I’ve copied the press release below from the Wings Over Scotland website. The selective prosecution of Craig Murray by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is another shameful chapter in their history of incompetence and bad faith.
Legal precedent will be set tomorrow as Craig Murray will be the first person to be imprisoned on the charge of jigsaw identification in the UK, and indeed in the entire world. Scotland’s second most senior judge, Lady Dorrian, sentenced Murray to 8 months of incarceration following a contempt of court charge for ‘jigsaw identification’ relating to the trial against Alex Salmond.
In May Lady Dorrian said that in her view Murray had intended to release identities of Salmond’s accusers. Mr Murray has always denied any intent to identify and that anybody was actually identified. Murray had not directly identified any of the accusers in the Salmond trial, but Dorrian argued identification may be possible if his reporting of the case was read in connection with other materials in the public domain.
No one aside from Murray was charged with jigsaw identification in connection with the Salmond case, despite the fact that 81% of respondents in a Panelbase survey who believed that had learned identities, gave mainstream media as the source of their knowledge. Lady Dorrian specifically stated that bloggers and mainstream media should be treated differently, as mainstream media are self-regulated.
Murray is the first person to be imprisoned in the UK for a media contempt for over 50 years, and in Scotland for over 70 years.
Murray’s imprisonment comes after an announcement from the UK Supreme Court that it will not hear his appeal. Former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray will surrender himself to Police shortly and begin to serve the custodial sentence handed to him. A public protest against Murray’s incarceration is planned. Murray’s wife and mother of their 5 month and 12 year old sons Nadira has written an open letter asking for “active and outspoken solidarity from anyone concerned about the loss of freedom of speech and equality before the law”.
Murray had recently been called as a witness in a case brought by Spanish state prosecutors against UC Global for allegedly acting on behalf of the CIA in covertly spying on Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Material before the Spanish court includes several hours of covert surveillance video of Murray in private conversation with Assange on the future of Assange and Wikileaks. The Scottish court removed Murray’s passport expressly to prevent him traveling to Spain to testify.
Craig Murray commented:
“I go to jail with a clean conscience after a Kafkaesque trial. I genuinely do not know who I am supposed to have identified or which phrases I published are said to have identified them, in combination with what other information in the public domain. This judgement will have a chilling effect on reporting of the defence case at trials, to the detriment of justice, and the different treatment of bloggers and approved media is sinister.
I carefully protect the identities of the accusers in my reports.
I believe this is actually the state’s long sought revenge for my whistleblowing on security service collusion with torture and my long term collaboration with Wikileaks and other whistleblowers. Unfortunately important free speech issues are collateral damage.”
Murray and the Craig Murray Justice committee have both signalled their intention to continue to resist the penalty handed to him by continuing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights via all routes required. They are particularly concerned that in her opinion Lady Dorrian implied that bloggers and public commentators like Murray ought to be punished more severely than mainstream journalists for the same offense.
Ellen Joelle Dalzell, coordinator of the Craig Murray Justice campaign group stated:
“The sentence handed to Craig Murray not only sets legal precedent in terms of a custodial sentence for the charge of jigsaw identification, it represents an attack on free speech in general, and a tangible threat to the free reporting of legal trials in particular.
The judgement is excessively punitive, is likely to have severe implications for Murray’s poor health and represents a dangerous precedent for journalists and other writers who seek to fairly report or comment on matters of public law.
Gordon Dangerfield 
Dorrian argued identification may be possible if his reporting of the case was read in connection with other materials in the public domain.
So by that logic if someone read the other material in the public domain first and then happened to read one of Craig Murray’s articles wouldn’t that mean that the mainstream media articles author should be charged? Why is only one part of the supposed jigsaw charged? Should it not be both or neither? How do you measure it? It is absurd.
How this Judge had the nerve to sit in judgment on this is beyond me. She clearly had a conflict of interest on this and prior involvement on the matter. Disgusting conduct and an absolute disgrace that this can happen.
Craig should have named them. They are liars. The more people who know who they are the better and sooner Sturgeon and her corrupt cabal are gone.
LikeLiked by 8 people
She also argued that Murray “relished” identifying the people involved, something that was beyond her ability to prove. It was mere speculation on her part, which, ordinarily, shouldn’t even enter into a judgement!
LikeLiked by 6 people
Indeed. In order to KNOW what was in Craig’s mind, Dorrian would need to be psychic.And I hae me’ doots! Dorrian did not provide evidence to back her belief that Craig intended to reveal any names. Whether her ‘belief’ is right or wrong, is not the point. Taking an issue to court is about PROVING intent of a wrong-doer. She didn’t do so. And it has been my belief that in Scotland, people are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Or did I get that wrong??
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lady Dorrian seems to have developed extraordinary powers to be in a position to say this.
This extraordinary comment tends to discredit her overall judgement, where impartiality is imperative.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think, however, without having Dorrian’s extraordinary ability to see into someone’s thought processes, we can be safe in assuming she relishes sending a man in fragile health to prison for 8 months. Not to mention the obvious fact she’s not fit for purpose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Craig should have named them. They are liars. The more people who know who they are the better and sooner Sturgeon and her corrupt cabal are gone.”
I couldn’t disagree more. That would, rightly, have seen him jailed and for a lot longer too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why? Those women were not victims of any crime. Why should they be granted anonymity and then be allowed to continue to try and smear an innocent man through interviews with the BBC or statements issued by Rape Crisis etc long after the trial is over? How can that be right? That innocent man it should be remembered was not given that same anonymity.
LikeLiked by 3 people
sadscot, you make two errors. First, the point is that he could have named them before Dorrian’s order, in which case he could not be punished at all. Second, another Salmond supporter did actually name them in full. He got six months, which is NOT a great deal longer than eight months.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As a woman, as somebody who has now lost all faith in Rape Crisis Scotland sadly whilst working daily with very vulnerable group , Craig’s punishment is terrible.
LikeLiked by 4 people
No, actually as Stuart Campbell has suggested in his latest article – if Craig had named them BEFORE the court case started, he COULD NOT have been jailed for that. Up until the Court case started & the Anonymity gag was put in place by the Court (on SALMOND’S advice, NOT COMPLAINANTS lawyers or SNP!), he was at liberty to name them as often as he wanted to. But he did what seemed the decent thing – he chose not to name them. And JAIL IS HIS REWARD. What cruel irony…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katie and others, I very much agree with sadscot here. There’s a lot of good stuff in Stuart’s article as always but I disagree profoundly with him on this point.
Subsections (2) and (3) of section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 are in these terms:
“(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
“(3)The strict liability rule applies to a publication only if the proceedings in question are active within the meaning of this section at the time of the publication.”
Proceedings are “active” in Scotland from the moment an accused person is charged by police and any publication that creates a “substantial risk” to the course of justice can be judged to be in contempt of court.
Not only am I quite certain that anyone publishing the names of the complainers in sexual offences cases after the accused is charged would be charged with contempt under these provisions, but I actually agree that they should be charged.
As I’ve said below, many genuine complainers in such cases have grave reservations already about coming forward and anyone compromising their necessary anonymity creates an obvious risk that they will not proceed further, and thereby creates an obvious risk to justice.
Please don’t even think of doing it, folks.
LikeLike
Sorry Gordon. You’re right. I put it very badly. By ‘Before the case started’, I actually MEANT before anyone was charged with any crime. And that gave it a very different meaning. AND on re-reading what I wrote above, I mis-quoted Stuart Campbell. What he said was:
“But what they also unavoidably imply is this: that in future, anyone knowing the names of complainers in a sexual-assault case should name them in public at the first available opportunity, loudly and repeatedly.” ‘What they imply’ ALSO gives it a very different meaning.
My apologies for wording it so badly. I was so angry and upset about Craig, I didn’t stop to check again or make sure what I was writing was what I meant. My apologies & yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly about being very careful if & when you mention names…
LikeLike
Thanks, Katie. I really appreciate you posting this, and it’s a perfect example of why the folk who just want to shut down discussion on any difficult topic are wrong. It’s by having genuine exchanges like this in good faith that we sharpen our own thoughts and get new information and also help others to do the same. I’m proud that this happens below the line on this blog so thanks again for being a valued part of that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah but don’t you know if you are speeding you can’t expect to be let off because other’s speed.
I am sure that will work with a gang of bank robbers.
People actually use the first example to argue Craig is not being selectively persecuted! Craig was often quoting other journalists. Wings even asked the Fiscal if he could quote other journalists who were identifying the betties. The reply was along the lines of ‘try, we dare you’.
As Wings pointed out today, Doleman actually names someone! But it is OK he apologised. So this isn’t about the betties but Craig’s attitude. In the slammer for having bad attitude. Welcome to Sturgeon’s gender woo woo Scotland.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Correction. Doleman revealed the name before the court order.
Does anyone think that Craig would have been allowed to reveal all the names before the court order, without being punished? Genuine question? What would they have done?
LikeLike
anandprasad, see my comments above and below.
LikeLike
John, the rationale for anonymity of complainers in sexual abuse cases to continue regardless of the verdict in the case is that complainers will be reluctant to come forward if they fear their identities will be revealed following an acquittal. I support this. I also think that the accused in sexual abuse cases should have anonymity unless and until they are convicted.
The complainers in the Salmond trial have cynically exploited the necessary protection in my opinion, and brought that protection into disrepute, something that current and future complainers in sexual abuse cases should not thank them for.
Also, it was never anticipated, I’m sure, that the protection would extend to enabling some of the most powerful people in Scotland to allege, falsely, that they were touched on the leg over their clothes or had their sides patted down in a nightclub, also over their clothes. It’s easy to see why people such as yourself feel little sympathy for the complainers behind such allegations having anonymity when genuine victims of ,say, common assaults have no such anonymity.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female and commented:
I still don’t know who they are but I do know that the evidence proves that they are liars.
LikeLiked by 11 people
Read Dani Garavelli’s article and it should be utterly obvious who A is. I know the identity of 3 others and you don’t have to use your imagination who they could be. But remember that NS has no idea who they are 🙄
LikeLiked by 11 people
I do know who several are from info derived mainly from the small crowd who waited outside the court house with the melee of press one significant Friday . It was strange how when 2 of my companions of different sex , old friends, hugged each other, having not seen each other for some time, the cry of ‘ sexual assault’ , shouted with irony, was only met with secondary interest by the press and police. Still working that one out
LikeLike
Good grief that is absurd . I followed the court case and read all his blogs and l still don’t know who the women are . How the heck did she come to that conclusion. Surely the mainstream media should have the same sentence? Poor Craig and his family how awful .
LikeLiked by 11 people
ditto
LikeLiked by 2 people
Utterly disgusted and ashamed that a Scottish court has done this. I once believed that Scottish justice was second to none but in retrospect, given the Megrahi fiasco maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Quite. It’s been obvious to me for years that there’s no good faith in the system. I spent the thick end of ten years trying to get them to look at the Lockerbie evidence to recognise where they went wrong, to no avail.
LikeLiked by 9 people
You believed wrongly. Scot’s law is as benign and effective as its judiciary. That would include the COPFS and they seem to behave like a law unto themselves.
The new lady who inherited the robes of the Lord Advocate seems to have slipped into them without any difficulty.
LikeLike
Proof that the Scottish government, the SNP and all the instruments Scottish power are part of the same systems of patronage and sinecure that comprise the allegedly United Kingdom. I met Mr Murray briefly more than six years ago and asked him is was not looking over his shoulder all the time. He told me he did not know when or how, but knew one day they would come for him.
His imprisonment is a betrayal of everything I thought we were fighting for. Shame on those who gain from this or whose sins remain concealed. Shame.
LikeLiked by 9 people
‘Lady Dorrian specifically stated that bloggers and mainstream media should be treated differently, as mainstream media are self-regulated‘
as a simple (very) layman, I do not understand why she considers self-regulation is ok for mainstream press and not for bloggers when in fact mainstream press would not understand self-regulation if it appeared in front of them at breakfast as the whole concept is beyond their ken.
LikeLiked by 11 people
Very good point, grumpydubai. The Mickey Mouse “press regulators” IPSO claim that they will mount special investigations into areas of concern so I intend to write to them asking for such an investigation into this, given Lady Dorrian’s comments about mainstream media being trusted to regulate themselves when in fact at least one mainstream journalist was guilty of something much more egregious than anything Craig did. I’ll try to do a post on it too.
If anyone else wants to write, the relevant provision is this:
“Standards investigations
“IPSO can undertake a standards investigation to investigate where it has serious concerns about the behaviour or actions of one or more of its members. IPSO’s Board makes the decision about whether or not to launch a standards investigation after looking at information gathered by staff on complaints, the whistleblowing hotline and members of the public.
“IPSO may require that a standards investigation takes place where: … there may have been serious and systemic breaches of the Editors’ Code.”
The relevant provision of the Code is Clause 11:
“The press must not identify or publish material likely to lead to the identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. ”
The alphabet women are NOT of course victims of sexual assault but as complainers protected by a court order of infinite duration, the Code applies identically to them as it would to actual victims.
LikeLiked by 7 people
It occurs to me that precisely because us bloggers have to pander to no authority, we are both well capable of regulating precisely what we say more carefully than hacks with a degree in comparing narratives or whatever, as well as potentially dangerous. We can write what we want. If Mr Murray had wanted to name the alphabet ladies, he would have done.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Scotland, the best wee country in the world.
Well no more. If Boris Johnstone was jailing Craig Murray or if Boris Johnstone was imposing the Hate Crime Bill on the Scottish Public we’d be ‘manning the barricades’ BUT it turns out, it’s one of oor ain.
Abject betrayal, I can’t articulate my disgust.
LikeLiked by 10 people
I identified one of the accusers by putting information written by a professional journalist into google. The key news report came up first on the list, perhaps because so many people had already gone there. I now wonder if naming that journo might be viewed as jigsaw identification by myself, in this Catch-22 world.
Having seen that one name showed me why they so needed anonymity.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I’m still astonished, bewildered, in disbelief, over this whole case – some of the things Lady Dorrian said in conclusion don’t reflect that of ‘a reasonable observer’. Now, Craig is really physically going to be put in prison – based on the flimsiest of HYPOTHETICAL perhaps maybe on the off-chance he may one day commit a minor offence – I didn’t really believe it would happen. Its a world, a country – the leadership and institutions, not even the people – gone crazy. Totally and utterly barking mad (apologies to all mad people, but you know, I’m just reflecting when rationality goes awry as strongly as I can).
Lady Dorrian sentenced Craig – actually decided that the situation was grave enough to put his life and livlihood in jeopardy – in a country where sentences under 1 year are meant to be minimised (aye, they all seem to pick and choose which of the vague guidelines the imbecilic government of ours proclaims to want done – destroy woman’s rights?; no problem – prevent an overburden of the prison service? – nah sorry I’ve got a personal vendetta to carry out).
What do we have?
Lady Dorrian decided this was a serious offence based on:
— an entirely hypothetical ‘crime’ that was not proven – a thought crime; Craig is being held accountable for the thoughts and behaviours of other – hypothetical – people.
— an assumed INTENTION to carry out an action that was not proven; not only did the action (naming prohibited individuals) NOT happen – the *intention* to carry it out was nowhere in evidence. Yet our judge judged this must have been the case – eh?
— an assumption that if someone is an individual blogger then they must have committed some crime at some point because they haven’t been institutionalised.
What are the sentencing criteria – the guidance notes – for these fantasy crimes… Oh! It’s a precendent isn’t it – hypothetical jigsaw identification based on subjective imaginary conjecture needs to have people incarcerated in case one day they might commit a crime.
Your law IS an ass, Gordon. We shouldn’t have to rely on ECHR just to have a rational judgement.
Is our new Lord Advocate the wife of Lord Turnbull, one of the other judges on the panel hell bent on unlawfully imprisoning Craig? I’m not sure I have that right – can anyone verify what the insidious incestuous relationship is there? (And/or I don’t have my judges mixed up).
Has the Lord Advocate responded to your letter on Mark Hirst yet Gordon? I’m assuming it’ll be her top priority and be treating it with the utmost urgency.
I’m also angry (while I’m at it) at the SNP for putting us in the awful position of having to bring down – or support the dismantling of – a (so-called) pro independence government. Yeah, she/her as leader is the biggest cause – but anyone STILL in the SNP is supporting that shambles (ironically that includes Craig! But you don’t get put in jail for having no sense) – and the entirety of the party can now take the blame.
And yes, that includes the ‘many good people’ (the road to hell is paved with…). The SNP are destroying Scotland and the independence movement (and have been for a while) – the latter of which I’ve started to think NEVER was the SNP (some of the activists yes, but not the party itself), they claimed to be that (the independence movement) AFTER the grassroots movement appeared and started in earnest, and I believe that came about because people were allowed open and public discussion during the indyref campaign, not because anything the SNP are (they gave us the opportunity before, but didnt bring about the enthusiasm that became evident). The SNP have taken credit for something that wasn’t theirs.
The independence movement itself is never going to go away (if people refuse to get back in the box as the saying goes) – but to bring about the ‘movement’ we need the SNP to go away – we may have to deal with some brief crowing by the unionists, but we aren’t going to suddenly all start voting for them – so we get all the other so-called pop-up parties into position soonest.
LikeLiked by 11 people
Contrary, the new Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain is indeed married to Alan Turnbull, aka Lord Turnbull, who was one of the three judges in Craig’s case.
As a matter of interest, he was also the presiding judge, in 2006, in the Tommy Sheridan defamation trial where, fortunately for Tommy, the case was decided by a jury and not the judge. As a result, I appeared before Lord Turnbull representing Tommy a couple of years ago to seek interest on the damages awarded by the jury, a request which was resoundingly refused by the judge. We appealed to the Inner House, where Lord Turnbull’s decision was, equally resoundingly, overturned by the Lord President Lord Carloway and two other senior judges, and Tommy got his interest — another £170,000 odd.
So sometimes the system does work — you just have to be extraordinarily persistent and stubborn!
LikeLiked by 7 people
I’m so so glad you’re on the Mark Hirst case. Might you have input into Craig Murray’s appeal to European Court of Human Rights.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks ruri. I’m not involved at all on the legal side of Craig’s case but his new QC Roddy Dunlop is top notch — he was actually Andrew Smith’s pupil (or “devil” as it’s called at the Bar for reasons I’ve never cared to ask)!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Do we have staff shortages in our legal system, or is just the same people who keep getting all the high profile cases?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wasn’t this the same Alan Turnbull, whose – er – unusual comments at the civil case where Tommy won his action against the Murdoch Press, resulted in his persecution for “perjury”?
And wasn’t this the same Alan Turnbull who was one of the persecutors at the Camp Zeist anathema?
And didn’t one Alex Prentice lead for the Crown in the “perjury” case?
And wasn’t this the same Prentice that unsuccessfully persecuted Alex Salmond?
And wasn’t the present Crown Agent David Harvie, the alleged MI5 man, who was instrumental in the machinations around the Salmond case, also a ‘special observer’ at Camp Zeist -where also acting as an observer, was Andrew Fulton erstwhile MI6 station chief in Washington DC and then Chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland?
It’s really a good job that I am not one of these mad conspiracy theorists, or I would mistakenly begin so discern some sort of pattern here.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“And wasn’t this the same Prentice that unsuccessfully persecuted Alex Salmond?”
And of course I unaccountably omitted from the above Mr Prentice’s heroic and distinguished action on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty’s impeccably democratic state the sterling persecution of the man himself, Her Majesty’s former ambassador, Craig Murray.
Niether does this contribute to a discernible pattern of behaviour that only a mad conspiracy theorist would detect.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well. Thanks for all the info – on the invidious, incestuous relationships within our legal – similar to our political – system. Is a few bad eggs or is the problem systemic? The system obviously supports bad actors – but is it actually producing them? But yes, David is right, we can’t imply any conspiracy despite all the close connections and seeming singularity of purpose within a small(ish – though far too big for the power wielded) group of people hell-bent, seemingly, on destroying the lives of people with influence to take us forward to independence – because that would be a theory and entirely mad to imply such – but the ‘is it systemic’ is too big a question though, so:
It occurred to me there – I don’t know HOW judges are appointed to cases – is it self-selection, a rota, a board or what, that appoints particular judges to particular cases?
The separation of powers of the Lord Advocate is a necessary step, for sorting our legal system, in the right direction – at a high level – but if we are still left wondering about the political motivations of the individuals in each post, there need to be RULES about how they behave.
Anyhow, forget what I said about Dot Bain treating your letter re Mark Hirst with the utmost urgency Gordon (ok I was being ironic anyway). Not that being married to a …a…a… maniac automatically tars the wife, but you don’t stick in a close relationship unless you a agree with many of the same sentiments. So much for a change of guard in the Lord Advocacy – guess she’ll be taken to court; which will be very very very, very, interesting. The political angle will be mmmm; interesting.
I’m sure there will be political machinations going on right now digging up smears and innuendo of everyone – if it’s true the SNP has spent members’ hard earned cash on private detectives to do such digging, it’s possible some despicable hair-tugging behaviour at school 50 years ago may be revealed to blot characters. Just saying, Gordon, but not implying by any means you have ever done such a thing. No no, never.
I note the SNP troll farm is out in full force on the Craig Murray case – the mild ones I’ve seen are just declaring that he’s guilty and so it goes – this includes Mike Russell, a rather prominent figure in the SNP, who has declared it was a balanced ruling ….!!!? Hahaha! Wow, top trolling. The replies to that tweet were a variety, but nearly all agree that it wasn’t a balanced ruling (from not guilty at all, to the sentence was wholly unreasonable – at no point did anyone agree with ‘balanced’). Still the SNP are getting away with being as slippery as eels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Contrary good post. I agree the problem is the SNP members who continue to support Sturgeon and her crooked gang.
I’m pretty sure that CraigMurray joined Alba so he can no longer be an SNP member.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cubby, Craig Murray has recently said he’s still a member of the SNP, and of course I think any support of the SNP, monetary or adding numbers, is support of a corrupt and swivel-eyed evil regime, and as such everyone doing so can be tarred with the same brush as the SNP…
BUT,
You’ve made me think about it a bit harder, so let’s add some nuance:
You have to wonder at why Craig has been allowed to continue his membership throughout all this time – he’s published a lot of very SNP-critical articles over the past few years, and I often wondered why there was no push-back. Perhaps Craig is no ordinary member?
GrouseBeater – after never having made any critical comment about the SNP, and indeed NOT EVEN BEING A MEMBER, had his membership cancelled (or banned when they realised he wasn’t a member, duh.) – from that we can assume that the SNP are strict about bloggers maybe, or any well-read informative members, or anything seemingly anti-establishment. A minor infraction can see your membership cancelled, if you believe in independence anyway.
Craig, though, well, he has an international, and very large, following – which includes the likes of Chomsky and Pillinger. He also understands how the elites work and how to play the game (the majority of people really have no understanding whatsoever of how this group leads it’s privileged lives, it’s a different world).
I believe the SNP have allowed him, in the past, to retain his membership out of fear for reputational damage – the publicity it would bring (within the elite international setting). When he joined Alba he retained his SNP membership – which is against the rules so is an easy way to cancel his membership and they SHOULD have, but they’ve not done so – and I did wonder why he tweeted about his membership recently – I now realise that he’s PLAYING them – he’s daring them to cancel it, pushing them into that position. And they still haven’t done it!
The SNP have helped put him in jail (there is the wider context at play here, Jonathan Cook’s recent article gives an interesting perspective) – AND he is a member despite breaking a basic rule (you can’t be a member of another party at the same time) – yet his membership is still intact. NOW: as soon as they cancel his membership, it reinforces political persecution and strengthens that argument, if they were to do it.
What a tangled web,,, Craig, I believe, by ensuring that his membership of the SNP is public knowledge (by tweeting it – a slightly odd thing to mention while everything else has been going on) – has just said ‘go on, I dare you’ – because the political ramifications of them doing so – as well as NOT doing so – could be massive.
Haha! Nice one Craig.
He should, by all sense, have already, long before now, been thrown out of the SNP and he hasn’t been for a reason (I’m guessing reputational damage, but who knows). Now, at this stage, he has:
1. openly called out the SNP elite as conspiracists (officially in an affidavit), and
2. has retained membership against its own rules, and
3. has been sentenced to imprisonment that they believe (as much as they believe anything in their fantasy world) to be because he’s guilty, AND
4. he’s an independence-now supporter:
have ALL of those gone to the conduct committee of the SNP & they’ve said ‘och that’s fine’?!
I’m thinking we need to use this, to make this worthwhile – do a wee bit of troll-back – and start asking the question “WHY is Craig still a member?” I wonder if Grouse Beater would do an article (or would that seem like sour grapes? Would he care?). I don’t know if anyone has even asked that most basic question – they are all questioning HIM about why – we should be *asking the *SNP* why* – why haven’t THEY thrown him out?! (And I WOULD like to know why…)
The more fronts they need to fight on, the better. Though I have a preference for flanking manoeuvres.
LikeLike
‘as soon as they cancel his membership, it reinforces political persecution and strengthens that argument, if they were to do it. ‘ This one If I had to put a tenner on it.
There is no way that Murray’s continued membership will have escaped the attention of party bigwigs. The internal party positions like compliance officer and secretary clearly mean nothing. No-one seems to get disciplined unless the cult or the cabal want them disciplined. These two groups do pay attention to some of the little things.
The Salmond complaint’s process collapsing on the cabal and hingers on was the thing that has lifted the veil and the paranoia level and spurred our heroes on to the great heights we are witnessing today.
In my mind I see the British state pulling the plug on this government with a couple of phone calls if it wanted to. I’ll hopefully be less in the dark about the workings of power after the court cases coming up.
LikeLike
I recall him saying he was joining Alba and had even hoped to stand but wasn’t invited to do so. He then criticised Alba after the election and said the reason it didn’t get more votes was because it was anti-trans people!
LikeLike
The new SNP is like old Labour. A few ideologues and herds of braying supporters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Contrary, It is totally bonkers that a person can belong to two political parties but it is now obvious that the SNP don’t even pretend now to have rules and standards as a political party. The Murrells now rule like a Scottish version of the married couple that ruled Romania. Whatever they say is the rule. SNP members are guilty of letting this happen to not just the SNP but the whole of Scotland.
LikeLike
So, by the same token, where’s Dani? Answer: working for Sturgeon. Fascist state indeed.
LikeLiked by 5 people
There are so many questions spring to mind here that I’ve lost count but the main individual whose questionable actions I’m deeply concerned about is Lady Dorrian. Is she answerable/accountable to no one? It would appear so. Her role in so many related matters should surely leave her facing questions about her own conduct and her, to borrow a phrase, “apparent bias” in this case.
She presided over a particular trial. She made various decisions about that trial to block particular evidence being made public. She stopped particular communications being used as evidence at the trial. Immediately after the trial she very publicly joined forces with Rape Crisis Scotland to demand new formats for sexual assault trials. In short, she’s pretty much gone on her own personal crusade following a very particular court case involving a particular individual and then gone after specific individuals in a most vindictive way. I find that quite terrifying. But more terrifying is that she’s getting away with it. Who polices the judges? Given the SC’s refusal to consider Murray’s appeal, we should all be afraid of the answer to that.
LikeLiked by 10 people
Terms in prison seem to be almost mandatory qualifications for genuine leaders of independence movements, worldwide. Wishy-washy-wisharty leaders don’t get to do prison. Highest respects to Craig.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Surely a factual defence in a contempt of court appeal should be that ‘Lady’ Dorian is, in fact, contemptible.
LikeLiked by 4 people
So a judge’s ‘view’ ie, opinion and/or speculation, can now render a person guilty, that is extremely worrying in a so called democracy. With, far as I can see, no solid evidence that C.Murrray ‘actually intended to release identities’, to then be handed a custodial sentence, renders the justice system a sham. Why did the the ‘UK supreme court’ not hear the case I wonder. Why couldn’t the court hand down a fine to Craig rather than a draconian prison sentence given his ill health?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Good to have your blog back again Gordon. Keep fighting the good fight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Craig Murray really has all these friends who are journalists throughout the globe then why can’t one of them, just one, run with the Salmond stitch up and get the details out there for everyone to see? This is the biggest scandal in Scottish politics and then some. Any real journalist should be all over this.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think that if it could in any way be linked to someone in the UK, they would become a victim of legal excesses, or worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, Jonathan Cook has written an excellent article. I’m not sure if I can post a link here. But I’m sure if you Google it, you’ll pick it up. Look for: ‘Craig Murray’s jailing is the latest move in a battle to snuff out independent journalism’
It really does explain a lot of current thinking about Craig’s case.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Katie. I will check that out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No problem, John. It’s long but might help you understand. It’s scary but it’s something we really need to be aware of. When we fit together many of the things going on today, I’d say it’s a credible piece & we’ve a right to worry.
LikeLike
there was a time when a community would show it’s displeasure by ‘shunning’ an individual.
Perhaps we should all turn our backs upon encountering ‘lady’ Dorian in any public space in a non violent ‘taking the knee’ style demonstration of what real contempt is.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I remember reading an interview with a judge, decades ago. Asked if he ever mixed with ordinary people, the judge replied something like ‘one meets a lot of ordinary people at dinner parties and the like’. I doubt you’ll meet the judiciary in a supermarket queue.
LikeLike
The Crown Office giving another £6 million of public money to the ex Chief Exec Charles Green of Rangers for another malicious prosecution. £ 27 million paid out in damages for malicious damage cases.
This is the same Crown Office who failed to prosecute the bin lorry driver who killed and maimed people in Glasgow.
This public body needs to be held to account for the error of its ways.
LikeLike
In the latest WoS posting, there is comment about Craig’s need for mail.
LikeLike