Looks like Murray was in contempt of court for doxxing female witnesses in a sexual assault trial, in defiance of a judge’s order.
> 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.
Even if they have no legal right to?
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.
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.
applied to all but journalists?
> 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...
Looks like Murray has been categorized as not a journalist and gets a prison sentence.
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.
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."
But they're not being jailed. Craig Murray has been singled out. Nothing ethical about that.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
Original comment: Wait, when was he warned?
> 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.