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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Original comment: Wait, when was he warned?