Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,184
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 741
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 05:40:31 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Shit. Craig Murray jailed for 'media contempt'.

Started by Paul Calf, July 30, 2021, 04:02:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jumblegraws

Quote from: Paul Calf on August 03, 2021, 09:15:15 AM
That's not what I'm doing. Fascist sympathy is not the issue here, it's liberal complacency. When you know someone (Steven Lemons) is acting in bad faith, there's no obligation to pretend that they aren't.
You seem to be making the assumption that consenting to Robinson being treated as a de jure journalist in a court compels us all to esteem him as the real deal in citizen life. This is an oddly legalistic way of viewing the world.

Paul Calf


Jumblegraws

In the specific context of Cook's article though, which was about fettering the judiciary's discretion in defining "journalist/journalism". If you weren't paying heed to that context when you replied then you've practically been talking to yourself this whole time.

My first reply to you even starts with "Ok, but...", acknowledging that denying Robinson the title "journalist" might have merit generally, but that Cook was specifically talking about the term's currency in procedural law.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Paul Calf on August 03, 2021, 09:15:15 AM
That's not what I'm doing. Fascist sympathy is not the issue here, it's liberal complacency.

Right but in that case you could have been a clearer as you accused JG of "dry-support for fascism"; I think you are wrong on both accounts as it happens JG appears the be looking at the bigger picture of what message does it send to the public.  The judiciary would have looked at both cases in terms of does this meet the threshold of a criminal act and what sentences are typically given for crimes of this nature; they are not going to really care about what credentials someone has as a journalist unless this was so much in the public interest as to warrant journalistic impunity; even then there would be a consideration on whether or not this could have been done without putting individuals at risk (which I'm sure has actually come into play in this situation).

Rather than starting out that Murray has indeed been victim of a fit up perhaps consider what precedent it sets for witnesses and court protections if no crime committed was considered in this case; what foundation it would imply for future cases for identifying witnesses and should they be decided on some peoples opinions of the accused character.

ZoyzaSorris

This does all strike me as the 'optics left' strking again after all the damage they inadvertantly did during the anti-semitism scam.


Gurke and Hare

So the single case mentioned in support of the Scottish judiciary's pin-point, laser guided campaign of malicious prosecution of those who criticise the Scottish government (which is in itself a strange description of Murray's vile if not criminal remarks) is a case that was thrown out of court by the first judge it came in front of? Not a very efficient campaign is it?

chveik

so he won't have a proper trial? that's fucked up

TrenterPercenter

A piece on this below and I think this is quite a pressing point

QuoteTwo-tier journalism

The most glaring, and disturbing, legal innovation in Lady Dorrian's ruling against Murray – and the main reason he is heading to prison – is her decision to divide journalists into two classes: those who work for approved corporate media outlets, and those like Murray who are independent, often funded by readers rather than paid big salaries by billionaires or the state.

According to Lady Dorrian, licensed, corporate journalists are entitled to legal protections she denied to unofficial and independent journalists like Murray – the very journalists who are most likely to take on governments, criticise the legal system, and expose the hypocrisy and lies of the corporate media.

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./quote]
https://dissidentvoice.org/2021/07/craig-murrays-jailing-is-the-latest-move-in-a-battle-to-snuff-out-independent-journalism/

chveik


Jumblegraws

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on August 05, 2021, 02:28:41 PM
A piece on this below and I think this is quite a pressing point
This is the Cook piece that's been discussed for the past couple of pages. As compelling as the language of the article might seem, Cook really ought to show his working with reference to the judgement itself. I'm not a lawyer, but I have now read the judgement several times, and I am still at a loss as to how Cook has concluded that, by way of judicial activism, Dorian has created two tiers of journalism at common law, with one tier enjoying privileges denied to the other. Frankly, I suspect Cook is banking on his readers not checking out the judgement for themselves - this would also explain the bold claim that Murray is the first party to be convicted of contempt of court in fifty years. Anyone who's read the judgement would quickly see that this is contradicted by the case law citations.

TrenterPercenter

I nearly put if this is to be believed.  However the Panelbase survey is real non? I'm not concerned that Murray paid for it that makes no difference - why is Murray being held to a different standard than other publications.  Is there some slight of hand here?