19 ms·

Craig Murray will surrender himself for prison

325 points by jjgreen 5y ago

ameminator 5y ago
Craig Murray is a gem! I knew him for his reporting on the Assange trial [0]. The fact that they convicted him is absolute lunacy. I happen to agree with his interpretation of the conviction, because I don't see how anyone could reasonably convict him. Godspeed Mr. Murray. [0] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-...
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Calling him is a gem is a bit odd given his intellectual gymnastics about the Skripal poisoning (he said they could've been a gay couple and honestly expects people to either believe him or at least not think he's taking the piss).
  - ameminator 5y ago
    I did not know about that! You've given me something to look into.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    He stridently accused Bellingcat of photoshopping a picture which showed one of the assassins on a wall of honour at a Russian military base (under his real name). Bellingcat subsequently released several more photos from different angles, IIRC some of which were still online. Crickets from Murray...
    - ChrisKnott 5y ago
      If anyone is interested, I found the relevant posts - Murray calling the photo released by Bellingcat ”a very obvious fake" [0], and a Russian website, still online, to which Bellingcat timed travelled and retroactively uploaded the same Photoshop from another angle [1] [0] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/bellingcats-very-obviously-fake-chepiga-photo/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/bellingcats-... [1] https://www.glory-gallery.ru/news/ekskursiya-v-dvoku https://www.glory-gallery.ru/news/ekskursiya-v-dvoku
      - pacifist 5y ago
        Bellingcat? Really? You know they're a cutout for the western spy agencies and can't be trusted ever. They get debunked on the regular. The guy that supposedly runs it says he got his training playing video games!
        CRConrad 5y ago
        I noticed and admired how thoroughly you addressed the actual content of the GP comment you replied to, in stead of just going ad hominem.
        pacifist 5y ago
        He is citing Bellingcat - an outfit that has been thoroughly discredited and who's only use is as a cutout for spy agencies to spread their lies. Not ad hominem. Just facts. Here is the definition in case you were wondering: ad hominem: adj. Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument. adj. Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason. n. To the man; to the interests or passions of the person.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Thank you so much for that. Can I supply you with some definitions of commonly used terms that I unilaterally decide you don't know, or would you feel that was condescending?
        pacifist 5y ago
        Oh, you were condescending from the start. So yeah, no need. don't expect another reply. It's been a real joy interacting with you.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        No, I was being sarcastic. Look it up in your dictionary. (No need to post what you find.)
  - zarzavat 5y ago
    He's a conspiracy theorist sure but the rest of the UK media is in bed with the government, perhaps more concerned about maintaining their connections so they can keep cranking out stories. You take what you can get. His reporting on the Assange trial has been fantastic. Considering this trial is one of the most important in recent times, the lack of reporting from the conventional media has been very telling about the actual independence of media in uk.
    - iratewizard 5y ago
      I think the phrase conspiracy theorist needs to be put to rest. Maybe something like "he believes some wild conspiracy theories like X" would be more meaningful. One would have to be pretty ill informed to not be able to list off a dozen recent events where world governments conspired against the public for profit or power.
AllegedAlec 5y ago
Absolutely disgusting. Murray did nothing wrong.
gadders 5y ago
Craig Murray has some strange theories, and is pretty far from me politically, but him being sent to jail for this ridiculous allegation re: "identifying" "victims" of Alex Salmond is appalling. It just shows how corrupt Scottish politics and the SNP is.
mxmilkiib 5y ago
https://www.dounetherabbithole.co.uk https://www.dounetherabbithole.co.uk for the festival they and their kid Jamie have been involved with, looking forward to that next year
- mxmilkiib 5y ago
  Ah, for the days of /., when you would know why you were being downvoted (or upvoted), because there was a drop-down menu to choose from (plus meta-moderation).
jackweirdy 5y ago
The March 25 judgement referred to is here: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf?sfvrsn=4c39efdd_0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
mandmandam 5y ago
This isn't just brazenly corrupt retribution; it's also brazen witness tampering.
matthewmacleod 5y ago
I've often been surprised to see enthusiastic admiration for Craig Murray in this forum in particular. He's an outright raving conspiracy theorist, in this case painfully obviously sneaking out information about witnesses in a rape trial in part because of his belief that the trial was part of a massive state conspiracy. His commentary on the Assange trial was so overwhelmingly and obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful objective information, so it was very strange to see him so heavily promoted. It just seems like it would be possible you might object to the treatment of Assange—or be concerned about the trial's effect on free speech—without weirdly uncritical promotion of such an unreliable and unsympathetic narrator. At least it would be wise to treat anything he says with extreme skepticism.
- gadders 5y ago
  >> sneaking out information about witnesses in a rape trial Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information than was in newspapers? And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there is decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though the SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy.
  - matthewmacleod 5y ago
    > Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information than was in newspapers? Yes. Feel free to read the court's judgment for more information. > And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there is decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though the SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy. I think it's safe to say that this statement demonstrates you are not interested in any good-faith discussion on this matter.
  - seanhunter 5y ago
    This case literally is the citation. He was found to have done this, which is why he will go to jail.
    - gadders 5y ago
      Yes, no miscarriages of justice have ever happened anywhere, and the judiciary is infallible.
imwillofficial 5y ago
An absolute travesty. Justice is not served by this. The open corruption in the west is getting to banana republic levels.
- cmurf 5y ago
  Well past it. The bribe is "be a normal everyday docile consumer who minds your own business". This is relatively easy and affordable for most folks
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
r721 5y ago
The Scotsman story: https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/craig-murray-to-begin-jail-sentence-after-appeal-fails-3328454 https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/craig-murray-to-begin-ja...
tyingq 5y ago
Is there a UK equivalent of a "Presidential Pardon"? Seems like the only remaining way for some future PM to try and fix this.
- pydry 5y ago
  About as likely as Navalny getting a presidential pardon.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- manquer 5y ago
  Royal pardon or more formally "Royal prerogative of mercy" exists in the U.K. Formally it is power of the crown, however in practice it is delegated to Lord Chancellor in England. Scotland has a different structure for this AFAIK. Craig Murray is a former ambassador and supports Scottish independence so it would be lot more complicated even if the government wanted to do something about it. Also it is only 8 month sentence, so it won't make any practical difference if some future government post-facto does pardon him. Side note: U.S. tooks its legal system largely from England and made modifications as they thought fit, presidential pardons were specifically designed to mirror the royal pardon without the monarchy part of it.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    >Also it is only 8 month sentence, so it won't make any practical difference if some future government post-facto does pardon him. I imagine it would make some difference for his legacy, to his family, etc.
    - manquer 5y ago
      I meant as practically not much scope for any relief on the sentence term itself.
metalliqaz 5y ago
Quoted from the article: “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 [details] in the public domain.” This sounds really bad, until you see that the court did point to specific blog posts. His position apparently hinges on the fact that specific phrases were not picked out from a handful of blog posts. It seems to me that the relevant facts that were revealed could be enumerated quite easily from that list of blog posts. Victims are protected for a reason. This guy seems like a bit of a bastard.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  Do you have some examples to share? My first thought reading this was, similar to what you say, "this sounds really bad," and my inclination here is to side with Craig Murray. At the same time, the article linked by OP doesn't point to any sort of court ruling or proceedings where the reader might be able to check against the claims being made that the trial was, indeed, Kafkaesque. This obviously raises some suspicions.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    I guess we're unlikely to see the forbidden phrases Murray dared to utter, since after all they're forbidden and few HN commentators want to go to prison.
    - p_j_w 5y ago
      This is handwaving snark and dismissiveness. It's not a very helpful reply. Indeed, another posted linked to the actual court ruling, which does indeed point to the offending articles. It makes the claims of a Kafkaesque trial sound dramatically overblown.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        So... the court claims for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray? I'm sure I'll never understand this.
gorgoiler 5y ago
In what way did he identify the Salmond trial complainants?
- croes 5y ago
  He didn't, but the judge said he made jigsaw identification possible.
  - gorgoiler 5y ago
    I guess a better question would have been what did he write?
basisword 5y ago
I knew nothing of this case until today but it seems like he breached an injunction against reporting the identity of complainants or information that could lead to their identification. From the little bit of reading I’ve done it seems pretty like an open and shut case (and I actually went into my reading expecting my be on Murray’s side). Can anybody explain why there is an injustice here? Almost every comment I see here in his favour gives no reason why this is unjust.
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  He claims to have revealed too little information in his reporting for it to be possible to identify the complainants. The court disagrees. Really I just see his word against theirs. I'd like to see some more specific details so I could form my own view, or at least hear the view of a disinterested third party that's seen the relevant posts.
  - pydry 5y ago
    If they provided specific details that would all but require identifying the suspects.
  - shellac 5y ago
    I did read some of the (now offending) posts. He didn't name anyone, but at the time I thought he provided more than enough information to identify one one of the complainants. Although I'm not au fait with the SNP there were details about situations, people, and roles that seemed more than specific enough for people to work out. I don't think it was deliberate, and he is probably ignorant about how easy it can be to de-anonymise people. However he should have been more sensitive to these issues.
    - manquer 5y ago
      Perhaps so, however selective exercising of media contempt laws when it is not clear cut case ( i.e. naming some one directly) is suspicious and looks a lot like overreach . The timing (he cannot now testify in the Spanish case on spying on Wikileaks) and quantum of sentence combined with supreme court refusing to hear his appeal all does not indicate the system had the best interests for protecting the witness but more like they wanted to silence him/ media and send a message .
dangerface 5y ago
This is nuts arrested for reporting on the justice system, thats a pretty fucked justice system.
briantakita 5y ago
See something say nothing...if you know what's good for you The whistleblowers are punished while the criminals committing the crimes are regarded as heroes. The consequence is that it's rational to assume that these agencies are not trustworthy nor do they work for the public.
baq 5y ago
lesson to whistleblowers of all kinds and agendas: if you want to keep blowing the whistle, do everything you can to stay undercover. live to fight another day.
wazoox 5y ago
He didn't give any name. The people that are supposedly "exposed" apparently are all fake witnesses, anyway, as Alex Salmond was cleared in court. This is really disgusting.
- rozab 5y ago
  Those witnesses were absolutely not found to be lying. It's just that Salmond was not found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
thereddaikon 5y ago
Title is misleading. He wasn't jailed for whistleblowing. He was jailed for apparently revealing identities of victims. Not sure about the specifics, I haven't been following the case and I'm not familiar with it. Sounds like its pretty contentious. All I know is many places including the UK have a far more restricted concept of freedom of speech than the US does. So its probably a lot easier for them to jail journalists over what they publish
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- croes 5y ago
  He was acquitted, so either they were misjudgements or the victims were just accusers.
  - thereddaikon 5y ago
    Good point.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  What part of the title is misleading exactly? The title doesn't say he is going to jail because whistleblowing is illegal. But he is indeed going to jail for things about how his whistle blowing was done. I think it's misleading to call the OP's title misleading
  - thereddaikon 5y ago
    The title implies he was jailed for being a whistleblower. If you read it without having any prior knowledge of who this guy is or why he was being prosecuted that's how it sounds.
    - billytetrud 5y ago
      It seems pretty clear that he is being jailed for being a whistleblowers. The case brought against him seems incredibly flimsy. Its retaliation, plain and simple.
srtjstjsj 5y ago
> He described how the judges found Murray guilty of “jigsaw identification,” which refers to the “possibility that a person may piece together information from various sources to arrive at the identification of a protected witness.” Why isn't every advertising/marketing data broker in jail for "jigsaw identification"?
- dahfizz 5y ago
  I'm pretty confident that advertisers would not keep an `is_protected_witness` flag in their profiles.
- cstross 5y ago
  In Scottish law -- and in English/Welsh law in parallel (the legal systems are different) -- there is no absolute right of free speech, like the US first amendment. Consequently, exposing the identity of witnesses (and in some cases the accused and the victim) in a criminal trial is itself a criminal offense. Note the important bit here is in a criminal trial. Murray is going to prison because he was found guilty of actions which threatened to cause a mistrial in a criminal case, not because he was deanonymizing advertising/marketing data.
  - makomk 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure journalists have actually, non-hypothetically caused mistrials in criminal cases through their reporting in the UK and not been jailed for it. In fact as far as I can tell none of the journalists who did this in the UK have been jailed, at least not in the last few decades.
    - lazide 5y ago
      There is a reason why the 1st amendment is the 1st of the amendments - this has happened for a long time not just in England but elsewhere. It's VERY convenient for those in power to selectively apply laws like this, and overall bad for society. But like most cases, as long as it isn't too blatant, it doesn't rise to the level of common outrage. It got bad enough in the past to make the top of the stack of 'stuff to fix in v2' here. The constitution though is just words on paper if people don't follow it day to day, and you can see examples of steady erosion from it (gag orders, national security orders, etc.)
aimor 5y ago
Are these the articles in question? https://web.archive.org/web/20200425044010/https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200425044010/https://www.craig... https://web.archive.org/web/20200426041821/https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200426041821/https://www.craig...
- gorak 5y ago
  Drawing people's attention to where jigsaw identification can be done can itself be construed as jigsaw identification.
alisonkisk 5y ago
What whistle did he blow?
- ttctciyf 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzbekistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb...
billytetrud 5y ago
And people wonder why Snowden didn't turn himself in
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > And people wonder why Snowden didn't turn himself in Because he literally confessed to breaking a number of very serious laws? Literally his only hopes of escaping a conviction are 1) a prosecutor refusing to charge him (snowball's chance in hell), 2) a pardon, 3) some kind jury nullification. Whatever you think about the morality of his actions, what he did was indisputably illegal. "I thought I was doing the right thing, and many people agree," is not an actual legal defense. And honestly, I think if Snowden had turned himself in, it would have made him more admirable and brave, and place his actions clearly in the "civil disobedience" category.
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    What Snowden did was herioc and needed to happen. The fact that he had to break awful oppressive laws to do it is an indictment of the laws, not Snowden.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > What Snowden did was herioc and needed to happen. The fact that he had to break awful oppressive laws to do it is an indictment of the laws, not Snowden. The laws he broke weren't awful and oppressive, it's just that "legal" and "moral" are categories that will never completely align.
    - andrewaylett 5y ago
      In a democracy, any laws preventing release of government secrets really should come with a public interest defence.
      - billytetrud 5y ago
        Yes they should. Most government secrets aren't in the people's best interest.
Tycho 5y ago
Is there some succinct explanation for why Murray's reporting facilitated 'jigsaw identification' while other reports did not? I don't want a link to a 50 page court ruling, I want someone to explain it in a couple of sentences. Something like: Murray did not name Victim X but he specified the occupation of their spouse, the department they worked in, and their level of seniority. Given this information, a simple query of public records would be sufficient to identify this individual.
- bolangi 5y ago
  > Is there some succinct explanation for why Murray's reporting facilitated 'jigsaw identification' while other reports did not? That is the point: other media reports gave more information about the accusers than Murray's reporting.
thiagoharry 5y ago
Just a coincidence that another whistleblower is having problems with the law and being persecuted. There is a term for when laws are weaponised to be used against enemies: 'lawfare'. This is becaming too common in the world.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
trhway 5y ago
>"jigsaw identification" as performed by who? By Sherlock Holmes? or by a regular Shmoe lacking any logic skills and thus believing every bit of propaganda coming through TV and Internet.
coldtea 5y ago
It's like when someone gets in the eye of local cops, and they will "make their life difficult", come at them with trumped-up charges, etc.... States and their organizations work the same way, and prosecutors and judges friendly to their cause (and furthering their career) after a friendly chat with some official, are a dime a dozen. Add some diplomatic pressure (or offer) from a bigger power, and third countries are just as accomondating. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_... And good luck proving any of that collision (proof which the politically naive will demand, because they think no such thing can happen in the best of all possible worlds...)
8note 5y ago
Comment on the title: I've got no idea who this is or why it's interesting
gorak 5y ago
Craig's "Yes Minister" article used pseudonyms and a comic style to lay out his opinion that the accusations against Salmond were false and the result of a politically motivated conspiracy using the anonymity convention to protect the conspirators from facing repercussion. Although this accusation seems to have sufficient merit, given the verdicts, to justify further investigation it does not take away from the fact the the Yes Minister article can easily be used to deduce the identities of two of the accusers. It was not this article but a mainstream one by Dani Garavelli that allowed me to jigsaw identify one of the accusers and the fact that her article remains visible and Garavelli has faced no similar consequences does speak volumes about the selectivity used. However Garavelli's article required one Google search to cross check names from a different source, Murray's Yes Minister article allows for immediate identification from common knowledge (if you follow Scottish Politics). Craig's article was published before the anonymity order was issued and he should have taken it down when that order was made and certainly shouldn't have directed attention to the fact this article could be used for jigsaw identification. Although his courthouse reporting of what the defence said is invaluable and though the conspiracy he points to merits further investigation, be was an idiot to publish the Yes Minister article and acted with foolish hubris not to take it down sooner.
rrgmitchell 5y ago
If anyone wants to learn more about Murray and his ideas (and incidentally support him and his family), he has written a number of books: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Zionism-Bullshit-Interviews-Collected-Political/dp/1548026379/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=craig+murray&qid=1627754370&sr=8-3 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Zionism-Bullshit-Interviews-Collect... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Samarkand-Mr-Craig-Murray/dp/1975977920/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=craig+murray&qid=1627754558&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Samarkand-Mr-Craig-Murray/dp... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Catholic-Orangemen-Togo-Craig-Murray-ebook/dp/B071G5NZ22/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=craig+murray&qid=1627754558&sr=8-4 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Catholic-Orangemen-Togo-Craig-Murra... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sikunder-Burnes-Master-Great-Game/dp/1780273177/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=craig+murray&qid=1627754558&sr=8-5 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sikunder-Burnes-Master-Great-Game/d...

325 points by jjgreen 5y ago

Craig Murray is a gem! I knew him for his reporting on the Assange trial [0]. The fact that they convicted him is absolute lunacy. I happen to agree with his interpretation of the conviction, because I don't see how anyone could reasonably convict him. Godspeed Mr. Murray. [0] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-...

mhh__ 5y ago
Calling him is a gem is a bit odd given his intellectual gymnastics about the Skripal poisoning (he said they could've been a gay couple and honestly expects people to either believe him or at least not think he's taking the piss).
- ameminator 5y ago
  I did not know about that! You've given me something to look into.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  He stridently accused Bellingcat of photoshopping a picture which showed one of the assassins on a wall of honour at a Russian military base (under his real name). Bellingcat subsequently released several more photos from different angles, IIRC some of which were still online. Crickets from Murray...
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    If anyone is interested, I found the relevant posts - Murray calling the photo released by Bellingcat ”a very obvious fake" [0], and a Russian website, still online, to which Bellingcat timed travelled and retroactively uploaded the same Photoshop from another angle [1] [0] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/bellingcats-very-obviously-fake-chepiga-photo/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/10/bellingcats-... [1] https://www.glory-gallery.ru/news/ekskursiya-v-dvoku https://www.glory-gallery.ru/news/ekskursiya-v-dvoku
    - pacifist 5y ago
      Bellingcat? Really? You know they're a cutout for the western spy agencies and can't be trusted ever. They get debunked on the regular. The guy that supposedly runs it says he got his training playing video games!
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        I noticed and admired how thoroughly you addressed the actual content of the GP comment you replied to, in stead of just going ad hominem.
        pacifist 5y ago
        He is citing Bellingcat - an outfit that has been thoroughly discredited and who's only use is as a cutout for spy agencies to spread their lies. Not ad hominem. Just facts. Here is the definition in case you were wondering: ad hominem: adj. Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument. adj. Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason. n. To the man; to the interests or passions of the person.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Thank you so much for that. Can I supply you with some definitions of commonly used terms that I unilaterally decide you don't know, or would you feel that was condescending?
        pacifist 5y ago
        Oh, you were condescending from the start. So yeah, no need. don't expect another reply. It's been a real joy interacting with you.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        No, I was being sarcastic. Look it up in your dictionary. (No need to post what you find.)
- zarzavat 5y ago
  He's a conspiracy theorist sure but the rest of the UK media is in bed with the government, perhaps more concerned about maintaining their connections so they can keep cranking out stories. You take what you can get. His reporting on the Assange trial has been fantastic. Considering this trial is one of the most important in recent times, the lack of reporting from the conventional media has been very telling about the actual independence of media in uk.
  - iratewizard 5y ago
    I think the phrase conspiracy theorist needs to be put to rest. Maybe something like "he believes some wild conspiracy theories like X" would be more meaningful. One would have to be pretty ill informed to not be able to list off a dozen recent events where world governments conspired against the public for profit or power.

AllegedAlec 5y ago

Absolutely disgusting. Murray did nothing wrong.

gadders 5y ago

Craig Murray has some strange theories, and is pretty far from me politically, but him being sent to jail for this ridiculous allegation re: "identifying" "victims" of Alex Salmond is appalling. It just shows how corrupt Scottish politics and the SNP is.

mxmilkiib 5y ago

https://www.dounetherabbithole.co.uk https://www.dounetherabbithole.co.uk for the festival they and their kid Jamie have been involved with, looking forward to that next year

mxmilkiib 5y ago
Ah, for the days of /., when you would know why you were being downvoted (or upvoted), because there was a drop-down menu to choose from (plus meta-moderation).

jackweirdy 5y ago

The March 25 judgement referred to is here: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf?sfvrsn=4c39efdd_0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...

mandmandam 5y ago

This isn't just brazenly corrupt retribution; it's also brazen witness tampering.

matthewmacleod 5y ago

I've often been surprised to see enthusiastic admiration for Craig Murray in this forum in particular. He's an outright raving conspiracy theorist, in this case painfully obviously sneaking out information about witnesses in a rape trial in part because of his belief that the trial was part of a massive state conspiracy. His commentary on the Assange trial was so overwhelmingly and obviously biased that it was impossible to derive any useful objective information, so it was very strange to see him so heavily promoted. It just seems like it would be possible you might object to the treatment of Assange—or be concerned about the trial's effect on free speech—without weirdly uncritical promotion of such an unreliable and unsympathetic narrator. At least it would be wise to treat anything he says with extreme skepticism.

gadders 5y ago
>> sneaking out information about witnesses in a rape trial Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information than was in newspapers? And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there is decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though the SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy.
- matthewmacleod 5y ago
  > Citation needed. Did he "sneak" out any more information than was in newspapers? Yes. Feel free to read the court's judgment for more information. > And given how Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament etc, there is decent evidence it was an SNP (not the state even though the SNP thinks they are the state) conspiracy. I think it's safe to say that this statement demonstrates you are not interested in any good-faith discussion on this matter.
- seanhunter 5y ago
  This case literally is the citation. He was found to have done this, which is why he will go to jail.
  - gadders 5y ago
    Yes, no miscarriages of justice have ever happened anywhere, and the judiciary is infallible.

imwillofficial 5y ago

An absolute travesty. Justice is not served by this. The open corruption in the west is getting to banana republic levels.

cmurf 5y ago
Well past it. The bribe is "be a normal everyday docile consumer who minds your own business". This is relatively easy and affordable for most folks

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

r721 5y ago

The Scotsman story: https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/craig-murray-to-begin-jail-sentence-after-appeal-fails-3328454 https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/craig-murray-to-begin-ja...

tyingq 5y ago

Is there a UK equivalent of a "Presidential Pardon"? Seems like the only remaining way for some future PM to try and fix this.

pydry 5y ago
About as likely as Navalny getting a presidential pardon.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
manquer 5y ago
Royal pardon or more formally "Royal prerogative of mercy" exists in the U.K. Formally it is power of the crown, however in practice it is delegated to Lord Chancellor in England. Scotland has a different structure for this AFAIK. Craig Murray is a former ambassador and supports Scottish independence so it would be lot more complicated even if the government wanted to do something about it. Also it is only 8 month sentence, so it won't make any practical difference if some future government post-facto does pardon him. Side note: U.S. tooks its legal system largely from England and made modifications as they thought fit, presidential pardons were specifically designed to mirror the royal pardon without the monarchy part of it.
- tyingq 5y ago
  >Also it is only 8 month sentence, so it won't make any practical difference if some future government post-facto does pardon him. I imagine it would make some difference for his legacy, to his family, etc.
  - manquer 5y ago
    I meant as practically not much scope for any relief on the sentence term itself.

metalliqaz 5y ago

Quoted from the article: “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 [details] in the public domain.” This sounds really bad, until you see that the court did point to specific blog posts. His position apparently hinges on the fact that specific phrases were not picked out from a handful of blog posts. It seems to me that the relevant facts that were revealed could be enumerated quite easily from that list of blog posts. Victims are protected for a reason. This guy seems like a bit of a bastard.

p_j_w 5y ago
Do you have some examples to share? My first thought reading this was, similar to what you say, "this sounds really bad," and my inclination here is to side with Craig Murray. At the same time, the article linked by OP doesn't point to any sort of court ruling or proceedings where the reader might be able to check against the claims being made that the trial was, indeed, Kafkaesque. This obviously raises some suspicions.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  I guess we're unlikely to see the forbidden phrases Murray dared to utter, since after all they're forbidden and few HN commentators want to go to prison.
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    This is handwaving snark and dismissiveness. It's not a very helpful reply. Indeed, another posted linked to the actual court ruling, which does indeed point to the offending articles. It makes the claims of a Kafkaesque trial sound dramatically overblown.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      So... the court claims for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray? I'm sure I'll never understand this.

gorgoiler 5y ago

In what way did he identify the Salmond trial complainants?

croes 5y ago
He didn't, but the judge said he made jigsaw identification possible.
- gorgoiler 5y ago
  I guess a better question would have been what did he write?

basisword 5y ago

I knew nothing of this case until today but it seems like he breached an injunction against reporting the identity of complainants or information that could lead to their identification. From the little bit of reading I’ve done it seems pretty like an open and shut case (and I actually went into my reading expecting my be on Murray’s side). Can anybody explain why there is an injustice here? Almost every comment I see here in his favour gives no reason why this is unjust.

quietbritishjim 5y ago
He claims to have revealed too little information in his reporting for it to be possible to identify the complainants. The court disagrees. Really I just see his word against theirs. I'd like to see some more specific details so I could form my own view, or at least hear the view of a disinterested third party that's seen the relevant posts.
- pydry 5y ago
  If they provided specific details that would all but require identifying the suspects.
- shellac 5y ago
  I did read some of the (now offending) posts. He didn't name anyone, but at the time I thought he provided more than enough information to identify one one of the complainants. Although I'm not au fait with the SNP there were details about situations, people, and roles that seemed more than specific enough for people to work out. I don't think it was deliberate, and he is probably ignorant about how easy it can be to de-anonymise people. However he should have been more sensitive to these issues.
  - manquer 5y ago
    Perhaps so, however selective exercising of media contempt laws when it is not clear cut case ( i.e. naming some one directly) is suspicious and looks a lot like overreach . The timing (he cannot now testify in the Spanish case on spying on Wikileaks) and quantum of sentence combined with supreme court refusing to hear his appeal all does not indicate the system had the best interests for protecting the witness but more like they wanted to silence him/ media and send a message .

dangerface 5y ago

This is nuts arrested for reporting on the justice system, thats a pretty fucked justice system.

briantakita 5y ago

See something say nothing...if you know what's good for you The whistleblowers are punished while the criminals committing the crimes are regarded as heroes. The consequence is that it's rational to assume that these agencies are not trustworthy nor do they work for the public.

baq 5y ago

lesson to whistleblowers of all kinds and agendas: if you want to keep blowing the whistle, do everything you can to stay undercover. live to fight another day.

wazoox 5y ago

He didn't give any name. The people that are supposedly "exposed" apparently are all fake witnesses, anyway, as Alex Salmond was cleared in court. This is really disgusting.

rozab 5y ago
Those witnesses were absolutely not found to be lying. It's just that Salmond was not found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

thereddaikon 5y ago

Title is misleading. He wasn't jailed for whistleblowing. He was jailed for apparently revealing identities of victims. Not sure about the specifics, I haven't been following the case and I'm not familiar with it. Sounds like its pretty contentious. All I know is many places including the UK have a far more restricted concept of freedom of speech than the US does. So its probably a lot easier for them to jail journalists over what they publish

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
croes 5y ago
He was acquitted, so either they were misjudgements or the victims were just accusers.
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  Good point.
billytetrud 5y ago
What part of the title is misleading exactly? The title doesn't say he is going to jail because whistleblowing is illegal. But he is indeed going to jail for things about how his whistle blowing was done. I think it's misleading to call the OP's title misleading
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  The title implies he was jailed for being a whistleblower. If you read it without having any prior knowledge of who this guy is or why he was being prosecuted that's how it sounds.
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    It seems pretty clear that he is being jailed for being a whistleblowers. The case brought against him seems incredibly flimsy. Its retaliation, plain and simple.

srtjstjsj 5y ago

> He described how the judges found Murray guilty of “jigsaw identification,” which refers to the “possibility that a person may piece together information from various sources to arrive at the identification of a protected witness.” Why isn't every advertising/marketing data broker in jail for "jigsaw identification"?

dahfizz 5y ago
I'm pretty confident that advertisers would not keep an `is_protected_witness` flag in their profiles.
cstross 5y ago
In Scottish law -- and in English/Welsh law in parallel (the legal systems are different) -- there is no absolute right of free speech, like the US first amendment. Consequently, exposing the identity of witnesses (and in some cases the accused and the victim) in a criminal trial is itself a criminal offense. Note the important bit here is in a criminal trial. Murray is going to prison because he was found guilty of actions which threatened to cause a mistrial in a criminal case, not because he was deanonymizing advertising/marketing data.
- makomk 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure journalists have actually, non-hypothetically caused mistrials in criminal cases through their reporting in the UK and not been jailed for it. In fact as far as I can tell none of the journalists who did this in the UK have been jailed, at least not in the last few decades.
  - lazide 5y ago
    There is a reason why the 1st amendment is the 1st of the amendments - this has happened for a long time not just in England but elsewhere. It's VERY convenient for those in power to selectively apply laws like this, and overall bad for society. But like most cases, as long as it isn't too blatant, it doesn't rise to the level of common outrage. It got bad enough in the past to make the top of the stack of 'stuff to fix in v2' here. The constitution though is just words on paper if people don't follow it day to day, and you can see examples of steady erosion from it (gag orders, national security orders, etc.)

aimor 5y ago

Are these the articles in question? https://web.archive.org/web/20200425044010/https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200425044010/https://www.craig... https://web.archive.org/web/20200426041821/https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200426041821/https://www.craig...

gorak 5y ago
Drawing people's attention to where jigsaw identification can be done can itself be construed as jigsaw identification.

alisonkisk 5y ago

What whistle did he blow?

ttctciyf 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzbekistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray#Ambassador_to_Uzb...

billytetrud 5y ago

And people wonder why Snowden didn't turn himself in

tablespoon 5y ago
> And people wonder why Snowden didn't turn himself in Because he literally confessed to breaking a number of very serious laws? Literally his only hopes of escaping a conviction are 1) a prosecutor refusing to charge him (snowball's chance in hell), 2) a pardon, 3) some kind jury nullification. Whatever you think about the morality of his actions, what he did was indisputably illegal. "I thought I was doing the right thing, and many people agree," is not an actual legal defense. And honestly, I think if Snowden had turned himself in, it would have made him more admirable and brave, and place his actions clearly in the "civil disobedience" category.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  What Snowden did was herioc and needed to happen. The fact that he had to break awful oppressive laws to do it is an indictment of the laws, not Snowden.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > What Snowden did was herioc and needed to happen. The fact that he had to break awful oppressive laws to do it is an indictment of the laws, not Snowden. The laws he broke weren't awful and oppressive, it's just that "legal" and "moral" are categories that will never completely align.
  - andrewaylett 5y ago
    In a democracy, any laws preventing release of government secrets really should come with a public interest defence.
    - billytetrud 5y ago
      Yes they should. Most government secrets aren't in the people's best interest.

Tycho 5y ago

Is there some succinct explanation for why Murray's reporting facilitated 'jigsaw identification' while other reports did not? I don't want a link to a 50 page court ruling, I want someone to explain it in a couple of sentences. Something like: Murray did not name Victim X but he specified the occupation of their spouse, the department they worked in, and their level of seniority. Given this information, a simple query of public records would be sufficient to identify this individual.

bolangi 5y ago
> Is there some succinct explanation for why Murray's reporting facilitated 'jigsaw identification' while other reports did not? That is the point: other media reports gave more information about the accusers than Murray's reporting.

thiagoharry 5y ago

Just a coincidence that another whistleblower is having problems with the law and being persecuted. There is a term for when laws are weaponised to be used against enemies: 'lawfare'. This is becaming too common in the world.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

trhway 5y ago

>"jigsaw identification" as performed by who? By Sherlock Holmes? or by a regular Shmoe lacking any logic skills and thus believing every bit of propaganda coming through TV and Internet.

coldtea 5y ago

It's like when someone gets in the eye of local cops, and they will "make their life difficult", come at them with trumped-up charges, etc.... States and their organizations work the same way, and prosecutors and judges friendly to their cause (and furthering their career) after a friendly chat with some official, are a dime a dozen. Add some diplomatic pressure (or offer) from a bigger power, and third countries are just as accomondating. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_... And good luck proving any of that collision (proof which the politically naive will demand, because they think no such thing can happen in the best of all possible worlds...)

8note 5y ago

Comment on the title: I've got no idea who this is or why it's interesting

gorak 5y ago

Craig's "Yes Minister" article used pseudonyms and a comic style to lay out his opinion that the accusations against Salmond were false and the result of a politically motivated conspiracy using the anonymity convention to protect the conspirators from facing repercussion. Although this accusation seems to have sufficient merit, given the verdicts, to justify further investigation it does not take away from the fact the the Yes Minister article can easily be used to deduce the identities of two of the accusers. It was not this article but a mainstream one by Dani Garavelli that allowed me to jigsaw identify one of the accusers and the fact that her article remains visible and Garavelli has faced no similar consequences does speak volumes about the selectivity used. However Garavelli's article required one Google search to cross check names from a different source, Murray's Yes Minister article allows for immediate identification from common knowledge (if you follow Scottish Politics). Craig's article was published before the anonymity order was issued and he should have taken it down when that order was made and certainly shouldn't have directed attention to the fact this article could be used for jigsaw identification. Although his courthouse reporting of what the defence said is invaluable and though the conspiracy he points to merits further investigation, be was an idiot to publish the Yes Minister article and acted with foolish hubris not to take it down sooner.

rrgmitchell 5y ago

If anyone wants to learn more about Murray and his ideas (and incidentally support him and his family), he has written a number of books: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Zionism-Bullshit-Interviews-Collected-Political/dp/1548026379/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=craig+murray&qid=1627754370&sr=8-3 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Zionism-Bullshit-Interviews-Collect... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Samarkand-Mr-Craig-Murray/dp/1975977920/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=craig+murray&qid=1627754558&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Samarkand-Mr-Craig-Murray/dp... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Catholic-Orangemen-Togo-Craig-Murray-ebook/dp/B071G5NZ22/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=craig+murray&qid=1627754558&sr=8-4 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Catholic-Orangemen-Togo-Craig-Murra... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sikunder-Burnes-Master-Great-Game/dp/1780273177/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=craig+murray&qid=1627754558&sr=8-5 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sikunder-Burnes-Master-Great-Game/d...