More evidence of the vindictive, unfair, secrecy-obsessed, British State and 'Justice' system, that sets out to incarcerate the principled and protect the corrupt.
Craig Murray’s imprisonment is an exceptionally harsh punishment for a principled man who could have taken a much easier route
is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66
Just 17 months ago, I shared a ‘Free Julian Assange/Imperialism on Trial’ platform with Craig Murray in London. Now Craig, like Julian, is ‘in the nick’. How far-fetched that would have seemed back in February 2020! Then again, hasn’t everything that’s happened since early 2020 been rather far-fetched?
As it turned out, it wasn’t Murray’s defence of Julian Assange which got him into trouble, (or at least not directly), but certain blogs he wrote on the trial of former SNP leader Alex Salmond, who was accused of sexual assault. Murray was of the firm opinion that Salmond’s trial was a political set-up. That he was the victim, like Assange, of a witch-hunt. So naturally, as a follower of Salmond, he wanted to try to do something about it. This resulted in Murray eventually being held in contempt of court over so-called ‘jigsaw identification’. Namely that his posts, while not naming anyone, could lead someone to put together the pieces of the ‘jigsaw’ to identify the accusers in the trial. The irony is that while Salmond was acquitted, it’s Murray who is now going to jail.
Perhaps his blog posts were unwise, even reckless. Ron McKay, a respected commentator and diarist of The Herald, thinks they were one-sided. Perhaps Murray should have been more aware of the risks, particularly knowing how much of a thorn he’s been in the side of the powers-that-be ever since he was removed as UK ambassador to Uzbekistan over his opposition to egregious human rights abuses that the British government – for all its ‘ethical’ grandstanding – didn’t seem at all concerned about.
But while no one denies that contempt of court is a serious offence, even if one were to decide that Murray was guilty as charged (and McKay believes no one would have been able to identify any witnesses from his blog posts), sentencing this 62-year-old with health problems to eight months in prison and separating him physically from his wife and children seems an unusually harsh, and some would say cruel, punishment.
Consider this: Craig Murray is the first person to be imprisoned in Scotland for media contempt for over 70 years. He is the first person to be imprisoned on the charge of ‘jigsaw identification’ in the UK – and, his team claim, the world.
His lawyers have also pointed out that these breaches, if held to have taken place, usually result in a sizeable fine or a suspended sentence. No one apart from Murray was charged with contempt in connection with the Salmond case, even though 81% of people in a poll who believe they had learned the identities, gave the mainstream media – and not Murray’s blog – as their source.
Perhaps the most chilling part of the judgement was the assertion that Murray had to be treated differently because he was a ‘journalist in new media’ as opposed to working in the regulated ‘mainstream’. This puts indie journos at a special risk which their mainstream counterparts would not be subject to.
Of course, the circulating claims that Murray has been targeted because of his political stance on other issues will be dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory’. It would of course be very hard, if not impossible to prove. But what we can say is that his punishment, objectively speaking, is a most severe one. And now the man who probably did more than anyone else in Britain to campaign for the freedom of Julian Assange – arriving at the court first thing in the morning, visiting the WikiLeaks founder in his high-security jail, and doing everything he could to raise awareness of the case and the iniquities of it – is behind bars himself. His blog has finally been silenced.
Looking back, it would have been so easy for Murray to have kept schtum in Tashkent all those years ago – had he done so, he’d probably still be a highly paid diplomat. It would have been so easy for Murray to have ‘gone quiet’ on Julian Assange, knowing what he would be letting himself in for, in terms of attacks and character assassination – to say nothing of being ‘Crossed’, by Philip Cross, on Wikipedia.
It would have been so easy for Murray not to challenge the UK’s neocon foreign policy, particularly in relation to the Middle East, again knowing of the vicious personal attacks that this brings upon one. It would have been so easy too not to question the ‘official’ UK government narrative on the Yulia and Sergei Skripal poisoning mystery. And finally, it would have been so easy for Murray to have blogged about something other than the highly controversial Alex Salmond case.
But Craig has never taken the easy route – if ‘easy’ means turning a blind eye to what he perceives to be an injustice. All along, this bravest of men, who has never played it safe, has done what he believes is right. For that he has paid a very high price indeed, especially given the concerns over what a prison sentence will do to his precarious health. Meanwhile, the men who started the wars he opposed, and who told us lies to ‘sell’ those wars, remain free.
Is that just? I’ll leave you to decide.
Andy Flynn asked a question 
in Campaign to stop Police corruption in the UK.
Still Western governments deny it. So they must all be traitorous conspirators mustn't they? It speaks for itself.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVKGRB3cygg
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete @G Not sure it was quiet as straightforward as that. The Krays had compromising information on literally THOUSANDS of people in all walks of life, including notoriously of course Lord Boothby, very big in Conservative circles in the '50's and 60's. The Krays got too big for their own boots and apart from the extortion and murder had to be effectively 'neutralised' in the nicest possible way not altogether unlike 'Jack the Ripper' a great friend of Jimmy Savile. Too many reputations at stake. The Epstein/Maxwell/York fiasco is either a society cock-up of the first order or a planned Secret Service operation by one or more nations. Just ask who took the photographs and video of the DofY in NY (oh the irony) and why they emerged years after the event? The way the DofY has handled it, surrounded by a posse of PR experts, is so crass as to beg the question, is this mistake or intentional manipulation? Is there a concerted effort from some quarter to fatally damage the Monarchy as an institution? If so, some might say it only has itself (or at least its members) to blame.
ReplyDeleteUsing sex - the more controversial the better - to blackmail influential people is the oldest trick in the book. Sixty years ago I was informed by a London underworld character linked to the Krays, that every person visiting their nightclub was researched immediately after entry, with a view to blackmail if necessary. All the information suggests that the nick-name "Randy Andy" was well earned. Apparently his appetites were well catered for in Buckingham Palace and elsewhere. Perhaps rather than an unconvincing denial, that has had serious adverse consequences on his voracity generally and wider implications for the reputation of the Monarchy itself, if he had admitted to his sexual predilections, particularly with Miss Giuffre, on the basis that she gave her affections freely and he thought she was over 18 at the time, although lacking honour, it at least might have been credible and even forgivable. The widely circulated photograph of him and Miss Giuffre in Ghislaine Maxwell's London House, certainly gives no indication of the trauma now claimed. And the lure of large financial settlements cannot be discounted. As it is, an admission now would open him up to a lost civil case or even a criminal one in the United States, besides proving he was a liar in the first instance. It appears he has been very badly advised and found himself between a rock and a very unroyal hard place. VEATERECOSAN
ReplyDeleteTim Veater
ReplyDelete1 second ago
@Gocatgo That was actually exactly the point I was inadequately trying to make. There is certainly nothing in the photo by way of expression or configuration, to suggest coercion. Of course this is a 'snap-shot' and snap-shots can be deceptive of the wider picture but it seems clear at that particular moment in time, Miss Giuffre appears relaxed and happy. And we should note this was presumably some time after she had been employed by Mr Epstein, so she could not have been unaware of the context. Where it seems to me Andrew has gone seriously wrong - besides that is in character and behaviour - is in choosing a route of denial that is plainly laughable, even in the light of the fairly innocuous photo and other evidence. This has given credence to the obvious charge he has lied, not once but several times, and if established, undermines his claims of innocence to much more serious charges; for who would believe a proven liar? Miss Giuffre now, with the benefit of hindsight, claims the moral high ground of victimhood. Time and regret can change the landscape, particularly if large sums sit on the horizon. However much the famous photo may implicate the Prince, it does not support the contention that Miss Giuffre was anything other than relaxed and happy with the situation she was in at the time. Sex, even if it is alleged, between a 17 year old woman and an older man is not a crime in England unless it is against the will of the female. An identical act in America can be if the age of consent is set at 18. Proving it however is a different matter and often turns on the credibility of those involved. The line chosen by Andrew has weakened rather than strengthened his defence to the more serious charge.
@Jane Farquharson There is also the small matter of her claim that intimate relations took place three times - once in London, once in New York and once in another of Epstein's properties. Does this, besides presumably many other partners, not suggest willing consent or at least acquiescence?
ReplyDeleteI am used to seeing cops in Tesco shopping whilst still on duty. However this evening at about seven I was shocked to see an armed officer on his own, doing the same. Sadly armed police are sometimes required but should they be swanning around a shop like some western sheriff, Glock at the ready? It was both a sad and ugly image of our present state of affairs. Did I detect this officer was advertising his macho, gung-ho status? Yet another sign of the slippery slope this government is determined to take us with or without our consent. This was not in the centre of a violent urban area but remote Cornwall. It was a sobering wake-up call. A cultural shock. Welcome to inhospitable 21st Century.
ReplyDeleteTim Marter • Gulval
As a former firearms policeman I am very surprised at the ignorance of some posters. It is necessary for some officers to be armed and overt carrying of firearms is operationally necessary. I draw your mind to the recent situation in nearby Plymouth!
Police on duty are welcomed in Tesco, and I for one support high profile policing.
I also am against ignorance regarding police activity and methods. It is not always reassuring as covid enforcement has proved. Nor am I unaware that in certain limited and unusual circumstances officers may be required to carry or even use a firearm. As has been said, this is a sad fact and reflection of the society in which we now live. You say you support "high profile policing". It would be helpful to know what precisely you mean by this but I can only assume that it means you think wearing firearms should be standard practice, even where it is not "operationally necessary". This appears to be redefining operationally necessary so liberally as to effectively give carte blanche to the police to do as they please. I beg to take the different view that "operationally necessary" should be defined strictly if it is to have any meaning, ergo walking around a shop filled with men, women and children, when there is no threat or even suggestion of crime, let alone one involving weapons of any sort, is not such a situation and should never be permitted. The Plymouth shooting to which you refer, would certainly qualify as an operational necessity for armed officers to be deployed, even if in practise it had no influence on the outcome, as the attacker apparently shot himself and no bullets were fired by the police. Nor does it support "high profile policing". What it does show if anything, is police negligence in not properly applying existing gun controls properly.
ReplyDeleteJon Symons • Wherrytown
Tim, I doubt you are naive, in which case you must be in denial about the reality of the world we live in.
I agree we live in a dangerous world and that it has always been so. Humans have the propensity to be aggressive and violent, of that there is no doubt. The last hundred years have arguably been the worst in human history for human insecurity and slaughter, resulting from population increase, the clash of political systems and ideologies and the sophistication of weaponry. Our parents and grandparents have experienced the results. However domestically we appear to have entered a new phase of social instability, driven by modern trends, as exemplified by the Plymouth outrage. The issue of course is how as a society we should respond to it.
Tim Veater • Ludgvan
Jon Symons I'm not convinced there are a lack of resources. I think that the thousands of police who miraculously appeared from nowhere to enforce the utterly nonsensical covid rules (and I said it from the beginning) proved that it is not numbers but how they are deployed that matters. As Peter Hitchens has being saying for years, the change in policing philosophy has had a detrimental effect on crime. What is more armed police is not the solution but a sign of its failure.
Tim, you seem to be offering a criticism that Police Officers are sometimes seen shopping whilst on duty. Where else are they expected to get food or drink? I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
ReplyDeleteTim Veater • Ludgvan
There is no criticism of policemen shopping on duty if the need arises, it might even be seen as good public relations. This is about ARMED officers walking around a store. What is the justification for that other than acclimatising the public to a totally different style of British policing that has never been debated in Parliament or elsewhere. As with many recent developments, people seem blind to the subliminal psychological conditioning that is being practised by those in control.
ReplyDeleteNobby Lawson-lee • Hayle
Being a Retired Armed Officer formerly of Devon & Cornwall all I would say is Armed Officers are Specialist… Highly Trained…. Police Officers….. there is an Armed Presence 24/7…. at some point in their shifts they will need to eat…. They are normal people except they put their lives on the line to Protect and Save Lives…. Instead of being Shocked!!!… be thankful these Specialists are around to serve and perhaps speak with them!!.. they are normal…. Perhaps buy them a Coffee and Thank them for their Service…there is no Cafes or Shops especially for Armed Officers!!.. there are no Fridges in their vehicles to keep their packed Lunches cool if they have any!!.. at a moments notice they could be called anywhere within Devon & Cornwall… miles from home or their home Station…. Just be Thankful for Goodness Sake!!….
Tim Veater • Ludgvan
We are now aware that in Cornwall, there are armed officers permanently abroad but what is the justification for demonstrating the fact on a shopping excursion? Why not leave the damn thing locked in the vehicle? Or was this a personal exercise in advertising he had the authority to shoot someone? Did he do it on his own initiative or was he instructed to do it, maybe influenced by the Plymouth incident.?
ReplyDeleteTim Veater • Ludgvan
Mark Jones Is there any indication that the more police armed the safer we are. I would have thought it is quite the opposite. Do we really want to go down that slippery slope and change the basic relationship between the public and police. Check out the use of tasers and their consequences. If guns are carried, even when not justified, the American situation will be Cornwall. Is that what everybody on here WANTS? It is like turkeys voting for Christmas. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
I think we overlook the effect of the criminal injuries board and that there is a financial incentive to the accuser whether it applied in this case or not. Then there is the police corruption in relation to the financial reward scheme. Generally speaking the quality of reporting cases is atrocious and the instance of Craig Murray illustrates individuals report cases at their peril. Contrary to the theory of British 'open justice' the reality is quite the opposite and never more so than the Family Court Division. British courts are the preserve of the Crown and the legal professions and woe betide anyone who attempts to challenge it.
ReplyDelete