Youtube comments of Professor Tim Wilson (@ProfessorTimWilson).
-
251
-
80
-
75
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
52
-
49
-
49
-
43
-
32
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
I think there is an incest context in vv 6-21 but the over-ruling context is the cultic holiness code. But you are quite right and I pointedly down-played the incest link!! More than that, when you look at the list, there are omissions to the specific incest-related offences, for example there is no condemnation of sex between a man and his daughter (check the Talmud for comments on this by the way- Rabbi Yehuda says that one prohibition implies many others. In addition, of course various characters in the bible are guilty of incest by the leviticus rules (Jacob married his wife's sister and Abraham and Sarah share a parent, Lot Ruben and Bilhah, Amnon and Tamar, Amram and Jochebed) thopugh the general understanding is that these characters acted before the Leviticus code was drawn up. The immediate context to Lev 18:22 though is with child sacrifice to the god Molech (verse 21). In addition, I was focusing on the term "abomination/ to evah" which is surely cultic. Am I going to affirm incest? Certainly not! But I think I might try and place the incest condemnation within the same cultic context- I think there is a case for suggesting that the incest issue was also seen as cultic by the Jews particularly in the Egyptian context. Even a cursory knowledge of the Egyptian dynasties tells us that brother, cousins and other forbidden couplings married one another to secure the Egyptian Pharaoic succession. This also involved killing rivals. This is not to say that the incest issue is not relevant in its own right and it is condemned in the New testament too (1 Cor 5.1-5), But it might well have a pagan/egyptian link which explains why it turns up in this chapter and in this context. Now, I have not looked in enough detail, but I find Paul's permission for what is clearly incest in 1 Cor 7:36 deeply creepy. Maybe you have some suggestions about how that should be handled?
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
many thanks
I have just replied to this comment on the previous post and added the names of three migrants whose deaths were caused by Bravermans policies, her actions or inaction- Mickael Essouma, Hussein Hasseeb Ahmed and Leonard Farruku. I have also pointed out that Jo Cox was killed by a right wing extremist, Thomas Mair and Sir David Amess was killed by an islamic terrorist, Ali Harbi Ali - I have promoted neither sectarian nor political extremism. I have also contexturalised, I hope, the use of the term concentration camp and, as someone with a Jewish heritage, I take exception to your suggestion that I am smearing Braverman by association with the holocaust. Indeed, the Manston camp was called a concentration camp by a number of journalists and commentators and the concept predates Hitler's own aberration as you know. This is about overcrowding and unhealthy conditions called out under Priti Patel and deliberately continued, or made worse, under Braverman.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Mmm. three points: 1) I would take issue with your term "senseless", The fact that something is "ephemeral" does not make it "senseless" and the fact that someone is making videos about the things that entertain ordinary viewers is not a failing. In fact, T-series is doing much the same, promoting entertainment. The issue is that Pewdiepie has turned what is, in essence, a rather trivial competition into an opportunity to raise money for an important charity and this needs to be applauded. The fact that it is an indian charity is even better. You will also note that I have said nothing negative about Tseries, and as a matter of fact (a) I like bollywood and many of the promotions and (b) you will see from my showreel some promotions that I have done for Indian companies - but essentially T-series is simply a form of very sophisticated advertising.
2) As for your point about negative campaigning and the fact that there are people who are saying bad things about T-series and about India in general, well, that is not something to be condoned. Pewdiepie has certainly been at the centre of a number of controversies but as far as I can see, he is not malicious and I think would be concerned that some of his fans and supporters have a more negative agenda.
3) the publicity of this competition actually does good to both youtubers, and both T-series and Pewdiepie have raised their profile beyond the ordinary audience they have hitherto attracted. We should salute the good rather than fester in resentment.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
You are quite right and I very much enjoy your messages! These short films are mostly a summary of quite a range of views and sometimes I want to be a bit provocative so I sometimes emphasise the obscure. The debate about what Plato means by using this story here is very interesting, but the first job is to get students to read the text and to see it in the context of other Platonic dialogues and the literature of the time. I have always made and used cartoon drawings in my lessons and I hope these help to fix the ideas discussed for those who have a more visual memory. It is too easy, on the other hand, to get distracted by issues like the parallels in "the Matrix" or indeed whether there is or is not "an absolute truth". Maybe that is a theological rather than a philosophical question, but it encompasses very exciting discussions about correspondence, consensus and coherence theory and ofv course whether truth in real life can ever be seen in the same way as truth in mathematics- I wonder if Plato would nudge my arm as I type this and say "yes of course"? Epistemology is partly about our appreciation of what something really is, but it is also about semantics. There would be many variations on what truth may really be. But many thanks for your posts which I have read enthusiastically (you left a message on the "Problem of evil" which has since disappeared. Again, I very much welcome debate and it is always good to remind viewers that, of necessity, and perhaps regrettably, these talks telescope ideas and simplify. (there is alot more to be said about "the perfect computer" by the way, so I hope your comment reappears!) πολλές ευχαριστίες, Ξενοφών! Tim
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Mrs Thatcher believed that once a decision was made, it was right. She still revised her decisions on a number of occasions, but you are quite right to single out the pernicious clause 28 and also the miner's strike. I share your concerns about both and I worry that across the world other nations have now begun to develop teir own version of clause 28 with little regard for history and the damage it did. I think her inflexibility was exaggerated by both her detractors (esp in the BBC) and by her supporters (she even may have believed it herself at times, as she loved the image that was projected once it was explained to her- of the "iron lady", though I think she would not have been so taken in bu the image as Mrs May undoubtedly was.). I think in the circles in which she moved, she revealed herself to be deeply emotional and very attentive. there are many instances of kindness cutting across the political divides, and shirley williams even tells a story that suggests she was aware of her importance in feminist... but I think she was determined that this side of her character would not be public and I think that was a weakness. In addition, she was a person who had a great breath of learning but very little interest beyond the subjects she had studied and practiced. she was apparently not very tactile. To discuss her "intentions" therefore is perhaps a mistake- something she would have criticised and rightly so. She must bejudged on what she did, not on what she might have wanted to do. She was quite resolved as a war leader to be responsible for the deaths both of Argentinians and of British troops; and whether she was wobbled by the Brighton bomb, she was changed and made up for a photo interview within an hour of the explosion. She talked alot about weeping, but she only ever seemed moved when persnal tragedy struct- her son and her exit. she also talked alot about her strength, something that Neil Kinnock has always claimed pointed to her own anxiety. He may have been right, but if he was right, she maintained a grip on that anxiety for 10 years and her reputation is not one of anxiety or of weakness. I think we will still be discussing her tenure and her legacy in a century. She has defined the politics of today perhaps even more so than Nigel Farage has done. We must never belittle or dismiss the people who define an era.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Oops, am so sorry I was not clear enough and I have no target audience- all are welcome! So, without hesitation, Huge apologies, Matt, for not giving a clear summary - here, then, is the summary I should have given and I promise I will be much clearer in future: I was talking about a British politician who has been accused repeatedlly of bullying and shouting at her staff. This has led to various resignations by people who have worked for her. Since the initial accusations against her, there has been an official investigation which has confirmed her behaviour has not been as good as it should have been (she has broken the "ministerial code"), but rather than resigning or being forced to quit as a matter of honour, she continues in office with the approval of our current Prime Minister Boris Johnson. This has meant a further person has resigned on a point of honour. The minister in question, Priti Patel, is in charge of the home office and therefore, essentially of the way we police and govern our society. She is also in charge of the way immigrants and foreign workers are processed and the increasingly hostile bureaucracy they must deal with. I am afraid the message we are sending out on the last day of "anti-bullying week", therefore, is not at all attractive.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I have read this on twitter, but I have not been able to confirm it yet. It suggests that Eton is very accurate at predicting as I would expect. I think the new GCSE does not adequately prepare for A level anyway, but this debacle will seriously damage morale across the school system. I have also seen some very arrogant statements by Ofqual spokespeople saying there is no bias and could be no bias, and also saying that teachers' predictions were only a small part of the overall calculation. If there had been no public exam (no AS level), then the teacher's assessment and marking over the year is , I believe, the only means of determining what an individual student can do. To factor in what the school might have achieved in the past is stalinesque and abhorrent. A levels are supposed to be measuring the individual achievement of a specific student. More than that, unlike a school like Eton, many State comprehensives with A level options often have wildly fluctuating results year on year. Eton, like many selective schools including state grammar schools in counties like Lincolnshire, can control the intake of students and, therefore, ensure a more even distribution of grades year on year. This is where the main problem lies.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
Thank you so much for the comment! And, of course, for your interest in this subject. Firstly, there are few words that are really offensive (though there are certainly some words that should never be used!). It simply depends on the context - what the speaker intends and how the speaker is understood. Secondly, I think the BBC remains a respectable network and continues to do a good job. It remains independent of the Government, it challenges and debates topical issues, and its programming advances our understanding, aspirations and our collective identity. We should be proud of the BBC. More specifically, in this case, the intention of Mark Beaumont was certainly not offensive, the person addressed, Cynthia Rahming, was not offended; but certainly the word "girl" could be considered condescending. The word "boy", of course, was used as an insult in Shakespeare (Tybalt calls Romeo "boy" a number of times, for example) but it was also a term of affection (as in King Lear). I worry that this BBC exchange was broadcast in April and yet it took so long for the BBC to make up its mind that something was wrong: when it was re-broadcast, the word "girl" was omitted. Surely, if it is wrong, it was always wrong. Equally, I think it is absurd to censor old songs or criticise people for playing them. This is as absurd and as wrong as Disney doctoring scenes from "Fantasia" which it has done or deleting the last line of "the Dam-busters". Racist, and sexist, stereotyping is part of our history and if we censor these historical documents, we run the risk of hiding this fact, or pretending it never happened. My own feeling (1) is that Philip Davies is a brave man to question the PC zealotry but right to do so; (2) that the BBC is over-sensituve after accusations of homophobia (2006) and racism(2008) and being slow to recognise that there are legitimate concerns about the EU (2013); (3) but, I think there are better things for the BBC to worry about, and issues that should cause greater offence.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Russia is worse than most. Many countries promote selective truths. Russian TV routinely dubs fake words into the mouths of those who are interviewed. It happened to me and after a few experiences, I took video evidence of the original interview and compared it with what was screened. Eventually, after I got no success with the TV studio or executives, I gave the story to the BBC who ran an interesting piece which I am reprinting below: https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c200wjny by Stephen Ennis
Foreign pundits approached by Russian TV stations for interviews might want to think twice before accepting, if the recent experiences of two British commentators are anything to go by.
In two recent reports about Brexit and related matters, NTV, a station owned by a branch of Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom, has been caught completely misrepresenting the words of contributors by means of some creative dubbing.
On 31 March, NTV's flagship current affairs show Itogi Nedeli (Results of the Week) ran a report highlighting the woes of UK Prime Minister Theresa May after MPs had again rebuffed attempts to pass her Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
The result was "very much like a disaster", declared fast-talking Irada Zeynalova, one NTV's top presenters.
Dubbing 'bore no relation' to original
The following report continued much in the same vein, including contributions from a number of British and European commentators, who were generally grim or scathing about May and the prospects for Brexit.
One of them was Tim Wilson, a Conservative politician and cartoonist, who was previously a member of UKIP.
Bearded and colourfully dressed in mustard jacket and purple waistcoat, Wilson was interviewed by NTV at his home in the Midlands, and according to the dubbed Russian voice-over said the following about May and former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron:
"She even put her neck on the block having promised that she would resign if they support the plan, and give a chance for another view and another approach. But even this did not help. But look at it from another point of view: she planned to become another prime minister from the ruling party following Cameron who did nothing and calmly left to watch the country fall apart."
But as Wilson said in an email to BBC Monitoring, the dubbed words "bore no relation to what I said at any point in the interview".
Wilson made an independent video recording of the 17-minute filming session, which he says he did with NTV's permission.
This recording shows that while he had harsh words for May and her Brexit plans, he did not say that she had put her "neck on the block" or anything like this.
Nor did he say anything about Cameron doing nothing and watching the "country fall apart".
Wilson complained to NTV and met a representative of the channel during a subsequent visit to Moscow, asking for an amended version of the report to be re-broadcast, and also suggesting other projects on which they might cooperate.
The Brexit report appears to have been removed from the recordings of the 31 March edition of Itogi Nedeli on NTV's website and YouTube channel. But Wilson remains dissatisfied, saying that there has still been no official apology nor any "credible steps taken by NTV to correct the false impression they have given their audience".
BBC Monitoring approached NTV for a comment on Wilson's case, but has so far not received a response.
More creative dubbing
But Wilson is not the only victim of NTV's creative dubbing.
On 9 June, Itogi Nedeli ran another report about the British political scene, in which John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, was shown saying via Russian voice-over that "everyone knows that [Boris] Johnson was a bad minister, and during his visits the government used to pray that he did not start a nuclear war".
Professor Curtice also apparently told NTV that he knew that "one cannot follow [Donald] Trump's advice, and Johnson has already declared - I will not pay Brussels a penny of the 40bn release fee until there is an excellent deal".
"Complete Misrepresentation!" Professor Curtice said by e-mail, when asked by BBC Monitoring if these words were an accurate record of what he had said. He later said that he had contacted NTV, who had offered an apology.
The channel seems subsequently to have re-edited online versions of the report to remove Professor Curtice's contribution.
Nor is NTV the only major Russian TV channel to have been caught putting words into the mouth of foreign interviewees.
In 2016, the French broadcaster Canal + produced evidence suggesting that state-run Rossiya 1 had distorted several interviews in a report about political tensions in France, including one with right-of-centre politician Bruno Le Maire.
Le Maire told Canal + that Rossiya 1 had had shown a "cut-and-paste of phrases which expresses perhaps not the opposite of what I said, but in any case something quite different".
For his part, Wilson is keen to advertise his own experiences with NTV as a warning to others.
"I am concerned that this level of casual duplicity is routine at NTV and both audiences and potential interviewees need to be fully aware that what is presented may not be what is said," he said in a statement to BBC Monitoring.
Source: BBC Monitoring 26 Jun 19
© British Broadcasting Corporation 2022
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I agree, this seems a bit harsh but I deliberately headlined my video with a reference to Caesar. We cannot have this level of tittle tattle about the Chancellor - if he cannot agree to a clearer arrangement about his wife's finances, then maybe he should not be doing his current job. As for Infosys, if the Government wants us to dissociate from Russian business, then it is surely her duty, and a demonstration of her loyalty to her husband, to dump the 1% shares if she is unable to influence policy in a timely way. She undercuts his authority: On the one hand, she takes advantage of her position in Downing street, on the other, she claims to be a foreign resident and, therefore, to be above direct scrutiny. That only works if her husband is not directly dictating policy across the UK. Hence: "Caesar's wife should be above suspicion". As I said very clearly, what she has done and what they have agreed together may be legal but it is not morally direct or politically prudent. This is a man who has his eye on the top job.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The first thing we must do is to have an informed debate and to allow these views (or the anti- Vaxxers and the anti-lockers and libertarians) to be properly heard and considered. That means, regrettably, we must understand what they are saying and that is why Tom Harwood's discussion on GBTV was so brilliant today. This National debate, though, should be without reservations I think- this cannot window-dressing or the sort of diplomatic/ civil service facade we have got used to- "We want to hear your views". If we are to salvage our democracy from the pandemic, we must listen and learn. At present, in the name of public safety, we have seen basic freedoms overrun by people in power who are weak (Ann widdicombe's assessment by the way) and morally questionable. The conclusions they have drawn and the policies pursued may nevetheless be right (I think for the most part, they are) but we are in danger of having the whole exercise damaged and all the hard work we have so far done through lockdown destroyed- and the disease get the better of us- because of the foolishness, arrogance and cavalier tomfoolery of those nominally in control. There is a balance and we are at the moment on the wrong side of that delicate balance, I fear.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
many thanks. I suppose we are just going to get further nastiness as the show progresses. The clone joke was ghastly, the assassin scenario is indivious. In the end, if a production company is promoting this sort of bullying, then it is itself the bully and must be brought to heel. I thought we lived in a society that was determined to stamp out bullying both in the workplace and on line. Instead, here we have a tv show that is actively encouraging bullying and presenting it as light entertainment. I find the machinations of production detestable in Series 3. This sort of filth-tv peddled as fun needs to be stopped and should never have been screened (at least channel 4 has demoted the show from 9pm to 10). At the same time, I am here for the participants, and will be to the end, because I know what they are going through and how little choice they have in this vile experience. I think Gemma/ James is amazing- clearly exhausetde by the 3am schedule, and I love Vithun and Hashu; together with Manrika they are showing us how important the Asian commpnity is in our contry and how much we can celebrate the diversity of Asian traditions; I love Billy too, but I fear Gemma will do his job very effectively and Billy will be gone. Loved Yolanda for her guts in going to see the wonderful Tally- and Andy is the lynch-pin of the show. It is too soon, perhaps to say much about Scott as Dot and Natalya but I love the fact that there is a Russian speaker on the show. With a cast like that, the prodution company should have had a field day and made the most uplifting INCLUSIVE TV. Instead, they have gone about one of the nastiest forms of manipulation that calls to mind the events in Pasolini's "Salo". This will go down in television history- but for all the wrong reasons. At least, it may bring people to their senses and make the current secretary of state, Oliver Dowden, wonder if OFCOM and a bit more psychiatry is really the right response to the catalogue of abuse in Reality TV.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
in some countries, it is about selective truth. In Russia, tv stations actually dub fake words into the mouths of people they interview. It happened to me and I have the evidence. The BBC write a piece about it and I also wrote about it on my blog so we know russian propaganda is a very specific type and that those who claim we are not being fair/impartial or open to their other views are simply deluded or deceived by this self-same propaganda. https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c200wjny
Foreign pundits approached by Russian TV stations for interviews might want to think twice before accepting, if the recent experiences of two British commentators are anything to go by.
In two recent reports about Brexit and related matters, NTV, a station owned by a branch of Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom, has been caught completely misrepresenting the words of contributors by means of some creative dubbing.
On 31 March, NTV's flagship current affairs show Itogi Nedeli (Results of the Week) ran a report highlighting the woes of UK Prime Minister Theresa May after MPs had again rebuffed attempts to pass her Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
The result was "very much like a disaster", declared fast-talking Irada Zeynalova, one NTV's top presenters.
Dubbing 'bore no relation' to original
The following report continued much in the same vein, including contributions from a number of British and European commentators, who were generally grim or scathing about May and the prospects for Brexit.
One of them was Tim Wilson, a Conservative politician and cartoonist, who was previously a member of UKIP.
Bearded and colourfully dressed in mustard jacket and purple waistcoat, Wilson was interviewed by NTV at his home in the Midlands, and according to the dubbed Russian voice-over said the following about May and former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron:
"She even put her neck on the block having promised that she would resign if they support the plan, and give a chance for another view and another approach. But even this did not help. But look at it from another point of view: she planned to become another prime minister from the ruling party following Cameron who did nothing and calmly left to watch the country fall apart."
But as Wilson said in an email to BBC Monitoring, the dubbed words "bore no relation to what I said at any point in the interview".
Wilson made an independent video recording of the 17-minute filming session, which he says he did with NTV's permission.
This recording shows that while he had harsh words for May and her Brexit plans, he did not say that she had put her "neck on the block" or anything like this.
Nor did he say anything about Cameron doing nothing and watching the "country fall apart".
Wilson complained to NTV and met a representative of the channel during a subsequent visit to Moscow, asking for an amended version of the report to be re-broadcast, and also suggesting other projects on which they might cooperate.
The Brexit report appears to have been removed from the recordings of the 31 March edition of Itogi Nedeli on NTV's website and YouTube channel. But Wilson remains dissatisfied, saying that there has still been no official apology nor any "credible steps taken by NTV to correct the false impression they have given their audience".
BBC Monitoring approached NTV for a comment on Wilson's case, but has so far not received a response.
More creative dubbing
But Wilson is not the only victim of NTV's creative dubbing.
On 9 June, Itogi Nedeli ran another report about the British political scene, in which John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, was shown saying via Russian voice-over that "everyone knows that [Boris] Johnson was a bad minister, and during his visits the government used to pray that he did not start a nuclear war".
Professor Curtice also apparently told NTV that he knew that "one cannot follow [Donald] Trump's advice, and Johnson has already declared - I will not pay Brussels a penny of the 40bn release fee until there is an excellent deal".
"Complete Misrepresentation!" Professor Curtice said by e-mail, when asked by BBC Monitoring if these words were an accurate record of what he had said. He later said that he had contacted NTV, who had offered an apology.
The channel seems subsequently to have re-edited online versions of the report to remove Professor Curtice's contribution.
Nor is NTV the only major Russian TV channel to have been caught putting words into the mouth of foreign interviewees.
In 2016, the French broadcaster Canal + produced evidence suggesting that state-run Rossiya 1 had distorted several interviews in a report about political tensions in France, including one with right-of-centre politician Bruno Le Maire.
Le Maire told Canal + that Rossiya 1 had had shown a "cut-and-paste of phrases which expresses perhaps not the opposite of what I said, but in any case something quite different".
For his part, Wilson is keen to advertise his own experiences with NTV as a warning to others.
"I am concerned that this level of casual duplicity is routine at NTV and both audiences and potential interviewees need to be fully aware that what is presented may not be what is said," he said in a statement to BBC Monitoring.
Source: BBC Monitoring 26 Jun 19
© British Broadcasting Corporation 2022
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
Yes, we have to be careful about making sweeping generalisations about Quantum Physics and Bohr's concept of "unpredictability". Physicists, I understand, have a narrow idea of Causality so a material effect follows after a material cause and there is a time constraint in this concept. When it comes to Quantum Physics, I understand that some things (like exactly when a radioactive atom decays) appear purely by chance and so appear to be unpredictable- but "God does not play Dice" (Einstein)- that is, there must be laws of the universe even if we cannot detect them- inherent randomness or unpredictability is alien to our creation. (maybe we are waiting for the next Einstein) To say that something seems to happen by chance is not the same thing as saying that it is uncaused. As for the point about "nothing coming from Nothing", that also needs qualification because a quantum vacuum is not "nothing". So to come back to your comment, I agree that my comment could do with further qualification, but I think the aristotelian concept of causation is most certainly thrown into confusion by the advent of quantum physics however much the definition of causation is qualified - and while the notion of causation can be re-worked to accommodate new scientific discoveries, the basic logic that the causal chain leads back to God is compromised by the fact that the quality of causation must now be presumed to change in the process of our logical regression. It is surely like changing the vocabulary of the argument just at the point where it gets interesting! To go back to Einstein: “It is contrary to the mode of thinking in science to conceive of a thing ... which acts itself, but which cannot be acted upon.” But I would certainly welcome any proposal that would tie quantum physics into the causation argument in a tidy way.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I lived in Greece for many years so I was aware of problems in Europe as well as the initial "Grexit". I was concerned about rumours I had heard about UKIP and felt that if there was genuine racism, casual or otherwise, then I might expose it, and if this was untrue, then it might be an interesting project- at the time, it did not seem to me that Brexit was an automatic solution to the problem. It was to my mind one of a number of options. I met many ordinary members of UKIP and would certainly not regard them as racist or morally bankrupt in any way nor indeed necessarily brexiteers. The short time I spent with UKIP convinced me that UKIP was a powerful force and that there was a worrying influence within UKIp that had its origins in other organisations. However, it was also clear that Nigel Farage was one of the up and coming political leaders in the country and I think a man of honesty and passion. I was disappointed, however, that he refused to deal with the UKIP MEP's racist joke at Humza's expense and I think that is well documented elsewhere. It seemed to me that UKIP was likely to play a major role in the Europe debate and I think I was right to be worried about its nature and influence- it is as simple as that. You cannot understand an organisation by looking at it from the outside and I had hoped all the tiome taht my worst fears were wrong. In some ways, my fears were certainly wrong and I made some good friends from among the ordinary members of the party, though I think they may well have found a home in other political parties.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I celebrate any educator who gets good results. I know she is controversial. I think routine and discipline are highly important in education but they need to become internal and then those skills are carried for life. In terms of her activism, I think she is right that our education system is in need of repair - we are too focused on the "knowledge" that teachers are giving and we have become less focused on their role as inspiration and as moderators. I know, from my own experience, that often homework is not set, not marked or simply not regarded as important (so much bureaucracy in the teaching profession is about what goes on outside the classroom- teachers need more targeted support for that). Actually, I think these routine tasks (like homework and marking) are the way we interract with children. The information bit of a class and all the "tricks" of imparting that information are recognised as such by children and often resisted however "fun" or diverse they seem to be: teachers are rarely "entertainers". It is not what they do best. The feedback aspects of a class are much stronger and can be guided by an experienced teacher. They are harder for others to assess and can sometimes appear chaotic- measurement is in the success of the pupils, of course. I would prefer to have 1000 questions in a classroom than to lecture, but equally there is room for the lecture- my sense is that the place for that is on youtubeand the place for questions is in the classroom. More than that, the person who answers those questions does not need to be the teacher- the teacher can become more of a host in a classroom, but it is the job of teacher and school to instill discipline so that pupils can discuss and listen to one another as they provide responses; it is the job of teachers to inspire courtesy and a desire to listen to others, how to take notes, raise awareness, respect others and learn something new every day.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
absolutely. 1) I agree with so much of what you are saying but dispute the lip-synching here from a technical or frankly professional point of view. A "w" pushes the lips forwards and a "p" purses the lips. Sadly, no debate here. I have no problems with what was said as indeed Ken Clarke said pretty well as much - I think he called her a "difficult woman" and indeed the home office still suffers from what she has done. I worry far more about the determination to deny what is fairly straightforward. He would have been better off saying that this was off-record, and therefore not relevant. Beyond that, the baying of the other benches was disgraceful. 2) The blessed reference is not appropriate: that soubriquet was given to Margaret thatcher by Norman St John Stevas, and despite all the rhetoric and bbc jibes, Mrs T was very ready indeed to change her mind and did so often. In contrast, this is not something Mrs May feels capable of or brave enough to do. She is not beatitudinous. 3) Do see the film: your comment about nannies is reasonable but, in this case, the point is made in the film: Matthew cannot afford a nanny and is persuaded by his sister to let Mary Poppins stay because she is worried that Mary Poppins may be down on her luck at a time of austerity. 4) Cameron also ducked the issue about "calm down dear" and claimed he was directing his remark to someone else. utter tosh of course. The difference here is that Cameron was clearly heard while Corbyn was not. The fact that something cannot be heard does not, however, mean it can be "unsaid". The lady in the car also lied. 5) I am in favour of changing my mind, but not in pretending that I have not said something. It would be great if politicians of all parties took that principle to heart - a bad idea does not get any better either by repeating it or by pretending that it was never said in the first place. We need to address the problem of what sort of promises we have made directly and make a decision to do something else in future if the promises were stupid. Dare I even mention the word "Brexit" here in either the context of Mrs May or of Mr Corbyn? Grin. Thanks for the "wibble-wobble", though. Marie Lloyd was overlooked for the first Royal Command performance- did that stop her? Certainly not. She organised her own theatre event at the same time in another venue and she made sure that anyone who wanted to see her could do so.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It seems to me that if we are ready to impose and accept a lockdown, then it makes no sense at all to present the vaccine as optional. From that point of view, Joanna is simply voicing the government option and that is as absurd, inconsistent and worthy of derision as Ryan Mark suggests- To be effective, the vaccine needs a universal roll-out and if that is not going to happen because people opt in this case to exercise their liberty, we end up in much the same mess- if not worse- than we did at the beginning of the pandemic. There were a variety of options back in January 2020 and we in the UK opted to play catchup, going into lockdown late and doing so without proper preparation. We are now potentially doing something similar: we cannot suspend liberty for one thing (the lockdown) and then offer a form of tepid liberty for the other (the vaccine)- we need to bite the bullet and be done with the pandemic. I, therefore, like Ryan Mark's decisiveness. I am sorry that Joanna barely got a look-in- but that is the editorial judgement of the programme (and I think not a good thing) and we should have heard more from her.
Please check I say carefully because I hope I have provided a nuanced view: and maybe check particularly what Lord Sumption has to say about the pandemic. I do not think the way we have handled it has been right, at all, but any action now needs to be decisive and, once that decision has been taken, we need to be prepared to follow through, however uncomfortable and however unpopular that may be. Lockdown, last year, should have been accompanied by the levels of international control we have only just begun to see. And, similarly, I believe, people may look back at the vaccine rollout and say, once again, "too little too late". We have sacrificed so much to get this far- for the efforts to be pointless because it has not been universal, seems a form of madness.
As for discrimination and bullying- when Ryan Mark says he will stop seeing people who have opted out of the vaccine, it seems quite reasonable- it is not bullying or discrimination but a clear signal that what he is saying is followed through and he is not putting himself or others needlessly in harm. There is no point in saying one thing and doing another.
I did not want brexit, nor did I think a lockdown was appropriate- but I live in a society where both were agreed and it would be silly to pretend that it is otherwise. We must make the best of the reality we have and there are issues arising from both (imigration and economic chaos) that need now to be addressed specifically. For more details on this, please check my blog -animate-tim.com
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Very good to have this clarification, Tim, and nice to find another Tim on my channel!! You are very welcome! I agree, It is now quite clear from the "making of" film that Greenpeace was acting as an advisor to the film makers and to Iceland throughout. My concern, however, is that a very impressive piece of work now goes unaired on what you are now saying is probably a technicality. I hope my presentation is reasonably fair, and I have taken pains neither to defend nor condemn the message of the advert. I would like to point to the outstanding animation and technical presentation to start with. It is simply disappointing that - at a time when such messages are routinely taught in primary schools - we should see the ad pulled from the Christmas schedules while other more scurrilous messages get prime-time airing. I am also concerned that the issues about palm oil are perhaps not very well understood - I am not sure my presentation is water-tight, but while the orang-utangs are clearly threatened by deforestation, it is certainly not evident that palm oil itself is significantly more any harmful than other oils currently on sale and EU directives may have been hasty. The fact that a film engages a political advisor (whether acting as an NGO or acting more openly) should not debar an advert from screening in terrestrial channels. If clearcast did not ban this film, who did or are you suggesting this was a self-generated and subversive move to get the advert more news' coverage? I will dig a little deeper as you advise and report back, but please do add more detail here if you wish. Much appreciated! Tim
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh that is very good, Daniel! I think more worrying is Trump's critiscism of the system of democracy- the institutions. It is always worrying to use inflamatopry language because one cannever be sure when a metaphor becomes a reality or when what is said in haste is taken seriously or literally. However, Trump's
comments have actively undermined public trust in democracy and bolstered the parallel democratic decline noted in other states- in Poland, Hungary, Kenya, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Russia for example- where issues of racise, and the maipulation of bureacrcay have, it is claimed, seriously damaged trust- it may be debateable but it is clearly alleged and often by America. America's imagae as the icon of democracy has now been damaged. Most of trump's errors seem to be departures from the norm ratyher than outright irregularities- like refusing to attend hsi successor's inauguration, alleging wholescale election fraud, undermining the election result by pleading for extra votes with officials, dicrediting the work of the US agencies to a foregn power (Putin) in 2018, making allegations of treason about his immediayte predecessor and libellous claims against Hillary Clinton, his adversary in the election, together with the odder things like asking a 7 year old is she still believed in Santa. But I think the weight is on his contempt for the process of the recent election. If the president shows contempt for the instruments of democracy, then we cannot be surprised if the ordinary voters follow his lead. It is about "optics" more than hard facts, I agree, but image matters alot. Think of Julius Caesar- who divorced his wife because of rumours- his wife should be above suspicion. In the same way, the president should be above suspicion and Trump is not. At the very least he is open to a charge of bringing the office into disrepute. It is not impossible that others-0 from both poltiocal parties could be equally charged with this sort of thing, but teh fact that others have done this does not exonerate Trump- a higher office commends a higher level of accountability and Trump did not discourage a riot in the final week's of his presidency - more worryingly, tehre are even voices suggesting he actively encouraged it. This is mob rule, and even people like Farage in the UK are struggling to distance themselves. Trump is now toxic goods. Go back through history and particularly ancient rome to see the end of Sulla and Marius- it then starts to make sense that people like Brutus might have reasoned Caesar was heading in teh same direction. The point here was that the power of a Sulla or a Marius undermined trust in government...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's what was written 09 06 22: Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries appeared in front of Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Committee on 19 May, to talk about the proposed privatisation of Channel 4.
During the sitting, Dorries made the claim that a Channel 4 reality show featuring the now Cabinet minister had used paid actors. Dorries had appeared on the show, Tower Block of Commons, in 2010. It was designed to show MPs the circumstances of some of the most deprived parts of Britain.
“I discovered later they were actually actors… It was a Channel 4 production actually… The parents of some of the people, of the boys in that programme, actually came here to have lunch with me – contacted me – to tell me actually they were in acting school and that they weren’t really living in a flat and weren’t real,” Dorries said at the DCMS Committee.
The show’s producer, Love Productions, told Byline Times and The Citizens that: “Love Productions does not use actors to impersonate contributors in any of its documentaries or constructed factual series. Nadine Dorries took part in the making of Tower Block of Commons for Channel 4 alongside other genuine contributors, and we are confident that her claims are unfounded.”
Byline Times interviewed one of the participants of the reality show, who detailed her time spent with Dorries and some of the interactions between the pair.
Rena Spain and her family are originally from Liverpool, but have lived in London for a number of years. She said that Dorries’ accusations had affected her mental health, and that she needs to set the record straight. Byline Times and The Citizens also talked to Spain’s sister, Renesha, who confirmed her claims.
Spain claims that Dorries adopted an exaggerated scouse accent with the participants, and claims that Dorries initially asked for security to accompany her on the estate.The point of the programme was for MPs to experience what life was like living on benefits. However, when the cameras were turned off, Spain says that Dorries revealed that she had smuggled in a £50 note and a credit card in her bra. The fact that Dorries had smuggled money into the show, breaking its rules, was reported at the time by various media outlets, including the Telegraph.
Spain told Byline Times and The Citizens that Dorries brought and offered the family cigarettes, and that she took “a ziplock bag of tablets” which she offered to her hosts. Spain gave an interview to the Mirror in 2010 which claimed that Dorries had offered the family Temazepam sleeping pills.
The situation between Dorries and her hosts became increasingly tense, according to Spain. On the first night, the sisters held an Ann Summers party at their flat, which Dorries refused to join in, instead choosing to drink by herself.
Spain says she questioned Dorries about employing her two daughters in her office. “She said: ‘Yes, I employed my daughter’, and I said: ‘No, you employed both of your daughters’. She went: ‘No, no, I never. I employed one, and she moved on to another job, and I employed the other’. And I said: ‘Well that’s two’, and she was trying to convince me that that was one. And I was saying: ‘I might not be from where you’re from but I know how to add up one and one.’”
Spain claims that she confronted Dorries about smuggling in the money – saying that it proved the impossibility of living on benefits. “She couldn’t answer me,” Spain claims.“That’s bullshit,” Spain told Byline Times and The Citizens, in response to Dorries’ accusation that Channel 4 had paid actors to appear on the show. “That is one big bag of lies. Unless someone else’s parents have got in contact with her but I can’t see who, I was the only person on there with my sons, so she’s got to be referring to me… I’ve never contacted her or been to lunch with her. I wouldn’t go to lunch with her even if she paid me.”
Spain said the accusation that the show had used actors hurt people on benefits in general: “It just minimises it. How difficult it is, for families and people to live on those types of estates, to be on benefits and to be poor. So being poor, are they what? Acting? Are they acting at being poor?”
Away from politics, Dorries has made a lucrative career as a writer of pulp novellas about working class Irish families in Liverpool.
“I’ve always worked, even with five kids, sometimes I’ve had two jobs,” Spain says.
A Political Vendetta?
Spain says that the Culture Secretary’s allegations have caused people to accuse her of being an actor. “A couple of years ago I was in a car accident and now I’m housebound,” she says. “You know when you can’t go out on your own and clear our name? It’s horrible, it’s horrible to have people inbox me – ‘are you really an actor?’ – I’m not an actor.”
Dorries herself has routinely voted against providing increased relief to those less fortunate than herself, including voting for a reduction in benefits spending, voting against paying higher benefits over long periods for illness or disability, and has voted against raising welfare benefits in line with current prices.
Dorries’ claims about the programme have resurfaced as she pushes for the privatisation of Channel 4, while polls show that the public overwhelmingly disapproves of this move.
Byline Times and The Citizens spoke to Spain’s local MP, Sir Stephen Timms, who confirmed that he had spoken to her and was looking into the issue.
“It does sound as though Nadine Dorries had a rather unhappy time on this programme,” Timms told us, “and I suppose it’s possible this has influenced her view about Channel 4 since then and possibly her policy position.”
“Rena has made it clear to me that she is not a professional actor and neither are any of her children”. Timms added that: “It’s an indefensible policy to privatise Channel 4.”
Byline Times contacted Dorries on multiple occasions for a comment but did not receive a response.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It may be - in the wrong hands, but, certainly, I do not think so - at the moment. This is about a very energetic and industrious youtuber who is in competition with a bigger Indian organisation. In the west, we have not come across many indian programmes because of the way the youtube algorithm works- it tends to promote only a little more of the same things we are already watching and rarely, if ever, do we "in the west" watch bollywood films so we have no idea about how huge this industry is and how huge the supporting youtube accounts have become in the last 5 years. This competition can do both sides some good, and certainly Pewdiepie's charity fundraising for an indian charity, CRY, is a very good example of the sort of good we can ALL do. I have looked across the internet and there are sadly some sites that are promoting an unnecessarily negative view of T-series, and some spammers who are running around dissing Pewdiepie- that is unfortunate on both sides. But on the whole, I would hope that this makes people who have never heard of bollywood check out some of the great routines and songs and also that followers of t-series might see how creative some of our "western" youtubers have become. I should add, that if you want some incisive comedy in India, it is equally worth checking out "All India Bakchod" (AIB), for instance. We need to be pooling resources, not squabbling, but for now, we should salute what is being done well, and Pewdiepie is doing WELL! and deservedly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bellingcat может быть американской организацией или даже инструментом ЦРУ, но 1) связи, которые он имеет с ИНСАЙДЕРОМ, незначительны и 2) даже если есть доказанные связи, это не повод для ареста редактора и для того чтобы ставить клеймо «иностранный агент». Хороший репортер использует множество источников и даже обращается к источникам, которые могут быть сомнительными, но время ареста подозрительно, и дальнейшие сегодняшние новости о домашнем аресте Любови Соболь подтверждают мои подозрения. Это политическая чистка от всех, кто ставит под сомнение государственный режим и неуклонную подготовку к выборам в ДУМА и вскоре к президентским выборам, в которых ЕДИНАЯ РОССИЯ полна решимости победить. Между тем, у вас один подписчик, и ваш английский очень сомнительный. Я спрашиваю, возможно ли, что вы не совсем то, чем кажетесь, сэр?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As he took us into these wars, his opinion is important and his delay in speaking up also speaks volumes, doesn't it. We must aim for what can be achieved, incrementally, and of course, that changes as we are gradually successful. We must hold the powerful to account, but we must also ensure progress. There is much we can learn from people we do not like or regard as the enemey. In fact, there has been a regular exhange of information about Afghanistan between the Russians and Nato for the last 20 years. Given that, it is astonishing that we should have left in what amounts to a copy of the Soviet exit in 1991, most notably with chaos at the airport. Also, American has repeated its retreat from Vietnam- leaving behind vehicles that could not be used and an ill-trained native army. The lessons of history are only of use if we take them to heart. Mr Biden seems a silly man whose single point of reference seems to be what his predecessor did.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
from Channel 4 13 march https://youtu.be/C98FmoZVbjs?si=g5YuxrVHHxCfGqh4
Presenter: No?
Edmunds: For what gain? What gain would we get from that? So we’re going to get people up into a panic and stuff? We need people to come with us in a stepwise way. This epidemic is not going to be over in a week or a month, this epidemic is going to last for most of this year, and so if we’re going to ask people to change their behaviour quite radically, it’s going to be very difficult for them to do, it’s going to have major economic and social impacts, on them, then we’re going to have to limit the amount that we’re going to ask them to do, yeah?
Presenter: Limit the amount that we’re going to ask people to do.
Edmunds: So we stop the epidemic, or we slow the epidemic right down, so that the NHS doesn’t become overwhelmed, hospitals don’t become overwhelmed, that’s the idea. The only way to stop this epidemic is indeed to achieve herd immunity.
Presenter: Ok. Tomas Pueyo, you’re shaking your head and now you’ve got your head buried in your hands, what’s your response to what John Edmunds just said?
Pueyo: This is like deciding, you know what, this forest might burn so let’s cut a third of it. This is crazy. We want to have ten, twenty, thirty percent of the population catch this, the UK has what sixty six million people, that’s how many people, that’s around twenty million people, one percent of these people are going to die, so we’re saying that we want to kill 200,000 people in the UK, so that’s –
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I entirely agree. The problem is that some teachers have been, for various reasons, in both State and private education, playing the UCAS system for years and keeping an eye on the school league tables. More that that, up till now, it has not done alot of harm, though it has certainly meant some very strange discrepancies between predictions and actual grades. It is certainly dodgy. However, this is not the time for OFQUAL to correct what was a well-known flaw in the UCAS system. At a time like this, with 5 or 6 months to prepare for this moment, a prudent and well-intentioned organisation would have taken the predictions at face value and asked teachers if any grades should be adjusted up or down (more than that, Ofqual has been well-aware for some time about which schools have fluctuating grade predictions) - I think it would be reasonable to have turned to the teachers to do this (much harder now of course). The teachers are the only people in a position to provide this information. Universities, meanwhile must take the only morally acceptable position and shoulder the weight of a larger intake than normal: that is the only solution. It will balance out in the long-run. The algorithm is simply corrupt from any angle and anyone defending it becomes Mr nasty. Even if Gavin Williamson resigns, he hands a poisoned chalice to his successor unless Universities take the initiative. the longer we wait, the harder it is to sort this out. We know it is mathematically impossible to square the circle, but we can make a good effort towards that if we all pull together. We need letters to Universities very soon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As a matter f fact, I entirely agree that Mr Putin is a grotesque and appalling individual who has blood on his hands. I have now made my views about Putin clear both in English and in Russian. I would certainly be delighted to see regime chance. That said, I do not believe it is the job of our foreign secretary or the President of the USA to make injudicious and emotive comments in the same vein about Putin's future or indeed to stray off their agreed brief. That is not their purpose or their mission. For myself, in contrast, I am aware that, by speaking out, I must recognise that I will never again be able to return to Russia while Putin is in power- I am only too aware of the fate of Boris Nemtsov as also of Alexey Navalny. having come up against the DUMA toad Piotr Tolstoy and his own obsession with extremism, I am also aware that I have made enemies in high places and I would certainly never be ready to have my own lectures approved by a government office before I delivered then- it was bad enough to be filmed every time I spoke in public in the University (though I befriended the film crew and ensured some of their footage made its way on to YouTube). Putin had prepared the way for his clampdown, and sown seeds in many directions- scattered would be a better verb- despite all the reassurances I was given by friends in Moscow, for some years and it was as obvious to me 5 years' ago as it is today. However, once Putin has gone, there is no certainty at all that his replacement will be any better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I agree entirely that on its own these protests can achieve very little. Putin controls three major factions spread across all interests and all aspects of power in modern Russia, but factions nevertheless; however, this control is disintegrating fast and the damage to his reputation and to the global brand, by the Navalny issue, I think, is significant. Putin may have dodgy friends, but he is no fool. or never used to be. Until now, his best option has been to cling to power. Now, his best option might be to quit.
At the same time, the West needs to re-think its understanding of what santions achieve. They were successfulo in South Africa but that was a different age and given the way oil is traded in dollars, actually, santions make the dodgier people in Russian much richer and the russian people as a whole much poorer.
It is time to reconsider santions and also to reconsider the old traditions of protest marches.The new age of social media has given us new tools and it is time we used them. After all, if we are to believe the reports, the current Russian government has long been a master of social media!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
and certainly best prime minister- the choice is quite clear, in the last 50 years, between her and Tony Blair who frittered away his advantage. Blair probaly inherited the greatest opportunities any PM ever had and he left office to Gordon Brown, when he saw the tide turning; he also had one of the best advisors since Thatcher in Alistair Campbell. Brown demonstrated very quickly that he was not capable of leading through a crisis. Cameron showed potential but in the end will go down as the man who lost both the EU and probably the Union, both made effective under Boris. In addition, the lemgth of Thatcher's tenure puts her on a level with Churchill, Disraeli and Gladstone. the impact, for good and ill, of that tenure continues today, 40 years' later. That is probaly more significant a legacy than any other PM in history. So yes, but the comment needs qualification- I gave it at the time but I also understand the value of a soundbite.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The letter which was sent on Feb 7th goes on to say, Aside from the fact that Mr Bridgen was clearly reporting the words of someone else, the word ‘since’ does not in any case imply equivalence to the events of the Holocaust; for that and other reasons the tweet is not anti-Semitic.
“It seems that you and others have seized upon the opportunity to raise the issue of antisemitism in order to limit the free speech of those who raise legitimate concerns about the efficacy and safety of these Covid vaccines. Weaponisation of the important issue of antisemitism for these purposes is particularly objectionable and disrespectful towards its victims." The letter urges a proper debate: [We] would like to express our dismay at the decision to suspend Member of Parliament Mr Andrew Bridgen as a Conservative MP.
"Since the roll-out of the BioNTech-Pfizer mRNA vaccine, there have been almost half a million Yellow Card reports of adverse events from the public. The data for other Covid-19 vaccines is equally concerning."
However, this is in contrast to the Jewish Policy Research and the Community Security Trust which said "Millions of Jewish men, women, adults and children, were ghettoised, hunted, rounded up, shot, thrown in mass graves, worked to death and gassed. The comparison is grossly offensive and inaccurate, and it is also stupid." Gov research has found 79% of anti-vaccination networks (like zeroHedge) host anti-Jewish hatred.
Olivia Marks-Woldman OBE, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust condemned the remark by Bridgen. The Board of Deputies of British Jews Tweeted: "For an MP to suggest that Covid vaccines are the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust is unconscionable. We will be writing to the Chair of the Conservative Party Nadhim Zahawi to express our deep concern and to ask for clarification as to what action will be taken." Hope that gives a fuller picture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
they are exiles if they want to work and they may indeed be at risk. But most can speak out and are doing so from beyond their country. Miron certainly spoke out and was, like Ala, someone who spoke out and moved before being "listed". I hope you are not so tied to the Russian propaganda and I trust you are fully aware that I have personal experience of the way Russian propaganda works and the deceits routine in its media system. I am very happy to enlighten you below if you do not know: Foreign pundits approached by Russian TV stations for interviews might want to think twice before accepting, if the recent experiences of two British commentators are anything to go by.
In two recent reports about Brexit and related matters, NTV, a station owned by a branch of Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom, has been caught completely misrepresenting the words of contributors by means of some creative dubbing.
On 31 March, NTV's flagship current affairs show Itogi Nedeli (Results of the Week) ran a report highlighting the woes of UK Prime Minister Theresa May after MPs had again rebuffed attempts to pass her Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
The result was "very much like a disaster", declared fast-talking Irada Zeynalova, one NTV's top presenters.
Dubbing 'bore no relation' to original
The following report continued much in the same vein, including contributions from a number of British and European commentators, who were generally grim or scathing about May and the prospects for Brexit.
One of them was Tim Wilson, a Conservative politician and cartoonist, who was previously a member of UKIP.
Bearded and colourfully dressed in mustard jacket and purple waistcoat, Wilson was interviewed by NTV at his home in the Midlands, and according to the dubbed Russian voice-over said the following about May and former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron:
"She even put her neck on the block having promised that she would resign if they support the plan, and give a chance for another view and another approach. But even this did not help. But look at it from another point of view: she planned to become another prime minister from the ruling party following Cameron who did nothing and calmly left to watch the country fall apart."
But as Wilson said in an email to BBC Monitoring, the dubbed words "bore no relation to what I said at any point in the interview".
Wilson made an independent video recording of the 17-minute filming session, which he says he did with NTV's permission.
This recording shows that while he had harsh words for May and her Brexit plans, he did not say that she had put her "neck on the block" or anything like this.
Nor did he say anything about Cameron doing nothing and watching the "country fall apart".
Wilson complained to NTV and met a representative of the channel during a subsequent visit to Moscow, asking for an amended version of the report to be re-broadcast, and also suggesting other projects on which they might cooperate.
The Brexit report appears to have been removed from the recordings of the 31 March edition of Itogi Nedeli on NTV's website and YouTube channel. But Wilson remains dissatisfied, saying that there has still been no official apology nor any "credible steps taken by NTV to correct the false impression they have given their audience".
BBC Monitoring approached NTV for a comment on Wilson's case, but has so far not received a response.
More creative dubbing
But Wilson is not the only victim of NTV's creative dubbing.
On 9 June, Itogi Nedeli ran another report about the British political scene, in which John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, was shown saying via Russian voice-over that "everyone knows that [Boris] Johnson was a bad minister, and during his visits the government used to pray that he did not start a nuclear war".
Professor Curtice also apparently told NTV that he knew that "one cannot follow [Donald] Trump's advice, and Johnson has already declared - I will not pay Brussels a penny of the 40bn release fee until there is an excellent deal".
"Complete Misrepresentation!" Professor Curtice said by e-mail, when asked by BBC Monitoring if these words were an accurate record of what he had said. He later said that he had contacted NTV, who had offered an apology.
The channel seems subsequently to have re-edited online versions of the report to remove Professor Curtice's contribution.
Nor is NTV the only major Russian TV channel to have been caught putting words into the mouth of foreign interviewees.
In 2016, the French broadcaster Canal + produced evidence suggesting that state-run Rossiya 1 had distorted several interviews in a report about political tensions in France, including one with right-of-centre politician Bruno Le Maire.
Le Maire told Canal + that Rossiya 1 had had shown a "cut-and-paste of phrases which expresses perhaps not the opposite of what I said, but in any case something quite different".
For his part, Wilson is keen to advertise his own experiences with NTV as a warning to others.
"I am concerned that this level of casual duplicity is routine at NTV and both audiences and potential interviewees need to be fully aware that what is presented may not be what is said," he said in a statement to BBC Monitoring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you omit the comments that suggest the bias of the report..."The report has been widely condemned by Ukrainian officials and many others in the international community including war crimes experts. Not surprisingly, the Kremlin has warmly welcomed Amnesty’s claims, with Russian officials actively promoting the report to justify Moscow’s ongoing bombing campaign in Ukraine.
The Director of Amnesty International Ukraine, Oksana Pokalchuk, tendered her resignation after the report was released. She called out Amnesty’s bias for proceeding with the publication without input or consent from the Amnesty Ukraine team.
“Whether intentionally or not, Amnesty’s report reads like a Russian propaganda narrative,” stated UWC President Paul Grod. “It is absurd to blame Ukrainian troops for Russia’s bombing of hospitals, schools, residential buildings, shopping malls, bus shelters and other civilian infrastructure. How could they overlook the fact that Ukrainians are defending themselves against Russia’s unprovoked invasion, brutal daily bombings, and war crimes in Ukraine?”
UWC calls upon donors and supporters of Amnesty International to investigate the integrity of its leadership and thoroughly investigate the sources of their funding."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@КонструктивныйКритикан
даже если им отказано в аккредитации, что я считаю неправильным, это не объясняет, почему Саре Рейнсфорд было сказано никогда не возвращаться в Россию, страну, которую она по понятным причинам любит, и где она жила и работала последние десять лет. Поскольку я предполагаю, что вы являетесь частью правительственного аппарата, пожалуйста, имейте в виду, что существует большая разница между глупой бюрократией и агрессией, я хочу отговорить первое и осудить второе. - Ваше неотредактированное сообщение было очень интересным. Tim
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is very kind of you. The manipulation about "The Circle" mostly took place after the show as is generally the case, I now discover: it is the hidden factor that never seems to be covered by the media. I was quite content with manipulation within the show (which certainly exists as well)- that is showbusiness! Many thanks. As regards politics, I believe in charcter-led politics and in oportunity and klindness if that is possible. I would alwyas qualify my admiration for Mrs Thatcher with condemnation of the destruction about the miners and serious reservations about clause 28, the latter in part becaus of the way it gave countries like Putin's Russia a blueprint for its own heinous legislation. I thought i was quick enough on the draw in the programme, but not quick enough- TV wants to slogan not the qualification. I got it in but after the damage was done. Similarly, there will always be speculation about my links with UKIP. Again: I was clear- I wanted to see if the racism was real and it was. Once I identified it in practice, I made a fuss at the top level. I also shared reservations about Europe though my solution has always been to work within the system rather than to abandon it. The arguments for staying in the EU at the referendum were wholeheartedly second-rate and unlikely to succeed. There was a good argument: to support Europe as we had twice in the past, to honour our commitment, and to work together to iron out a problem, but this was only presented after the event. AS it is, we have Brexit and we must play the hand we have been dealt. Hope all that makes sense and thanks your the time you have taken. Much appreciated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I do not and never could forgive or condone anti-semitism. It is something that I precisely say in the video so I am a little taken aback that you imply anything else. As for the report you add, there is very little detail in the link you post and the story (which has been widely circulated in the last month) must be countered by the fact that two prominent Jewish activists managed Navalny's mayoral campagn, Maksim Kats and Leonid Volkov and are still loyal to Navalny. It is worth checking out What Volkov has said recently about Navalny as well, because he states very clearly that Navalny is concerned with tackling corruption, not with being specifically anti-Putin. He also says the alleged "anti-semitic" toast never took place at all. As for toasts, these are, as you know, in Russian dinner parties, numerous and vocal. They are about marking key moments- there is nothing in the report, in fact, that suggests , even if it took place, therefore, which I doubt, that Navalny was celebrating the Holocaust- he may have been remembering it or "marking it". It may have been, therefore, a gesture that is open to misinterpretation and that is foolish, but so far, I have not been presented with any clear statement that confirms Navalny is anti-semitic and your reference does not do that. I know he joined Volkov often for Sbabbas dinners. This is part of a general smear campaign orchestrated over the last few weeks and it has been surprisingly effective and based on very little evidence. Navalny is no saint and what shocks me about the Amnesty issue is that they regard "prisoners of conscience " like some form of canonisation. Navalny is now suffering for speaking out. I am sorry he has an untidy backstory. But while courts and press are not fully independent, it is difficult to take this level of the smear campaign seriously and I am shocked that Amnesty international should have done so and gone public about it particularly when Mr Navalny is being taken to captivity in a penal colony.
1
-
@shelaco1321 mm: I do not particularly "love this guy" though I have certainly enjoyed drawing him a few times and he seems (from that) to be sound and honest. It is a feeling I get from looking into his eyes and drawing him. Beyond that, I have no agendum. I believe that his chance of holding political office simply increases the more he is vilified and persecuted. He began a reasonable debate and one that was overdue- about corruption. But this has clearly become personal and a mission to discredit him for one of the groups lobbying the President. Their focus on Navalny has given him greater prominence and more importance that he might ever have wished or expected. When history is written, however, he has his place in that record whatever the outcome of his time in a penal colony. That is the result of this campaign.
No one who is truly powerful has a need to play theheavy. It is, however, this image that increasingly dominates the kremlin and it comes across as weak. It is a pity because I am unaware of any alternative presidential candidate to the current incumbent. Strength should be about dialogue and harnessing talent. Had I been advising Mr Putin, theerefore, I would long ago have invited Mr Navalny into Government and I would have ensured lessons were learnt and, if necessary, changes were made.
I have made visual reference to the cockroach issue (an expression which is sadly common on the street) and to the dental story as you will have seen. I am simply not aware of the veracity of the anti-semitic comments and, even as you describe them, they do not seem to be specific to Navalny, himself. As you know, there is an anti-semitic element in Russian society, so I have no doubt this is also represented among some of "navalny's followers" as it is also evidenced in the appalling campaign a few years' ago by the Duma member Piotr Tolstoy, about which I have both written and made a short film. Beyond this, your paragraph is a bit confusing- who, for instance, do you refer to when you cite " the 37-year-old Russian blogger"? If you want mud to stick, you must be more precise in your quotations. I personally prefer to listen to Volkov and to people who have met Mr Navalny and assure me he is neither anti-semitic nor racist. All that said, I am very grateful to you for your interest in this subject and for the information you are providing to us. I certainly hope my responses meet your expectations- with best wishes, TIM.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shelaco1321 Believe me, I am sympathetic to much of what you say, but the fact remains the Russia is signed up to recognising the authority of the ECHR. My personal opinion is that for all the harm it potentially does and the cronyism, it also serves us well. It could be improved and seriously: that is something that must happen in Europe and among those who are still under its jurisdiction. The issue with Navalny is not about his polling result in an election or about his popularity but about whether he has been punished irregularly. It is absurd to impose sanctions on a country for what its law courts rule- we assume law is independent of the Government. That I do not believe this to be wholly the case in modern Russia is entirely irrelevant- the assumption that the judiciary is independent is paramount in making decisions about international co-operation. In much the same way, your comment about regime change in Iraq slightly misses the point.
You make an addditional point (twice) about the Catalan rapper, Pablo Hasél's, lyrics in support of GRAPO and ETA. I believe he has also accused the current king of being a Parasite, and physically intimidating a witness. As I understand it, the present conviction, his second, relates to the lyrics about the royal family but effectively actions a suspended sentence for promoting the very serious terrorist offences by GRAPO. This is again, quite different to the conviction of Navalny even if Amnesty has also called for him to be freed- and you are grasping at straws in drawing any further parallel here. Equally, you are quite wrong in assuming this has not been covered in British media. For the record, I entirely agree that prison sentences are inappropriate responses to the work of artists and film-makers which again takes us to the interpretation of the films put out on Navalny's youtube channel which cause you concern. Once again, you cannot have it both ways.
Your conclusion, however, is bang on: my congratulations. Navalny will most certainly cease to be a pawn in this chessgame when he is no longer "useful".
1) At that point, however, I will still be banging on (your expression and a good one) about unfair imprisonment, and will do so until Russia adjusts its relationship with the council of Europe. Even then, this is a matter that took place under the rules then in force. 2) I will still urge Mr Putin to deal directly with Mr Navalny who, I think, raises important issues and commands popular interest: a good leader gathers people around him/her with a variety of viewpoints: the alternative is a bunker mentality or the sort of inflexibility of Mrs May! A strong leader listens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
somehow I think we disagree about your definition of Russia. Icertainly felt no freedom there and nor do Oleg and Aleksi Navalny, Buchenkov, Gorinov, Polyudova, Udaltsov, Nepomniashchikh, Kurmoyarov, Pichugin, Kolchenko, Semena, Sushchenko and Irina Gen... tip of the iceberg: should I go on?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gavrilo46 It is a mistake to make claims about what someone else thinks. As a matter of fact, I was very optimistic about the presidency of both Mr Putin and Medveydeyev. Navalny's imprisonment is regrettable but is not really the issue- the issue begins with the evidence of poisoning which has not been answered, and international interest is sparked by poisoning icidents out of Russia. We are entitled, as are you, to make observations about justice elsewhere. You may, indeed, find that we share views, but you should not assume a monolithic view that is wholly confident that our view is better than yours because we belong to a different nation. This story has been played out in the international media and therefore commands attention.For what it is worth, I entirely agree that the Iraq war began on dodgy foundations and that Tony Blair may not have presented the facts as clearly as they can now be seen: it does not necessarily mean he can be found guilty of lying or wilfully misleading parliament. In the same way, the fact that there was a riot by Trump followers at the capitol does not automatically mean that Trump can be held responsible or that he directly encouraged the riot. What is important is to have these discussions and debates. What is worrying is to see the blanket of silence and the dismissive approach to Navalny. In the same way, it is not the palace that matters but that the palace is a credible image. I would much rather Putin reached out to the west to discuss the huge number of issues building up.Jaw jaw as Churcill would say is the better option every time. Silenece breeds suspicion. This is something everyone should avoid. And throwing another accusation does not explain what happened.
1
-
@gavrilo46 Yes, this is the rhetorical flourish that Mr Putin used. It evades the answer of course. It is not only Mr Navalny who managed to survive poisoning, but also the intended victims of salisbury. This in turn was accompanied by one of the most farcical reasons for visiting the cathedral I have ever heard. It would be reasonable to visit Salisbury cathedral because of an interest in art and the work of john Constable, but certainly not because of its height. So, we also know the two visitors were russian agents and incompetent both as poisoners and as art historians. both their cover and their actual plan are flawed. I think it is not at all impossible that Mr Navalny might have been the victim of another attempted poisoning. At this stage, a sensible approach would be to suggest a batch of poison was lost from the russian facility- that suggests a failure in security rather than a failure in spycraft. This approach, I am afraid, does not work. As I have said, I am supportive but I do not think this string of events is commendable and Mr Putin's rhetorical flourish is shattered by what happened in Salisbury. The trick now is to negotiate a re-entry on to the wold stage and sort out the mess. The longer Mr Putin avoids this, the more deeply he is damaged. As there is no obvious alternative leader in Russia today, this is very worrying indeed. I agree that you can dismiss all the poisonings as propaganda, but the question then must be who benefits? Cui bono? I do not see any of this helping europe or britain and certainly not russia. It might, however, help a particular clique that fears it is losing influence in the Kremlin...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
as I disagree with your term "illegal", I find it difficult to answer your question. The issue is about the language used and the failure of the home office to do its work aND PROCESS THE PAPERWORK. Without that done, we cannot know who is "legal" and who is not. It is purely speculative. I am neither wealthy, lefty nor an immigrant though my partner initially sought asylum and was a victim of torture. My godson is also Albanian and I teach and have housed a number of Albanians personally and therefore know many Albanians in the UK and in Tirana, Berat, Elbassan and Durres. I do not know any "criminal" Albanians and, given Braverman's rhetoric which casually brands the nation, I find that curious. I am very much aware, therefore, I hope, of the issues and I appreciate that you are concerned that money is wasted. It certainly is- by the Home Office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shelaco1321 1) your english is impeccable- congratulations. 2) you occasionally, however, do not take into account the whole picture. Navalny cannot really be punished for something that he was actually allowed to do. As for the poisoning, this is part of a much bigger conversation. Two sovereign powers have independently confirmed the existence of an illegal nerve agent of russian origin, first in Salisbury and now in Mr Navalny's underpants. There are only two explanations- a) that it was stolen or b) that it is being used by Russian agents and therefore requires a top-level explanation. 3) Instead of dealing with this, your government offers aggressive bluster and disbelief that does very little to calm an increasingly fraught international situation. Quoting the australian John Pilger is not a solution. He is a commendable journalist but he has agenda as you know and he often writes to challenge and make a point. 4) Mr Putin's reputation is sound and he remains popular at home: that has never been something I have questioned- however, his popularity has been shaken and confidence in his goverenment has tumbled. Casting Navalny as adversary is not a solution to this problem. Navalny is not the source of the opposition; he has only become the de facto voice of opposition because of the way the Kremlin has responded. As for Reuters, to compare Mr Putin's 60% rating in popularity to Mr Navalny's is actually not saying alot about Mr Putin's tenure. After so long in power, Mr Putin should not be compared to a man who holds no political office and is now in gaol. 5) You cannot criticise and ask at the same time. I absolutely agree. Irresponsible and arrogant. 6) The referendum debate never quite grew up- hence we have problems with the democratic decision we reached. The remain camp was led by a number of very silly senior politicians who were involved in establishing the very bureaucratic sytems that have got the EU into a demonstrable mess, who also believed that people would make a decision based on and because of economics. People tend to make decisions because of an emotional committment. I cannot imagine anyone making an emotional committment to economics, however sound. We should have emphasised the committment we have had for the last 100 years to the security and prosperity of the continent. This led, as you know, to 2 world wars when Britain came to the rescue of mainland Europe and we looked upon Russia as an ally. Remaining in the EU should not have been about accepting the status quo. I think many people who have lived in Europe as I have done were well aware of the need for change and wholesale reform. That must still take place and Brexit makes it harder for us to help our friends in Europe to change, but no country wants to see a monster on its doorstep, so change Europe must. The Navalny story makes it harder, equally for us to help our friends in Russia, but in the same way, the aggressive mud-slinging does no one any credit. There is much that has gone on over the last 5 years, from Litvenenko to Crimea but nevertheless, I hope it is clear (without irony) that I would prefer to build bridges. I would prefer to cultivate friendship rather than foster suspicion and aportion blame.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelmorgan9289 You are quite correct that it was not Johnsons' fault that Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe was kidnapped and effectively held for ransom by Iran. It would be excellent if she were released soon, but certainly no reason for Liz Truss to crow. Again, this is an example of a country that takes advantage of someone they believe is weak. It will have been three Foreign Office ministers now, who have dealt with this issue and Iran is responding in its own desultory time. It is quite disgraceful. It demonstrates again that we cannot posture on the world stage because we are not taken seriously any more. I happen to think that Boris has done a good job regarding Ukraine and moreover that he did well when he was in the Foreign office (despite the gaffe and failure to apologise for it) at the moment is an asset, but that has certainly not always been the case. He has surrounded himself with incompetents as did Mrs May. Iran took advantage of this as indeed Putin's Kremlin has taken advantage. You say " same person failed to understand" who is the person you are targeting now or is it everyone who failed to recognise the contracts of the UN Sanctions Board? While the UN Sanctions board may have been involved, it was the Ministry of defence that rejected the proposal to pay the outstanding debt. (may 2019)and Radcliffe is not the only person imprisoned in Iran ( Kylie Moore-Gilbert). The tardinesss of the response by officials is astonishing and must surely reflect the Minister's general approach. She met Foreign minister Amir Abdollahian in sept 2021 and only in dec did our officials fly to Tehran to begin negotiations. As you are aware, the FO take the view that they "don't comment on speculation" or on specifics so I find some of your comments very interesting and I find the fact that it is left to an opposition MP to brief the press about the possibility of this detention being resolved. We do not know about the other detainees. So, even when there is the prospect of a breakthrough, what we are getting is chaotic briefings and Liz Truss remains ill prepared and, therefore, contrary to her efforts (and indeed your efforts) to appear in control, she projects an image of chaos and pouting arrogance. Nothing to be proud of there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the harvard reference system is about how you acknowledge the quotations you use. there are different versions of this, but essentially you note the author, date of publication, title, edition, place of publication and publisher. If it is the internet, you should indicate the date you accessed the source and the web address. With word, footnotes are fairly easy. Of course, you still have a choice in the essay about allusions or summaries, or direct quotations, but try to keep quotations short.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
your english is a bit better than some of your colleagues and many thanks for coming here. Thanks also for noting the ambiguity in Mr Zelensky's words. The West has never threatened Russia with nuclear weapons and Russia has repeatedly used that threat in the last 6 months. Medveydev and a few others were explicit. You are scaping the barrel if you wish to maintain, after the clarification that has been issued, that Zelensky meant one thing when he says he intended another. You have a proven history of playing around with words and with text. The only liar here is Russian media.
please check out this report here:
Foreign pundits approached by Russian TV stations for interviews might want to think twice before accepting, if the recent experiences of two British commentators are anything to go by.
In two recent reports about Brexit and related matters, NTV, a station owned by a branch of Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom, has been caught completely misrepresenting the words of contributors by means of some creative dubbing.
On 31 March, NTV's flagship current affairs show Itogi Nedeli (Results of the Week) ran a report highlighting the woes of UK Prime Minister Theresa May after MPs had again rebuffed attempts to pass her Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
The result was "very much like a disaster", declared fast-talking Irada Zeynalova, one NTV's top presenters.
Dubbing 'bore no relation' to original
The following report continued much in the same vein, including contributions from a number of British and European commentators, who were generally grim or scathing about May and the prospects for Brexit.
One of them was Tim Wilson, a Conservative politician and cartoonist, who was previously a member of UKIP.
Bearded and colourfully dressed in mustard jacket and purple waistcoat, Wilson was interviewed by NTV at his home in the Midlands, and according to the dubbed Russian voice-over said the following about May and former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron:
"She even put her neck on the block having promised that she would resign if they support the plan, and give a chance for another view and another approach. But even this did not help. But look at it from another point of view: she planned to become another prime minister from the ruling party following Cameron who did nothing and calmly left to watch the country fall apart."
But as Wilson said in an email to BBC Monitoring, the dubbed words "bore no relation to what I said at any point in the interview".
Wilson made an independent video recording of the 17-minute filming session, which he says he did with NTV's permission.
This recording shows that while he had harsh words for May and her Brexit plans, he did not say that she had put her "neck on the block" or anything like this.
Nor did he say anything about Cameron doing nothing and watching the "country fall apart".
Wilson complained to NTV and met a representative of the channel during a subsequent visit to Moscow, asking for an amended version of the report to be re-broadcast, and also suggesting other projects on which they might cooperate.
The Brexit report appears to have been removed from the recordings of the 31 March edition of Itogi Nedeli on NTV's website and YouTube channel. But Wilson remains dissatisfied, saying that there has still been no official apology nor any "credible steps taken by NTV to correct the false impression they have given their audience".
BBC Monitoring approached NTV for a comment on Wilson's case, but has so far not received a response.
More creative dubbing
But Wilson is not the only victim of NTV's creative dubbing.
On 9 June, Itogi Nedeli ran another report about the British political scene, in which John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, was shown saying via Russian voice-over that "everyone knows that [Boris] Johnson was a bad minister, and during his visits the government used to pray that he did not start a nuclear war".
Professor Curtice also apparently told NTV that he knew that "one cannot follow [Donald] Trump's advice, and Johnson has already declared - I will not pay Brussels a penny of the 40bn release fee until there is an excellent deal".
"Complete Misrepresentation!" Professor Curtice said by e-mail, when asked by BBC Monitoring if these words were an accurate record of what he had said. He later said that he had contacted NTV, who had offered an apology.
The channel seems subsequently to have re-edited online versions of the report to remove Professor Curtice's contribution.
Nor is NTV the only major Russian TV channel to have been caught putting words into the mouth of foreign interviewees.
In 2016, the French broadcaster Canal + produced evidence suggesting that state-run Rossiya 1 had distorted several interviews in a report about political tensions in France, including one with right-of-centre politician Bruno Le Maire.
Le Maire told Canal + that Rossiya 1 had had shown a "cut-and-paste of phrases which expresses perhaps not the opposite of what I said, but in any case something quite different".
For his part, Wilson is keen to advertise his own experiences with NTV as a warning to others.
"I am concerned that this level of casual duplicity is routine at NTV and both audiences and potential interviewees need to be fully aware that what is presented may not be what is said," he said in a statement to BBC Monitoring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, 1) the rules allow for the parliamentary majority to be the deciding factor. Unless a turkey votes for Christmas, all this call of a general election is simply hot air. In addition, the polls suggest a conservative party facing a General election at the moment would be shredded. It may be an approariate result and may even be desirable but no conservative Prime Minister will readily call a General Election in the face of certain defeat. 2) I think a reset of our politics, however, would be a very good thing and I also think it is time for labour to take control: again, that will not happen until we reach 2025 or until the Prime Minister, whoever that is, calls a General election. 3) I have endlessly proposed a solution, and will continue to do so over the next week, that would involve a general election fairly early- and that is a government of national unity- the deal in reaching out to get the support of opposition MPs would almost certainly come with the certainty of an early general election agreement. 4)We have provided mr Putin with a vacuuous west for much of the last year - in France (serious unrest and elections), germany (the change of leader), US and UK. Putin has taken advantage of this and now is poised to go much further than he has so far done. There is a very real chance of Nuclear confrontation and I do not think even a Conservative party leadership election is justified under these circumstances- whoever becomes Prime minister must recognise they are a stop-gap at best and just get on with the job. We cannot afford to send a further signal to Putin that we are more interested in navel gazing and knitting than in the real problems the world faces. This is quite apart from the serious natinal crisis we face as winter approaches and energy supplies fail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
absolutely if tyou wish to do something in Government, you need to raise money there are better ways to raise revenue....and this is thus far simply an advertising gimmick for more teacxhers to come forward. The industry needs to improve if there are to be more recruits and there need to be better conditions if those recruits are to be retained. We need to radically overhaul the profession and slicing into one of the few bits of the educational system that just about functions is not a very clever- though perhaps ideologocally sound- approach. Destroying something that works does not make anything else better. Beyond that, the idea that all private schools are about an elite is nonsensical- many parents move house to be in a better catchment area and there are a range of good and poor state schools- if people can afford to move, then they might. If they cannot, they might still opt to use a private system or to employ tutors. It is this end of the private system that will be shattered- not the eton, harrow, wellington end which, incidentally, I also know and I can assure you, is far from offering a perfect and indeed an advantaged education. Like the state system, it specialises in a version of "one size fits all" though the sizing may be slightly more focused if parents can shop round- what we need is an educational system throughout that responds directlyb to children and to students' needs. This is possible but not even on the horizon in the UK...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
as an Orthodox Christian myself, all I can do in response to this nonsensical statement is sigh. I am sure Russia is indeed protected by God as is the UK: both are States with a strong link to Christian identity though they are also pluralistic societies who value the beliefs of others whether religious or not. But we cannot go around blessing bombs and if we do, we better make certain that ours is a "Just War". The terms of a "Just war"/ bellum iustum are laid down in Mediaeval scholarship by Thomas Aquinas: Russia's attack on Ukraine alone, the "jus ad bellum", does not meet the criteria- in 2000 a council of bishops met in RUSSIA during the millenial celebrations to draw up a social document which also included a version of the just war theory based on the Thomist doctrines. It said that an aggressive war was wrong and that there was the highest moral and sacred value of military acts of bravery for a true believer. The "Special Military Operation" was an aggressive invasion, therefore wrong. And ramping up a response would be evidence of further disproportionality and therefore wrong. Even if the war was simply to defend the russian speakers in the Donbas, there is no justification for an attack on Lviv or on Kiev. These two attacks alone demonstracte that the war in Ukraine is illegal and unjustified.
To be clear: There must be a 1)just cause, 2) justice, 3) authority,4) right intent, 5) the probability of success, 6) the last resort and 7) proportionality. Even if you can defend the Putin war on other grounds, it fails on the last two absolutely. But thank you so much for your comments. Always appreciated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am pleased and heartened that you find this piece interesting though, of course, I am dismayed by some of the conclusions you draw. In the case of Navalny, I would hope that there is a distinction to be made between views expressed in the past with whatever qualification or explanation that may be legitimate - that are open to interpretation- and present captivity. The language he chooses in the two videos is provocative but not much more so than that of Sun reporter katie Hopkins. I deplore the language of "othering", whether this is by dehumanizing people or by casting slurs on them. If there is cause for Amnesty's concern about Navalny's videos, I find it astonishing that this was not flagged up earlier and that amateurish behaviour along with the arrogance of the pronouncement is the point of my video here. Amnesty has form in this respect and it does not respond well to criticism. It believes, indeed, that it is above criticism. It is not. (one person indeed claimed that Navalny was promoting the cactivities of a Chechen terrorist when in fact he was simply promoting ideas about self-defence at a time when many Russians felt threatened- the points advanced by Vladimir Petrov in comment on a previous video seem to have been edited after I wrote my response, so I am grateful for that). I certainly knew of these Navalny videos that you cite and, indeed, that I have used in my own presentation (as you saw). I pressed for answers about these some time ago and was assured the videos had a cultural bias, were intended to be provocative and in no way reflected genuine anti-semitic or xenophobic intent or conviction, or more importantly a commitment to violence. The videos were metaphorical. The videos were also posted at a time of increased tension from the Caucases region. I was satisfied with that explanation then and remain so now. It is reinforced by Navalny's later activities and his wide-ranging links with people of diverse background. His public personna today is different to that of ten years' ago and it is ridiculous to expect someone to comb through past posts and remove, edit or explain them in the light of new convictions. This is as much a criticism of Amnesty as, with the greatest respect, it is a criticism of your argument here. As you are aware, the immigration issue has dogged european, British and Russian politics for the last decade: I do not agree with the majority of policies currently pursued, or views expressed about immigration but a move towards inclusion is a step forward and this is something Navalny has shown repeatedly in the last few years. I am afraid that the politics of Piotr Tolstoy, in contrast, whose voice has not been silenced in Russian politics is significantly more troubling than anything that might haunt the past of Navalny. What matters is that Navalny is imprisoned on a technicality, it looks contrived, it has been roundly condemned by an organisation taht russia is party to and instead of addressing this issue, the Kremlin seems to be orchestrating a muck-raking campaign. A prisoner of conscience is not a statement about sanctity but a statement about inappropriate imprisonment. Amnesty lists 51 prisoners of conscience in Russia, (more than any other nation incidentally) mostly detained for religious views. Amnesty's definition is something that began in the 1960s and almost immediately ran into trouble. It's statement that prisoners of conscience do not espouse or endorse violence has, therefore, always been open to interpretation. Navalny was described as a prisoner of conscience on 17th January and stripped of this designation barely a month later, not because he was released but because Amnesty had not done their homework in the first place. If the videos are now judged so bad, (a judgemnet I hope yopu understand I dispute) why were they not noted on 17th January? Pressumably, because Amnesty is not a professional organisation.
1
-
@shelaco1321 I understand your concern about disappearing texts. This is a youtube issue. I have written some responses particularly to what you have written and the whole thing including your points has disappeared. It seems to reappear a little later. Please be reassured: I delete nothing. I have looked in detail at the 50 other prisoners of conscience in Russia- while they are broadly labelled religious, some are certainly religious (Jehovah's witness) but some are LGBTQ+ activists so it is certainly not clear that this is a broad coalition of people militating for regime change. I entirely agree about your point about appeasement and the Holocaust- we should always be careful that we do not overlook genuine evil, or condone it in any way. However, I do not think this is the same issue. Navalny's videos many demonstrate foolishness but not evil. This is much the same issue as Boris Johnson's letterbox. Sometimes poeple say things for "effect". It is wrong, it is foolish but it does not define them and there are bigger issues. And equally, there are some absolutes: we should never condone incarceration without a proper and fair trial. If the ECHR questions this trial and if Russia is party to that broad agreement to respect ECHR judgements which it is, then it is worrying that Navalny was brought to trial a second time, and then for missing appointments he could not possibly keep because he was in Germany recovering from a poisoning that appears to have been politically motivated. While there is a string of interrelated questions, and while it is clear that the Russian legal system is not independent of Government, it is reasonable to demand Mr Navalny's release and to see him as a "prisoner of conscience". I would like him to put some distance between who he is now and what he said then in teh videos, but that is of minimal consequence. His actions already demonstrate that he has moved on and that he is inclusive and a man of peace.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have already agreed that the sin of sodom was inhospitality and the threat of gang rape. What I dispute from an exegetical point of view is Lord Tebbit's assumption that there is a biblical concept that the sin of sodom is homosexuality. Lord Tebbit referenced the weakest of the 6 verses in scripture to support scriptural backing for his views.
So, no, it is not "quite clear" and that is the point. More detailed exegesis follows.
The threat of gang rape, as we know from recent cases in Iraq (Abu Ghraib) and Libya (recent chants include "subjugate the men", and Col Gaddaffi was famously raped with a bayonet before being killed 2012 - reported in The Guardian), is about control and brutality, not about "homosexuality" as such.
The key to this passage lies in Jer 23.14, ezek 26.49-50, wis 10.8, 19.8 eccl 16.8 where the sin of sodom is considered to be pride and the treatment of the poor- That much is clearly Biblical.
By 1st century, there seems to have been a tradition of associating Sodom with some element of sexual misconduct but it is far from precise even if it is referenced in 2 Peter 2.4, 6-8 (here the ref is simply to "ungodly lives" asebesiv, and having sensual conduct, aselgeia anastprophis, and Jude. 6-7 -the word used in Jude for "strange sex" is "hetero" so that would be ironic if your judgement is correct)
You are right about the threat of sexual immorality, but it was not specifically homosexuality. "All the people of the town" (Kol-ha'am) gathered around Lot's doorway. (Gen 19.34) In the context this remains about inhospitality and the parallel with Judges is pertinent. Historically, the interpretation you want focuses on the efforts of the venerable Bede, Alcuin, and further back Josephus(Antiq. 1.1x.1) and Philo, (Abr 26.133-136, 27.137-141) but while there may be extrabibllical references to sexual incontinence in Wisdom, Jubilees, T. Levi, T Ben 2 Enoch, it is not biblical. The early rabbinic literature is again not about homosexuality but about perverse heterosexual lust. (m Sanh 10.3, gen rab 49-51, t. sot 3:11-12, b san 109a-b, Pirqe R El 25) what is clearly condemned in gen rab 49-51 is rape, and it is interesting that male rape has taken so long to enter the legal framework of the west if it is so obviously identified as homosexual in Genesis.
The later fathers of the church are fairly clear about homosexuality- Chrysostom, (Ad Pop Antioch Hom 19.7) Clement of Alexandria (Paed 3.8) Augustine (Const Apost. vii.2). Luther and Calvin are fairly graphic.
Beyond this, there are parallels with this story in ancient literature where hospitality is the issue when the gods visit mankind. (Philemon and Baucis- Ovid Metamorphosis 7.625)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You have a limited view of both success and focus. I went on to run two different departments in a university, to teach (at the same time) in 3 other universities, to finish a film and receive about 40 awards to date, to appear on stage, to launch my own radio show (coming soon), to appear on a tv show and win the popular vote and to survive a T3 cancer diagnosis. I think that is a good record of achievement and I have significantly more I plan to do. Just as it took 11 years to get a case through the ECHR, so I recognise that it can take time to establish the fact that whether Brexit is right or wrong, it stirred up racism and that must be reversed. At the same time, I am aware that it will take time to establish proper care and support for people who appear on reality tv and to make sure reality tv as a genre is safe. Equally, I have done all this under my own name and have not hidden behind the convenient soubriquet of "anonymous". As for Farage, I rarely mention him but you are quite right to reference Farage when you are responding to a video I have made about racism- Farage had an opportunity to deal with this and he chose to ignore it and to duck any responsibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you miss the point in the desire to post a response from the "party line". Firstly, the issue is that no one should be tetained in conditions that amount to torture, no matter what their sentence. This is an absolute condition and I would argue for this to any government whether Western or Russian, so the comparisons are pointless. This can always be improved and we must be committed to improving conditions of detention. Secondly, it is far from clear that Navalny's setence is legitimate as he was in Germany with permission from the Kremlin and therefore unable to comply with the bail conditions. Thirdly, as he has not had access to his team, he is certainly not fully culpable for any protests that take place in his name, even if these are considered illegal under the current rules. In Britain, the rule about protests is that we must "let the police know 6 days in advance" - as I see it, this was certainly done by Navalny's supporters so much of your argument fails. Rules by Governments around teh world have been tightened because of Covid but the right to protest is taken seriously by most countries even if the authorities are uncomfortable with certain groups and the sizes of protest that they might command. I fail to see the link between Julian assange who went into self-imposed detention in defiance of a court order and was therefore arrested for what amounted to a protracted contempt of court- which accounts for his current sentence in the UK. I am inclined to treat the espionage changes from teh US with some derision and the charges about sexual misconduct, serious though they may have been have been withdrawn. The difference between Navalny and Assange is that Navalny left Russia with permission, and he was also poisoned (fact confirmed by german medics)in a situation reminiscent of a number of high-profile assasination attempts on politicians and journalists across Russia and surrounds - litvenyenko, Pyotr Verzilov, Vladimir Kara-Murze, Anna Politkovskaya, Yuri Schekochikhin, and Viktor Yushchenko, and finally, Sergei and Yulia Skripal (just after they became British citizens). To this might be added unexplained illnedsses sustained by Petr Verzilov, a member of Pussy Riot and by Mikhail Khodorkovsky who twice suffered from unexplained and near fatal attacks in 2015 and 20-17 whicle planning opposition movements to Mr Putin. This is a long list and of course various shady charecters have been named and identified as agents wgo administered the various poisons - Dmitry Kovtun and Andrey Lugovoy are an example: they administered the Polonium 210 to Litvenenko. Decorated servicemen Anatoly Chepiga and Alexander Mishkin apparently were behind the novikok poioning in Salisbury and came out with a farcical story about checking out the height of the spire at Salisbury Cathedral. This goes back to Georgi Markov's poisoning with an umbrella, and the near-fatal cup of tea drunk by Nikolai Khokhlov. Boris Voldarsky has said that KGB/FSA poison attempts must be made to look "natural". I am quite happy to ignore comments by Andrei Soldatov (who thinks these poisonings could not have taken place without authorisation by the Kremlin, even allowing for Putin's silly bragging about Navalny's near-fatal poisoning- “Anyway, if we had wanted to poison him, we probably would have finished the job.” along with his admission at the same press conference that his spies were following Navalny) follow a line of reasoning put forward by tatiana Stanovaya that many of these poisonings (with chemicals that must be derived from a military storage facility) have been organised by factions attempting to curry favour with the current Russian administration or with other powers. However, this analysis simply confirms my overall conclusion that Putin's power is currently tenuous and brittle. This is a major danger facing both Russia and the West.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
he was accused of espionage, not unlike Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, In the case of the Japanese consul, there is, of course, no evidence that he was equipped with a phial of radioative poison. I do not recall the the russian spies (real names: GRU Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga and Alexander Mishkin) being blindfolded and beaten. Equally, I have not seen any evidence that the Japanese consul was actually spying. This is hearsay and accusation. Not evidence: the only evidence here is of abuse. But, as ever, Larissa, I am happy to discuss these things with you. Indeed, there was a third man connected with the poisoning in Salisbury: his name was Denis Sergeev, and his fake id was Sergey Vyacheslavovich Fedotov. Does any of this sound familiar?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Museums are not inferior to churches, but buildings build as Churches lack something when reduced to museum status alone. As long as they are accessible, their art work is accessible. It would be a shame, for example, to see St Peter's re-purposed as a museum simply because it contains great art. Your point about Canute is quite correct as is Mr Rees Mogg but it is the same thing as debating whether to pronounce "trait" correctly,. It may have been the wrong image...And, of course, I agree with you about the political decision, but this will not be stopped by muttering from the west. Instead, we need to seize this as an initiative. I do not think religion has all answers and may indeed cause more problems, but in this instance, it could bring unity, though it may take some time to effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I entirely agree that there is bias but Putin remains the aggressor and there is no material advantage to his securing the dombas in his bombing Lviv. This is simply savagery. Even his attacks on civilian sites in Kyiv is difficult to justify. As for the Minsk agreement, if you look at the signing process (under duress) and the content (weighted towards Russia), it was clearly an agreement in need of revision. Putin did not negotiate. He invaded. Notghing justifies that and therefore changes the whole nature of the response and the reports. In addition, while I concede that western media is not wholly balanced and omits or emphasises particular angles, I also know, from my own experience, that Russian media indulges in deliberate falsification and deceit. I have met some of the senior players in the Russian leadership and, while certainly some seemed charming and affable, there were others who were wholly and evidently scurrilous. I would be the first to sit down for tea with any of these people, but, on the basis of what I already know, and the evidence I have accumulated, I also recognise that the overwhelming support should be with those who have been invaded by a mendacious and more powerful neighbour who had given them assurances of protection and security.
https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c200wjny
Foreign pundits approached by Russian TV stations for interviews might want to think twice before accepting, if the recent experiences of two British commentators are anything to go by.
In two recent reports about Brexit and related matters, NTV, a station owned by a branch of Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom, has been caught completely misrepresenting the words of contributors by means of some creative dubbing.
On 31 March, NTV's flagship current affairs show Itogi Nedeli (Results of the Week) ran a report highlighting the woes of UK Prime Minister Theresa May after MPs had again rebuffed attempts to pass her Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
The result was "very much like a disaster", declared fast-talking Irada Zeynalova, one NTV's top presenters.
Dubbing 'bore no relation' to original
The following report continued much in the same vein, including contributions from a number of British and European commentators, who were generally grim or scathing about May and the prospects for Brexit.
One of them was Tim Wilson, a Conservative politician and cartoonist, who was previously a member of UKIP.
Bearded and colourfully dressed in mustard jacket and purple waistcoat, Wilson was interviewed by NTV at his home in the Midlands, and according to the dubbed Russian voice-over said the following about May and former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron:
"She even put her neck on the block having promised that she would resign if they support the plan, and give a chance for another view and another approach. But even this did not help. But look at it from another point of view: she planned to become another prime minister from the ruling party following Cameron who did nothing and calmly left to watch the country fall apart."
But as Wilson said in an email to BBC Monitoring, the dubbed words "bore no relation to what I said at any point in the interview".
Wilson made an independent video recording of the 17-minute filming session, which he says he did with NTV's permission.
This recording shows that while he had harsh words for May and her Brexit plans, he did not say that she had put her "neck on the block" or anything like this.
Nor did he say anything about Cameron doing nothing and watching the "country fall apart".
Wilson complained to NTV and met a representative of the channel during a subsequent visit to Moscow, asking for an amended version of the report to be re-broadcast, and also suggesting other projects on which they might cooperate.
The Brexit report appears to have been removed from the recordings of the 31 March edition of Itogi Nedeli on NTV's website and YouTube channel. But Wilson remains dissatisfied, saying that there has still been no official apology nor any "credible steps taken by NTV to correct the false impression they have given their audience".
BBC Monitoring approached NTV for a comment on Wilson's case, but has so far not received a response.
More creative dubbing
But Wilson is not the only victim of NTV's creative dubbing.
On 9 June, Itogi Nedeli ran another report about the British political scene, in which John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, was shown saying via Russian voice-over that "everyone knows that [Boris] Johnson was a bad minister, and during his visits the government used to pray that he did not start a nuclear war".
Professor Curtice also apparently told NTV that he knew that "one cannot follow [Donald] Trump's advice, and Johnson has already declared - I will not pay Brussels a penny of the 40bn release fee until there is an excellent deal".
"Complete Misrepresentation!" Professor Curtice said by e-mail, when asked by BBC Monitoring if these words were an accurate record of what he had said. He later said that he had contacted NTV, who had offered an apology.
The channel seems subsequently to have re-edited online versions of the report to remove Professor Curtice's contribution.
Nor is NTV the only major Russian TV channel to have been caught putting words into the mouth of foreign interviewees.
In 2016, the French broadcaster Canal + produced evidence suggesting that state-run Rossiya 1 had distorted several interviews in a report about political tensions in France, including one with right-of-centre politician Bruno Le Maire.
Le Maire told Canal + that Rossiya 1 had had shown a "cut-and-paste of phrases which expresses perhaps not the opposite of what I said, but in any case something quite different".
For his part, Wilson is keen to advertise his own experiences with NTV as a warning to others.
"I am concerned that this level of casual duplicity is routine at NTV and both audiences and potential interviewees need to be fully aware that what is presented may not be what is said," he said in a statement to BBC Monitoring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@КонструктивныйКритикан mrs Thatcher was visiting what was then the largest Rufugee camp in existence and this was caused by the Russian invasion, so your claim that Russia liberated Afghan women is absurd. If you wish to engage in dialogue, I also strongly suggest you avoid some of the abusive language. It is not something I welcome in Russian, English or Ivrit. On a personal note, I am so sorry about your own experience of moving from country to country. I hope you can find a home in Israel though I am not sure why you were deprived of your work and property in Israel or indeed accused of being a "russian occupier" if you came from Latvia. Countries should be more tolerant of migrants- this is where the life-blood of nations comes from, ideas, energy, innovaton etc. I am sorry that you have been a victim of such aggression. As for Sarah's reports about the world cup, I have no idea or interest in football, frankly. I have addressed the issue of Assange, and Ukraine I hope- the fact that one country falls short, does not give an excuse for another country to do likewise. For the record, I find teh Asange story distateful and his treatment by the US, Sweden and the UK quite astonishing. The standard is clear, however, and I hold Britain and Russia to that standard. My comments are far from evasive. I trust they are also free from propaganda but I am also not blind to BBC bias. Early Soviet Propaganda, for the record was very inventive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
in my experience. yes. Western media does not dub fake words into the mouths of people being interviewed.
here is the report from the BBC: Foreign pundits approached by Russian TV stations for interviews might want to think twice before accepting, if the recent experiences of two British commentators are anything to go by.
In two recent reports about Brexit and related matters, NTV, a station owned by a branch of Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom, has been caught completely misrepresenting the words of contributors by means of some creative dubbing.
On 31 March, NTV's flagship current affairs show Itogi Nedeli (Results of the Week) ran a report highlighting the woes of UK Prime Minister Theresa May after MPs had again rebuffed attempts to pass her Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
The result was "very much like a disaster", declared fast-talking Irada Zeynalova, one NTV's top presenters.
Dubbing 'bore no relation' to original
The following report continued much in the same vein, including contributions from a number of British and European commentators, who were generally grim or scathing about May and the prospects for Brexit.
One of them was Tim Wilson, a Conservative politician and cartoonist, who was previously a member of UKIP.
Bearded and colourfully dressed in mustard jacket and purple waistcoat, Wilson was interviewed by NTV at his home in the Midlands, and according to the dubbed Russian voice-over said the following about May and former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron:
"She even put her neck on the block having promised that she would resign if they support the plan, and give a chance for another view and another approach. But even this did not help. But look at it from another point of view: she planned to become another prime minister from the ruling party following Cameron who did nothing and calmly left to watch the country fall apart."
But as Wilson said in an email to BBC Monitoring, the dubbed words "bore no relation to what I said at any point in the interview".
Wilson made an independent video recording of the 17-minute filming session, which he says he did with NTV's permission.
This recording shows that while he had harsh words for May and her Brexit plans, he did not say that she had put her "neck on the block" or anything like this.
Nor did he say anything about Cameron doing nothing and watching the "country fall apart".
Wilson complained to NTV and met a representative of the channel during a subsequent visit to Moscow, asking for an amended version of the report to be re-broadcast, and also suggesting other projects on which they might cooperate.
The Brexit report appears to have been removed from the recordings of the 31 March edition of Itogi Nedeli on NTV's website and YouTube channel. But Wilson remains dissatisfied, saying that there has still been no official apology nor any "credible steps taken by NTV to correct the false impression they have given their audience".
BBC Monitoring approached NTV for a comment on Wilson's case, but has so far not received a response.
More creative dubbing
But Wilson is not the only victim of NTV's creative dubbing.
On 9 June, Itogi Nedeli ran another report about the British political scene, in which John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, was shown saying via Russian voice-over that "everyone knows that [Boris] Johnson was a bad minister, and during his visits the government used to pray that he did not start a nuclear war".
Professor Curtice also apparently told NTV that he knew that "one cannot follow [Donald] Trump's advice, and Johnson has already declared - I will not pay Brussels a penny of the 40bn release fee until there is an excellent deal".
"Complete Misrepresentation!" Professor Curtice said by e-mail, when asked by BBC Monitoring if these words were an accurate record of what he had said. He later said that he had contacted NTV, who had offered an apology.
The channel seems subsequently to have re-edited online versions of the report to remove Professor Curtice's contribution.
Nor is NTV the only major Russian TV channel to have been caught putting words into the mouth of foreign interviewees.
In 2016, the French broadcaster Canal + produced evidence suggesting that state-run Rossiya 1 had distorted several interviews in a report about political tensions in France, including one with right-of-centre politician Bruno Le Maire.
Le Maire told Canal + that Rossiya 1 had had shown a "cut-and-paste of phrases which expresses perhaps not the opposite of what I said, but in any case something quite different".
For his part, Wilson is keen to advertise his own experiences with NTV as a warning to others.
"I am concerned that this level of casual duplicity is routine at NTV and both audiences and potential interviewees need to be fully aware that what is presented may not be what is said," he said in a statement to BBC Monitoring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
as you know, it is Russia that doe spropaganda and russian media that dubs fake words into the mouths of the people it interviews. It happened to me so I am only repeating what I know. Russian media is deceitful,
Foreign pundits approached by Russian TV stations for interviews might want to think twice before accepting, if the recent experiences of two British commentators are anything to go by.
In two recent reports about Brexit and related matters, NTV, a station owned by a branch of Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom, has been caught completely misrepresenting the words of contributors by means of some creative dubbing.
On 31 March, NTV's flagship current affairs show Itogi Nedeli (Results of the Week) ran a report highlighting the woes of UK Prime Minister Theresa May after MPs had again rebuffed attempts to pass her Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
The result was "very much like a disaster", declared fast-talking Irada Zeynalova, one NTV's top presenters.
Dubbing 'bore no relation' to original
The following report continued much in the same vein, including contributions from a number of British and European commentators, who were generally grim or scathing about May and the prospects for Brexit.
One of them was Tim Wilson, a Conservative politician and cartoonist, who was previously a member of UKIP.
Bearded and colourfully dressed in mustard jacket and purple waistcoat, Wilson was interviewed by NTV at his home in the Midlands, and according to the dubbed Russian voice-over said the following about May and former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron:
"She even put her neck on the block having promised that she would resign if they support the plan, and give a chance for another view and another approach. But even this did not help. But look at it from another point of view: she planned to become another prime minister from the ruling party following Cameron who did nothing and calmly left to watch the country fall apart."
But as Wilson said in an email to BBC Monitoring, the dubbed words "bore no relation to what I said at any point in the interview".
Wilson made an independent video recording of the 17-minute filming session, which he says he did with NTV's permission.
This recording shows that while he had harsh words for May and her Brexit plans, he did not say that she had put her "neck on the block" or anything like this.
Nor did he say anything about Cameron doing nothing and watching the "country fall apart".
Wilson complained to NTV and met a representative of the channel during a subsequent visit to Moscow, asking for an amended version of the report to be re-broadcast, and also suggesting other projects on which they might cooperate.
The Brexit report appears to have been removed from the recordings of the 31 March edition of Itogi Nedeli on NTV's website and YouTube channel. But Wilson remains dissatisfied, saying that there has still been no official apology nor any "credible steps taken by NTV to correct the false impression they have given their audience".
BBC Monitoring approached NTV for a comment on Wilson's case, but has so far not received a response.
More creative dubbing
But Wilson is not the only victim of NTV's creative dubbing.
On 9 June, Itogi Nedeli ran another report about the British political scene, in which John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, was shown saying via Russian voice-over that "everyone knows that [Boris] Johnson was a bad minister, and during his visits the government used to pray that he did not start a nuclear war".
Professor Curtice also apparently told NTV that he knew that "one cannot follow [Donald] Trump's advice, and Johnson has already declared - I will not pay Brussels a penny of the 40bn release fee until there is an excellent deal".
"Complete Misrepresentation!" Professor Curtice said by e-mail, when asked by BBC Monitoring if these words were an accurate record of what he had said. He later said that he had contacted NTV, who had offered an apology.
The channel seems subsequently to have re-edited online versions of the report to remove Professor Curtice's contribution.
Nor is NTV the only major Russian TV channel to have been caught putting words into the mouth of foreign interviewees.
In 2016, the French broadcaster Canal + produced evidence suggesting that state-run Rossiya 1 had distorted several interviews in a report about political tensions in France, including one with right-of-centre politician Bruno Le Maire.
Le Maire told Canal + that Rossiya 1 had had shown a "cut-and-paste of phrases which expresses perhaps not the opposite of what I said, but in any case something quite different".
For his part, Wilson is keen to advertise his own experiences with NTV as a warning to others.
"I am concerned that this level of casual duplicity is routine at NTV and both audiences and potential interviewees need to be fully aware that what is presented may not be what is said," he said in a statement to BBC Monitoring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Absolutely. I have proof that Russia routinely doctors the news and its interviews. It did so with me and the report is here:
Foreign pundits approached by Russian TV stations for interviews might want to think twice before accepting, if the recent experiences of two British commentators are anything to go by.
In two recent reports about Brexit and related matters, NTV, a station owned by a branch of Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom, has been caught completely misrepresenting the words of contributors by means of some creative dubbing.
On 31 March, NTV's flagship current affairs show Itogi Nedeli (Results of the Week) ran a report highlighting the woes of UK Prime Minister Theresa May after MPs had again rebuffed attempts to pass her Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
The result was "very much like a disaster", declared fast-talking Irada Zeynalova, one NTV's top presenters.
Dubbing 'bore no relation' to original
The following report continued much in the same vein, including contributions from a number of British and European commentators, who were generally grim or scathing about May and the prospects for Brexit.
One of them was Tim Wilson, a Conservative politician and cartoonist, who was previously a member of UKIP.
Bearded and colourfully dressed in mustard jacket and purple waistcoat, Wilson was interviewed by NTV at his home in the Midlands, and according to the dubbed Russian voice-over said the following about May and former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron:
"She even put her neck on the block having promised that she would resign if they support the plan, and give a chance for another view and another approach. But even this did not help. But look at it from another point of view: she planned to become another prime minister from the ruling party following Cameron who did nothing and calmly left to watch the country fall apart."
But as Wilson said in an email to BBC Monitoring, the dubbed words "bore no relation to what I said at any point in the interview".
Wilson made an independent video recording of the 17-minute filming session, which he says he did with NTV's permission.
This recording shows that while he had harsh words for May and her Brexit plans, he did not say that she had put her "neck on the block" or anything like this.
Nor did he say anything about Cameron doing nothing and watching the "country fall apart".
Wilson complained to NTV and met a representative of the channel during a subsequent visit to Moscow, asking for an amended version of the report to be re-broadcast, and also suggesting other projects on which they might cooperate.
The Brexit report appears to have been removed from the recordings of the 31 March edition of Itogi Nedeli on NTV's website and YouTube channel. But Wilson remains dissatisfied, saying that there has still been no official apology nor any "credible steps taken by NTV to correct the false impression they have given their audience".
BBC Monitoring approached NTV for a comment on Wilson's case, but has so far not received a response.
More creative dubbing
But Wilson is not the only victim of NTV's creative dubbing.
On 9 June, Itogi Nedeli ran another report about the British political scene, in which John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, was shown saying via Russian voice-over that "everyone knows that [Boris] Johnson was a bad minister, and during his visits the government used to pray that he did not start a nuclear war".
Professor Curtice also apparently told NTV that he knew that "one cannot follow [Donald] Trump's advice, and Johnson has already declared - I will not pay Brussels a penny of the 40bn release fee until there is an excellent deal".
"Complete Misrepresentation!" Professor Curtice said by e-mail, when asked by BBC Monitoring if these words were an accurate record of what he had said. He later said that he had contacted NTV, who had offered an apology.
The channel seems subsequently to have re-edited online versions of the report to remove Professor Curtice's contribution.
Nor is NTV the only major Russian TV channel to have been caught putting words into the mouth of foreign interviewees.
In 2016, the French broadcaster Canal + produced evidence suggesting that state-run Rossiya 1 had distorted several interviews in a report about political tensions in France, including one with right-of-centre politician Bruno Le Maire.
Le Maire told Canal + that Rossiya 1 had had shown a "cut-and-paste of phrases which expresses perhaps not the opposite of what I said, but in any case something quite different".
For his part, Wilson is keen to advertise his own experiences with NTV as a warning to others.
"I am concerned that this level of casual duplicity is routine at NTV and both audiences and potential interviewees need to be fully aware that what is presented may not be what is said," he said in a statement to BBC Monitoring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am so sorry that it looks like your place at Imperial is in jeopardy. I hope this is something that will change in the next few days or in the next week. It does not need to be about a decision by the Government or by the Education secretary (and I doubt he will change his mind or resign). There is another way, but read on...You have work to do, Abdullah!
Before going on, can I ask why you did not apply also for Oxbridge? If you can write such an impassioned paragraph here to me and if you are good enough for Imperial, I cannot see why you did not consider Oxbridge too. Too many candidates do not realise it is there: it is not beyond access. It needs to attract students from across the country who can express their own opinions. You can demonstrably do that.
My instinct is, however, that the result at Mounthouse and elsewhere is less about a bias in favour of private schools and more about a very crass algorithm that simply penalises any school that has had a blip in past performance. I also think you are not alone in drawing this conclusion. As private schools (and the state-run grammar schools in a number of counties) have slightly more control over their intake and often have ways (that I have raged against in the past, btw) of getting rid of the poorer-performers or of coaching these children more intensely before exam-time, they have fewer blips. I think you will find that those private schools that do not select their students in this way and that allow for a fuller range of results will fare similarly badly - they exist too. I think the whole process reflects very badly on the system as a whole and has badly penalised students who should have done better. If Ofqual wanted to take a mighty axe to private education, this is certainly going to be a very good swipe, in effect. I understand, for example, that no one was downgraded at Eton, but I cannot verify that. The reason, if it is true, is that there is a demonstrable correspondence between predictions and achievement over a period of years. (I am also aware that if predicted grades are too low, many children opt to leave. That, in itself, ensures a better statistical outcome for the school in terms of league tables which, I suspect form a significant part of the "algorithm" that has been used now).
I worry that the Government and Gavin Williamson (who does not like to give up and likes to cling to a position until he is pushed) will resist any change until too much damage has been done. Gavin Williamson's intrasigence may well see the end of our educational system as we know it, and we may see the loss of what is good as well as what is bad in the fallout. He comes across as detestably arrogant and I am so sorry that you have been hurt in the process. I must add that at the moment, there is a bigger use of private tuition than there ever has been to supplement teaching in State schools and much of that is very questionable.
If we are lucky, and people in Government think fast and follow Scotland's example and the excellent example of Worcester college in Oxford, then we may save alot, but there will still be a learning curve- The lessons we can learn from this are simple: to pull back from the box-ticking culture, to let educators get on with education, to trust that they can do their job and to recognise that success can be about a great number- it does not need to be limited to a top 10%- it can be bigger and if it is, then government should ensure that Universities have the funds to manage that. The money that will be wasted now on regrading and appealing would be better given to universities to ensure proper support for the many who might now have got into university this coming year (in whatever form that would take). I could not be more appallied at the way this chaos is being managed and indeed was created in the first place and at this point I deeply regret giving up my political ambitions and being dragged into a tv show.
Please let me know if there is anything practically that I can do to help. What are you planning to study/read at Imperial? I think the trick now is to point to the example of Worcester college and suggest other senior universities follow their example. Imperial would certainly be a university that should and could follow Worcester. I would get your school to send off a letter to the governing body of Imperial at once (not the admissions office which your school should approach through the UCAS system) but the council, the court, senate, president and provost urging them very quickly to follow the example of worcester college. You ahve a very brief period of time to make this work but you could lead a crusade and make the difference. I am very happy to send letters myself to this effect and indeed, I have already sent off a number of such emails (to Imperial, LSE and my own college at Oxford) and drafted further letters that will go in the post tomorrow. I hope this will have some effect but I hope I will not be a lone voice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1