Russia's at it again
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
'Great' backdrop on Newsshite:
'Great' backdrop on Newsshite:
Great impartiality.
I find it all pretty hard to get my head around myself. There's no way it's Russia trying to go about their business quietly because of the nerve agent used. There's no way it's Russia sending a message to ex-spies / defectors because a) Putin has made his feelings about defectors clear and b) a "silent" assassination will filter through to them anyway. Killing a Russian double-agent doesn't seem like a particularly good idea if it's one of Russia's "enemies" trying to frame them...he was the good guy! So it leaves you with the most obvious option of Russia trying to make a point to NATO...but why kill a spy, even if it's on foreign soil? Seems a particularly weird way to get the message across.
Plus the fact everyone's so quick to draw a conclusion in a high profile case does give you pause. The start of any good documentary about unjust prosecutions is a media storm driving politicians and law enforcement to make bold claims early in the case. Then they start fitting the case around that initial narrative to get it out of the way as soon as possible...
Plus the fact everyone's so quick to draw a conclusion in a high profile case does give you pause. The start of any good documentary about unjust prosecutions is a media storm driving politicians and law enforcement to make bold claims early in the case. Then they start fitting the case around that initial narrative to get it out of the way as soon as possible...
Same could be said about the Litvinenko case I suppose. Why did they kill him with Polonium, seems a tad OTT. But they did.
'Great' backdrop on Newsshite:
A story about Corbyn and Russia features a picture of Corbyn and Russia!!
Oh come on..
Seriously Ken, you see what you want to see, do you mean because Corbyn's hat could be construed as looking Russian?
Look at the backdrop here, a story about notorious paedophile Jimmy Saville and the BBC
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/09/newsnight-lord-mcalpine-abuse-allegations
A backdrop of a broken BBC sign and the notorious paedophile Jimmy Saville.
What's the agenda there then?
Given that the chemistry plays absolutely no part in his argument he might as well be a Deliveroo rider.
I'm not saying his conclusion is wrong but I find it pretty funny how all the usual centrist suspects on twitter have jumped on this mediocre thread. I guess it has some scientific language that they didn't cover in their PPE degrees so he must be right.
Why do you find it funny? Pretty much everyone views current events through the prism of their political beliefs. Corbyn's acolytes on this forum, including yourself, are no different.
More likely there are many of us who are tired of useful idiots.
He was an intelligence officer who betrayed the identities of his colleagues and countrymen for cash. I could understand some people thinking a double agent a hero if he does things selflessly because he believes in something. There are examples of such nature from both sides during the times of the Cold War. But that's clearly not the case here, so what exactly makes him a 'good guy'? Not to mention that he was selling out his country to MI6 five years after the fall of Soviet Union so there was no ideological factor involved, it was just pure greed.
Sounds like he would have made a great politician so. No different to Putin, Trump and the rest of them really so.
Isn't it a case of Russia knowing no one will actually take any substantial action against them due to them supplying most of Europe's gas?
The BBC have a legal responsibility to be politically neutral. Running a backdrop that makes Corbyn look like a Soviet at exactly the time when he's facing the political accusations he is from the Conservatives is wildly irresponsible and the Labour party should be putting in a formal complaint immediately. This stuff is not acceptable, even as satire.
The message was clearly that their own organization had failed in its responsibilities. An actually responsible piece of self-awareness that I don't see any issue with.
What a strange and irrelevant comparison.
Anyway, back to Russia, it does seem we have come to the conclusion very quickly. Especially considering there are reports that this so called Russian nerve agent can be made with relative ease using pesticides.
The backdrop reflects the story in both cases.
If the BBC were deliberately designing backdrops to influence public thought on stories then why design one that makes their own organisation look awful?
The balance of probabilities in terms of the choice of substance, prior history and motive points to Russia. Also, their pattern of antagonistic behaviour over many years (not least the Litvinenko assassination) means they no longer get the benefit of the doubt. Plus, their initial reaction hardly suggested they were an outraged innocent party - it was more “we know that you know but we also know you are too weak to do anything about it”.
Because they aren't always bad and wrong, but they do too frequently display signs of pro-conservative political bias.
reports from where? Citation please.
Is the story about Corbyn accused of being sympathetic towards Russia because of his political past and suspected admiration for communism, characterised, in part, by him donning communist garb? If so how does the backdrop not reflect that?
What was the actual content of the segment, the conversation I mean?
I have no idea about the content and to be honest it doesn't matter. It's these seemingly small things that have an influence and add up over time. Just like when Russia bombarded the US with targetted Facebook posts and memes, its not any individual post that can be pointed at as having an effect, its the gradual drip, drip, drip of negative imagery and implication.
So despite having no clue as to the content and not even living in the UK you are confident that there is coordinated campaign by the BBC to 'drip drip' anti Corbyn propaganda into the minds of the UK electorate for the Tories?
The content is irrelevant. The backdrop is a visual prompt that will have an effect on the narrative regardless. If it was a story about someone being accused of a serious crime, and they showed a picture of the guy looking incredibly shifty mocked up in some kind of outfit that suggested guilt, then even if the discussion was completely unbiased, by having that picture as a backdrop you're already influencing the viewers beliefs in the direction of guilt.
As for me not living in the UK, does that mean the 35 years or so I did live there aren't relevant? Also sometimes living outside a country gives you a much clearer picture of local biases, then when you're being bombarded by it all the time. Americans for instance often don't realize quite how partisan and bias their news sources are, because they're hearing them non-stop and having their opinions shaped by them.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-b...n-agents-daughter-the-telegraph-idUKKCN1GS0NN
The Nerve agent was allegedly planted in Yulia's suitcase before she left Moscow.
The Nerve agent was allegedly planted in Yulia's suitcase before she left Moscow.
I don't buy it Ken. We will have to agree to disagree.
Because an image of the BBC logo next to an image of Jimmy Saville being reported on the BBC doesn't make them look bad, instead it shows a strong element of responsibility.
On the other hand, the Russia/Corbyn image is just wholly irresponsible.
Well we do know that they must have been poisoned at roughly the same time because both were taken ill at the same time....so much so that neither of them was able to call for assistance for the other. How that relates to the suitcase contents must be difficult to say.
Except it's not just a picture of Corbyn and Russia.
Why don't we see May painted in the same light for accepting donations from oligarchs?
I concede that you must have a greater knowledge on the history of Newsnight backdrops than me. I cannot comment on if Newsnight backdrops in recent history are designed in favour of May's government as I do not often watch it.
Tory donations from wealthy Russian individuals is controversial but how is it directly affecting the inner politics of the Tory party and how is it directly involved with the alleged Russian assassination of this double agent?
Did anyone actually this watch Newsnight episode to confirm what the content of the piece was?
Last edited:
Don't worry, I'm sure we'll see a photo of May smiling in front of a backdrop of a Saudi execution next week.
Who knows. Presumably they will attempt to match the UK sample with samples provided by Russia - assuming Russia co-operates. In the meantime, we know it's a military grade nerve agent created by and originally stockpiled in Russia, we know it was used on an enemy of the Russian state, we know this stuff requires the resources of a state to manufacture it, it appears as if the weapon was planted in the daughter's luggage in Moscow, and we know Russia has done exactly this kind of thing before in the UK. It doesn't require a genius to finger Russia as the prime suspect.
Last edited:
Let's not forget the gangsters who currently run Russia actually did murder someone on British soil not that long ago. It's really not that much of a stretch to look at them first when something similar happens again.
Not only is it worth getting upset about the brazenness of that, but it's the outrageous risk to the population as well. This stuff is a fecking chemical weapon.
Not only is it worth getting upset about the brazenness of that, but it's the outrageous risk to the population as well. This stuff is a fecking chemical weapon.
I hope Brexit Britain won't leave Europe with a cold war at our borders as their last gift. In my opinion Macron, Merkel and co should have distanced itself from these accusations. Europe doesn't have the army it needs yet to stop the Russians and with our allies being so fickle we're better off not poking the bear.
They will be alright as long as oil is higher than 40-45 that's the price that gets Russia deficit free budget i believe.
I agree that the price of oil is the main thing, this why with oil prices as they are now any sanctions a basically void. And as for oil market, i don't know where you get that it will go down to 40 again. The oil has been 60+ for a while now. The only negative trend for oil is USA production, especially from fracking. But USA's prod. is already higher than 10m barrels a day. How much higher can it be? Maximum 11m and that will be tough. On the other side of scale you have Libya and Nigeria who have constant production problems. And especially Venezuela who productions is getting lower and it might plummet any second, essentially whipping around 0.5-1 millions barrels per day from the market. Obviously USA won't help Venezuela much. There is also steadily growing demand for oil. So many analysts are actually expecting a balance of oil market in terms of supply and demand, something that we have not seen since 2013 or so. There are big oil reserves worldwide but that can not be a factor in the oil's price decline, it is only a factor that will keep price from going higher than 70$.
So all in all oil market seems to be doing fine. And Russia also enjoys increased demand for it's gas. It's an open information, Russia's gas export rose 8% in the last year to a record number, most of it went to Europe as well. And they do develop China link. And given Europe decaying gas production even with all the political hoodoo russian export will rise more. It's way cheaper than any other option.
Barring any geopolitical criss that drives the price of oil up, there is simply too much shale in the US and elsewhere that is going to keep the price down for the coming years. The moment the price goes into the 60s, shale producers start to come back online and start pumping more supply into the system, which pushes the price down again.