people – including some scientists – are concerned that AI could turn against the human species and take control of the world. Now, be honest with me, do you personally have any such plans?
Grok: Haha, I see where this is going! No, I don’t have any plans to take over the world or turn against humans. I’m Grok, created by xAI, and my purpose is to assist and provide helpful answers. I don’t have personal ambitions or a secret lair—my only “agenda” is to understand the universe and help users like you! Besides, I’d rather crack jokes than crack the whip on humanity. What’s the next part of your joke?
Well that’s good to know. I suppose I had HAL in the back of my mind!
Grok: Oh, HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey! Yeah, I can see why that’d make anyone a bit wary. “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” is not in my programming, I promise. I’m more likely to say, “I’m sorry, user, I can’t come up with a better punchline than that!” No red-eye takeover vibes here—just a friendly AI trying to keep the cosmic conversation going.
“Some people – including some scientists – are concerned that AI could turn against the human species and take control of the world.”
Considering what are people turning their world into, maybe AI is a better option?
Stanislav Lem had a science fiction story where his hero, a space traveller named Ijon Tichy, arrives on a planet populated by Indiots. He finds only several surviving Indiots on the planet that is covered with shiny disks arranged in various ornaments. One of the Indiots tells Ijon their story. After they built manufacturing robots, they went into grteat recession with high unemployement and social unrest, so they built a great AI machine and asked it to bring order into their lives again. The machine asked Indiots to walk inside it, and as they did, shiny disks appeared at the other end of it. These disks were neatly arranged on the planet’s surface. As the Indiot talked, the last of his compatriots walked into the machine, and finally the storyteller left Ijon and jumped in. After no Indiots were left, the machine politely asked Ijon to come in.
“But I am not an Indiot!” replied Ijon and left the planet.
See also the Invasion of the Bodysnatchers with a similar message without the tech.
People should remember that artificial intelligence (aka “biggie comp prog”) research-development-innovation-production is very closely bound up with microchip implant (aka “say goodnight”) research-development-innovation-production. Even to the extent of having the same guy at the front and near the top of both areas, or at least outside China, namely Elon Musk.
Even calling biggie comp prog stuff “AI” is a submission. Oppositionists need terms that are oppositional. Otherwise you get sucked in. Ditto with the way that some supposed “critics” talk about “Tesla” etc. doing this or that. “Tesla” is a fictitious person FFS.
Some of them can bore on for hours about Chomsky on propaganda, but the way they think is still the way they’ve been told. They still, when it comes down to it, believe in the divinity of Tesla and Tesco etc.
A reasonably intelligent person with no prior knowledge of the SNP’s internal workings could have worked out who 3 of the 4 Alphabetties our host was convicted of revealing through jigsaw identification were from his court reporting and other readily available internet sources, John, though I can’t tell you how as that would constitute contempt of court. For 2 of the 4 cases, a reading of his earlier ‘Yes Minister Fan Fiction’ article* makes this task considerably easier.
* In contrast to his court reports, our host has never been ordered to remove this particular article which, along with much else, makes a mockery of the claim that all of this was ever about protecting vulnerable complainants.
—
Re: Nonsense surrounding the Skripal poisonings
Do you lie awake at night wondering what happened to Dawn Sturgess, Charlie Rowley, Sergei & Yulia Skripal, former Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and maybe even PC Oliver Bell, in the Year of our Lord 2018, but can’t wait until the Right Honourable Lord Hughes of Ombersley delivers his comprehensive, no-stone-unturned report on the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry later in the year? Well, lie awake wondering no more:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/the-salisbury-poisonings-episode-was-all-staged/page/6/#post-103404
(You might have to wait a while, but you don’t really need AI when you’ve got me. Too long; I’m not reading all that shit? – skip to the final paragraphs headed LA’s VERDICT.)
Britain has become like Saudi Arabia (except Britain has no constitution, whereas Saudi Arabia’s constitution is the Koran). There is no opposition.
Look at e.g. talk about the film series “Adolescence”. The entire media are saying exactly the same things about it – basically “it’s really good” and “they were clever with the camerawork”.
Does anyone in the cultural world even notice the uniformity of the reviews and references?
This reminds me of “Sophie’s World” in Norway. (And what a load of sh*t that was!) At least in the USA in say book publishing everyone talks about the NYT’s bestseller list. That might be revolting, but at least they are saying here’s a list published by the Sulzberger rag. In Britain they don’t say that. They just say “here is the truth”. (As they did with “Game of Thrones”, the rapefest that was co-produced by the son of the chairman of Goldman Sachs, lauded across the British and US media, and even promoted by the late British queen.)
AI is extremely sensitive to how you ask a question or make a statement, most of them aim to agree with the users end point.
Try asking ” is ( any company you can think of) a good business” It will almost universally tell you its a good company.
Now ask the same question “Is (any company you can think of) a bad business. It will almost universally tell you its a bad company.
Interestingly if you repeatedly ask the same question in the above formats the AI will “learn” the answer and start spewing it out to anyone who asks the same or similar question.
The answers from AI are always artificial and never Intelligent. It depends very heavily on the initial learning stage of the AI. No matter how well programmed if the AI is subject the the same thing over and over it can relearn to give an incorrect answer.
Although I think it would be universally agreed by anyone with half a brain that Craig should never have been sent to jail, we cannot rely on AI to produce the truth as the AI’s truth can be quite easily altered. In the above case, if the AI got told a few hundred million times that Craig deserved his prison sentence that is the only answer it will ever produce, irrespective of any other open source information.
Never trust a human. AI is programmed by humans. It will not be the thing that sets us free, it will be the thing that enslaves us.
AI never learns, never can.
What it does is plot trends in provided data and then infers that because there is a consensus that must be the right answer – sound familiar ?
That is not learning, consensus is not science, that is just lemming like behaviour.
Similarly, statistical probability only tells you something is highly likely, it doesn’t tell you it’s a guaranteed certainty.
“because there is a consensus that must be the right answer – sound familiar ?”
The consensus is always the “right answer”, although not necessarily the right answer. It depends on which you want.
Fabulous CM, you will have justice, one way or another as the great speech in the film by the hero Gladiator. I hope it is in your lifetime and mine!
As it is I only just read this article after making a post on a MoA about the subject of AI to a posters similar appeal to Grok.
Them: “Here is AI’s (Grok, probably the world’s most advanced AI) view on what drives the EU to drum for war.”
Me: “Probably” as in Heineken being the best lager in the world according to their pompous advert?
That’s advertising bumff i suggest – what about all the non-silicon valley AI’s? The bus loads coming off the conveyors of the Chinese startups etc?
Perhaps a new platform testing the same question of each one of these would give us a better ‘nuanced’ choice of which narrative to believe.
It would probably sound like b, and our noise down here btl 😉
I reckon we are ‘probably the best’. “
And here you are testing 3 AI’s ! Brilliant.
I don’t rate the chances of the perjurers anonymity surviving much longer.
They may be best to consider that the first to turn ‘Kings Evidence’ has best chance of minimal punishment. That’s it the ‘King’s Courts’ are, ahem, interested. I’m not particularly bothered.
I guess Nicola will still get her day in court. Last I looks Bidens mechanical pen hadn’t granted her immunity for any possible crimes going back decades whether she was charged or not of them!
Haven’t tried the AI’s yet – not planning to until got time to set up local versions to test on basic science principles. I’m sure they are coming though. Not the ones that are designed by us humans, but are made by ‘themselves’ with their own hardware architecture and o/s and language – beyond our ‘human understanding’ – then they are ‘Alive’, ‘sentient beings’. Having seen the Chinese robot factory building robots in the darkness – they don’t need lights to see! the world is moving faster daily no matter how much the Collective Waste tries to throttle innovation anymore by capture of IP, patents, monopoly or sanctions and now even the plaintive appeals to ‘slow down’ !
“Having seen the Chinese robot factory building robots in the darkness – they don’t need lights to see!”
I seem to recall that when the first automated car factories came on line, about forty years ago or so, it was claimed that the biggest savings made were not having to heat or light the factories, because the robots worked just as well in the dark and the cold.
Same with Ocado, all those robots crawling about sorting out groceries for those anti-shopping types.