The Alex Salmond Trial - Page 6 - Politics - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Alex Salmond Trial


exile
 Share

Recommended Posts

Will be interesting to see how the media and mainstream journalists cover this - if at all - apparently he's not handing himself in till Sunday, so that give another 2 days for all the weekend shows and pundits to offer their opinion.

 Craig Murray’s jailing is the latest move in a battle to snuff out independent journalism (jonathan-cook.net)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Scottish independence is strong in artistic communities and in the disenfranchised.   Among lawyers and judges less so.   Put yourself in their minds...  establishment figures.   They see Murray as a weirdo.   Dangerous on the loose.

Who else gets a jail on first offence?   With no trial and no appeal.

There was a trial, there was also an appeal. 

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

There was a trial. 

With no jury and in front of the same judge he pissed off during the Salmond trial. I'm pretty perturbed about how this has all played out. I was SNP all the way my whole life. I'll only vote for them now to keep out actual Unionist parties. Very deflated about their lack of progress on independence and the apparent targeting of critics within the Yes movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, killiefaetheferry said:

With no jury and in front of the same judge he pissed off during the Salmond trial. I'm pretty perturbed about how this has all played out. I was SNP all the way my whole life. I'll only vote for them now to keep out actual Unionist parties. Very deflated about their lack of progress on independence and the apparent targeting of critics within the Yes movement.

That tends to be how contempt of court cases are dealt with and why it’s generally not a good idea to piss the judge off.  I didn’t see too many people complaining when Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was imprisoned in similar circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, killiefaetheferry said:

With no jury and in front of the same judge he pissed off during the Salmond trial. I'm pretty perturbed about how this has all played out. I was SNP all the way my whole life. I'll only vote for them now to keep out actual Unionist parties. Very deflated about their lack of progress on independence and the apparent targeting of critics within the Yes movement.

Their new complaints officer comes across as a bell end on Twitter as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

Will be interesting to see how the media and mainstream journalists cover this - if at all - apparently he's not handing himself in till Sunday, so that give another 2 days for all the weekend shows and pundits to offer their opinion.

 Craig Murray’s jailing is the latest move in a battle to snuff out independent journalism (jonathan-cook.net)

Both the article and the Craig Murray group claim "Murray is also the first person to be jailed in Britain for contempt of court in half a century"

However,

"The first juror to be prosecuted for contempt of court for using the internet has been sentenced to eight months in jail.

Joanne Fraill, 40, admitted at London's high court using Facebook to exchange messages with Jamie Sewart, 34,"

 

"In 2012, juror and university lecturer Theodora Dallas was jailed for six months for carrying out her own research about defendant Barry Medlock, who was on trial for causing grievous bodily harm."

 

"In 2016, Damian Parker-Stokes was jailed for 15 months for taking photographs in court as his friend Ryan Sheppard was being jailed for murder.

Parker-Stokes posted one image on Sheppard's Facebook page with the words: "Respect g at least u had the balls to admit it ..."

The then Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, said people who used Facebook to "mock the administration of justice" and "cause considerable concern" to a victim's family, "must be deterred by the most severe sentences"."

 

"Tommy Robinson has been jailed for nine months for contempt of court.

The ex-English Defence League leader was found guilty last week of interfering with the trial of a sexual grooming gang at Leeds Crown Court in May 2018."

 

It has happened before and to multiple people, claiming it doesn't while it demonstrably does doesn't help the case. I guess they could mean in relation to a jigsaw identification specifically but then state it rather than the quote above. Cause you read that and think "oh really, let me check that" then you find page after page showing it is a false claim. Ineffective rhetoric. Especially considering you can make the case more effectively in more factual ways. Going to jail when being convicted of contempt of court is totally normal. Folk got twice the sentence for just taking pictures in court. Considering Murray whistleblew on the UK government as soon as he gave them a bite they reeled him in. His reporting could have collapsed the case then imagine the shit storm from that. That's the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Given his age, poor health and young family and it’s not a violent crime, could a non jail time punishment been an option? 

While I'm not sure that jailing him is necessarily the most productive approach - and tbf, you could say that about a raft of different offences/cases - it's hard to see how anything other than a custodial sentence would be the outcome here and the factors you mentioned would've been taken into account as mitigating factors in sentencing, the maximum sentence is 2 years.

He set out to deliberately breach the court orders, was warned in advance about his conduct, was requested to remove the material in question - and refused until he was found guilty.   All of this was in the context of probably the highest profile trial in living memory in Scotland, if not ever.   If he was found guilty he was unlikely to be let off with a slap on the wrist.

It seems to me that most of those defending him do so from one particular perspective: where they stand in the conflicts within the wider Yes movement; his associations with Assange and his prior whistleblowing; a freedom of the press perspective.

Very few, if any, focus on the actual facts of the case and those that do tend to indulge in whataboutery -ie, whatabout Dani Garavelli.

He's also without any sense of contrition or any acceptance that he has done wrong, furthermore, he's now being extremely disingenuous as his recent comments about "not knowing who or how he's IDed" contradict the evidence led in his defence during his trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Given his age, poor health and young family and it’s not a violent crime, could a non jail time punishment been an option? 

You would have liked to think so, but since he didn't capitulate against "authority" then it was inevitable that same authority would throw throw the book at him, if he's not going to temper his actions based on the issues you raise then the court certainly isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phart said:

Both the article and the Craig Murray group claim "Murray is also the first person to be jailed in Britain for contempt of court in half a century"

 

The exact wording in the quoted press release is media contempt of court. As if that is a different thing from 'any' contempt of court? That may explain the apparent discrepancy. 

image.png.89bab089e8b46094dbb847684a02f5c1.png

Irrespective of guilt or sentence, the article raises questions about what the ruling says about journalism and whether mainstream journalists get more protection than others. Am curious to see how (if) mainstream journalists respond to that aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, exile said:

The exact wording in the quoted press release is media contempt of court. As if that is a different thing from 'any' contempt of court? That may explain the apparent discrepancy. 

image.png.89bab089e8b46094dbb847684a02f5c1.png

Irrespective of guilt or sentence, the article raises questions about what the ruling says about journalism and whether mainstream journalists get more protection than others. Am curious to see how (if) mainstream journalists respond to that aspect.

I took the quote from the article you posted which claimed it was setting a precedent.

There was contempt cases for stuff posted on facebook, or do they mean someone who worked in the media, seems like a stretch so they can make use some hyperbolic rhetoric. For example someone got twice the sentence Murray got for posting a picture they took inside court to facebook.

Journalism has been a shambles forever look at how after the first wave (covid) journalists from certain publications were amplifying voices saying it was over etc, tens of thousands of dolk died. Or how they talk about global warming but never mention that since 1998 100 companies are responsible for 70% of all emissions , this will create catastrophic conditions displacing a 1,000,000,000 people wipe out large chunks of the planets Fauna and god knows what else.

The answer is yes they do get treated differently and if you needed this case to answer that then you haven't been paying attention. I've posted the Chomksy/Marr exchange dozens of times over the almost 20 years i've been posting here.

Spoiler alert

No one is going to say anything. nothing is going to change

The major police forces have been shown to be instituionally corrupt and racist, the army ran huge dirty trick campaigns in Northern Ireland, planted journalists whipped up support for wars on dodgy premises, yet folk are perplexed that Craig Murray is going to get 8 months for continually laying out trails of breadcrumbs to identify folk he was told over and over again he can't identify then refusing to take it down, doubling down etc, all while the courts exonerated Salmond anyway.

It really reminds me of the apocryphal "Dundee man lost at sea: Titanic sunk" level of monomania. Craig Murray has become a victim of his own peremptoriness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, phart said:

I took the quote from the article you posted which claimed it was setting a precedent.

 

Yes, you're right, Cook's blog omits the word "media". Cook's blog cited the tweet that paraphrased, but also cited, the original press release, that used the phrase "media contempt".  I was just pointing out the discrepancy, and so, why the original claims were not as hyperbolic as in the blog, or if you prefer, why the blog could be said to be misleading,

I don't see a problem using a current public interest case to discuss the wider 'shambolic' state of journalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, exile said:

Yes, you're right, Cook's blog omits the word "media". Cook's blog cited the tweet that paraphrased, but also cited, the original press release, that used the phrase "media contempt".  I was just pointing out the discrepancy, and so, why the original claims were not as hyperbolic as in the blog, or if you prefer, why the blog could be said to be misleading,

I don't see a problem using a current public interest case to discuss the wider 'shambolic' state of journalism.

It's just plain wrong the claim. If journalism is the presentation of facts without bias or favour then it fails.

Anyway there's 7 folk reading this thread the majority agree with 99% of what the others are saying i'm assuming.

I'm just burnt out with these sort of things atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, phart said:

It's just plain wrong the claim. If journalism is the presentation of facts without bias or favour then it fails.

Anyway there's 7 folk reading this thread the majority agree with 99% of what the others are saying i'm assuming.

I'm just burnt out with these sort of things atm.

I've found taking a break can be good for the soul. You come back and it seems everything the same, same arguments, same gripes, same passions, you just missed out on agreeing or disagreeing. 

Anyway it just takes someone to see the light or get your point - whether Chomsky or Marr - to be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, exile said:

I've found taking a break can be good for the soul. You come back and it seems everything the same, same arguments, same gripes, same passions, you just missed out on agreeing or disagreeing. 

Anyway it just takes someone to see the light or get your point - whether Chomsky or Marr - to be worth it.

That's fair.

I'm in a the more things change the more they stay the same mindset atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...