6 ms·

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 combin

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.
      - p_j_w 5y ago
        Come again?
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        If he publishes an article telling their job, age, etc, and the court publishes a judgement saying that "he published an article telling their job, age, etc", then you can figure out who they are from his article, but not from the court's judgement. I'm sure I'll never understand how this is "the court claim[ing] for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray."
        jessaustin 5y ago
        Of course that's not what happened. All these vague details were matters for a trial in criminal court, which trial was described by a higher court as "unlawful", "procedurally unfair", and "tainted by apparent bias". Reporting such matters to the public is not a crime in a civilized jurisdiction.
  - tablespoon 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. As far as I know, most HN commentators are 1) American, 2) pseudonymous, 3) and unlikely to be extradited because I doubt these kinds of laws would be constitutional in the US.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Haha yeah the extradition rules are hardly symmetric are they? How the mighty empire has fallen...
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        Aren't they though? It's just one of the requirements is the conduct would have to be a crime in both countries? It's not like extradition is "you give us everyone we want, and we'll give you everyone you want."
        Talanes 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea... The US can extradite UK citizens for US crimes committed in the UK, but not vice-versa.
- jackweirdy 5y ago
  The judgement is here, page 36 onwards lays out all the articles the petitioner claims had contempt of court, and the courts interpretation of whether they did or didn't 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...
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    Thank you. His claims of a Kafkaesque trial don't sound very well founded when I read this ruling.
    - blibble 5y ago
      he has a a reputation for being a conspiracy theorist and general lunatic in the UK
      - p_j_w 5y ago
        I went through his blog and read some of his posts for context. That reputation doesn't seem entirely unearned.
celticninja 5y ago
Are they still victims if the accused is cleared of wrongdoing? Don't they become false accusers at that stage? Why do accusers get to keep anonymous when defendants can not?
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Potentially? "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    Is this 1984 style newspeak? In Common Law countries defendants in criminal proceedings are afforded a presumption of innocent. Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed.
    - orra 5y ago
      > In Common Law countries (FYI, Scots law is not solely common law. Scots law is a hybrid civil and common law.) > Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed. The point the other poster was making is: being found Not Guilty or Not Proven, beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal trial does not imply the accused was morally innocent. Often juries may suspect the accused is morally guilty but feel there is insufficient evidence. Jurors in the UK however are never allowed to talk about their deliberations. So we can't know their reasoning.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      You are pretending that the legal definition of innocence is the same as the moral or colloquial definition. They aren't remotely the same.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      If this were a courtroom, sure.
  - celticninja 5y ago
jjgreen 5y ago
The law under which Murray was prosecuted does not protect victims, it protects accusers -- Salmond was cleared.

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.
    - p_j_w 5y ago
      Come again?
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      If he publishes an article telling their job, age, etc, and the court publishes a judgement saying that "he published an article telling their job, age, etc", then you can figure out who they are from his article, but not from the court's judgement. I'm sure I'll never understand how this is "the court claim[ing] for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray."
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        Of course that's not what happened. All these vague details were matters for a trial in criminal court, which trial was described by a higher court as "unlawful", "procedurally unfair", and "tainted by apparent bias". Reporting such matters to the public is not a crime in a civilized jurisdiction.
- tablespoon 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. As far as I know, most HN commentators are 1) American, 2) pseudonymous, 3) and unlikely to be extradited because I doubt these kinds of laws would be constitutional in the US.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Haha yeah the extradition rules are hardly symmetric are they? How the mighty empire has fallen...
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      Aren't they though? It's just one of the requirements is the conduct would have to be a crime in both countries? It's not like extradition is "you give us everyone we want, and we'll give you everyone you want."
      - Talanes 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea... The US can extradite UK citizens for US crimes committed in the UK, but not vice-versa.
jackweirdy 5y ago
The judgement is here, page 36 onwards lays out all the articles the petitioner claims had contempt of court, and the courts interpretation of whether they did or didn't 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...
- p_j_w 5y ago
  Thank you. His claims of a Kafkaesque trial don't sound very well founded when I read this ruling.
  - blibble 5y ago
    he has a a reputation for being a conspiracy theorist and general lunatic in the UK
    - p_j_w 5y ago
      I went through his blog and read some of his posts for context. That reputation doesn't seem entirely unearned.

celticninja 5y ago

Are they still victims if the accused is cleared of wrongdoing? Don't they become false accusers at that stage? Why do accusers get to keep anonymous when defendants can not?

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Potentially? "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."
- morpheos137 5y ago
  Is this 1984 style newspeak? In Common Law countries defendants in criminal proceedings are afforded a presumption of innocent. Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed.
  - orra 5y ago
    > In Common Law countries (FYI, Scots law is not solely common law. Scots law is a hybrid civil and common law.) > Therefore if they are found not guilty they stay innocent as originally presumed. The point the other poster was making is: being found Not Guilty or Not Proven, beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal trial does not imply the accused was morally innocent. Often juries may suspect the accused is morally guilty but feel there is insufficient evidence. Jurors in the UK however are never allowed to talk about their deliberations. So we can't know their reasoning.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    You are pretending that the legal definition of innocence is the same as the moral or colloquial definition. They aren't remotely the same.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    If this were a courtroom, sure.
- celticninja 5y ago

jjgreen 5y ago

The law under which Murray was prosecuted does not protect victims, it protects accusers -- Salmond was cleared.