Graham A Fordyce: The Importance of Murray

I have practised as a solicitor in the Scottish Courts for 36 years. It is only in the last two that I have felt anything approaching shame for my Profession. That shame arises from the way in which our legal process has been abused.

It is a well-known idiom that justice must be done and be seen to be done. It’s also said that justice is blind. There are those in my profession who have elected to don blinkers from the moment allegations surfaced against Alex Salmond; allegations which ranged from the ludicrous to the mendacious and which a first-year law student would have struggled to justify in a mock trial, far less the highest court in the land. It was only the independence of a jury of ordinary citizens who reminded us all what justice looks and feels like. It was the cumulative power of a government, a police force, a prosecution system and a mainstream media which twisted the idea of justice beyond all recognition; and which collectively combined to destroy the reputation of a man who just happens to hold certain political views and was not shy in expressing them.

Entirely in keeping with a Crown Office which confesses its guilt to malicious prosecution (for which no-one has been held accountable, far less disciplined), that same Crown Office selectively interpreted its application of its fundamental duty of upholding the law. Despite every courtroom in Scotland bearing the motto ‘Let no-one attack me with impunity’, the prosecution service in Scotland has acted with impunity in pursuing individuals who did not merit investigation, while ignoring
others and their egregious contempt for the law.

There is one man who stood head and shoulders above us all in his attempt to expose the abuse being heaped on Salmond by a powerful State. He strove to report in meticulous detail the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of Salmond’s trial. He was prevented from doing so by those bit players of the State. That man was Craig Murray.

Such was Big Brother’s anger with Mr Murray, that it then visited upon him a charge of Contempt of Court. Without the protection of a jury, he was duly convicted. Notwithstanding the court’s opinion (and it’s only ever an opinion by a fallible human being who happens to bear the title ‘Judge’) that Mr Murray revealed sufficient information which allowed the identification of anonymous complainers in Salmond’s trial, I have yet to discover the identity of any of them from anything written by Mr Murray; unlike other writers who have helpfully provided me their names in national publications.

There is something rotten in the State of Scotland:

  1.  We have a Scottish Government that deliberately withholds or delays the publication of information vital to an Inquiry into the handling of the harassment claims of the anonymous women; which information is only released after the Inquiry has issued its findings.
  2. We have a prosecution system that is properly given a right to prosecute those considered to have broken the law, but abdicates its responsibility by not applying the same law to us all; and whose decisions are unimpeachable.
  3. We have a mainstream media which is considered by a court more responsible than those lacking professional training, despite the same court having no evidence before it to justify its discrimination. A right of appeal was then denied despite this conviction of jigsaw identification being the first of its kind anywhere on the planet. It’s truly Orwellian.
  4. The anonymity of the complainers continues to be protected, despite Salmond’s acquittal and despite the evidence of some of the complainers being so incredible (in all senses) that it beggars belief that no one faces prosecution for perjury – and still the women’s original complaints have not been investigated, far less resolved!

Craig Murray attempted to expose all of this hypocrisy. He is now languishing in a prison cell.
With the deepest of regret, I must conclude but one thing: the law is an ass.

In all my years of practice in the courts, it’s always struck me as ironic that the word ‘justice’ is rarely spoken by judges or lawyers. I suspect it’s because those taking part know full well that the outcome of any court proceeding has very little to do with justice, but far more reliant on what can be proved or not proved.

If a court is presented with an alleged example of contempt in a particular case, it has no benchmark against which to judge either the extent or effect of the alleged contempt beyond its own subjective opinion. Its decision might seemingly appear justified at the time, but with the passage of time, and the development of the law, either through other cases or legislation, the law evolves. At one time, homosexuality was a criminal offense but the idea that it would be regarded the same way today is risible; dare I say contemptible.

My experience has also taught me a mantra that pervades my professional life. There is a fundamental law of human nature which states that every human relationship, bar none, is an exercise in control. Successful relationships share control because they want to, and less successful relationships because they have to.

That law of nature can be applied to every player noted above; each of them in a struggle for control or power over the other; each of them deploying all the tools at their disposal in their efforts to impose or resist control.

On the face of it, Craig Murray had the least control over any other actor; which goes some way to explain his current accommodation.

However, the real power of people like Craig Murray is their ability to make us think; think about the world we live in, our roles in it, and the kind of society we would like to shape and develop. Fortunately, we’re not yet in a Dystopia that has the power to control our minds.

Craig Murray towers above all those who sought to bring him down. He has demonstrated to me in this sorry affair more than anyone else the real meaning of Justice. Too often we equate power with justice. The two however can only be linked by the application of principle, integrity and honour, all of which are sadly in short supply in Scotland these days among those who seek to control our lives.

I sincerely hope Mr Murray makes enough of us think about who has control in Scotland. Who has power, who is worthy of holding it and who controls the powerful?

Graham A Fordyce


I am grateful to Graham for giving me permission to reproduce his article which was originally published by the Craig Murray Justice Committee. Craig has been disgracefully victimised and articles like this require the widest audience.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland


Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.

Free Subscriptions

Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.


  1. This type of behaviour is symptomatic of the process of the death of democracy. Victimise, intimidate, reduce judicial independence, limit free speech, use a bogeyman – retain power. Putin and Orban must be proud.

    You still have the vote in those countries but it no longer means anything.

    Wither Scotland ?

    Liked by 23 people

    1. No need to mention Putin or Orban. British rulers are past masters at quelling decent, rigging courts, abolishing jury trials, murdering unarmed civilians, suppressing free speech, gerrymandering elections, jailing political activists, interning without trial and gunning down peaceful civil rights protestors. Putin and Orban could well learn a few things from the Brits.

      Liked by 8 people

  2. Graham Fordyce asserts that indeed ‘the law is an ass’, a fact we have all known ( and accepted) for a long time. Unfortunately it has now morphed into a snake.

    Liked by 19 people

  3. Every now and again, when I’m mulling over the events of the last three years, I think that I’ve surely got this wrong, that this can’t be happening in my lifetime, in my country, facilitated (at the very least) by the party and people that I’ve personally supported throughout my adult life. Then I read an article like Graham’s above, and others and it brings the full force of their betrayal of the Scottish electorate and individuals like Murray and Salmond. Values, morals, ethics certainly disappear when power takes hold. The truth will out, as it always does. I hope that I, and those who have paid the highest price will be around to see it.

    Liked by 33 people

      1. Reminds me of Martin Niemoller. Then they came for XXX. Frightening state of affairs, yet already accepted by some as OK in Scotland. If you feel this is OTT it is possibly the same way some German people felt back in the day.

        Liked by 12 people

    1. My thoughts exactly, Annie. I am totally deflated by what’s gone on in my ‘noble’, ‘mature’ and ‘fair’ country. I’ve now completely lost faith, in the Scottish ‘Government.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. On the subject of the SG, this FM is still in her position because Cole Hamilton concluded – incredulously – that she had not broken the ministerial code. Gordon Dangerfields blog shows conclusively she was involved from the very start. But even disregarding that, Cole Hamilton himself wrote in the Herald the other day he had supported one of the alphabetties during the inquiry. Surely he could not then act as an independent arbitrator of Sturgeons behavior? He was anything but independent – tainted with apparent bias…a judge led inquiry is needed but the question remains which Scottish judge could be used, even if such a review could be obtained. Certainly not Dorrian.

        Liked by 8 people

  4. I agree with the author that the prosecution of this case was selective.

    Other journalists published articles that would reasonably merit Contempt of Court charges but were not charged with any offence. I also agree that the sentence was overly punitive.

    However, reluctantly I have to disagree with several points. I know this will not make popular reading.

    Firstly, Mr Murray did reveal the identities of two complainers. I know this because I easily identified them by cross-referencing information that he provided with that in a well-known book.

    Lady Dorian’s judgment discusses the difference between jigsaw identification where hundreds of pieces are involved in order to identify someone, compared with just a few pieces. In Mr Murray’s case, two pieces were needed.

    It’s important to note another writer who provided an account of the trial not unsympathetic to Mr Salmond. Gordon Dangerfield did so meticulously but avoided the extraneous details that allowed identification.

    You might argue that Mr Dangerfield is a solicitor-advocate and that Mr Murray, lulled into a false sense of security due to the outrageous publications of the anti-Salmond msm, has no legal background.

    However, I have to go to the detail of Lady Dorian’s judgement. She does not argue that new media journalists should be held to a different standard from those of msm. She says that the respondent (Mr Murray) frequently argued that he was a professional journalist, and that if so he should have adhered to the standards of the professional code. This is where her allusions to msm standards are found.

    I have read comments about her judgment but only when I personally read the 30 odd pages in detail, as opposed to parts taken out of context, did I understand her logic.

    The difficulty as I see it, is that some people expected Lady Dorian to compare Mr Murray’s writing with those of msm. However, due to the selective prosecution, she had to judge the case against him on the basis of evidence of HIS alleged wrongdoing. The writing of the other journalists had not been subject to judicial process.

    I did detect a tone in Lady Dorian’s judgement, of her being out of touch with developments in journalism. Also, having listened in to the early diets for the case, an edge of hostility towards the respondent, eg she expressed (slightly irritated) surprise that Mr Murray’s lawyer wanted to present witness statements.

    All in all though, the injustice is the selective prosecution of Mr Murray. And the lack of prosecution of journalists who attempted to prevent Me Salmond getting a fair trial by publishing his photo beside those of convicted felons.

    Unfortunately I have to disagree with those who allege obfuscation around whether or not Mr Murray identified complainers. I am clear that he did so. The argument, therefore, has to found on selective prosecution being against natural justice.


    1. Just a little point!!! I think you are wrong with your assessment of how any identification could be made as far as Lady Dorian said. It needed someone who was not familiar with the complainants to be able to identify them by what was said. There was no mention of seeking out other information from books etc to be able to identify them as you say you did. There have been many people who have looked at what Craig wrote about the women and not been able to identify them at all, I am one who took the challenge he put out and although I know much about the party and people I couldn’t identify anyone.

      Liked by 18 people

      1. The judgment sets out the scope of jigsaw identification and includes providing information that can link with other information in the public domain. Not only information that would be meaningful not exclusively to the public in general but to colleagues, those interested in similar topics (eg politics) etc.

        For instance, a similar argument is now being used to further the complaint to the CPS about the recent Sunday Times articles. That through jigsaw identification, the identity of the complainers would be meaningful to MSPs in the Parliamentary Inquiry.

        So, the range available for jigsaw identification is wide. But the key point is the degree of cross tabulation of jigsaw pieces that are required. In this case, very few.

        I can’t speak for others. All I can say is that as a person involved in politics (and a supporter of Mr Salmond’s innocence) I read Mr Murray’s blog keenly and aided by the details that he provided, in a spirit of indignation on his behalf I referred immediately to a well known political book where within a few minutes I made the connections. Dates, locations and particular circumstances made this easy.

        Obviously I can’t state the individuals here, even by initial, and I am reluctant to name the book. I don’t want to hear a knock at my door. But this was my experience. Mr Murray’s account of the relevant information has meanwhile been taken down from his site.

        I have no doubt that the information would have been included in the evidence presented to Lady Dorian. In her judgment she refers to examples that she has seen, and it would have been ludicrous for such easy examples not to have been used.

        Note that Mr Dangerfield has not been charged, despite providing an immaculately fair observation of the process.

        It is entirely appropriate to be defensive of Mr Murray’s position, but on an appropriate basis.


      2. fahobson: “It needed someone who was not familiar with the complainants to be able to identify them by what was said.”

        Indeed, in terms of basic justice that seems to be the crux of the matter in a case dependent on ‘proving’ jigsaw identification from multiple sources. This judge already knew all the complainers identities, and more – and hence knew most of the jigsaw in advance – so should reasonably have recused herself from the Murray case at the outset in order to avoid any claim of ‘apparent bias’.

        Important also to note that the ‘complainer’ in the Murray jigsaw case was the Crown, i.e. the British state. It is well known that the British state rather fell out with its former ambassador.

        Given the rise of Scottish nationalist sentiment there seems little doubt that such episodes are indicative of the workings of a colonial administrative system in which there are people acting as powerful functionaries of a colonial government whose purpose, according to Albert Memmi, is to ‘keep the colonized at bay indefinitely.’

        To describe this as ‘malicious’ may be accurate but it slightly obscures the main motive – which is to ‘keep the colonized at bay indefinitely’. As Graham alluded to, this is also about the use/abuse of power and control as well as the demonstration of privilege and here, again from Memmi, we need to appreciate that ‘colonialism is injustice’.

        Liked by 14 people

    2. Lady Dorian should never have ruled on it in the first place as she already knew who the complainers were. What was needed was someone who had no prior involvement in the matters, now where have I heard that before? Also what is this well known book you refer to Joan?

      Liked by 12 people

      1. As mentioned above, I am cautious about naming the book for obvious reasons, but it is well known in political circles, particularly the independence movement. That’s all I will say.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Thing is though, Joan, many people did NOT know where to even begin to look for clues to fit them together to find out the identities. And so I say that that reasoning can’t be used to find Craig Murray guilty. Some MIGHT know, some might NOT know where to look. The fact is, you can’t – or you SHOULDN’T BE – allowed to pass judgement of guilt on someone who MIGHT NOT HAVE caused others to know the truth. We’re innocent till proved guilty. Lady Dorian didn’t PROVE anyone had pieced together names, from what he wrote. She already knew who they were, so he didn’t give HER clues. Other people without prior knowledge might NOT know where to look to find all the pieces. Where is the justice in being found guilty of something she didn’t know had actually happened?

        You say you only needed two pieces Joan. Until you mentioned ‘a well known book’, I had not the slightest clue where to go to find the answers to who the complainers were! (Not that I know or CARE but… ) And I know I’m not the only one that didn’t know where to look because so many people are still saying they don’t have a scoobie who the complainers are. So it isn’t accurate to say that anyone could find out. . I am not even sure I know to which book you are referring. I have an idea… but I could well be WRONG. The point I’m making is – anybody can find out ANYTHING if you know where to look for pieces… but whether people DO go looking cannot ever be quantified. And thus… can you blame someone for ‘aiding’ in something no one is actually doing?? It’s all hypothetical. I have believed the western culture’s motto ‘Innocent till proven guilty!’ and it seems I was wrong. Dorian didn’t prove Craig had done anything yet she found him guilty of something.

        You don’t want to give the name of the book away b/c it might lead to you being arrested for giving clues. Uh… you already told us the information is in a well known book that most people interested in politics would know about. You’ve directed people to the place to find out who the complainers are. You’ve done what Craig supposedly did. See how easy it is to perhaps inadvertently put puzzles pieces together? But should anyone get done for making it possible for someone to guess? Would you get done for dropping your wallet on the ground b/c you made it possible for someone to find it & steal the money in it? The person finding it might take it to the Police station & hand it in! Should you be arrested, charged & jailed for because loads of other people ALSO CONTRIBUTED by, for example, writing a book? For being the taxi driver who knew who was in the car on such a day? Someone contributed each piece & made it possible. Why are THEY not being charged? It’s a case of he was jailed for ‘just in case people could collate all the pieces of the jigsaw that other people provided’… I’m sorry – I just DON’T SEE THAT AS JUSTICE. And I don’t think Dorian should have gotten away with that.

        But certainly, it’s much more than that that makes the case so heinous. Someone actually LISTED the names – and got a lighter sentence! Many MSM people mentioned the names and were not charged for doing so – where Craig was arrested, charged & sent to jail for the lesser crime. That no journo was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by trying to persuade the jury of Craig’s guilt by putting up his photo with photos of serial killers. Of Lady Dorian not accepting Craig’s journalist status when it was clear he was considered a bona fide accredited Journalist till just before the trial, when the UoJ suddenlyt refused to renew his membership when it became due. She also equated his, as she saw it, inability to self regulate his writing, simply because he was a blogger, with MSM journalists at the mercy of IPSO – WHO ALSO SELF-REGULATE. That the usual case of ‘a crime of less than a year’ getting a less punitive sentence wasn’t acted on. That because of his health he can’t do community service… but he can sit in a cell for 23 1/2 hours a day… Craig was treated with such inequality – and apparent bias – by the judge and there were so many things about this case that we just cannot accept in the spirit of what we laughingly term ‘justice’…

        The fact that the women can strike at Salmond’s reputation whenever they went to, with impunity, under the cloak of anonymity, is disgusting. The law needs changed – in many ways.

        A good article Mr Fordyce. And I agree with your summation of the handling of Craig’s case. It’s unforgiveable what has happened to him.

        Liked by 19 people

      3. Now I ask why will Joan not be prosecuted by COPFS. Why will the MSM not be prosecuted by COPFS.

        Why is Dorian herself not charged she has put out jigsaw info.

        Or at an absurd level if you only need one person to read Murray’s writings and say bingo jigsaw identification Dorian is the person. Dorian can prosecute Murray because she can identify someone so a guilty charge is guaranteed if you want to find a particular person guilty. This is back to witchfinding levels of justice/law.

        I truly find it amazing anyone can be drawn in to this matter and try to find some logic/law or justice in it.

        Dorian and COPFS are either mad or malicious.

        Liked by 9 people

    3. Lady Dorrian, with her suggested wording of the order in the Spectator case revealed one of the accusers. It is someone very, very close to Nicola Sturgeon. How could she have been so reckless and why did none of the high-paid advocates do something as quietly as possible to stop her?

      One might argue that the “Yes Minister” homage revealed several names. As there was no court order in place at that point, he cannot be guilty of breaching an order. His reporting at the trial gave me no clues but Philip Sim’s reporting led me to wonder about the name later revealed by Lady Dorrian.

      If we are going to hold non-journalists to account, how about that Rape Crisis Scotland email that had to be hastily withdrawn?

      Let’s not forget James Doleman. Where were his journalistic standards? He smashed his own Iron Triangle and revealed a name. During the bloody trial no less.

      I have to say, my reading of Lady Dorrian’s judgement is different to yours. What I understand it to mean is that the (ahem) professional media have an independent organisation to which complaints can be made. So do lawyers and credentialed accountants. Does that mean we get a free pass or can we end up in court for our misbehaviours?

      Liked by 14 people

  5. Regrettably, none of us have this wrong, as Graham well demonstrates, and from a position at least a little inside the corridors of power as it were. Postcolonialism provides us with the template.

    In making its ‘accommodation with colonialism’ (Fanon) the dominant National Party elite then has as its primary purpose the need to delay the march towards liberation and hence to contain certain prominent nationalist leaders (the so called ‘radicals’); which explains Mr. Salmond’s and Mr. Murray’s fit-ups and various other state sponsored persecutions of leading anti-colonialists, plus passing of laws designed to enable further political persecutions, constraining demonstrations and so on.

    In this, the dominant National Party in whom the people have placed their faith now has a more than willing colonial power to assist in every way necessary. This bring us then to the central role of ‘the arms’ of the colonial power in Scotland – Crown and Civil Service; no matter what their ‘agents’ get up to they indeed are afforded impunity, as we have seen, and as Graham rightly implies.

    As Professor Edward Said demonstrated in regard to how Imperialism ‘works’ in the (internal) colonial situation: “The national bourgeoisies ….. replace the colonial force with a new class-based and ultimately exploitive one, which replicated the old colonial structures in new terms.” This results in what we now see, i.e. ‘pathologies of power’, the latter development offers deeper insights into how colonialism – which is ‘after all a co-operative venture’ – descends ever further into its own mankit, racist and immoral cesspit, to reveal ‘the root of fascism’ itself (Cesaire).

    Liked by 16 people

    1. Alfbaird

      As an Englishman who has reverted to my inborn faith of Islam, I have been provided by the antics of political Islam in becoming proxies to the West avery clear insight into how the British Empire controlled the vast area of India or Africa, simply by recruiting and rewarding locals against other locals. In our lifetimes this has been observed in Syria , Iraq and Libya in particular.

      The result has been catastrophic destruction for the inhabitants. Taking your point about imperialism in relation to Scotland, those who have reneged from the cause of Scittish Independence no doubt think, as every other prostitute to fortune then and now has always thought that their little betrayal has no adverse consequences to anybody else.

      Whereas centuries of individual betrayals have led to the wholesale destruction of those colonies, and will in due course destroy Scotland if allowed to continue. Lady Dorrian thinks her criminal compliance with the fit ups against Salmond and Craig Murray are of little importance. Every single prostitute for money and power in the history of mankind always thought, this is my chance and my taking it won’t hurt others.

      One can accept such behaviour from politicians because they are professional liars. But it sticks in the craw to see this behaviour from a senior judge. She clearly is blind to the impression her lack of self-awareness gives to others. Fortunately Craig has patience, courage and unbounded respect for womankind, having been brought up by his mother.

      One Hope’s Lady Dorrian will take good notice of this brave man, and soften her misandry next time.

      Liked by 14 people

  6. A couple of further thoughts :-

    1. Query- was it appropriate for Lady Dorian to be a judge in the Contempt Case as she had previously excluded Mr Murray from Court on this basis? Was this there’d a conflict of interest and should an entire set of fresh eyes have been applied? As Lord Justice Clerk, Lady D was senior among the three judges at the Craig Murray trial.

    2. The issue of precedent. If Mr Murray had been acquitted of Contempt despite evidence (as I previously stated in this blog) of having provided easy identification of alleged victims of sexual misconduct – I hazard that this case would be used as a precedent for future trials and lessen protections. In saying so, I would underline that in Mr Salmond’s trial, the complainers not only did not evidence their allegations but there was weighty evidence against their allegations. And the behaviour of some of them after the trial has been an abuse of their protection. But that would not necessarily be the case for others in future, who could be vulnerable to identification through similar writing to that of Mr Murray.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I’m sorry but I have not been able to identify anyone through Craig’s writing – no-one at all.

      The fact that they have abused their anonymity on many occasions makes me more than angry .

      Why they are afforded such protection in perpetuity is a source of puzzlement to me especially as the trial found the defendant innocent.

      Liked by 20 people

      1. Joan, how many people have to be able to identify one person from Murray’s writings (after the order was placed by Dorian) in your opinion to justify a contempt of court through jigsaw? Just one or 20 or 50 or 1000 or 50,000 people. I am not aware anyone was produced at Murrays trial to say they identified a person through Murrays writing. Indeed his defence team produced evidence to the contrary through a professional poll.

        Liked by 15 people

      2. I agree and I know one through something someone told me. Even then I couldn’t have put it together from what Murray wrote. Let’s face it it’s an establishment fit up and Scottish government and Nicola allowed it to happen. No justice in Scotland while she is in power.

        Liked by 11 people

  7. I used to be amazed and shocked at the lack of concern from the “average person in the street” at what is going on around us and their refusal to think it through and see the damage caused to their families, society and country. (I no longer am surprised.)

    The creeping nature of the removal of citizens’ rights, of the selective bending and breaking of the law by those in power, of patronage, nepotism, corruption and the blatant and constant lying by politicians, has accelerated .. and yet still “we” accept it.

    There is just so much wrong with our society today; our lack of independence being one big part of that. The constant kicking of the independence can down the road, claiming to be working towards it whilst pursuing other agendas, doesn’t raise the anger of the population as it should. Those who are politically aware know this, but there are just not enough in numbers and there is not the means to spread it either whilst a compliant MSM floods the airwaves and ether. Our new media does its best but the majority of the public are oblivious to it and to what is happening.

    Surely there has to be a breaking point? You would have thought that empty shelves, energy shortages, massive price hikes, loss of human and civil rights, etc, all happening whilst our supposed leaders and their cabals prosper, would stir something up. I don’t see any indications of that at all. People need to get angry, really angry, and to show that anger to our politicians. Would the French, the Italians, the Americans put up with this? Would anyone else apart from the people of these islands? I want to see those who live and work here in Scotland make our Scottish Government realise just how unhappy – how enraged – we are with them. We need to show them – with all the wrath we can muster – that we will not tolerate their facilitating of the situation we find ourselves in. The buck stops with them and if they will not accept that then we need to find others who care and who will take the necessary action.

    But, will it happen?

    Liked by 19 people

    1. “BUT WILL IT HAPPEN?” Not outside Holyrood if Scotgov. get their way. This act of ‘control over the people’ should be enough to raise eye brows and voices as to what is going on.

      Liked by 11 people

  8. Cubby, I don’t know the answer to your question. Given the readership of msm, I would expect far more people to have obtained the identities of the complainers from them rather than from Craig.

    But as I first wrote, this wasn’t the issue. Due to selective prosecution there had been no judicial process in respect of the others. This is the miscarriage of justice.

    I know that I and some others intensely interested in the trial, did identify complainers from Mr Murray’s evidence, but I imagine that the test wasn’t numbers.

    From the judgment it looks as if the test was that identification could be done through a few jigsaw moves if a person wanted to.

    I eschewed the msm coverage of the trial as despicable but read Mr Murray’s and Mr Dangerfueld’s blogs. Also, I think, Grousebeater articles on the subject but I may be wrong about that. They might not have been contemporaneous.

    Anyway, I take it that the judge was able to do as I did. Look at the information published by Mr Murray in respect of the alleged incidents regarding timing, location, the complainers’ political or working relationships with Mr Salmond and other contextual information. (Details that Mr Dangerfield properly omitted yet still conveyed the flaws in the case. ) The judge would then be directed by the Prosecution, to the publicly available, well kent political book where the same information was available along with the names of the individuals – minus, obviously the allegations.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree with your assessment, Joan. I also was able to identify more than one complainer from Craig’s writing (I think; my conclusions could only be definitively confirmed by the removal of their anonymity). By chance, I already knew enough about the women concerned not to need a book to help me.

      It only needs one person to be able to do this for a jigsaw to exist. The poll Cubby refers to indicated that more people believed the MSM had provided clues, but the number who thought Craig did was not zero, if I’ve remembered correctly.

      I also agree that the sentence is overly punitive, and above all that the prosecution was selective – if Dorrian’s argument is that Craig should have adhered to “professional standards”, then surely so should all the MSM journalists who revealed at least as much, and in many cases more. It also sets dangerous and worrying precedents with implications far wider than this particular case.

      Liked by 5 people

  9. “With the deepest of regret, I must conclude but one thing: the law is an ass.”

    A brilliant article Graham. But the above surely understates the magnitude of the situation. An ass is a foolish, stupid creature, that cannot help its nature.

    The law in this case has shown itself, as you have so thoroughly and eloquently demonstrated, a selective, lying, corrupt, vindictive,Unionist bastard.

    Scotland surely deserves better – and is certainly capable of better.

    Liked by 14 people

  10. Thank you Graham for your input on Mr Murray’s unjust conviction with no law in the land stopping this happening again, and with the SNP government pushing for more, not less juryless trials, in Scottish courts to get conviction rates up, one wonders how many more unjust convictions will occur, and how many more Crag Murray’s will find themselves behind bars for speaking the truth.

    Liked by 11 people

  11. As far as I understand things, the law is as much a tool of social emancipation as it is a tool of social control. Unfortunately, British constitutionalism has turned Scots law and legal practice into a rather effective tool of social oppression. This is because the ‘principle’ of Parliamentary sovereignty positions Westminster above nature and outwith the bounds of human reason and morality. So Westminster’s claim legal authority actually conflicts directly with contemporary, post-colonial, legal thinking.

    Bending Scots law and legal practice to stand under Westminster has left Scotland’s justice system under-developed, deformed, and unable to support the principle of equality in law. The SG’s determination to force Scots law to accommodate yet another anti-foundational ideology (gender woo woo), indicates they are either clueless when it comes to supporting open democracy and the rule-of-law, or they are actually pound-shop fascists.

    Envisioning the Possibilities for a Good Life:
    Exploring the Public Policy Implications of
    Intersectionality Theory

    Liked by 6 people

  12. One thing is certain. Craig Murray did not publish the whole (or indeed the largest part) of the jigsaw.

    By selecting him, and him only to prosecute, the court has provided reasonable cause to suspect – his prosecution is deliberate and due to his political stance.

    By not explaining in some way – and if they cannot do so without inadvertantly committing their own Jigsaw ID), by not explaining the specifics of what he said that amounted to criminality… then justice is not seen to be done, freedom of speech is impinged upon – particuarly with regards the press – and the public cannot learn what constitutes an example of the offence.

    Rotten, disgraceful, biased and unethical. And no amount of clever dancing on the head of pins makes up for that.

    Liked by 19 people

    1. I read an article by Danni G and put some details from it into google. Perhaps I was following a well-trodden path, for the first link took me straight to a Name. That Name indicated to me the need for anonymity, otherwise the case would utterly collapse.So now I know. And all the names have to hope the details never emerge

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Just to expand a little on my last… imagine, your up in court. Right then your guilty, and your getting sent to jail. What did I do? Can’t tell you, it’s a secret. Can’t tell anyone else either.

    That’s how bonkers it is.

    Liked by 11 people

    1. That’s not bonkers. That’s how authoritarian countries keep control – including countries we sniffily accuse of human rights abuses.

      It gave me no pleasure to write the above sentences.

      Liked by 9 people

  14. A nation’s justice system can only support democracy if its practice is consistent with public consciousness and principles of legal doctrine. Which is a condition Scots law has yet to achieve IMHO, as it has yet to formally connect with any sort of legally binding social contract, and is bound under a constitutional order that privileges English political and legal culture.

    Law’s Autonomy and Moral Reason

    Liked by 2 people

  15. @angusskye KNOW THE FOE:To inform our counter tactics and strategies against THE FOE, having a firm grasp of the ways in which he has managed to inculcate and maintain his dominant, “legitimating” narrative, is an essential prerequisite for his defeat. Your articulated concerns and frustrations are not unique and are, more-or-less, mirrored by those of all thinking colonized peoples. On the subject of colonialism and its pertinence to Scotland, may I, humbly suggest you obtain a copy of Alf Baird’s book: Doun-Hauden, if you haven’t already done so.

    Liked by 11 people

  16. “That law of nature can be applied to every player noted above; each of them in a struggle for control or power over the other; each of them deploying all the tools at their disposal in their efforts to impose or resist control.”

    This reminded me of something I have often said. As in this from February 2021.

    “There are lies and liars in Scottish politics just as there are in politics the world over. Just as there are in life. And all of life is politics. Politics, as I have noted previously, is the management of power relationships. All human interactions at every level from the interpersonal to the international are transactions in the currency of power. We are all doing politics all of the time. We are simply accustomed to calling it politics only when it come to matters of public policy and the people charged with formulating and implementing public policy. All of life is politics. All of living is doing politics. And where there is politics there is dishonesty.” –

    Liked by 9 people

  17. If Scottish culture and democracy was not facing an existential crises thanks to English Torydum, the PM’s call for moral maturity in the face of climate change would be absolutely hilarious. As Parliamentary sovereignty is incompatible with the theory of evolution, and the biosemiotic and ecological paradigm of legal and political philosophy. Which is where the law needs to locate itself if it wants to support the principle of equality in law, and the potential for global sustainability.

    Materiality and the Ontological Turn in the
    Anthropocene: Establishing a Dialogue between
    Law, Anthropology and Eco-Philosophy

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Let us not forget that Judicially prejudiced power has been used for a long time against Scottish patriots.
    Matt Lygate was fitted up for a robbery carried out by professional criminals. Because he represented Scottish Republicanism via the Army of the Provisional Government ( A.P.G.) he was the sacrificial lamb who received 24 years for his first ‘offence’ , that of a bank robbery which he was not present at. He served 11 and a half years.
    A lawyer stated at the time that Matt got ‘eight years for robbery and 16 for political beliefs’.

    During the ’70’s the MI5 fabricated ‘Tartan Army’ , a black flag organisation appeared and snared dupes and naive supporters into foolish and failed attempts at insurrection. All at a time when Douglas Hurd was creating a book and tv series about a Scottish insurrection against Westminster. How very prescient, how very sinister. How very likely to magically reoccur anyone?

    Liked by 15 people

  19. Isn’t it clear that the upholding of professional standards within the legal system should be primarily the responsibility of the legal profession itself? Just as the maintenance of medical professional standards is the responsibility of the medical profession itself? Do her professional peers endorse the propriety of Lady Dorrian’s judgement in Craig Murray’s case?

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Many don’t, even perhaps most, but they daren’t speak out. Reprisals and retribution would fall upon their heads when they next appear in court. They and their clients would suffer.

      I kid you not.

      I understand the Faculty of Advocates has quietly expressed ‘concern’.

      Not good enough. Some see themselves as future judges.

      But that is where we are.

      The operation of the law in Scotland, as things currently stand is “a selective, lying, corrupt, vindictive,Unionist bastard”.

      Liked by 8 people

    2. Frank, I’m afraid it is not a profession. It is a trade, and is run by its own trade union (just like the good old days).

      I don’t believe Craig is in prison for “jigsaw identification”. Craig is in prison as an example to others – “Don’t you dare look closely at what I did!”. Dorrian is protecting herself, not the coven.

      What doesn’t she want known? The answer is that she ruled the “Vietnam” WhatsApp Group messages could not be used. Those messages revealed rock-solid evidence of collusion between the complainants.

      She then sought to assist PrenticeQC in his efforts to obtain a conviction under the Moorov Doctrine.

      THAT is bad faith, pure and simple.

      Moorov and collusion are mutually exclusive, and Dorrian quite clearly had her finger on the scales of justice when she decided to deny the jury the important facts.

      THAT is why nobody will touch this with a bargepole. She’s going to be the top judge in scotland, and she is quite evidently a criminal.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. I agree John. Those WhatsApp messages need to be out in the public domain. There may even be an earlier group that features at least Nicola Richards, Judith Mackinnon and Ms B as this is referenced in the text messages between them that is in the submitted evidence. Other key documents need to be in the public domain as well. I would include the following just for starters:

        1. The full transcript of the commission on diligence. Alex Salmond mentioned that his legal team would be happy to supply it to the Parliament Committee. Did they even bother to request it?
        2. Geoff Aberdein’s written submission. Apparently a journalist at The Times has this and has sat on it. It couldn’t be Kieran Andrews one of the authors of the abysmal Break-Up could it? I am convinced that Nicola Sturgeon is lying when she said he told her Alex Salmond was considering resigning. I believe this to be a fabrication made up after the fact to try and create a plausible reason as to why the meeting could be called a party meeting.
        3. The letter that was supposed to have been sent out to former ministers and party leaders about the new procedure.
        3. The witness precognition statement that recounts that in late November 2018 a special adviser told the witness that the government knew they would lose the Judicial Review but would get him (Salmond) in the criminal case.
        4. The follow up email from Private Secretary 2 to Judith Mackinnon in regards to what she should tell Ms B about the FOI request from a journalist.

        Now David Clegg claims in his book that an anonymous whistle blower sent in the Decision Report or an extract of it to The Daily Record. Maybe it is time people started playing these lowlifes at their own game. Let’s have an anonymous whistle blower come forward with some of those documents.

        Liked by 11 people

      2. A very astute observation there, John Cleary. It would seem that Our Lady of Jigsaws has her own reasons for hiding the pieces.

        Liked by 4 people

  20. Interesting episode in Scottish history that deserves to better known and well worth a listen.

    In context of the original post, one James Wolfe gives an lovely introduction. I hope he is reminded of what he apparently formerly believed in.

    Liked by 4 people

  21. What sort of a country do we live in when someone can be sent to prison for eight months for jigsaw identification of a complainer when the prosecution cannot produce one person to say they identified a complainer from Murrays writings. NO EVIDENCE. This Is Minority Report ( see the film ) stuff when a judge is prosecuting on the basis of a future crime being committed. Stark raving mad.

    Joan and WT could of course have volunteered to attend court to say a crime had been committed because Joan knows ( or does she ) and WT who thinks a crime has been committed, but they didn’t. So again what sort of country is this that people can say a crime has been committed based on a thought crime.

    This is a mad hatters tea party with jigsaw identification the main attraction.

    John Cleary is more on point why we ended up down the rabbit hole. History will not be kind to Dorian, Wolfe, Prentice and others hiding in the shadows of the COPFS.

    Liked by 7 people

  22. I would like to Thank Graham Fordyce for his post and the exposure of possible criminality conducted by certain members of the legal profession

    Unfortunately I find it extremely unbelievable that the judiciary and the entire legal profession are willing to remain silent and blind to the open , demonstrable and deliberate corruption and downright abuse that certain despicable members of their profession are subjecting the tenets , integrity and honesty of their chosen former revered profession to

    How is it possible for supposed learned professionals to admit and be proven to have indulged in disreputable and malicious prosecutions against innocent people and for the cost of those despicable malicious actions for whatever reason currently unexplained to fall on the taxpayers to the tune of an estimated £100million with no action or penalty falling on those individuals

    Liked by 6 people

    1. To understand these and other related events, or for that matter why Scotland’s ‘justice system’ gives us with the largest prison population per head in western Europe, we really need to understand how colonialism functions. This from Albert Memmi:

      “The representatives of the authorities, cadres, policemen, etc., recruited from among the colonized, form a category of the colonized which attempts to escape from its political and social condition. But in so doing, by choosing to place themselves in the colonizer’s service to protect his interests exclusively, they end up by adopting his ideology, even with regard to their own values and their own lives.”

      Liked by 6 people

  23. Grateful thanks to Graham Fordyce for his highly informative article which compelled so many concerned readers to comment. I was out and about yesterday but enjoyed the excellent read this morning.

    A well-informed Scotland will always be safe from the underhand machinations of Sturgeon and her like.

    Liked by 6 people

  24. The shocking truth is that Scots will never enjoy the benefits of democracy, until the Scottish legal profession chooses to support the rule-of-law, rather than British nationalism. As anyone trained in post-colonial practice will tell you, the principle supporters of a nation’s colonisation are its educational and legal systems.

    Thinking through enactive agency: sense-making, bio-semiosis and the ontologies of organismic worlds

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I do wonder if MI6 are perhaps behind this. The 8 month prison sentence without appeal or ‘time off’ very conveniently prevented Craig from being able to help Julian Assange. The head of the Crown Office (whose name escapes me at this time) is reported to be a retired MI6 operative.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. romar72.

        Lets not, the head of MI5 is a Glasgow lad Ken McCallum, an utter House Jock if ever there was one.


  25. Though Scotland’s justice system is obviously suspect to interference from agents of the British state, the principle problem we face is how Scots law is taught, and how this translates into legal practice in Scotland. Which is shaped through standing under Westminster’s scientifically and morally unsubstantial claim to legal authority over Scotland.

    The Pedagogy of Legal Reasoning: Democracy, Discourse and Community


  26. Scots law can be saved, though it will require ‘our’ legal Establishment to conduct their legal practice in accordance with the Common law, and the legal principles supporting international human rights law, rather than the parochial exceptionalism supported by the Crown in Parliament.

    Path Dependence in the Law:
    The Course and Pattern of Legal Change
    in a Common Law System

    Liked by 3 people

  27. A reflective piece on a legal system gone rotten.

    Graeme May speak out but very few others do. So yes, the legal system is a sewer. And those who keep their mouth shut, are but sewage as much as those who abuse the system. Like drug dealers, and let us be clear about this, our legal fraternity for 5he most part is sadly no different.

    Both are scum. Of that there is no doubt. Rotten and corrosive to the communities they infest. Eventually, but not always, societies drive these scum out of their communities maybe it is high time that we made our country a cold place for these people.

    Proverbial heads on spikes time my apologies to the too few decent legal practitioners who are speaking and trying to support justice.

    Thank you Mr Fordyce for speaking out.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Justice refers to the state where individuals receive what they deserve, and is only possible when the law reflects material reality. So a state of justice is unobtainable for Scots, while Scots law stands under Westminster unsubstantial claim to legal supremacy. Which Westminster manufactures by ignoring the source of its’ legal authority over Scotland, i.e. international law. So it’s all the more galling that the Scottish government is currently engaged in crippling Scots law’s capacity to reflect material reality, and to support international law.

    Ontology and political theory: A critical encounter between Rawls and Foucault

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: