Sid Walker Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I agree this is very interesting. Another final irony is that Professor John Henry's high profile involvement in the Litvinenko case was not included either in an obituary run on his University's website (Imperial College) nor on BBC Radio Five's acclaimed obit show 'Brief Lives.' The Times obituary does mention the Litvinenko connection, and also contains other fascinating curiosities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Chapman Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 PPP Chapter Six - The PR Fix On November the 22nd The London Evening Standard ran one of the two iconic photo's of the hospitalised Litvinenko (a bit rum don't you think that neither The Times nor the BBC were allowed bespoke snaps for their Litvinenko interviews conducted on Barnet General's 'cancer ward?') and nonchalantly provided its readers with this nugget: While the pictures undoubtedly illustrate the extraordinary pain Mr Litvinenko is going through, they will also be used to embarrass the Russian government. The pictures of Mr Litvinenko were released to the media yesterday by one of Britain's leading public relations firms. Although no one was able to confirm who was footing the £10,000 a day PR bill, friends of billionaire Mr Berezovsky believe he was involved in some way. One could be forgiven for asking the stupid question about exactly how a private citizen, who happens to be an associate of a possible victim of an alleged criminal conspiracy, goes about establishing control over the flow of information relating to the case - particularly when the police are investigating it. The Guardian of the 24th November revealed the identity of the leading PR firm referred to above (who must have accidentally Tippexed out their letterhead in the press pack sent to Northcliffe Newspapers) who were no doubt delighted to get away with issuing garbled and conflicting statements about Litvinenko for 10K a day: One of London's leading public relations companies, headed by Lord Tim Bell, Lady Thatcher's former advertising consultant, fielded media queries about his condition. It also arranged for a photograph of Mr Litvinenko in his hospital to be distributed to the media via a news agency... Lord Bell's public relations consultancy is retained by Boris Berezovsky, the multi-millionaire Russian oligarch who is a friend of Mr Litvinenko. This claim was later corroborated both by The Independent and The Financial Times (the latter reporting that Lord Bell's firm, Bell - Pottinger, had represented Beresovsky for four years). I wonder for just how many amateur sleuths on the Litvinenko poisoning trail did this revelation come as their defining moment: that there were no reported facts that they could rely on to construct an hyopothesis. One reported fact that was aired on Tuesday 21st November was that the Litvinenko story was hardly being covered at all by Russian news outlets. Tony Halpin, Moscow correspondent of The Times, asserted: “The fate of Alexander Litvinenko may be hot news in Britain, but Russia’s press is almost completely ignoring him... none of the major dailies covers the story today." The (ironic) operative word in the above quote was 'today.' Tony seems to be the kind of hack who relies on the BBC to provide his copy on all things Russian because much of a report posted on BBCI the previous day by Kyrill Dissanayake (BBC Monitoring) adopts a similar admonishing stance: Most noticeably for a media landscape dominated by television, Russia's three main TV networks seem to have steered clear of the story. There appears to have been no mention of Mr Litvinenko in any of the main news bulletins or discussion programmes on state-controlled Channel One and Rossiya, nor on NTV, which is owned by the energy giant Gazprom Well, probably one reason for that was that there was nothing new to report on the Litvinenko case by the 20th November. Just look at the first line of Dissanayake's report: Reports that the dissident former Russian security officer Alexander Litvinenko had been poisoned in London first surfaced in Russia's mainstream media on 11 November. Notice the date anyone? THE 11TH NOVEMBER - ONE FULL WEEK BEFORE THE DAILY MAIL'S 'SCOOP.' Dissanyake goes on to grudgingly concede that in addition to the mainstream media report on Litvinenko (Echo Moskvy - a radio station) the corporate-owned Ren TV channel and business channel RBK TV also ran with it. Far from covering up the Litvinenko affair the independent media analyst and specialist publisher William Dunkerley seems to think the Russian press have shown more than a bit of Glasnost in their coverage: It appears that the Litvinenko story first broke at 8:35 AM Moscow Time on November 11, in a report on KavkazCenter.com, a Chechen news site. It carried the headline “FSB Attempted to Murder Russian Defector in London.” Later in the day, the story was picked up by the Regnum News Agency. Utro.ru had it, too. They reported getting it from a Chechen source. Lenta.ru carried the story, and referred to an Echo Moskvy story of the same day, which in turn had referenced Chechen media. On November 13, three more Moscow outlets had stories that referred to Litvinenko. Kommersant ran the headline, “Litvinenko Did Not Digest the Information,” and explained that Litvinenko said he was “poisoned when meeting an informer who delivered documents about the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya.” The Moscow Times reported that Litvinenko claimed he “might have been poisoned by a man who had sought to meet him, saying he had documents related to the death of the journalist.” Later Moscow News carried the same information with attribution to the Moscow Times. The one thing that all the above mentioned Russian news sources have in common is that all of them covered the Litvinenko poisoning case BEFORE it was first reported in the UK. However, it must be borne in mind that many of these 'Russian' news outlets are deeply hostile to the current Russian administration and that includes the KavKaz Center, the Chechan website (voice piece of the 'Caucasian Mujahideen') that broke the Litvinenko story. The surprise on visiting both the KavKaz and other Russian news sites is that one is not confronted with a Litvinenko 'prequel.' The reports contain (and develop) much of the information carried in the London press a full week later. And there's the rub: the central timelines of the case are skewed. Here's just one (but important) example: A friend of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko who is now being treated in an unnamed London hospital after he had been poisoned by a Russian secret police agent said that the clinical condition of Mr Litvinenko worsened. Doctors do not know what happened to him, according to a report from a Russian radio station, Echo Moskvy ("Moscow Echo"), This report was posted @ 8.54 on the 15th November on the KavKaz website a full four days BEFORE Litvinenko's 'first' deterioration reported on BBC News 24 that caused him to be moved to intensive care at UCH. If one dons one's conspiratorial cap for a moment one could say that the Litvinenko story was first fed to and rehearsed with the rebel, liberal, Western oriented (ie subversive) media outlets in Russia before opening (with a deeply flawed performance) on the news stands of London's West End. We will return to Tony Halpin's 'disinterested' Russian media later in our travels. But the facts of the Litvinenko case as reported in Russia are no truer because that is where they were heard first. Our genuine (poisoned) souvenir 'Litvinenko Dolls' appear to have been made by Beresovsky Ltd of London. A final irony. It seems that BBC monitoring overlooked one of the main media outlets to broadcast the Litvinenko poisoning case to the Russian masses on November 11th. Strange that it should do this as the station in question, unlike its media rivals, actually aired the first interview with Litvinenko after his poisoning. According to William Dunkerley: The BBC Russian Service ran an interview with Litvinenko at 4:48 PM. They told me it had been taped in London about an hour earlier. You don't think BBC Monitoring's coyness about its sister station's 'scoop' had anything to do with the fact that the Russian Service's 'bedside interview' with Litvinenko's completely buggers up the BBC's claim that Litvinenko was not admitted to Barnet General until two weeks after his poisoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Chapman Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) PPP Latest instalment of the PPP above - post did not register in 'Political Conspiracies' content section Edited June 11, 2007 by Michael Chapman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 ...it must be borne in mind that many of these 'Russian' news outlets are deeply hostile to the current Russian administration and that includes the KavKaz Center, the Chechan website (voice piece of the 'Caucasian Mujahideen') that broke the Litvinenko story. Terrific stuff - and a classic example of CIA/MI6 "black media" being used to first surface, then funnel, complete fabrications into the domestic mainstream media, the spook-dominated BBC to the fore! Mr. C, here ends any hopes of a career within the Beeb - congratulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Quote: It appears that the Litvinenko story first broke at 8:35 AM Moscow Time on November 11, in a report on KavkazCenter.com, a Chechen news site. It carried the headline “FSB Attempted to Murder Russian Defector in London.” Later in the day, the story was picked up by the Regnum News Agency. Utro.ru had it, too. They reported getting it from a Chechen source. Lenta.ru carried the story, and referred to an Echo Moskvy story of the same day, which in turn had referenced Chechen media. Unquote Really most interesting Michael, that the story was first broken - along with the solution (the Russians are to blame) - by those most opposed to Russia… Chechens. Breaking a story with an immediate solution (witness 9/11 Bin Laden did it routine) is a classic Psyop. That the news in London was being orchestrated by Lord Bell tells us who really is/was behind the propaganda. Didn’t Khodorkovsky's controlling shares in Yukos oil get passed to Lord Jacob Rothchild? And then Putin froze them and took over control himself. Since you brought up the name of Thatchler Michael, do you remember the day she entered 10 Downing Street? I remember it quite well. Already busy with new responsibilities, the girl from Brazil’s first action was to pay a social visit to Lord Rothchild. Note that he didn’t come to visit the PM, mind you. Is it me or was that an odd thing for a new prime minister to do… Phone the White House and jaw with Ronnie? No. Speak to the heads of state of Europe? No. But pay a cordial visit to a wealthy City bankers flat. Perhaps she was paying her dues do you think? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Chapman Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 (edited) UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE.. I will devote most of August to completing this thread. UK members of this board will be aware of the profound political and economic consequences flowing from this incident. But as I have stated all along there is nothing that is straightforward about this case. There are a number of high profile Litvinenko blogs and forums out there with dedicated Litvinenko threads. They are all, without exception, absolute sh*te. Either they are wildly speculative or take official statements at face value. Everyone appears to 'know' what 'really' happened without having done all that dull, time consuming, timelining. Gosh! I wish someone would cut me a slice of that 'vision thing!' Take it from me all ye truth seekers - if you want to get to the bottom of this affair this thread is the only place to be. UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE.. Edited July 17, 2007 by Michael Chapman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I will devote most of August to completing this thread...Take it from me all ye truth seekers - if you want to get to the bottom of this affair this thread is the only place to be. While Mr. Chapman continues his prolonged, er - what exactly? rest? enforced imprisonment? - a little something to sustain us: Cathy Scott-Clark & Adrian Levy, “Why a spy was killed,” The Guardian Weekend, (Saturday magazine), 26 January 2008, pp.39-41, 43, & 45: “When Alexander Litvinenko fled Moscow for Britain, he found it hard to find work; London was awash with former KGB agents. So he turned to Italy, where he found a ready market for intelligence, not all of it real. What happened next was to make him some dangerous enemies.”http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,2246124,00.html Summary: Litvinenko involved in far-right Italian smear campaign designed to keep Berlusconi in power. Sheds interesting light on that steaming pile of manure otherwise known as the Mitrokhin archive. One smells something different in the air at the moment. A deal, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I will devote most of August to completing this thread...Take it from me all ye truth seekers - if you want to get to the bottom of this affair this thread is the only place to be. While Mr. Chapman continues his prolonged, er - what exactly? rest? enforced imprisonment? - a little something to sustain us: Cathy Scott-Clark & Adrian Levy, “Why a spy was killed,” The Guardian Weekend, (Saturday magazine), 26 January 2008, pp.39-41, 43, & 45: “When Alexander Litvinenko fled Moscow for Britain, he found it hard to find work; London was awash with former KGB agents. So he turned to Italy, where he found a ready market for intelligence, not all of it real. What happened next was to make him some dangerous enemies.”http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,2246124,00.html Summary: Litvinenko involved in far-right Italian smear campaign designed to keep Berlusconi in power. Sheds interesting light on that steaming pile of manure otherwise known as the Mitrokhin archive. One smells something different in the air at the moment. A deal, perhaps? Michael Chapman left the forum a miff and despite my suggestion he return he wouldn't. It's a its a pity because there were a number of threads in whichhe had important insights. I am no longer in contact with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 David Guyatt: Michael Chapman left the forum in a miff and despite my suggestion he return, he wouldn't. It's a pity because there were a number of threads in which he had important insights. I am no longer in contact with him. A great pity, David. His contributions to this thread were very interesting and welcome. If by chance you bump into him - in person, or on the web - do ask him to reconsider. I was genuinely looking forward to his promised update(s). Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary Loughran Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 (edited) David Guyatt: Michael Chapman left the forum in a miff and despite my suggestion he return, he wouldn't. It's a pity because there were a number of threads in which he had important insights. I am no longer in contact with him. A great pity, David. His contributions to this thread were very interesting and welcome. If by chance you bump into him - in person, or on the web - do ask him to reconsider. I was genuinely looking forward to his promised update(s). Paul His leaving may have been a combination of jumping and being pushed. I recall there were some issues John S and I were involved with, perhaps bios and stuff I really can't recall and regularly delete all but what I regard as important PM's; poor form I know especially with an archive facility. I'll ask John to add to this, if he can. Sorry for not being as clear as I'd like. I too enjoyed Michaels work and at various times in private asked him to develop some of the very interesting topics he started or contributed to. I got the feeling at the end that either it was too much work, or he'd already provided all that he could on the subjects. If that wasn't the case I'd sure be very interested in his continuation of the subjects. Edited January 27, 2008 by Gary Loughran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 David Guyatt: Michael Chapman left the forum in a miff and despite my suggestion he return, he wouldn't. It's a pity because there were a number of threads in which he had important insights. I am no longer in contact with him. A great pity, David. His contributions to this thread were very interesting and welcome. If by chance you bump into him - in person, or on the web - do ask him to reconsider. I was genuinely looking forward to his promised update(s). Paul His leaving may have been a combination of jumping and being pushed. I recall there were some issues John S and I were involved with, perhaps bios and stuff I really can't recall and regularly delete all but what I regard as important PM's; poor form I know especially with an archive facility. I'll ask John to add to this, if he can. Sorry for not being as clear as I'd like. I too enjoyed Michaels work and at various times in private asked him to develop some of the very interesting topics he started or contributed to. I got the feeling at the end that either it was too much work, or he'd already provided all that he could on the subjects. If that wasn't the case I'd sure be very interested in his continuation of the subjects. I am aware of the background that led to his decision, but it would be inappropriate to post further on this other than to say that I disagreed with his rationale. His insights and posts are sorely missed, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Seems that I am not aware of the background that led to his decision, since he is still here - which I didn't know - but is under permanent moderation since September - which I also didn't know. A couple of weeks ago John told him he could post via John and if the latter thinks it is "worthwhile" he will post it under Chappers name. Might as well ask for the Moon to be delivered to his home in a Pizzahut box wrapped with a garland of carnations, for all the chance that proposition had the hope of being accepted. I have now offered to do the same with no restrictions, other than abusive curses -- although I'll have to think hard to censor curses as I am very partial t them myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Seems that I am not aware of the background that led to his decision, since he is still here - which I didn't know - but is under permanent moderation since September - which I also didn't know. A couple of weeks ago John told him he could post via John and if the latter thinks it is "worthwhile" he will post it under Chappers name. Might as well ask for the Moon to be delivered to his home in a Pizzahut box wrapped with a garland of carnations, for all the chance that proposition had the hope of being accepted. I have now offered to do the same with no restrictions, other than abusive curses -- although I'll have to think hard to censor curses as I am very partial t them myself. Good news. Let's hope the irascible bugger will consent to the mediation and put us out of our misery. It really was a very distinguished piece of crime analysis. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary Loughran Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Seems that I am not aware of the background that led to his decision, since he is still here - which I didn't know - but is under permanent moderation since September - which I also didn't know. A couple of weeks ago John told him he could post via John and if the latter thinks it is "worthwhile" he will post it under Chappers name. Might as well ask for the Moon to be delivered to his home in a Pizzahut box wrapped with a garland of carnations, for all the chance that proposition had the hope of being accepted. I have now offered to do the same with no restrictions, other than abusive curses -- although I'll have to think hard to censor curses as I am very partial t them myself. Good news. Let's hope the irascible bugger will consent to the mediation and put us out of our misery. It really was a very distinguished piece of crime analysis. Paul Yet I know the real reason he his wanted back.....the totty updates, cunningly disguised as Sky News, Weather and Sport readers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Yet I know the real reason he his wanted back.....the totty updates, cunningly disguised as Sky News, Weather and Sport readers. A quite outrageously true suggestion! My solicitor will shortly be contacting your solicitor with a view to both solicitors making a large sum of money. There can be only one outcome: a full review of all the available evidence, followed by drinks all round. Make mine a Sky* double. * An ancient Scottish libation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now