3 ms·

> They’re absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional - that has nothing to do with whether he broke the law. Fine, but don't expect people to tak

by k1m 5y ago

> They’re absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional - that has nothing to do with whether he broke the law. Fine, but don't expect people to take you or your law seriously if out of a bunch of people who break the law in a similar way, you choose to punish and make an example of only one of them. The one who's had the least impact in identifying the people you claim to want to protect, and the one who's been a thorn in your side for many years. > No jigsaw identification necessary at all This makes no sense. First you claim they're "absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional", and in the next line you write he did something so unique that no jigsaw identification was necessary at all. So then why is he being charged with jigsaw identification? The first person ever to be jailed for it.

Traster 5y ago
>The one who's had the least impact in identifying the people you claim to want to protect, and the one who's been a thorn in your side for many years. Ah no, see this isn't the same thing at all. The standard for the law is whether people can tell from your reporting who the person is. Sure, more people may have identified the person from some other reporting, but that's highly likely to be becuase the other reporting is in national newspapers and the like, not the 150 people who visit Murray's website. It doesn't matter if more people actually identify the accusers from another source, it matters what the reporting is - and Murray reporting details that were literally uniquely identifying an individual (and actually kept up comments in response to his blog that literally identified them). >First you claim they're "absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional", and in the next line you write he did something so unique that no jigsaw identification was necessary at all. So then why is he being charged with jigsaw identification? He wasn't. This comes down to the fact you're listening to disingenous talking points. He's not charged with "jigsaw identification". The uniquely prosecutable thing he did was he identified the acccusers after the court order saying their identity should be protected. The whole "jigsaw identification" thing is gish galloping. His supporters have made up a nonsense talking point to defend him.
- k1m 5y ago
  > The whole "jigsaw identification" thing is gish galloping. His supporters have made up a nonsense talking point to defend him. I'm not going to continue this as it's not going anywhere. But as you're so adamant that he wasn't charged with jigsaw identification, and that it's only something his supporters claim (even though it's literally in the document you posted), you might want to take it upon yourself to reach out to the following publications and ask them to correct the record: * The Guardian: "Ex-diplomat found in contempt of court over ‘jigsaw identification’" [1] * BBC: "the retired diplomat breached the order and published pieces of information on his blog which, if pieced together like a jigsaw, could lead readers to establish the identities of the women" [2] * The Independent: "Former diplomat hands himself in at police station to begin sentence over ‘jigsaw ID’ of Salmond accusers" [3] * Daily Mail: "Lady Dorrian said Murray deliberately risked what is known as 'jigsaw identification'." [4] * Scottish Legal News: "He published information on his blog which enabled jigsaw identification of the women in the case." [5] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/01/alex-salmond-blogger-craig-murray-hands-himself-into-police-to-begin-jail-term https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/01/alex-salmon... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58018127 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58018127 [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/craig-murray-jigsaw-id-prison-b1894684.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/craig-murray... [4] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9849607/Britains-ex-ambassador-Uzbekistan-Craig-Murray-hands-police.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9849607/Britains-ex... [5] https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/craig-murray-to-be-jailed-after-supreme-court-refuses-permission-to-appeal https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/craig-murray-to-be-jai...
  - Traster 5y ago
    Jigsaw identification literally isn't a charge in law, he was in conempt of court. It's not that jigsaw identification isn't a term that exists, it's that, as with all gish galloping you've taken some random item and gone off on a weird tangent. The judgement says he posted the accuser's job and the time she held it which was uniquely identifiable information "tantamount to naming the accuser". That doesn't sound like a very complex jigsaw to me. You also don't need to peice things together because his readers also posted the names of the accusers in the comments section of the article. Making it pretty difficult to argue he didn't know he was identifying the accusers. What also makes it pretty difficult to argue he didn't know he was identifying the women is that he said he wanted to identify the women without breaking the court order - which is literally impossible, because that's what the court order said. So all this "Oh this is a unique situation never happened before since..." is completely irrelevant - which is why it's gish galloping- throwing up irrelevant rubbish to try and distract from the really quite simple facts of the case.

by k1m 5y ago

Traster 5y ago

>The one who's had the least impact in identifying the people you claim to want to protect, and the one who's been a thorn in your side for many years. Ah no, see this isn't the same thing at all. The standard for the law is whether people can tell from your reporting who the person is. Sure, more people may have identified the person from some other reporting, but that's highly likely to be becuase the other reporting is in national newspapers and the like, not the 150 people who visit Murray's website. It doesn't matter if more people actually identify the accusers from another source, it matters what the reporting is - and Murray reporting details that were literally uniquely identifying an individual (and actually kept up comments in response to his blog that literally identified them). >First you claim they're "absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional", and in the next line you write he did something so unique that no jigsaw identification was necessary at all. So then why is he being charged with jigsaw identification? He wasn't. This comes down to the fact you're listening to disingenous talking points. He's not charged with "jigsaw identification". The uniquely prosecutable thing he did was he identified the acccusers after the court order saying their identity should be protected. The whole "jigsaw identification" thing is gish galloping. His supporters have made up a nonsense talking point to defend him.

k1m 5y ago
> The whole "jigsaw identification" thing is gish galloping. His supporters have made up a nonsense talking point to defend him. I'm not going to continue this as it's not going anywhere. But as you're so adamant that he wasn't charged with jigsaw identification, and that it's only something his supporters claim (even though it's literally in the document you posted), you might want to take it upon yourself to reach out to the following publications and ask them to correct the record: * The Guardian: "Ex-diplomat found in contempt of court over ‘jigsaw identification’" [1] * BBC: "the retired diplomat breached the order and published pieces of information on his blog which, if pieced together like a jigsaw, could lead readers to establish the identities of the women" [2] * The Independent: "Former diplomat hands himself in at police station to begin sentence over ‘jigsaw ID’ of Salmond accusers" [3] * Daily Mail: "Lady Dorrian said Murray deliberately risked what is known as 'jigsaw identification'." [4] * Scottish Legal News: "He published information on his blog which enabled jigsaw identification of the women in the case." [5] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/01/alex-salmond-blogger-craig-murray-hands-himself-into-police-to-begin-jail-term https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/01/alex-salmon... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58018127 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58018127 [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/craig-murray-jigsaw-id-prison-b1894684.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/craig-murray... [4] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9849607/Britains-ex-ambassador-Uzbekistan-Craig-Murray-hands-police.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9849607/Britains-ex... [5] https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/craig-murray-to-be-jailed-after-supreme-court-refuses-permission-to-appeal https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/craig-murray-to-be-jai...
- Traster 5y ago
  Jigsaw identification literally isn't a charge in law, he was in conempt of court. It's not that jigsaw identification isn't a term that exists, it's that, as with all gish galloping you've taken some random item and gone off on a weird tangent. The judgement says he posted the accuser's job and the time she held it which was uniquely identifiable information "tantamount to naming the accuser". That doesn't sound like a very complex jigsaw to me. You also don't need to peice things together because his readers also posted the names of the accusers in the comments section of the article. Making it pretty difficult to argue he didn't know he was identifying the accusers. What also makes it pretty difficult to argue he didn't know he was identifying the women is that he said he wanted to identify the women without breaking the court order - which is literally impossible, because that's what the court order said. So all this "Oh this is a unique situation never happened before since..." is completely irrelevant - which is why it's gish galloping- throwing up irrelevant rubbish to try and distract from the really quite simple facts of the case.