Murray's jailing is latest move in a battle to snuff out independent journalism(jonathan-cook.net)
jonathan-cook.net
Murray's jailing is latest move in a battle to snuff out independent journalism
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2021-07-30/craig-murrays-jailing-is-the-latest-move-in-the-battle-to-snuff-out-independent-journalism/
7 comments
What you don't get by reading this ruling is the full context given by Jonathan Cook and the double standards he highlights.
> The whole thing is just pretty funny
Glad you can laught it off. Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders have expressed grave concerns: "Craig Murray's prison sentence on charges related to his blogging is disproportionate and highly concerning. RSF emphasises that journalistic activity should not lead to prison sentences anywhere; imprisonment in connection with any journalistic activity should only ever be a measure of absolute last resort - if at all. It is certainly not what we would expect in a country committed to protecting media freedom and the safety of journalists." - https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-blogger-craig-murray-jailed-eight...
> The whole thing is just pretty funny
Glad you can laught it off. Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders have expressed grave concerns: "Craig Murray's prison sentence on charges related to his blogging is disproportionate and highly concerning. RSF emphasises that journalistic activity should not lead to prison sentences anywhere; imprisonment in connection with any journalistic activity should only ever be a measure of absolute last resort - if at all. It is certainly not what we would expect in a country committed to protecting media freedom and the safety of journalists." - https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-blogger-craig-murray-jailed-eight...
This is weak sauce - yes he broke the law, but journalists should never go to prison even if they break the law, says journalist organization.
In recent times journalists have constantly put people in danger by making misleading or downright false claims and engaging in what can only be called "doxxing", then evading responsibility by abusing "freedom of the press" arguments. I hope we get to see many, many more journalists going to prison in the future!
In recent times journalists have constantly put people in danger by making misleading or downright false claims and engaging in what can only be called "doxxing", then evading responsibility by abusing "freedom of the press" arguments. I hope we get to see many, many more journalists going to prison in the future!
I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's pretty revealing that RSF's concerns seem to be limited to the jailing itself and they implicitly accept that he's guilty of a serious offense and deserving of some level of punishment ("alternative measures considered in lieu of his prison sentence").
Even if one shares the RSF's concerns, and I would count myself in that group, that's a far cry from the implication that OP's article is making that the whole case is a sham.
Even if one shares the RSF's concerns, and I would count myself in that group, that's a far cry from the implication that OP's article is making that the whole case is a sham.
You don't think it's funny that he escaped legal liability because the court came to the conclusion that what he wrote was so mis-representative that it couldn't be considered an actual breach? I personally thinks that both funny, and indicative that the judge is being balanced, rather than disproportionate.
As for Jonathon Cook - the double standard he claims doesn't exist in the judgement.
As for Jonathon Cook - the double standard he claims doesn't exist in the judgement.
He's being jailed for 8 months for his writing. Hardly escaping legal liability. I don't find that funny, no.
As for Jonathan Cook's piece, the double standard he writes about is the fact that those who claim they learned of the identities of the individuals claim they did so not from Craig Murray's writing but from other reporters. That's been completely ignored by this ruling. Do you think we'll see a court case targeting BBC reporters or the writer Dani Garavelli, cited by most respondants as the main source? Isn't it a double standard if they escape jail but Murray doesn't? Certainly looks to me like someone's got an axe to grind when they fixate on the ways Murray may have let readers learn about identities but gives other reporters a pass - especially when public surveys reveal those other reporters to be even more culpable than Murray.
As for Jonathan Cook's piece, the double standard he writes about is the fact that those who claim they learned of the identities of the individuals claim they did so not from Craig Murray's writing but from other reporters. That's been completely ignored by this ruling. Do you think we'll see a court case targeting BBC reporters or the writer Dani Garavelli, cited by most respondants as the main source? Isn't it a double standard if they escape jail but Murray doesn't? Certainly looks to me like someone's got an axe to grind when they fixate on the ways Murray may have let readers learn about identities but gives other reporters a pass - especially when public surveys reveal those other reporters to be even more culpable than Murray.
It’s illegal to publish information identifying the accusers it’s not illegal to figure out who the accusers were. There is no double standard. Again, reading from the judgement, the other journalists follow a code of conduct that even Murray acknowledged he had no intention of following. Meanwhile the attempt to go out and try and find people who figured out the identity through other means is entirely immaterial to the case. It’s just not relevant because that’s not what the law is about.
It has never been a defence in law that “oh well other people did it too”
It has never been a defence in law that “oh well other people did it too”
> It’s illegal to publish information identifying the accusers it’s not illegal to figure out who the accusers were.
This whole case has supposedly been about protecting the identities of people involved in the Salmond case by preventing "jigsaw identification".
The court document you posted has this:
"Jigsaw identification can occur through the combination of separate pieces of information or details about inter alia the victims, nature and timing of the offences and locations. ...Seemingly innocuous facts published can still pose the risk of jigsaw identification when viewed within the existing matrix of information..."
> Meanwhile the attempt to go out and try and find people who figured out the identity through other means is entirely immaterial to the case. It’s just not relevant because that’s not what the law is about.
Why is it immaterial? They're claiming Murray did something exceptional. But when you ask (via a standard public poll, not "finding people who figured out the identity through other means" as you claim), those who were able to identify the people involved nearly all point to other media, not Murray, as their source.
You can claim that's immaterial and the court has no reason to look at how other reporters revealed identities via jigsaw identification, but I don't think that's very convincing to the general public. And when you take into account Murray's history (as Jonathan Cook does in his article), it looks to many people like he's being singled out and punished for being a thorn in their side for too long.
Not to mention that no one has been jailed for jigsaw identification ever before.
This whole case has supposedly been about protecting the identities of people involved in the Salmond case by preventing "jigsaw identification".
The court document you posted has this:
"Jigsaw identification can occur through the combination of separate pieces of information or details about inter alia the victims, nature and timing of the offences and locations. ...Seemingly innocuous facts published can still pose the risk of jigsaw identification when viewed within the existing matrix of information..."
> Meanwhile the attempt to go out and try and find people who figured out the identity through other means is entirely immaterial to the case. It’s just not relevant because that’s not what the law is about.
Why is it immaterial? They're claiming Murray did something exceptional. But when you ask (via a standard public poll, not "finding people who figured out the identity through other means" as you claim), those who were able to identify the people involved nearly all point to other media, not Murray, as their source.
You can claim that's immaterial and the court has no reason to look at how other reporters revealed identities via jigsaw identification, but I don't think that's very convincing to the general public. And when you take into account Murray's history (as Jonathan Cook does in his article), it looks to many people like he's being singled out and punished for being a thorn in their side for too long.
Not to mention that no one has been jailed for jigsaw identification ever before.
They’re absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional- that has nothing to do with whether he broke the law.
Also let’s drop this stuff about jigsaw identification- the judgement literally says some information was so unique as to singularly identify a person. No jigsaw identification necessary at all - he posted the accusers job and the time she held it, which uniquely identifies her.
Also let’s drop this stuff about jigsaw identification- the judgement literally says some information was so unique as to singularly identify a person. No jigsaw identification necessary at all - he posted the accusers job and the time she held it, which uniquely identifies her.
> 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.
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.
>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.
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.
> 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-salmon...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58018127
[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/craig-murray...
[4] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9849607/Britains-ex...
[5] https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/craig-murray-to-be-jai...
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-salmon...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58018127
[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/craig-murray...
[4] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9849607/Britains-ex...
[5] https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/craig-murray-to-be-jai...
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.
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.
A subtle point that might be missed is that Murray's reports of the Alex Salmond trial and Salmond's innocence lend weight to the theory that Salmond's accusers may have been part of a coordinated political attack. The big government machine is striking back.
If someone is found innocent at trial, it is therefore a coordinated political attack? That’s a stretch.
Depends if months of bad press and accusations damaged his political standing.
I don't like Salmon, but a smear is a smear even if no one goes to prison...
I don't like Salmon, but a smear is a smear even if no one goes to prison...
> If someone is found innocent at trial, it is therefore a coordinated political attack?
You surely didn't read that claim or any related claim in the comment you're replying to.
You surely didn't read that claim or any related claim in the comment you're replying to.
I am 100% in the camp that someone should have resigned but to say that there was a "coordinated political attack" makes no sense.
Salmond had already made himself totally irrelevant. He was lobbing grenades from the sidelines through Cherry and McAskill but he wasn't very effective (Salmond had electoral success but was personally never popular, with women in particular).
And all this ignores the fact that the person who put Salmond in jeopardy was Salmond by acting like a massive creep.
What happened in the case was largely a function of total incompetence by the Scottish Civil Service/govt. If you are familiar with Scotland, that is standard. Several people from the Civil Service should have resigned, they didn't. Sturgeon's testimony was obviously inconsistent at several points. This isn't the same thing as a "political attack" (again, be totally clear, Salmond has no political role...he isn't a politician, he is someone who used to be a politician).
Also, there is no "big government machine" in Scotland, and it most certainly does not control the courts if it did exists. That just isn't how the law works in Scotland or the UK (if you needed evidence of this, both govts have had run ins with the courts...if this was true then why was Salmond found innocent).
Salmond had already made himself totally irrelevant. He was lobbing grenades from the sidelines through Cherry and McAskill but he wasn't very effective (Salmond had electoral success but was personally never popular, with women in particular).
And all this ignores the fact that the person who put Salmond in jeopardy was Salmond by acting like a massive creep.
What happened in the case was largely a function of total incompetence by the Scottish Civil Service/govt. If you are familiar with Scotland, that is standard. Several people from the Civil Service should have resigned, they didn't. Sturgeon's testimony was obviously inconsistent at several points. This isn't the same thing as a "political attack" (again, be totally clear, Salmond has no political role...he isn't a politician, he is someone who used to be a politician).
Also, there is no "big government machine" in Scotland, and it most certainly does not control the courts if it did exists. That just isn't how the law works in Scotland or the UK (if you needed evidence of this, both govts have had run ins with the courts...if this was true then why was Salmond found innocent).
I've enjoyed some of Murray's writing, in particular he did some quite good court reporting related to Assange. I have also been intrigued by his non-orthodox interpretations of that chemical weapons incident in Salisbury, though some might call these pieces outrageous conspiracy writing. I did not really follow the stuff around Salmond so I can't comment on what happened there. In any case, it seems a bit severe to me to jail this guy for hinting at information that major press apparently also made easy to find. At least, this is what is claimed. He is quite old and apparently his health isn't the best either, so I would have expected something like house arrest or a suspended sentence at worst.
> Murray is also the first person to be jailed in Britain for contempt of court in half a century
That is not true.
That is not true.
Looks like Murray was in contempt of court for doxxing female witnesses in a sexual assault trial, in defiance of a judge’s order.
Jigsaw identification isn't same as doxxing. The issue here is the double standards, as Jonathan Cook points out:
> In finding Murray guilty of so-called "jigsaw identification", Lady Dorrian did not make a distinction between what Murray wrote about the Salmond case and what approved, corporate journalists wrote.
> That is for good reason. Two surveys have shown that most of those following the Salmond trial who believe they identified one or more of his accusers did so from the coverage of the corporate media, especially the BBC. Murray's writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond's accusers.
> Rather, Lady Dorrian’s distinction was between who gets protected when identification occurs. Write for the Times or the Guardian, or broadcast on the BBC, where the audience reach is enormous, and the courts will protect you from prosecution. Write about the same issues for a blog, and you risk being hounded into prison.
> In finding Murray guilty of so-called "jigsaw identification", Lady Dorrian did not make a distinction between what Murray wrote about the Salmond case and what approved, corporate journalists wrote.
> That is for good reason. Two surveys have shown that most of those following the Salmond trial who believe they identified one or more of his accusers did so from the coverage of the corporate media, especially the BBC. Murray's writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond's accusers.
> Rather, Lady Dorrian’s distinction was between who gets protected when identification occurs. Write for the Times or the Guardian, or broadcast on the BBC, where the audience reach is enormous, and the courts will protect you from prosecution. Write about the same issues for a blog, and you risk being hounded into prison.
Please, apply some critical thinking and stop regurgitating this propaganda. If a judge tells you to stop doing something, you stop doing it, especially after being warned multiple times. Whether your reporting ended up being the critical missing piece is irrelevant.
Craig Murray addresses this in his latest post:
> I want to touch on one other aspect of liberty in my own imprisonment that appears not understood, or perhaps simply neglected, because somehow the very notion of liberty is slipping from our political culture. One point that features plainly in the troll talking points to be used against me, recurring continually on social media, is that I was ordered to take down material from my blog and refused.
> There is an extremely important point here. I have always instantly complied with any order of a court to remove material. What I have not done is comply with instructions from the Crown or Procurator Fiscal to remove material. Because it is over 330 years since the Crown had the right of censorship in Scotland without the intervention of a judge.
...
> What is even more terrifying in my case is that the Court explicitly states that I should have followed the directions of the Crown Office in what I did and did not publish, and my failure to not publish as the Crown ordered is an aggravating factor in my sentencing.
> If the Crown thinks something I write is in contempt and I think it is not, the Crown and I should stand as equals in court and argue our cases. There should be no presumption I ought to have obeyed the Crown in the first place. That Scottish “justice” has lost sight of this is disastrous, though perhaps as much from stupidity as malice.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/08/keeping-free...
> I want to touch on one other aspect of liberty in my own imprisonment that appears not understood, or perhaps simply neglected, because somehow the very notion of liberty is slipping from our political culture. One point that features plainly in the troll talking points to be used against me, recurring continually on social media, is that I was ordered to take down material from my blog and refused.
> There is an extremely important point here. I have always instantly complied with any order of a court to remove material. What I have not done is comply with instructions from the Crown or Procurator Fiscal to remove material. Because it is over 330 years since the Crown had the right of censorship in Scotland without the intervention of a judge.
...
> What is even more terrifying in my case is that the Court explicitly states that I should have followed the directions of the Crown Office in what I did and did not publish, and my failure to not publish as the Crown ordered is an aggravating factor in my sentencing.
> If the Crown thinks something I write is in contempt and I think it is not, the Crown and I should stand as equals in court and argue our cases. There should be no presumption I ought to have obeyed the Crown in the first place. That Scottish “justice” has lost sight of this is disastrous, though perhaps as much from stupidity as malice.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/08/keeping-free...
> If a judge tells you to stop doing something, you stop doing
Even if they have no legal right to?
Even if they have no legal right to?
But they do. In Scotland (and the rest of the UK) judges can bar publication of a wide range of material about a court case, in advance or retrospectively, and enforce it by order. That order has penal consequences if broken.
If you don't think the order is within the legal bounds of the power, you can appeal it. (News organisations do this semi-regularly). What you shouldn't do is breach it and hope to get off at the contempt hearing.
If you don't think the order is within the legal bounds of the power, you can appeal it. (News organisations do this semi-regularly). What you shouldn't do is breach it and hope to get off at the contempt hearing.
> bar publication of a wide range of material about a court case
applied to all but journalists?
applied to all but journalists?
The ruling that has been linked in another comment and if you read that you can see that in this case neither side disputed the lawful nature of the restrictive order. In other words noone involved claimed the judge didn't have the legal right to tell Murray not to allow identification of the complainers.
This post was a response to a maxim (a generalization), not this case.
Judge can do anything they want, regardless of laws or sanity.
Judge orders you to wear a purple hat, you wear a purple hat.
You can seek relief from other judges if you don’t like it. Anything else and you go to jail.
My experience doing tech support for them when I was young is that they are the most arrogant people imaginable.
You can seek relief from other judges if you don’t like it. Anything else and you go to jail.
My experience doing tech support for them when I was young is that they are the most arrogant people imaginable.
My understanding is that they were doxxed by piecing together multiple news stories. I guess journalists each giving away pieces to the puzzle.
Looks like Murray has been categorized as not a journalist and gets a prison sentence.
Looks like Murray has been categorized as not a journalist and gets a prison sentence.
From the court's ruling
> specified the job held by her at the time in question. The specificity is such that to specify her as holding it when she did, and in the context which is given, is tantamount to naming her. This is a clear breach of the order.
It's like saying I haven't named told you I slept with Boris Johnson, but I have told you I've slept with the Prime Minister. It's what a stupid person would think is a way of skirting a court order not to name someone.
> specified the job held by her at the time in question. The specificity is such that to specify her as holding it when she did, and in the context which is given, is tantamount to naming her. This is a clear breach of the order.
It's like saying I haven't named told you I slept with Boris Johnson, but I have told you I've slept with the Prime Minister. It's what a stupid person would think is a way of skirting a court order not to name someone.
> My understanding is that they were doxxed by piecing together multiple news stories.
Murray deliberately published information to doxx the sexual assault complainers. He doubled down after being warned multiple times he has breaching the court order
> Looks like Murray has been categorized as not a journalist
Whether Murray is a journalist or not is entirely irrelevant. The court order Murray broke applies to everybody.
Murray deliberately published information to doxx the sexual assault complainers. He doubled down after being warned multiple times he has breaching the court order
> Looks like Murray has been categorized as not a journalist
Whether Murray is a journalist or not is entirely irrelevant. The court order Murray broke applies to everybody.
> The court order Murray broke applies to everybody.
It clearly doesn't as two surveys showed those who claim they were able to identify individuals from the reporting of the case, said they were able to do so from reports from the BBC and other corporate media. None of those reporters are facing jail.
Again, what Jonathan Cook is pointing out is exactly the opposite of what you claim. The court order does not apply to everybody: "Murray's writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond's accusers."
It clearly doesn't as two surveys showed those who claim they were able to identify individuals from the reporting of the case, said they were able to do so from reports from the BBC and other corporate media. None of those reporters are facing jail.
Again, what Jonathan Cook is pointing out is exactly the opposite of what you claim. The court order does not apply to everybody: "Murray's writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond's accusers."
Of course these other journalists were named more often in surveys: they have a much broader reach. Name recognition is not the issue; ethical standards are.
Craig Murray is being jailed because he allegedly helped reveal the identities of individuals through his reporting. There's nothing indicating his reporting revealed any more information about those identities than reporters from the BBC and other outlets. In fact, surveys show those other reporters did far more to help people identify those individuals.
But they're not being jailed. Craig Murray has been singled out. Nothing ethical about that.
But they're not being jailed. Craig Murray has been singled out. Nothing ethical about that.
Two of Murray's claims in his defence were:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-trial-and...
> 5. The court order protecting identities did not come into being before 10 March 2020. Most of the Crown’s alleged examples are before this date. We absolutely deny my articles enable jigsaw identification, but even if they did they were not illegal at the time of publication.
together with:
> 6. Up until 10 March 2020, had I wished to publish identities I could have done so quite legally in the articles before that date which the Lord Advocate cites. Unlike England, there is no law in Scotland barring publication of witness identity absent a specific court order. The fact I did not do so in the year between my learning identities and the ban coming into force, in several articles on the case where I could legally have published the identities, make nonsense the Lord Advocate’s contention that I deliberately gave clues.
Much has been made of point 6, and I can understand not being convinced by it.
But is there not truth to point 5? I guess not, since he was found guilty. I'd be interested in reading why this was discounted.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-trial-and...
> 5. The court order protecting identities did not come into being before 10 March 2020. Most of the Crown’s alleged examples are before this date. We absolutely deny my articles enable jigsaw identification, but even if they did they were not illegal at the time of publication.
together with:
> 6. Up until 10 March 2020, had I wished to publish identities I could have done so quite legally in the articles before that date which the Lord Advocate cites. Unlike England, there is no law in Scotland barring publication of witness identity absent a specific court order. The fact I did not do so in the year between my learning identities and the ban coming into force, in several articles on the case where I could legally have published the identities, make nonsense the Lord Advocate’s contention that I deliberately gave clues.
Much has been made of point 6, and I can understand not being convinced by it.
But is there not truth to point 5? I guess not, since he was found guilty. I'd be interested in reading why this was discounted.
Online publication is deemed 'continuous' as long as the material is up. 'It's an old article' isn't a defence if you're on notice that it needs to be taken down.
Incidentally, the robots.txt file for one of Britain's less reputable papers (IIRC The Sun) used to have a specific list of story URLs not to crawl which I suspect were those they'd been ordered to take down after libel actions etc.
Incidentally, the robots.txt file for one of Britain's less reputable papers (IIRC The Sun) used to have a specific list of story URLs not to crawl which I suspect were those they'd been ordered to take down after libel actions etc.
> Murray deliberately published information to doxx the sexual assault complainers.
That's a strong claim that i haven't seen before. Why do you believe it was deliberate?
> The court order Murray broke applies to everybody.
What is your explanation for why the order has not been applied to any other journalists, when we know that other journalists contributed much more more to people learning the identities of the complainants?
That's a strong claim that i haven't seen before. Why do you believe it was deliberate?
> The court order Murray broke applies to everybody.
What is your explanation for why the order has not been applied to any other journalists, when we know that other journalists contributed much more more to people learning the identities of the complainants?
> Why do you believe it was deliberate?
“The courts warned him to take his blog down or face the consequences of identifying the women but he refused.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/called-scots-act...
> What is your explanation for why the order has not been applied to any other journalists
Actually, no, that's untrue. IIRC, the Spectator was warned or investigated for some material it published.
“The courts warned him to take his blog down or face the consequences of identifying the women but he refused.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/called-scots-act...
> What is your explanation for why the order has not been applied to any other journalists
Actually, no, that's untrue. IIRC, the Spectator was warned or investigated for some material it published.
Edit: yeah he was warned by the court multiple times. He should have edited his pieces.
Original comment: Wait, when was he warned?
Original comment: Wait, when was he warned?
He also literally states in his own testimony to the court that he intended to attempt to reveal the identities without being in contempt of court.
The whole thing is just pretty funny - he's basically saying "Oh well I didn't say their names" and the court is saying "Yeah that's not the standard of the court order, you made it easy to identify them". I mean honestly, he literally told people what on the accusers job was, and when she did that job, meaning that there was only 1 possible person he could've been talking about.
[1]https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...