"He should have shut-up when told to."

I believe the outrage originates from believing that he should not have been told to shut-up in the first place.

> believing that he should not have been told to shut-up in the first place

The rape and sexual assault complainers had their anonymity protected by court order. That's completely normal (in the UK anyway).

Craig Murray's not a martyr. He's an eejit.

Yes that's why he didnt publish their names.

Supposedly their claims were also without basis, so he was sentenced to prison for maybe possibly according to one judge maybe revealing the identities of somebody making a false claim of rape in a case that was itself likely politically motivated.

So, nothing fishy about any of that then.

> Yes that's why he didnt publish their names.

Publishing somebody's name isn't the only way to deanonymise them.

> false claim of rape

This is a dangerously incorrect take, and it's completely unsubstantiated.

Incorrect and unsubstantiated it may be, but perhaps not unexpected -- given how popular it is on this site in other contexts too...