Hugh Kerr, a former vice chair of the Scottish Executive Council of the National Union of Journalists, called the verdict and sentence "a real threat to civil liberties"
Huge thanks to journalist Mohamed Elmaazi for all his work on this report. He filed this from the United Kingdom and has followed the political case against Craig Murray closely.
This is another repulsive act against any assemblance of a free press or speech. Of course they had to refuse him to testify in the trial in Spain for support for Julian. I am totally and completely disgusted and disenfranchised.
Another country trying to destroy another free speech hero in this ongoing and coordinated effort to castrate journalism and bring it under the heel of the global empire led by the US.
By definition the judge who presided over Salmond’s trial cannot objectively determine if the information in Murray’s blog could lead to identification of the witnesses, as she is intimately familiar with all the facts of the case.
Excellent journalism. Please continue to cover this and related stories with similar attention to detail. If Mr Murray inspires a new generation of independent thinkers, that would be the very best outcome possible. Beware that you will run into unexpected resistance on this path!
Have you noticed female judges rule against men, Its obscene that the women who falsely accused salmond get off for lying and the man exposing their lies goes to jail
I understand the feeling behind that certainly, but I believe that if you think about how that would play out in practice you would see how incredibly unfair and dangerous such a policy would be. Just because someone hasn't been convicted doesn't mean witnesses were lying or not acting in good faith. For example, in England where we have an atrocious conviction rate (and even prosecution rate) in relation to rape, such a policy would result in 95%+ of all female alleged rape victims being prosecuted or fined. It would be an incredibly severe deterrent to people ever coming out with any claim of wrongdoing. Not to mention the fact that prosecutions and trials are the state's responsibility, their failings shouldn't be hung around the neck of witnesses. Unless someone can be shown to have lied under oath, fabricated testimony or other evidence, shifting the state's sights towards a complainer or witness would have a blatantly deleterious effect on the administration of justice.
Indeed. But the defence case, which was never reported by any MSM, nor mentioned in any BBC documentary, proved that in many cases the women were lying, ie. it was proved one woman was not even in Bute House when the alleged incident took place. Defence witnesses clearly proved many of the allegations & accusations made were false & complainers did not present witnesses or evidence to the contrary. Neither did they appeal the verdict.
While I understand your concern for real 'victims', I also understand that in this case, where it was proven the women lied, the complainers should have no right to eternal anonymity. These complainers are using this anonymity whenever it suits them, to continuously drag up the case & infer that Salmond was guilty. Salmond had his day in court & was found innocent by a jury of his peers. This constant harping back to elicit new, unknowing people, to 'their side' who will in their turn continue to spread the vile accusations, is surely having a deleterious effect on the true victim in this case, Alex Salmond. This continuous harrassment of an innocent man should NOT be allowed to continue.
Let's seek clarity not emotion. Based alone on the article, to conflate the factual and legal merits and analyses of Assange's and Murray's cases would be to do a great damage to Assange whom I wholly support. The former, unfortunately, sought to remove the security protections of the witnesses lawfully given by the court (whether they deserved protection or not is not to the point and entirely a separate matter). Whereas Assange sought to expose the unlawful and murderous acts of employees or agents of government politicians, which acts but for Assange's admirable fearlessness and courage, would have been covered up and gone totally unnoticed by the world. That the murderers and their complicit political masters could with impunity commit such acts intentionally and then go on to invoke laws to punish Assange for exposing them and deter other Assanges in future from exposing similar murders is positively diabolical if not evil. No civilised self-respecting court, in good faith, could say that it was the intention of the Parliament for such laws to be used in such unconscionable fashion or have such immoral consequences.
Hey, Li, where in the report does Mohamed conflate the two cases? Please cite specific paragraphs. Because I was under the impression that this was a news report on a development in Murray's case and not an article that directly compared Assange's case to Murray's case. Maybe you're projecting and would like us all to believe that was the purpose of this article so we can go off on a diversion and stray from the political case at hand.
In what way did Murray remove the protection of the witnesses? Could you identify them?
The bar set by the judges was if you say something, combined with everything else in the public domain, plus the private knowledge of a close associate of a protected witness then you may have allowed jigsaw identification.
Huge thanks to journalist Mohamed Elmaazi for all his work on this report. He filed this from the United Kingdom and has followed the political case against Craig Murray closely.
Thanks Kevin, you were the one who commissioned this piece and I was happy to oblige. Even if I was actually shocked at the severity of the sentence.
This is another repulsive act against any assemblance of a free press or speech. Of course they had to refuse him to testify in the trial in Spain for support for Julian. I am totally and completely disgusted and disenfranchised.
Another country trying to destroy another free speech hero in this ongoing and coordinated effort to castrate journalism and bring it under the heel of the global empire led by the US.
By definition the judge who presided over Salmond’s trial cannot objectively determine if the information in Murray’s blog could lead to identification of the witnesses, as she is intimately familiar with all the facts of the case.
Thank you for your work Kevin...We stand with Craig Murray... I have had enough of this corrupt system with zero integrity or honour...
Excellent journalism. Please continue to cover this and related stories with similar attention to detail. If Mr Murray inspires a new generation of independent thinkers, that would be the very best outcome possible. Beware that you will run into unexpected resistance on this path!
So sorry to read this Craig. My thoughts are with you and your family.
Have you noticed female judges rule against men, Its obscene that the women who falsely accused salmond get off for lying and the man exposing their lies goes to jail
Bit like Julian Assange
To be fair, there were two other senior judges there, both men. And male judges rule against men (and women) on a regular basis.
Yes, I don't think the issue here has anything to do with gender. The issue is what you laid out quite clearly in the report.
the very fact that the accusers have not been charged speaks volumes on the problem at the heart of our legal system.
We are in shock and we will share this information. Lets donate generously for Mr Murray 's appeal.
Travesty of justice
If someone accuses another person of any wrong doing and that person is acquitted then the accuser should be exposed and fined.
I understand the feeling behind that certainly, but I believe that if you think about how that would play out in practice you would see how incredibly unfair and dangerous such a policy would be. Just because someone hasn't been convicted doesn't mean witnesses were lying or not acting in good faith. For example, in England where we have an atrocious conviction rate (and even prosecution rate) in relation to rape, such a policy would result in 95%+ of all female alleged rape victims being prosecuted or fined. It would be an incredibly severe deterrent to people ever coming out with any claim of wrongdoing. Not to mention the fact that prosecutions and trials are the state's responsibility, their failings shouldn't be hung around the neck of witnesses. Unless someone can be shown to have lied under oath, fabricated testimony or other evidence, shifting the state's sights towards a complainer or witness would have a blatantly deleterious effect on the administration of justice.
Indeed. But the defence case, which was never reported by any MSM, nor mentioned in any BBC documentary, proved that in many cases the women were lying, ie. it was proved one woman was not even in Bute House when the alleged incident took place. Defence witnesses clearly proved many of the allegations & accusations made were false & complainers did not present witnesses or evidence to the contrary. Neither did they appeal the verdict.
While I understand your concern for real 'victims', I also understand that in this case, where it was proven the women lied, the complainers should have no right to eternal anonymity. These complainers are using this anonymity whenever it suits them, to continuously drag up the case & infer that Salmond was guilty. Salmond had his day in court & was found innocent by a jury of his peers. This constant harping back to elicit new, unknowing people, to 'their side' who will in their turn continue to spread the vile accusations, is surely having a deleterious effect on the true victim in this case, Alex Salmond. This continuous harrassment of an innocent man should NOT be allowed to continue.
Exposed, definitely. Fined or worse if perjury.
Let's seek clarity not emotion. Based alone on the article, to conflate the factual and legal merits and analyses of Assange's and Murray's cases would be to do a great damage to Assange whom I wholly support. The former, unfortunately, sought to remove the security protections of the witnesses lawfully given by the court (whether they deserved protection or not is not to the point and entirely a separate matter). Whereas Assange sought to expose the unlawful and murderous acts of employees or agents of government politicians, which acts but for Assange's admirable fearlessness and courage, would have been covered up and gone totally unnoticed by the world. That the murderers and their complicit political masters could with impunity commit such acts intentionally and then go on to invoke laws to punish Assange for exposing them and deter other Assanges in future from exposing similar murders is positively diabolical if not evil. No civilised self-respecting court, in good faith, could say that it was the intention of the Parliament for such laws to be used in such unconscionable fashion or have such immoral consequences.
Hey, Li, where in the report does Mohamed conflate the two cases? Please cite specific paragraphs. Because I was under the impression that this was a news report on a development in Murray's case and not an article that directly compared Assange's case to Murray's case. Maybe you're projecting and would like us all to believe that was the purpose of this article so we can go off on a diversion and stray from the political case at hand.
In what way did Murray remove the protection of the witnesses? Could you identify them?
The bar set by the judges was if you say something, combined with everything else in the public domain, plus the private knowledge of a close associate of a protected witness then you may have allowed jigsaw identification.
That's crazy.