5 ms·

I did read some of the (now offending) posts. He didn't name anyone, but at the time I thought he provided more than enough information to identify one one of

I did read some of the (now offending) posts. He didn't name anyone, but at the time I thought he provided more than enough information to identify one one of the complainants. Although I'm not au fait with the SNP there were details about situations, people, and roles that seemed more than specific enough for people to work out. I don't think it was deliberate, and he is probably ignorant about how easy it can be to de-anonymise people. However he should have been more sensitive to these issues.

manquer 5y ago
Perhaps so, however selective exercising of media contempt laws when it is not clear cut case ( i.e. naming some one directly) is suspicious and looks a lot like overreach . The timing (he cannot now testify in the Spanish case on spying on Wikileaks) and quantum of sentence combined with supreme court refusing to hear his appeal all does not indicate the system had the best interests for protecting the witness but more like they wanted to silence him/ media and send a message .
- shellac 5y ago
  It's unusual, but not the only recent case in the UK. A notorious right wing campaigner called Tommy Robinson was jailed a few years ago (but released), and there was a very unusual case with a juror. These were both in England, which may explain the 50 year thing. Edit: actually I'm wrong, the article says: "Murray is the first person in the U.K. to be incarcerated for media contempt in over a half century." If we restrict it to what 'media' might mean I suppose Tommy Robinson was freed on appeal. And a Mail journalist got away with a suspended sentence.
  - manquer 5y ago
    It is even more in Scotland where he is being convicted? I believe it is 70 years or something like that. There is only European court left for Murray to appeal. The supreme court refused hear his case.

5 ms·

I did read some of the (now offending) posts. He didn't name anyone, but at the time I thought he provided more than enough information to identify one one of

by shellac 5y ago

manquer 5y ago
Perhaps so, however selective exercising of media contempt laws when it is not clear cut case ( i.e. naming some one directly) is suspicious and looks a lot like overreach . The timing (he cannot now testify in the Spanish case on spying on Wikileaks) and quantum of sentence combined with supreme court refusing to hear his appeal all does not indicate the system had the best interests for protecting the witness but more like they wanted to silence him/ media and send a message .
- shellac 5y ago
  It's unusual, but not the only recent case in the UK. A notorious right wing campaigner called Tommy Robinson was jailed a few years ago (but released), and there was a very unusual case with a juror. These were both in England, which may explain the 50 year thing. Edit: actually I'm wrong, the article says: "Murray is the first person in the U.K. to be incarcerated for media contempt in over a half century." If we restrict it to what 'media' might mean I suppose Tommy Robinson was freed on appeal. And a Mail journalist got away with a suspended sentence.
  - manquer 5y ago
    It is even more in Scotland where he is being convicted? I believe it is 70 years or something like that. There is only European court left for Murray to appeal. The supreme court refused hear his case.