4 ms·

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 doxe

by 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.
pmyteh 5y ago
The judgement is available[0]. It doesn't read to me like the judges were out to get him: they specifically reject the majority of the allegations of contempt made by the crown. Paragraphs 70-90 contain the interesting bit, and 70 is absolutely damning in my view. It basically reports Murray as openly writing an 'encoded' version of some of the claimants names in the form of some Yes Minister fanfic, in the knowledge of the anonymity order and with the intention that the code would be broken by close reading 'between the lines' (which he expressly encouraged). That's an open and shut contempt, and courts do not play silly buggers with people who think that if they're very clever orders don't apply to them. Even given that the crown (the Scottish government, who were prosecuting Salmon and made the contempt of court complaint) are out to get Murray, that doesn't make him a martyr, it makes him an idiot. [0]: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf?sfvrsn=0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
- dfawcus 5y ago
  The 'fan fiction' was written, and published before the court case, and hence before the anonymity order. As it was, I wasn't able to figure out any encoded messages at the time. Now one could argue that it was inadvisable to leave it up after the order, but that is a different matter.
- ajb 5y ago
  I read his articles as they came out, and did not figure out who the protected parties were. OTOH I am pretty sure I can figure at least two of them out after reading the judgement. It's possible that you could have figured out at the time if you were more familiar with the Dramatis Personae. But I do think it's plausible that he didn't think anyone would from his articles.
  - nomrom 5y ago
    So plausible that people closer to the facts and details thought he did.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    "[70] He wrote the “Yes, Minister” article after a health scare because “there were things I would not wish to die without having told”. There was thus clearly an intention to convey to the public information and opinion about the criminal proceedings and the background thereto. It is clear that he understood the risk inherent in the action he was taking, since he states that it was “a challenge” to work out how to convey the information “without being in contempt of court” (paragraph 54 of the affidavit). He used certain strategies seeking to avoid being in contempt, the main one of which was “to leave information that people would not understand the ramifications of but would after the trial or once further evidence emerged”. It is a reasonable inference that by using coded language he anticipated that if not at the time of the article, at least by the conclusion of the trial, the material would be understood beyond its ex-facie terms.In a tweet of 19 January, in direct reference to this article, he wrote:“I implore everybody who supports Independence –and indeed everybody with an interest in justice -to read this article very, very carefully indeed.Between the lines.”A comment was made by him in the 12 March article is to similar effect: “I am dependent on you reading this whole article with intelligence, and thinking “I wonder why he just told me that bit? Where was that relevant?"" The court seems to disagree.

by smcl 5y ago

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.

pmyteh 5y ago

The judgement is available[0]. It doesn't read to me like the judges were out to get him: they specifically reject the majority of the allegations of contempt made by the crown. Paragraphs 70-90 contain the interesting bit, and 70 is absolutely damning in my view. It basically reports Murray as openly writing an 'encoded' version of some of the claimants names in the form of some Yes Minister fanfic, in the knowledge of the anonymity order and with the intention that the code would be broken by close reading 'between the lines' (which he expressly encouraged). That's an open and shut contempt, and courts do not play silly buggers with people who think that if they're very clever orders don't apply to them. Even given that the crown (the Scottish government, who were prosecuting Salmon and made the contempt of court complaint) are out to get Murray, that doesn't make him a martyr, it makes him an idiot. [0]: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf?sfvrsn=0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...

dfawcus 5y ago
The 'fan fiction' was written, and published before the court case, and hence before the anonymity order. As it was, I wasn't able to figure out any encoded messages at the time. Now one could argue that it was inadvisable to leave it up after the order, but that is a different matter.
ajb 5y ago
I read his articles as they came out, and did not figure out who the protected parties were. OTOH I am pretty sure I can figure at least two of them out after reading the judgement. It's possible that you could have figured out at the time if you were more familiar with the Dramatis Personae. But I do think it's plausible that he didn't think anyone would from his articles.
- nomrom 5y ago
  So plausible that people closer to the facts and details thought he did.
- mcguire 5y ago
  "[70] He wrote the “Yes, Minister” article after a health scare because “there were things I would not wish to die without having told”. There was thus clearly an intention to convey to the public information and opinion about the criminal proceedings and the background thereto. It is clear that he understood the risk inherent in the action he was taking, since he states that it was “a challenge” to work out how to convey the information “without being in contempt of court” (paragraph 54 of the affidavit). He used certain strategies seeking to avoid being in contempt, the main one of which was “to leave information that people would not understand the ramifications of but would after the trial or once further evidence emerged”. It is a reasonable inference that by using coded language he anticipated that if not at the time of the article, at least by the conclusion of the trial, the material would be understood beyond its ex-facie terms.In a tweet of 19 January, in direct reference to this article, he wrote:“I implore everybody who supports Independence –and indeed everybody with an interest in justice -to read this article very, very carefully indeed.Between the lines.”A comment was made by him in the 12 March article is to similar effect: “I am dependent on you reading this whole article with intelligence, and thinking “I wonder why he just told me that bit? Where was that relevant?"" The court seems to disagree.