PDA

View Full Version : Russia Today (RT)


clareprop
14th Mar 2018, 17:42
So, here is a Russian government backed TV station broadcasting news and current affairs based in Millbank, London. A product to put forward the reasonable views of Putin's Russia or a state sponsored propaganda tool? The British presenters and correspondents, Galloway, Partridge, Dodds, Owen et al... blinkered mouthpieces in it for the money or believers in the truth?

charliegolf
14th Mar 2018, 18:27
The in-vogue term is, 'useful idiots', or similar.

CG

ORAC
14th Mar 2018, 18:39
No, they are definitely getting paid......

strake
14th Mar 2018, 18:46
Having heard about the station following the Salisbury incident, I tuned in for the first time yesterday. It is obviously a propaganda tool. In times of conflict or strained relationships, I would have thought the British presenters must surely feel uncomfortable.

racedo
14th Mar 2018, 19:00
So, here is a Russian government backed TV station broadcasting news and current affairs based in Millbank, London.?

And what is BBC and who pays for its World Service ?

VP959
14th Mar 2018, 19:02
It's interesting the way RT established itself as an apparently reputable news source here. The BBC was in turmoil, and in particular BBC news reporting had dropped to the just above the standard of the tabloid press, IMHO. I switched from looking at the BBC news online and considered RT to present a generally more balanced view, now I tend to view two or three news channels to try and get some idea as to where the truth may lie.

There's no doubt that RT has been managed very cleverly, and has been careful to appear to be, on the surface, presenting a balanced view of world affairs. They've allowed open criticism of Vladimir Putin, for example. They have attracted a considerable number of viewers, as have other news sources, like Al Jazeera.

The challenge for anyone viewing any news source it to try and determine the boundary between truth and propaganda, and with RT I'd have to say that is pretty damned difficult. They hide their state sponsorship well in their reporting, and don't appear to be a propaganda machine at all.

That then begs the question as to why they exist, and why the Russian state pays for them. Given the clear indications that Russia is moving ever closer to becoming a rogue state with every passing day, RT must have a subtle role to play in supporting the Russian government's aims, just as the BBC, and especially the World Service, plays a subtle role in supporting the aims of the British Government.

I see nothing wrong with viewing RT, as long as you also view a few other news outlets and form your own view on the balance of reporting by each, and as long as you bear in mind who is paying for these services...................

racedo
14th Mar 2018, 19:15
Given the clear indications that Russia is moving ever closer to becoming a rogue state with every passing day, .

Based on whose interpretation ?

Western Govts with a pliable media who do as they are told ?
One only has to look at the UK Press fawning over Saudi visit last week while ignoring the genocide in Yemen by Saudi's.

or

The US Media who shilled for a single candidate in Presidential election and refused to accept the vote and have spent it since doing everything to blame everybody else.

Israel Mossad has 2700 hits abroad to suit its National interests but that is perfectly acceptable.

France destabilise Libya becasue they up to their neck in funding provided to elect Sarkozy and have kept like the UK billions in sequestrated Libyan funds.

So just who again is a "Rogue" state ?

VP959
14th Mar 2018, 19:52
Based on whose interpretation ?

Western Govts with a pliable media who do as they are told ?
One only has to look at the UK Press fawning over Saudi visit last week while ignoring the genocide in Yemen by Saudi's.

or

The US Media who shilled for a single candidate in Presidential election and refused to accept the vote and have spent it since doing everything to blame everybody else.

Israel Mossad has 2700 hits abroad to suit its National interests but that is perfectly acceptable.

France destabilise Libya becasue they up to their neck in funding provided to elect Sarkozy and have kept like the UK billions in sequestrated Libyan funds.

So just who again is a "Rogue" state ?

Passing a law making assignations on the territory of friends and allies seems a pretty good start, not to mention actually using that law to perform extrajudicial murders at will makes them good candidates, in my view.

Not saying that any country is blameless, but we learned the lesson over the Gibraltar executions many years ago, and, as far as I know haven't gone down the same path since.

I've no time for Israel as a state anyway, as they have always seemed a law unto themselves. Thankfully they don't have anywhere near the capability of Russia.

obgraham
14th Mar 2018, 20:19
I've no time for Israel as a state anyway, as they have always seemed a law unto themselves. Thankfully they don't have anywhere near the capability of Russia. This is a statement that has yet to be put to the test, thankfully. However, if it were a matter of odds, I'd be with the Israelis.

jindabyne
14th Mar 2018, 20:47
as they have always seemed a law unto themselves

A statement of Fact!

Lonewolf_50
14th Mar 2018, 20:54
racedo, your response is identical to how a Russian troll uses "whataboutism" and misdirection as a diversion tactic. Are you aware of that? The topic of this thread isn't your usual target of frustration or hatred, it is RT, a news organization.
Western Govts with a pliable media who do as they are told ?
Horsecrap. You can ask Nixon about pliable media, or Trump with the never ending attention paid to him (a great deal of it not complimentary) as he tries to do battle with this "pliable media" via his t.wi.tt.er account.
One only has to look at the UK Press fawning over Saudi visit last week while ignoring the genocide in Yemen by Saudi's.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand, and a complete red herring in the "ignoring genocide in Yemen by Saudis since the Western press does indeed cover that little mess. It (this imaginary "western media" that your propose as a single institution) seems to prefer to emphasize coverage about who in Hollywood looked good in the red carpet, since that gets more internet clicks. :p

vapilot2004
14th Mar 2018, 20:55
To compare RT with the likes of the BBC, The Guardian, or the stateside NYT is playing into the hands of Putin and "fake news" and "Faux News" rabble rousers like him. There have been scads of examples of Fox News or RT broadcasting bold faced lies and half-truths. Not so with the other guys.

Mainstream media outlets, while often liberal minded in coverage, rarely, if ever, stoop to such overt tactics, and when they do stray into the RT/Faux News territory and it is caught (internally or externally) a correction is forthcoming - not always so with the former group. The relatively limited examples of inaccurate coverage in mainstream media comes from an overzealous editor making a bad decision based upon misinformed "unnamed" sources, or sources with an agenda that the news outlet failed to properly vet.

With the RT and their ilk, the cancer is at the top and trickles down, all with no apologies and no retractions as long as what they spew remains in lock step with their skewed beliefs of the world around them, and perceptions of legitimacy remains palatable to their intended audience.

Fact checking at news organizations like RT is practically nonexistent in today's post-fact check atmosphere. As long as the story fits their narrative and agenda, facts are optional and annoying, and their readership and audience, unfortunately, do not seem to care.

reasonable views of Putin's Russia

:applause: Good one!

vapilot2004
14th Mar 2018, 21:12
Speaking of money, news organizations at the major television news networks in the states were never, ever intended to be centers of profits. Network news was considered a public trust, and networks operated their sprawling news organizations at a loss for many, many decades. Today, in the profit-driven corporate world of media madness, money is king and truth and integrity are all too often sacrificed on the altar of almighty profit.

Far too many cable news outlets will run with a story, because their coverage will bring up their rating shares, all the while in the guise of doing their public duty. CNN is an example of how money damages a news organization with good intentions. Fox News is an example of how questionable intentions coupled with an audience starved of 'their' point of view, can also lead to huge profits, and they quickly learned how a sullied man with the bullhorn with which to bludgeon reality can become a highly effective political tool.

jolihokistix
14th Mar 2018, 21:40
RT used to be one of my stations to visit on the daily round, but like an overdose of Kryptonite, the political slant grew so strong that I stopped watching. I wanted genuine news from and about Russia and the world, but got constant snide not-so-subtle West-bashing instead. It's a pity, because Al Jazeera was pulled and that effectively removed two regular news sources from my TV.
Of the two, I would say that the English-language section of al-Jazeera makes a much more serious effort to be impartial, even as it shows things from another viewpoint. I still visit al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya on the net to get my balance. But not RT any more. RT is for sado-masochists.

racedo
14th Mar 2018, 21:44
racedo, your response is identical to how a Russian troll uses "whataboutism" and misdirection as a diversion tactic. Are you aware of that? The topic of this thread isn't your usual target of frustration or hatred, it is RT, a news organization.

Horsecrap. You can ask Nixon about pliable media, or Trump with the never ending attention paid to him (a great deal of it not complimentary) as he tries to do battle with this "pliable media" via his t.wi.tt.er account.

Obama got a pliable media who refused to ask any hard questions and gave him pretty much a pass on anything he did.

They followed it up with shilling for HRC who got no tough questions asked of her and a pass on anything difficult.

Her Presidency would have followed suit and full scale war in Ukraine and Syria were a minimum to be expected.

I have mentioned US Presidential election 2016 where US Press shilled for HRC and have spent the time since doing everything they can to claim it wasn't the voters who made the decision.

If President Trump dies in office the Liberal media will celebrate.

Media is used to push people into a single viewpoint in support of something........... Iraq 2003 is a clear case in point where anybody who said Saddam was not a threat was a liar.

broadreach
14th Mar 2018, 22:10
Racedo, pal, PULL UP! PULL UP!

vapilot2004
14th Mar 2018, 22:13
"TERRAIN, TERRAIN!"


Obama got a pliable media who refused to ask any hard questions and gave him pretty much a pass on anything he did.


Despite the obvious love and admiration of the man, throughout his presidency, the mainstream press remained critical of Obama when it was called for. Unlike Faux News, where everything Obama touched or did was under constant derision.

racedo
14th Mar 2018, 22:30
Despite the obvious love and admiration of the man, throughout his presidency, the mainstream press remained critical of Obama when it was called for. Unlike Faux News, where everything Obama touched or did was under constant derision.

Really then list 8,1 for each year where he was pillored and abused as much as current White House incumbent.

Sallyann1234
14th Mar 2018, 22:45
RT's main purpose is not to present a glowing picture of Russia, but to create and promote dissent within the West. That is why they are keen to give a platform to controversial Western figures, as well as giving a high profile to issues that show us in a bad light.

RT has been censured by Ofcom on a number of occasions for giving undue bias to stories, in contravention of its licence requirement for balanced reporting. It has been heading towards a more serious sanction, regardless of the current issue.

meadowrun
14th Mar 2018, 23:12
I don't understand why they are not getting along with the west. There's no war, cold or hot, at least declared, do they really care about their differing dogmas that much?. There are so many worthy problems in the rest of the world they could work on together and maybe do some good, instead of playing schoolyard level games.


Putin bored?
Putin like discord?
Putin bore me?

Tankertrashnav
14th Mar 2018, 23:24
Racedo - surely the difference is that in the West there is absolutely nothing to stop you starting up your own newspaper or radio and TV station which can be as highly critical of the government as you want. Try that in Russia and see how long you last before the FSB thugs come knocking.

flash8
15th Mar 2018, 00:42
I watch RT and much of Russian TV (being that I live in Moscow and understand Russian)... on the whole it is quite nationalistic (and charmingly patriotic) but it never really goes overboard except when they put on the likes of Vladimir Zhirinovsky.... and I view him for comedy.

I don't think they distort the truth much beyond what the BBC does though... on the whole it is pretty balanced and I suspect that may be disbelieved by many... just my impression over the last twenty years of being here... but definitely Russians are proud to be Russian.... something you won't see much in the UK... and that patriotism shows in current affairs/news.

vapilot2004
15th Mar 2018, 01:14
Thanks for the Russia point of view, Flash8. :ok:

Let me ask you this, have you ever watched or read a piece on RT that was seriously anti-Putin? What about Pro-Clinton, or Pro-Obama? Am curious about your sensibilities and exposure.

Americans and the West are not against the Russian people, by the way, just anti-Soviet/Putin. I hope we appear that way in your neck of the (eleven time zones of) woods.

vapilot2004
15th Mar 2018, 01:31
Really then list 8,1 for each year where he was pillored and abused as much as current White House incumbent.

Sure, and I'm not disagreeing on the coverage*, but while I'm pulling news clippings, you mind gathering a few links to positive Obama pieces on Fox News. Or, here's a real challenge for ya, Breitbart? Hannity?

Rather than forcing Godwin's rule, which nonetheless would be valid here, the free press has a duty to call out the likes of Trump et al, for the lying, rabble rousing, racist despots they are.

While you're pondering all that, *consider this: A little over one year of Trump brought more improprieties, lies, deceptions, investigations, firings, resignations, governmental irregularities, ethics violations, and indictments out of his administration than the entire eight years under Obama.

What would you have the NYT do? Sit on their hands and fret over appearing too 'partisan' in reporting the truth?

sitigeltfel
15th Mar 2018, 07:25
Racedo - surely the difference is that in the West there is absolutely nothing to stop you starting up your own newspaper or radio and TV station which can be as highly critical of the government as you want. Try that in Russia and see how long you last before the FSB thugs come knocking.

TTN, shame on you, confusing the issue with inconvenient facts.

;)

NutLoose
15th Mar 2018, 10:23
Words fail me


Alex Salmond: Russian station RT 'not propaganda' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43414025)

angels
15th Mar 2018, 10:47
I think RT is fine. I want to see what the hoods in the Kremlin are thinking.

The fact is if that you assume the Kremlin is lying then it's a good place to start.

Crimea (we have no troops there), Ukraine (we have no troops there), MH17 (we didn't do it, here's some photo-shopped images to prove it was a Ukrainian fighter that did it), Syria (we are only bombing Isis), Syria (Assad has not deployed chemical weapons), Syria (the Russian mercenaries are nothing to do with us), Syria (no planes were destroyed/damaged at the Khmeimim airbase. Oh, those planes with holes in them, well maybe seven were), Georgia (we are not moving the border further into South Ossetia (oh you pesky western hacks, why do you have to film us doing exactly that?!), cyber-attacks (we don't do them). Etc, etc. All examples of outrageous porkies.

There will be plenty more.

I am not saying the west is squeaky clean, but Putin is a KGB thug, don't forget it.

cavortingcheetah
15th Mar 2018, 10:51
If Putin is a KGB thug then Corbyn is a 走狗, well, he is anyway, even if Putin isn't.

sitigeltfel
15th Mar 2018, 10:58
Words fail me


Alex Salmond: Russian station RT 'not propaganda' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43414025)

What else to expect, given the £thousands he get from them?

It is at times like this that any distinction between patriot and traitor is exposed.

Blacksheep
15th Mar 2018, 13:37
I watch RT regularly, Al Jazera too, as well as the BBC, ITV, Sky News and Channel 4.

I have no difficulty in sorting out propaganda and Fake News from the confusion. It is interesting how all of the British news media have a left bias - some more than others, but all are engaged in social engineering to a greater or lesser extent. Even our so-called right wing neo-Nazi Tory Party are well to the left of what used to be the centre. They are almost in the same place as New Labour and just as engaged in left wing practices. Perhaps it is time we had some proper right leaning viewpoints being given air time - just to balance things out a bit. TV Mail anyone?

Gault
15th Mar 2018, 13:58
Having heard about the station following the Salisbury incident, I tuned in for the first time yesterday. It is obviously a propaganda tool. .


One, amazing you only just heard of it and two so you mean like all the other National Tv Stations.
Anyone swallowing what the Beeb is spewing out regarding this and most other events needs a check up from the neck up

ericsson16
15th Mar 2018, 14:16
Turned onto Sky news yesterday afternoon for the first time this year,only to see the female presenter KB wearing the most idiotic pink outfit i have ever seen.Talk about ego's,unbelievable,flippin eejit.Went back to the Fredrick Forsyth novel "The Devils Alternative" highly recommended.

KelvinD
15th Mar 2018, 16:05
I haven't watched RT for a long while so, after reading some of the comments on here, I thought I would give it try this morning.
Of course the current fiasco in Salisbury was top of the agenda and I was surprised to find someone from the UN pointing out that it was in fact the UK that was in contravention of the OPCW rules. The UK has a treaty obligation to report findings, allegations etc to the OPCW which will put these to the suspected state. The suspect then has 10 days to reply. So far, the UK has not involved the OPCW, other than throwing the name around. Now Johnson has said the UK will "send samples" to the OPCW soon. The report also mentioned how the OPCW oversaw and certified the destruction of Russian Novichok and showed their report from Nov 2017 to confirm this. It is also alleged that stockpiles were stored in places such as Uzbekistan & Ukraine. In 1999 the US military were said to be involved in the "demilitarisation of the Chemical Research Institute" in Uzbekistan. This was one of the manufacturing/storage sites for this gas.
So, I shall continue watching RT intermittently if only to allow me to "contrast and compare" with the BBC output.

Lonewolf_50
15th Mar 2018, 16:12
Another useful idiot is heard from.
... someone from the UN pointing out that it was in fact the UK that was in contravention of the OPCW rules. The UK has a treaty obligation to report findings, allegations etc to the OPCW which will put these to the suspected state. Kelvin, let me get this straight: the use of a nerve agent to kill someone in a UN member state isn't the problem, but the failure to follow a UN admin procedure is a problem. Is that the wheeze being sold here? Really?

VP959
15th Mar 2018, 16:39
I haven't watched RT for a long while so, after reading some of the comments on here, I thought I would give it try this morning.
Of course the current fiasco in Salisbury was top of the agenda and I was surprised to find someone from the UN pointing out that it was in fact the UK that was in contravention of the OPCW rules. The UK has a treaty obligation to report findings, allegations etc to the OPCW which will put these to the suspected state. The suspect then has 10 days to reply. So far, the UK has not involved the OPCW, other than throwing the name around. Now Johnson has said the UK will "send samples" to the OPCW soon. The report also mentioned how the OPCW oversaw and certified the destruction of Russian Novichok and showed their report from Nov 2017 to confirm this. It is also alleged that stockpiles were stored in places such as Uzbekistan & Ukraine. In 1999 the US military were said to be involved in the "demilitarisation of the Chemical Research Institute" in Uzbekistan. This was one of the manufacturing/storage sites for this gas.
So, I shall continue watching RT intermittently if only to allow me to "contrast and compare" with the BBC output.


Interesting view point, considering that the Russians developed the 80 to 100 novichok agents covertly, in part to create "undetectable" chemical agents and in part of get around the international conventions on chemical weapons.

The only way we know of the signatures of these agents (and we may well not know much more than that about them) is because Russian defectors told us about them.

If the Russians still had stocks of the novichok agents then it is they who should have declared them, but clearly they didn't, as some how someone managed to not only acquire one of them, but also managed to acquire the knowledge, skills and access to a highly secure containment facility in which to dispense an agent into a delivery system, test it and then safely transport and deploy it pretty accurately.

To argue that the UK should have only acted in a clear case of multiple attempted murder by a weapon of mass destruction by giving the OPCW ten days notice before doing anything is crass.

People here knew within hours that this was a chemical agent attack - the symptoms were clear and a lot of witnesses provided enough information for the world's press to know, beyond any doubt that it was a chemical agent attack. What wasn't known for some time is what the agent was, and given that it was pretty rare, and one of around 80 to 100 specifically Russian manufactured agents, that's hardly surprising.

It is not the OPCW's role to investigate attempted murder, go read up on what their powers are and when, and by whom, they can be asked to help in the event of alleged use of chemical weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_the_Prohibition_of_Chemical_Weapons

DaveReidUK
15th Mar 2018, 16:50
It's interesting the way RT established itself as an apparently reputable news source here.

Are you serious ?

How do you reconconcile that statement with RT's editorial coverage of MH17 ?

Fitter2
15th Mar 2018, 16:59
The OPCW can only be involved after bilateral diplomatic solutions have failed.
puts Russia's blustering into some sort of context.....

bnt
15th Mar 2018, 17:04
This piece (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/29/24-hour-putin-people-my-week-watching-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt-russia-today) in The Guardian, from last November, paints RT as clearly biased if a bit light on actual news. They parrotted the state line on the sports doping scandal - "no evidence" - while allowing foreign correspondents some free rein. One newsreader on RT America, Liz Wahl, resigned on air over coverage of Russia's annexation of Crimea.
More than outright lies, RT deals in moral equivalency. Its defenders don’t deny bias; they deny the possibility of objectivity. They say western media is equally biased. They liken RT to state broadcasters such as the BBC, France 24 and al Jazeera. They say other news channels have been sanctioned by Ofcom. It’s a triumph of cynicism: we’re all just as bad as each other.

oicur12.again
15th Mar 2018, 18:14
“surely the difference is that in the West there is absolutely nothing to stop you starting up your own newspaper or radio and TV station which can be as highly critical of the government as you want.”

Perhaps, but surely the news media play a larger role than just being critical of Government.

If accurately informing the general public of all issues at hand were any yardstick for success then media outlets in the US and to a slightly lesser extent Australia and the UK have failed miserably probably no different to RT is this regard.

There is a reason why 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the attacks on 11/9 and it had nothing to do with RT.

racedo
15th Mar 2018, 18:14
RT's main purpose is not to present a glowing picture of Russia, but to create and promote dissent within the West. That is why they are keen to give a platform to controversial Western figures, as well as giving a high profile to issues that show us in a bad light.
.

Which issue would they show UK in a bad light ?

Police and Government turning a blind eye while children have been raped and abused in Rotherham, Telford and numerous other cities and claiming that 14 year old girls choosing prostitution as "lifestyle choices" because investigating would be racism ?

Uk supplying and adiding Saudi's to do what they want in Yemen and salivating at prospect of selling more weapons to them ?

UK freely allowing Islamic fundamentalist in the UK despite 3rd countrys requesting their Extradition on direct terrorism charges................. not a new charge as France requests for Action Direct members in 1990's was duly ignored.

UK security services freely allowing and training Islamic fundamentalists in Syria and then wringing hands when they commit atrocities.

Uk media hiding any criticism of Saudi Arabia and its nuclear program with Pakistan which demanding Iran show everything ?

Are these the things which look bad ?

racedo
15th Mar 2018, 18:17
Racedo - surely the difference is that in the West there is absolutely nothing to stop you starting up your own newspaper or radio and TV station which can be as highly critical of the government as you want. Try that in Russia and see how long you last before the FSB thugs come knocking.

What you mean UK/US don't operate in a similar way when you highlight Public abuses of power ?

KelvinD
15th Mar 2018, 18:21
Lonewolf: Another useful idiot is heard from. Presumably this refers to me. Well, better to be useful than otherwise
VP959: Your post #34 sadly undermines the high regard I have long had for your posts.
If the Russians still had stocks of the novichok agents then it is they who should have declared them How did the OPCW manage to certify in 2017 that all the stockpiles had been destroyed? If the OPCW was not aware of them, it would have been quite a stunt to certify the destruction. ("There are the known unknowns and there are the unknown unknown ....")
To argue that the UK should have only acted in a clear case of multiple attempted murder by a weapon of mass destruction by giving the OPCW ten days notice before doing anything is crass. I don't know what you were smoking when you wrote that but where in my post do I mention that? Your crass, I am afraid.
It is not the OPCW's role to investigate attempted murder, go read up on what their powers are I refer the honourable gentleman to the link which you provided. "In case of allegation of use of chemical weapons or the prohibited production, a fact-finding inspection can be employed according to the convention."
someone managed to not only acquire one of them, but also managed to acquire the knowledge, skills and access to a highly secure containment facility in which to dispense an agent into a delivery system, test it and then safely transport and deploy it pretty accurately. is pretty much a piece of dramatisation, isn't it? This stuff is a binary agent so the transport of 2 different chemicals would not be difficult. Deploy it accurately? Then why is a lot of Salisbury and parts of Dorset being examined? If it was so accurate, it would have been confined to the BMW door handle, would it not?
Finally, may I point out my post was merely reporting on what I saw and heard when watching RT for the first time in ages. I was not expressing my own opinions.

racedo
15th Mar 2018, 18:23
Sure, and I'm not disagreeing on the coverage*, but while I'm pulling news clippings, you mind gathering a few links to positive Obama pieces on Fox News. Or, here's a real challenge for ya, Breitbart? Hannity?

Rather than forcing Godwin's rule, which nonetheless would be valid here, the free press has a duty to call out the likes of Trump et al, for the lying, rabble rousing, racist despots they are.

While you're pondering all that, *consider this: A little over one year of Trump brought more improprieties, lies, deceptions, investigations, firings, resignations, governmental irregularities, ethics violations, and indictments out of his administration than the entire eight years under Obama.

What would you have the NYT do? Sit on their hands and fret over appearing too 'partisan' in reporting the truth?

Ethics violations by Obama administration were not investigated by media, they just didn't want to know.

MSM have been engaged in a negative battle with US President because he wasn't whom they chose, there is no attempt at balance.

Only only has to look at USAG Holder who quite happy to sell guns to criminals and then obstruct any investigation and thats only touching the surface.

VP959
15th Mar 2018, 18:50
Lonewolf: Presumably this refers to me. Well, better to be useful than otherwise
VP959: Your post #34 sadly undermines the high regard I have long had for your posts.
How did the OPCW manage to certify in 2017 that all the stockpiles had been destroyed? If the OPCW was not aware of them, it would have been quite a stunt to certify the destruction. ("There are the known unknowns and there are the unknown unknown ....")
I don't know what you were smoking when you wrote that but where in my post do I mention that? Your crass, I am afraid.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the link which you provided. "In case of allegation of use of chemical weapons or the prohibited production, a fact-finding inspection can be employed according to the convention."
is pretty much a piece of dramatisation, isn't it? This stuff is a binary agent so the transport of 2 different chemicals would not be difficult. Deploy it accurately? Then why is a lot of Salisbury and parts of Dorset being examined? If it was so accurate, it would have been confined to the BMW door handle, would it not?
Finally, may I point out my post was merely reporting on what I saw and heard when watching RT for the first time in ages. I was not expressing my own opinions.

No, not all of the novichok agents are binary at all. Some are, most aren't.

Even a binary agent needs to be have a tested delivery system, and needs appropriate facilities for containment whilst developing and testing the combining and delivery system. This is not "bucket chemistry", like bomb making, the volumes of the liquids being handled are very tiny and need to be handled with extreme care.

All I know from living here is this. Sergei Skripal's car was parked in the multi storey car park right next to The Maltings, where they were found. It was towed away for having over-stayed it's parking ticket by the local towing company, Ashley Woods, who have a depot in Gillingham, Dorset. His car was a vehicle of interest to the investigation, so was recovered from Gillingham. All vehicles, and every thing that the couple came into contact with are being treated as if they were possibly contaminated, so are being recovered for investigation and decontamination. I would guess that the police consider his vehicle and it's contents to be important to their investigation for a host of reasons, not least being that it may help confirm time lines as to where they had been in the days before the attack.

With regard to the OPCW, a criminal investigation trumps an invitation from a member state to the OPCW to undertake a fact finding mission every time. Even in the Sarin attacks in Syria it was our people that went out there first to ascertain the agent used, the OPCW were not invited to investigate. I would hazard a guess that in that case it was because it was a war zone, and our people were better equipped to operate there.

The OPCW can only certify what they have seen and what has been reported to them, and there are ways for a non-cooperative state to hide key information. OPCW inspections rely very heavily on trust - there is an assumption that states that agree to random inspections can be trusted to reveal everything they hold, on request.

We know beyond doubt that many of the novichok agents were never declared, as Russia developed them, in part, specifically to avoid falling within the classification of being a chemical warfare agent, so in their view the convention did not apply to these compounds. We have no way of knowing whether suitably equipped labs, capable of handling and storing these materials still exist in Russia, or whether covert labs exist elsewhere to which Russia chose to transfer some, or all, of this wide range of agents. I don't believe that any stocks of them have ever been transported here for incineration, but whether that indicates that there were no stocks, that stocks were hidden somewhere, or that stocks simply were never declared, I have no idea.

Lonewolf_50
15th Mar 2018, 22:26
Lonewolf: Presumably this refers to me. Actually, I italicized the UN person I was referring to but given your response, I took a second look and can see how you read that as directed at you. My disrespect for the UN, and its various spokespersons, knows few bounds.

I could be flippant and suggest to you 'if the shoe fits, wear it' but I won't since I think your motives are generally clear.
Well, better to be useful than otherwise
Useful to whom?

My question to you remains unanswered: are you trying to sell the idea that what the UN clown said is what the problem is here?
Really?

KelvinD
15th Mar 2018, 22:49
My question to you remains unanswered: are you trying to sell the idea that what the UN clown said is what the problem is here?
Not trying to sell anything. My post was merely a report on what I had seen and heard on RT.

feueraxt
16th Mar 2018, 02:15
Most news organizations, being staffed and led by fallable, biased, human beings, have an inbuilt bias one way or another.

On balance, RT is nowhere nearly as biased for or against specific political friends and foe as Fox News, a western network which takes bias, prejuduce, and downright lying to an extreme level.

sitigeltfel
16th Mar 2018, 08:27
BBC journalist Poppy Bullard practised her skills at RT before moving to the BBC as Assistant Producer on Question Time.

:hmm:

Jetex_Jim
16th Mar 2018, 10:12
BBC journalist Poppy Bullard practised her skills at RT before moving to the BBC as Assistant Producer on Question Time.

:hmm:

Maybe it's Poppy Bullard who keeps giving Nigel Farage a Question Time gig.
(On that oh so biased BBC Farage keeps banging on about.)

Andy_S
16th Mar 2018, 10:30
I’m sure someone else will provide more detail, but I recall that a British journalist who worked for RT was so appalled by the lies and misinformation spread by her employer after the downing of MH017 that she resigned as a matter of principle.

treadigraph
16th Mar 2018, 10:39
Sara Firth (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/18/mh17-russia-today-reporter-resigns-sara-firth-kremlin-malaysia)

It's in the Guardian so it must be true...

Jetex_Jim
16th Mar 2018, 10:56
Yet another useful idiot

https://twitter.com/Paul1Singh/status/974022727915966464

sitigeltfel
16th Mar 2018, 11:36
Yet another useful idiot

https://twitter.com/Paul1Singh/status/974022727915966464

You seem to have missed the nuance and context of that statement. It was a jibe at Western politicians, not praise for Putin's policies.

Mr Farage was asked by GQ magazine’s new interviewer Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former spin chief, which world leader he most admired. “As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin,” he replied. “The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?”

Sallyann1234
16th Mar 2018, 11:37
Farage may indeed be a useful idiot, but it is perfectly true to say that Putin is a better leader of his country than anything we have in the West at the moment.

Jetex_Jim
16th Mar 2018, 12:18
You seem to have missed the nuance and context of that statement. It was a jibe at Western politicians, not praise for Putin's policies.

Farage is one of Putin's more useful idiots.

For Putin what is bad for the EU and USA is good for Putin.

Trump is another of Putin's useful idiots.

Mr Farage last week offered a sympathetic interpretation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine during his debate with Nick Clegg, saying the European Union had “blood on its hands” for supporting the EuroMaidan protests in Kiev which triggered the downfall of the Moscow-aligned president Viktor Yanukovych.

He added later: “If you poke a Russian bear with a stick he will respond.”

The Liberal Democrats characterised that position as “I agree with Vlad” and accused Mr Farage of “taking his talking points straight from the Kremlin”.

Russia regards the European Union with increasing hostility, and Ukraine was integral to President Putin’s plan to build a rival trade bloc, the Eurasian Union.

Highway1
16th Mar 2018, 14:59
Perhaps so. But the likes of Trump and Farage are more useful because they can mobilise the votes of those who usually find politics too difficult.

But Farage attacks Putin - why would it be in Putins interest for Farage to mobilise voters against him?

I have a feeling you haven't thought this through..

Jetex_Jim
16th Mar 2018, 18:23
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/07/kremlin-backed-broadcaster-rt-offers-nigel-farage-his-own-show/

RT, the Kremlin-backed broadcaster formerly known as Russia Today, has offered Nigel Farage his own television show, as part of a major revamp of the channel's programming.

The former Ukip leader is one of a number of outspoken public figures, including the columnist Katie Hopkins, who is understood to have held talks with the pro-Moscow broadcaster.

RT executives are said to regard the US presidential elections, in November, as an opportunity to beef up its English-language programming, prompting concern in Whitehall over the increased reach of the channel, which is seen to follow a slavishly pro-Kremlin editorial line.

Lonewolf_50
16th Mar 2018, 18:26
UK calls death of Russian businessman Glushkov a homicide (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/uk-calls-death-of-russian-businessman-glushkov-a-homicide/ar-BBKjiNz?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp)


So what does RT call it? Homicide or an accident?

vapilot2004
16th Mar 2018, 19:51
UK calls death of Russian businessman Glushkov a homicide (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/uk-calls-death-of-russian-businessman-glushkov-a-homicide/ar-BBKjiNz?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp)


So what does RT call it? Homicide or an accident?

Apparently not a poisoning, according to RT, 16 MAR 2018:

'Glushkov death not linked to Skripal poisoning’ – Met Police

"Shortly after the Russian probes were announced, the Met Police said that it launched a murder investigation into the death of Nikolai Glushkov. It pointed out that “at this stage there is nothing to suggest any link to the attempted murders in Salisbury, nor any evidence that [Glushkov] was poisoned.” The pathologist report on Friday “gave the cause of [Glushkov’s] death as compression to the neck,” the Met Police added."

It appears the death has been classified as "unexplained":

"Scotland Yard initially treated the death of the Russian, who was found in his London home earlier this week, as “unexplained.” Glushkov, a former business partner of deceased Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky, had been living in the British capital since being granted political asylum in 2010. Last year, he was sentenced to eight years in absentia in Russia for major theft from Russian carrier Aeroflot."

larssnowpharter
17th Mar 2018, 14:13
Current lead story in RT is based on Russian MoD report that USA is training Syrians for chemical false flag attacks.

Hey ho. Topical or what!

racedo
17th Mar 2018, 18:14
Current lead story in RT is based on Russian MoD report that USA is training Syrians for chemical false flag attacks.

Hey ho. Topical or what!

Western journalists have had opportunity to go into areas liberated from the head hackers to see all the Hospitals supposedly bombed in Aleppo and now East Ghouta and strangely all the Chemical weapons facilities with equipoment and supplies but the Western media just hides and stays away.

racedo
17th Mar 2018, 18:16
Apparently not a poisoning, according to RT, 16 MAR 2018:

'Glushkov death not linked to Skripal poisoning’ – Met Police

"Shortly after the Russian probes were announced, the Met Police said that it launched a murder investigation into the death of Nikolai Glushkov. It pointed out that “at this stage there is nothing to suggest any link to the attempted murders in Salisbury, nor any evidence that [Glushkov] was poisoned.” The pathologist report on Friday “gave the cause of [Glushkov’s] death as compression to the neck,” the Met Police added."

It appears the death has been classified as "unexplained":

"Scotland Yard initially treated the death of the Russian, who was found in his London home earlier this week, as “unexplained.” Glushkov, a former business partner of deceased Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky, had been living in the British capital since being granted political asylum in 2010. Last year, he was sentenced to eight years in absentia in Russia for major theft from Russian carrier Aeroflot."


Do RT run policing in London ?

Why are you saying its RT when it was Met Police statement.

vapilot2004
17th Mar 2018, 19:58
Why are you saying its RT when it was Met Police statement.


Mainly because the quote I posted was published in RT, and that was the question I responded to. Do try to keep up.

Jetex_Jim
18th Mar 2018, 07:25
RT is undoubtedly a tool of the Kremlin which funds it.

Let's take a look at the Kremlin wishlist:
1) Damage the EU. (It has too much influence in the former Soviet block)
2) Breakup the UK. (Where will those Trident subs go?)

Farage has done many shows on RT. He has a shared interest with the Kremlin.
Alex Salmond is another RT star and he too shares an interest with the Kremlin.

Following Brexit, the Kremlin stands a good chance of achieving both of these goals.

1) As soon as Brexit is concluded we can expect Scottish Independence referendum 2.0.
2) In order to achieve that open border between NI and the RoI Brexit may well lead to a united Ireland.

So, 2 out of 2 for the Kremlin and the UK clock winds back to around 1700. Prior to the Act of Union.

KelvinD
18th Mar 2018, 08:42
Re Glushkov: He had an important date in his diary for this week. He was being sued in the High Court in an effort to recover an estimated £100M that was allegedly siphoned off from Aeroflot. The plaintiff was the Russian government. To believe the Russian government might be behind his murder just days before the legal action sounds a bit like a case of killing the goose that was about to lay the golden egg!

VP959
18th Mar 2018, 08:46
Re Glushkov: He had an important date in his diary for this week. He was being sued in the High Court in an effort to recover an estimated £100M that was allegedly siphoned off from Aeroflot. The plaintiff was the Russian government. To believe the Russian government might be behind his murder just days before the legal action sounds a bit like a case of killing the goose that was about to lay the golden egg!

Unless there were other ways of recovering the money without relying on the outcome of a court action. The Russian government could not be certain that they would win the case, plus they may have been privy to information leading them to believe they would lose.

Where's that £100M now, for example?

Sallyann1234
18th Mar 2018, 09:55
It was just too tempting for Putin.
"Let's give another twist of the knife. They won't be able to prove this one either."