14 ms·

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 lea

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 .
    - shellac 5y ago
      It's unusual, but not the only recent case in the UK. A notorious right wing campaigner called Tommy Robinson was jailed a few years ago (but released), and there was a very unusual case with a juror. These were both in England, which may explain the 50 year thing. Edit: actually I'm wrong, the article says: "Murray is the first person in the U.K. to be incarcerated for media contempt in over a half century." If we restrict it to what 'media' might mean I suppose Tommy Robinson was freed on appeal. And a Mail journalist got away with a suspended sentence.
      - manquer 5y ago
        It is even more in Scotland where he is being convicted? I believe it is 70 years or something like that. There is only European court left for Murray to appeal. The supreme court refused hear his case.
- version_five 5y ago
  I'm just learning about this now and don't know enough to have an an opinion, but "his word against theirs" (the court's) should not be the basis for a conviction.
  - quietbritishjim 5y ago
    All I meant by that was, from this article alone I don't have enough information to form my own opinion.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  The court could ask an independent without inside knowledge of the case to read his reports and check whether or not they can identify a protected person as a result. It's true that the judge can't publicly state "Look, the third sentence in paragraph four at this URL gives the victim's initials, a week later in paragraph seven he said the complainant worked in such-and-such government agency, and here he tweeted that it was the individual's 47th birthday. There is only one person who fits these fingerprints, and their identity is obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity of that individual." That would invite everyone else to go read paragraph four, paragraph seven, and the tweet, and to search out this secret. Or more likely, that the individual is named directly and repeatedly in the post, and Craig named them because their name and their involvement is on public documents, but that they've decided that he's not allowed to name them. But you'd expect them to explain that reasoning behind closed doors, and then to more publicly deny his rebuttal, unless there is no such individual.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wil421 5y ago
It’s similar to the reason I disliked Assange and Wikileaks for not redacting information. Lots of military people and especially the Afghan translators were named in some of the leaks. This is HN, you and I are likely to get downvotes into oblivion for having an opposing opinion.
- burnished 5y ago
  > This is HN, you and I are likely to get downvotes into oblivion for having an opposing opinion. Can you just not? The whinging is a serious distraction.
  - eganist 5y ago
    > Can you just not? The whinging is a serious distraction. It's also against the rules. That said, the discussion and comments here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982672 - one of the only times downvoting could be openly discussed because it's directly within the scope of the article) definitely sheds light on frustrations people have with downvotes on HN. Anyway, my comment is offtopic enough. For more downvote discussion, head to that link instead; at least it'll be on topic.
  - wil421 5y ago
    I could but the HN, and worse Reddit, mob has down voted certain opinions without even commenting. Especially as it relates to whistle blowers and the US military/government. I’ve even seen legitimate conservative view points be flagged instantly.
    - burnished 5y ago
      > I’ve even seen legitimate conservative view points be flagged instantly. Can you link to these? This claim always seems specious and that its hiding blatantly awful opinions and I'd love some good counter examples.
      - wil421 5y ago
pydry 5y ago
>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. >How 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. How on earth is that open and shut? Open and shut would be if he published the names, which nobody claims that he did. Conveniently it is also impossible to verify if the crime was actually committed without naming the individuals. All that is required to convict is one judge's say so. If you were to pick a convenient politically motivated prosecution this ranks up there with navalny skipping bail by dint of being in a coma.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> 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. >> How 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. > How on earth is that open and shut? I don't see how those statements have any bearing on whether the case is "open and shut" or not. You're quoting the defendant, who's almost certainly going to come up with some argument for their own innocence no matter how strong the case is.
  - soperj 5y ago
    People plead guilty all the time.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      I am aware of that, which is why I said "almost certainly." He also chose to fight this case, so if he didn't want to undermine it, his only option besides arguing for his innocence was silence.
  - pydry 5y ago
    If indeed the case were open and shut the argument would be trivially refutable. I haven't even seen a coherent rebuttal yet. I'm not sure it's even possible, given that the evidence in this trial would, conveniently, have to be kept secret - automatically ensuring by default it couldnt be open and shut. Far from being open and shut it actually stinks to high heaven.
smcl 5y ago
I’m the same. Everyone was told not to reveal identities of the victims, he was blogging about the case and was deemed to have published info that could’ve doxed them. The news is understandably vague on the subject (lest they repeat the offence) and the posts are down. So it’s hard to know what to think. Just remember that there’s a lot of very strong feelings about Scottish independence (which is kinda wrapped up in this) and the SNP (the dominant party in Scotland) so anyone speaking definitively for/against him who was not directly involved in the case are likely drawing more from personal feelings and other grievances than the actual case itself
- pydry 5y ago
  >was deemed to have published info that could’ve doxed them. The news is understandably vague on the subject "Could" have doxxed them? The newspapers are "understandably vague"? How does that align with this being an open and shut case? Especially it's a law that hasnt been used for 70 years applied against a well known dissident.
  - smcl 5y ago
    I was just saying I have no idea what to think, and no real way to do so.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    70 years? The Contempt of Court Act was passed in 1981 and is used routinely for anonymity orders.
  - handelaar 5y ago
    The laws have been in place for decades and have at no point not been in full effect. The reason nobody's been prosecuted and convicted for 70 years is that nobody with half a brain commits the offence.
- jollybean 5y ago
  In this case they were accusers not victims.
- 5y ago
manquer 5y ago
He didn't directly disclose any name the accusation is he wrote multiple clues from which witness could be identified . I haven't seen a clear explanation of how it was identifiable. Even if that was true, jailing for media contempt is very very rare in U.K. and the timing given his involvement with Wikileaks case is suspect.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  So a classic case of "enforcing laws we don't usually enforce and stretching the law to do so because we don't like you"?
  - dpwm 5y ago
    From the decision on the application for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court [0]: > The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the applicant make comparisons with other press contempts, and the role of mainstream journalists, this is a factor which should be recognised. [0] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj3.pdf?sfvrsn=0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
    - croes 5y ago
      >subject to codes of practice and ethics "The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      Meanwhile in the regulated press: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-daily-mail-fuelling-prejudice-racist-violence-hate-crime-speech-uk-ecri-report-a7351856.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-d...
  - 5y ago
colordrops 5y ago
Because secret hearings at unjust.
matthewmacleod 5y ago
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. I am far from an unbiased source on this – I'm personally aghast that anybody would take Craig Murray seriously. But trying to be a little objective, I expect that this effect is primarily because of an instinct we all have to ignore the flaws in people who are saying things we think are important. Murray is popular here for his commentary on the Assange trial. He is virtually certain to be correct in some of his accusations about Assange's treatment, and in a community that values freedom of speech and the rights of whistleblowers that is a stance that attracts attention and support. Given this, it could be tempting for some to assume that his imprisonment was a deliberate action to silence a troublemaker – particularly when the defendant himself makes that argument. On the other hand, it's also totally feasible that someone with views you support is also entirely seperately capable of doing dumb things and getting themselves arrested. I paid quite a bit of attention to the case in question. His level of obfuscation was a bawhair away from 'cartoon rat Ricky Raus', and he requested everyone read "very, very carefully indeed. Between the lines." It seemed quite obvious to me what he was trying to do, and a subsequent conviction isn't really surprising – nor does it require thinking about it in terms of a conspiracy theory. It just seems strange to me to assume a state-motivated conspiracy when there's a much simpler answer right there – regardless of whether or not you agree with the particular details of the case, or his views in general! I guess maybe it's sometimes hard to separate out the views that we agree with from the harsh realities of flawed individuals.
kstenerud 5y ago
It's a quite long and sordid affair, but I'll do my best to summarize: Craig has been a thorn in the side of the government for some time, first for exposing corruption in the Scottish seats of power, the too-cozy relationships between the judicial and executive branches, and the biased and tainted prosecutions of anyone who gets in their way (including MPs). The accusations against him hinge on the "jigsaw identification" theory, whereby people could piece together persons from the material he published. The problem is that it's so vague that it could be used against *anyone* who publishes *anything* about a case such as this (and in fact many publications DID publish information that could easily lead to the identification of the accuser, but they were given a pass). This is why he's calling it retribution. Furthermore, he's been reporting on the Assange case, and that has angered the British government, which is why his appeal was rejected, and why he was not allowed to travel to Spain to give testimony in a case where the Americans were spying on Assange and his lawyer via UC Global. At this point, Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  > At this point, Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case Does the EU Court of Human Rights care whar Americans think about him?
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    The member states care about America's friendship and cooperation on many things. You have to follow the power to see what the results will be. Personally, I think he's just doing it to have a record for posterity once it's rejected, to turn common knowledge about EU-USA corrupting power relationships into public knowledge (although I don't share his hope that this will ever become public knowledge - but then again it takes an idealist to fight these kinds of battles).
    - torstenvl 5y ago
jlarocco 5y ago
Yeah. It seems he (indirectly) released the names of (alleged) sexual assault victims, against a court order. Regardless of what he's done otherwise, it seems pretty clear he was in the wrong here.
mritun 5y ago
Exactly. UK is a democracy with a pretty good justice system that follows the law, so I was very surprised to read so negative comments about the outcome of the case. Do I feel sorry for the person - yes, but breaking any injunction from court has extremely predictable outcome! I'm thinking it could have gone way worse than the 8 months in prison for him, especially if he were in any other country (including USA). Sad to see this unfold, but extremely predictable outcome of breaking a court injection... courts take very dim view of it!
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  Craig Murray has a lot of fans on HN because he reported extensively on the Assange extradition hearings in a way that flattered HNers' biases. His actual record as a "journalist" is not great (his reporting on the Skripal assassins a particular lowlight).
  - russholmes 5y ago
    Craig Murray is basically a decent guy. He fell out with the British government when he was ambassador to Uzbekistam and broke protocol by protesting about the treatement of Uzbeks by their government - being boiled to death etc. He was subsequently bullied, disciplined and dismissed from his post for acting with humanity and integrity. I think he was traumatised and experienced something akin to a psychotic break, after which he saw conspiracies everywhere in officaldom. I used to follow his blog and it was a mixture of reasonable analysis and unsubstantiated consipiracy theories. In this case, he was clearly in the wrong - he is a blogger with a big following, and he posted material in breach of the injunction. This is why the authorities went for him: (1) breaking a court order, and (2) potentially identifying a sexual assault plaintive. In the UK the authorities don't muck around if you behave like that. This is why he is in prison.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > He fell out with the British government when he was ambassador to Uzbekistam and broke protocol by protesting about the treatement of Uzbeks by their government Sovereign nation states have no morals or ethics, they have interests. To represent these interests to other sovereign nation states, they have ambassadors. So, for ambassadors, "acting with humanity and integrity" when that is not conducive to their nation's interests is a grave dereliction of duty. (Not saying this is a nice state of affairs, but if even I know that's how the world works, how could he not know? Also not saying acceding to Uzbek human rights abuses actually is in Britain's best interests; only that apparently the establishment in Britain thought so.) > I used to follow his blog and it was a mixture of reasonable analysis and unsubstantiated consipiracy theories. If he's "a decent guy", he should have known he wasn't cut out to be an ambassador and should never have taken the job. The more I read about him, the more it seems his problem is that he's just simply pretty damn stupid. Weird, one wouldn't have thought jobs like ambassador routinely get offered to stupid people.
james1071 5y ago
What is it that you think he did? He was accused of 'jigsaw identification' but, to my knowledge, no-offending words have been produced. In contrast, several newspapers have reported information which revealed the identity of one or more accusers, but were not prosecuted.
james1071 5y ago
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/02/04/murr-f04.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/02/04/murr-f04.html This is the best description of what it was all about from the persepctive of Craig Murray.

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 .
  - shellac 5y ago
    It's unusual, but not the only recent case in the UK. A notorious right wing campaigner called Tommy Robinson was jailed a few years ago (but released), and there was a very unusual case with a juror. These were both in England, which may explain the 50 year thing. Edit: actually I'm wrong, the article says: "Murray is the first person in the U.K. to be incarcerated for media contempt in over a half century." If we restrict it to what 'media' might mean I suppose Tommy Robinson was freed on appeal. And a Mail journalist got away with a suspended sentence.
    - manquer 5y ago
      It is even more in Scotland where he is being convicted? I believe it is 70 years or something like that. There is only European court left for Murray to appeal. The supreme court refused hear his case.
version_five 5y ago
I'm just learning about this now and don't know enough to have an an opinion, but "his word against theirs" (the court's) should not be the basis for a conviction.
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  All I meant by that was, from this article alone I don't have enough information to form my own opinion.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
The court could ask an independent without inside knowledge of the case to read his reports and check whether or not they can identify a protected person as a result. It's true that the judge can't publicly state "Look, the third sentence in paragraph four at this URL gives the victim's initials, a week later in paragraph seven he said the complainant worked in such-and-such government agency, and here he tweeted that it was the individual's 47th birthday. There is only one person who fits these fingerprints, and their identity is obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity of that individual." That would invite everyone else to go read paragraph four, paragraph seven, and the tweet, and to search out this secret. Or more likely, that the individual is named directly and repeatedly in the post, and Craig named them because their name and their involvement is on public documents, but that they've decided that he's not allowed to name them. But you'd expect them to explain that reasoning behind closed doors, and then to more publicly deny his rebuttal, unless there is no such individual.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wil421 5y ago

It’s similar to the reason I disliked Assange and Wikileaks for not redacting information. Lots of military people and especially the Afghan translators were named in some of the leaks. This is HN, you and I are likely to get downvotes into oblivion for having an opposing opinion.

burnished 5y ago
> This is HN, you and I are likely to get downvotes into oblivion for having an opposing opinion. Can you just not? The whinging is a serious distraction.
- eganist 5y ago
  > Can you just not? The whinging is a serious distraction. It's also against the rules. That said, the discussion and comments here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27982672 - one of the only times downvoting could be openly discussed because it's directly within the scope of the article) definitely sheds light on frustrations people have with downvotes on HN. Anyway, my comment is offtopic enough. For more downvote discussion, head to that link instead; at least it'll be on topic.
- wil421 5y ago
  I could but the HN, and worse Reddit, mob has down voted certain opinions without even commenting. Especially as it relates to whistle blowers and the US military/government. I’ve even seen legitimate conservative view points be flagged instantly.
  - burnished 5y ago
    > I’ve even seen legitimate conservative view points be flagged instantly. Can you link to these? This claim always seems specious and that its hiding blatantly awful opinions and I'd love some good counter examples.
    - wil421 5y ago

pydry 5y ago

>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. >How 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. How on earth is that open and shut? Open and shut would be if he published the names, which nobody claims that he did. Conveniently it is also impossible to verify if the crime was actually committed without naming the individuals. All that is required to convict is one judge's say so. If you were to pick a convenient politically motivated prosecution this ranks up there with navalny skipping bail by dint of being in a coma.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> 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. >> How 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. > How on earth is that open and shut? I don't see how those statements have any bearing on whether the case is "open and shut" or not. You're quoting the defendant, who's almost certainly going to come up with some argument for their own innocence no matter how strong the case is.
- soperj 5y ago
  People plead guilty all the time.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    I am aware of that, which is why I said "almost certainly." He also chose to fight this case, so if he didn't want to undermine it, his only option besides arguing for his innocence was silence.
- pydry 5y ago
  If indeed the case were open and shut the argument would be trivially refutable. I haven't even seen a coherent rebuttal yet. I'm not sure it's even possible, given that the evidence in this trial would, conveniently, have to be kept secret - automatically ensuring by default it couldnt be open and shut. Far from being open and shut it actually stinks to high heaven.

smcl 5y ago

I’m the same. Everyone was told not to reveal identities of the victims, he was blogging about the case and was deemed to have published info that could’ve doxed them. The news is understandably vague on the subject (lest they repeat the offence) and the posts are down. So it’s hard to know what to think. Just remember that there’s a lot of very strong feelings about Scottish independence (which is kinda wrapped up in this) and the SNP (the dominant party in Scotland) so anyone speaking definitively for/against him who was not directly involved in the case are likely drawing more from personal feelings and other grievances than the actual case itself

pydry 5y ago
>was deemed to have published info that could’ve doxed them. The news is understandably vague on the subject "Could" have doxxed them? The newspapers are "understandably vague"? How does that align with this being an open and shut case? Especially it's a law that hasnt been used for 70 years applied against a well known dissident.
- smcl 5y ago
  I was just saying I have no idea what to think, and no real way to do so.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  70 years? The Contempt of Court Act was passed in 1981 and is used routinely for anonymity orders.
- handelaar 5y ago
  The laws have been in place for decades and have at no point not been in full effect. The reason nobody's been prosecuted and convicted for 70 years is that nobody with half a brain commits the offence.
jollybean 5y ago
In this case they were accusers not victims.
5y ago

manquer 5y ago

He didn't directly disclose any name the accusation is he wrote multiple clues from which witness could be identified . I haven't seen a clear explanation of how it was identifiable. Even if that was true, jailing for media contempt is very very rare in U.K. and the timing given his involvement with Wikileaks case is suspect.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
So a classic case of "enforcing laws we don't usually enforce and stretching the law to do so because we don't like you"?
- dpwm 5y ago
  From the decision on the application for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court [0]: > The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the applicant make comparisons with other press contempts, and the role of mainstream journalists, this is a factor which should be recognised. [0] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj3.pdf?sfvrsn=0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
  - croes 5y ago
    >subject to codes of practice and ethics "The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    Meanwhile in the regulated press: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-daily-mail-fuelling-prejudice-racist-violence-hate-crime-speech-uk-ecri-report-a7351856.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-d...
- 5y ago

colordrops 5y ago

Because secret hearings at unjust.

matthewmacleod 5y ago

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. I am far from an unbiased source on this – I'm personally aghast that anybody would take Craig Murray seriously. But trying to be a little objective, I expect that this effect is primarily because of an instinct we all have to ignore the flaws in people who are saying things we think are important. Murray is popular here for his commentary on the Assange trial. He is virtually certain to be correct in some of his accusations about Assange's treatment, and in a community that values freedom of speech and the rights of whistleblowers that is a stance that attracts attention and support. Given this, it could be tempting for some to assume that his imprisonment was a deliberate action to silence a troublemaker – particularly when the defendant himself makes that argument. On the other hand, it's also totally feasible that someone with views you support is also entirely seperately capable of doing dumb things and getting themselves arrested. I paid quite a bit of attention to the case in question. His level of obfuscation was a bawhair away from 'cartoon rat Ricky Raus', and he requested everyone read "very, very carefully indeed. Between the lines." It seemed quite obvious to me what he was trying to do, and a subsequent conviction isn't really surprising – nor does it require thinking about it in terms of a conspiracy theory. It just seems strange to me to assume a state-motivated conspiracy when there's a much simpler answer right there – regardless of whether or not you agree with the particular details of the case, or his views in general! I guess maybe it's sometimes hard to separate out the views that we agree with from the harsh realities of flawed individuals.

kstenerud 5y ago

It's a quite long and sordid affair, but I'll do my best to summarize: Craig has been a thorn in the side of the government for some time, first for exposing corruption in the Scottish seats of power, the too-cozy relationships between the judicial and executive branches, and the biased and tainted prosecutions of anyone who gets in their way (including MPs). The accusations against him hinge on the "jigsaw identification" theory, whereby people could piece together persons from the material he published. The problem is that it's so vague that it could be used against *anyone* who publishes *anything* about a case such as this (and in fact many publications DID publish information that could easily lead to the identification of the accuser, but they were given a pass). This is why he's calling it retribution. Furthermore, he's been reporting on the Assange case, and that has angered the British government, which is why his appeal was rejected, and why he was not allowed to travel to Spain to give testimony in a case where the Americans were spying on Assange and his lawyer via UC Global. At this point, Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case.

alisonkisk 5y ago
> At this point, Craig's only remaining option is to appeal to the EU court of human rights, but that's gonna be a tough one because he's pissed off the Americans too much with the Assange case Does the EU Court of Human Rights care whar Americans think about him?
- kstenerud 5y ago
  The member states care about America's friendship and cooperation on many things. You have to follow the power to see what the results will be. Personally, I think he's just doing it to have a record for posterity once it's rejected, to turn common knowledge about EU-USA corrupting power relationships into public knowledge (although I don't share his hope that this will ever become public knowledge - but then again it takes an idealist to fight these kinds of battles).
  - torstenvl 5y ago

jlarocco 5y ago

Yeah. It seems he (indirectly) released the names of (alleged) sexual assault victims, against a court order. Regardless of what he's done otherwise, it seems pretty clear he was in the wrong here.

mritun 5y ago

Exactly. UK is a democracy with a pretty good justice system that follows the law, so I was very surprised to read so negative comments about the outcome of the case. Do I feel sorry for the person - yes, but breaking any injunction from court has extremely predictable outcome! I'm thinking it could have gone way worse than the 8 months in prison for him, especially if he were in any other country (including USA). Sad to see this unfold, but extremely predictable outcome of breaking a court injection... courts take very dim view of it!

ChrisKnott 5y ago
Craig Murray has a lot of fans on HN because he reported extensively on the Assange extradition hearings in a way that flattered HNers' biases. His actual record as a "journalist" is not great (his reporting on the Skripal assassins a particular lowlight).
- russholmes 5y ago
  Craig Murray is basically a decent guy. He fell out with the British government when he was ambassador to Uzbekistam and broke protocol by protesting about the treatement of Uzbeks by their government - being boiled to death etc. He was subsequently bullied, disciplined and dismissed from his post for acting with humanity and integrity. I think he was traumatised and experienced something akin to a psychotic break, after which he saw conspiracies everywhere in officaldom. I used to follow his blog and it was a mixture of reasonable analysis and unsubstantiated consipiracy theories. In this case, he was clearly in the wrong - he is a blogger with a big following, and he posted material in breach of the injunction. This is why the authorities went for him: (1) breaking a court order, and (2) potentially identifying a sexual assault plaintive. In the UK the authorities don't muck around if you behave like that. This is why he is in prison.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > He fell out with the British government when he was ambassador to Uzbekistam and broke protocol by protesting about the treatement of Uzbeks by their government Sovereign nation states have no morals or ethics, they have interests. To represent these interests to other sovereign nation states, they have ambassadors. So, for ambassadors, "acting with humanity and integrity" when that is not conducive to their nation's interests is a grave dereliction of duty. (Not saying this is a nice state of affairs, but if even I know that's how the world works, how could he not know? Also not saying acceding to Uzbek human rights abuses actually is in Britain's best interests; only that apparently the establishment in Britain thought so.) > I used to follow his blog and it was a mixture of reasonable analysis and unsubstantiated consipiracy theories. If he's "a decent guy", he should have known he wasn't cut out to be an ambassador and should never have taken the job. The more I read about him, the more it seems his problem is that he's just simply pretty damn stupid. Weird, one wouldn't have thought jobs like ambassador routinely get offered to stupid people.

james1071 5y ago

What is it that you think he did? He was accused of 'jigsaw identification' but, to my knowledge, no-offending words have been produced. In contrast, several newspapers have reported information which revealed the identity of one or more accusers, but were not prosecuted.

james1071 5y ago

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/02/04/murr-f04.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/02/04/murr-f04.html This is the best description of what it was all about from the persepctive of Craig Murray.