Dedicated Russian thread

Maybe given the option of committing suicide provided he did it in a way that wouldn't point to 'suicide'?
A plausible line of thought. I wonder if he was actually a whistleblower being stitched up by the system?
 
A plausible line of thought. I wonder if he was actually a whistleblower being stitched up by the system?
The explanation is very simple the Ex-Prison official knew how Russian prisons look. So for him death was better option.
------
Meanwhile Putin's rating goes lower and lower the last 2 years. It looks as a stable trend.
November 2017 - 59%
February 2020 - 35%
 
The explanation is very simple the Ex-Prison official knew how Russian prisons look. So for him death was better option.
------
Meanwhile Putin's rating goes lower and lower the last 2 years. It looks as a stable trend.
November 2017 - 59%
February 2020 - 35%
It’s not so simple an explanation as to how the accused is able to smuggle a pistol into the court room
 
It’s not so simple an explanation as to how the accused is able to smuggle a pistol into the court room
He wouldn't have had to smuggle it in. He could have simply got someone else to bring it in and either pass it to him or leave it somewhere he could retrieve it from.

People illegally bring guns into US courts on a regular basis. Theoretically they have metal detectors and x-ray machines to prevent this, but they don't have the people to man them all, and some of the courthouses don't have any place to put the machines so they never get installed. I can imagine there are similar problems with trying to secure Russian courts and they probably have even fewer scanners to begin with.

People have to go in and out of courthouses all the time for all sorts of reasons, so it is probably the biggest security opening for someone to pass a means of suicide to him.
 
He wouldn't have had to smuggle it in. He could have simply got someone else to bring it in and either pass it to him or leave it somewhere he could retrieve it from.

People illegally bring guns into US courts on a regular basis. Theoretically they have metal detectors and x-ray machines to prevent this, but they don't have the people to man them all, and some of the courthouses don't have any place to put the machines so they never get installed. I can imagine there are similar problems with trying to secure Russian courts and they probably have even fewer scanners to begin with.

People have to go in and out of courthouses all the time for all sorts of reasons, so it is probably the biggest security opening for someone to pass a means of suicide to him.
Maybe one of the coppers passed him the gun?
 
Maybe one of the coppers passed him the gun?
Quite possibly. It's the simplest explanation and he certainly would have had the contacts to arrange it, as apparently he was the former department head in charge of transporting prisoners.

He had just been sentenced to three years in prison, and reportedly he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, so perhaps he decided he didn't want to spend what little time he had left in prison.
 
So, according to Moscow:

You couldn't make it up! (Unless you are a Kremlin stooge).
Rather interesting was this bit:
In late January, the firebrand leader of the far-right Liberal Democratic Party of Russia party told a Moscow radio station that he thought coronavirus was an American bioweapon or a big plot by pharmaceutical companies to get richer.
For reasons best known to themselves, Foreign Policy made oblique mention of the leader of the Liberal Democrats rather than naming him outright. The party name will likely go past many readers without recognition, but the same is less likely for name of the man himself, Vladimir Zhirinovsky. I'm not too surprised to hear his name in association with conspiracy theories.
 

Slime

LE
Putin's clever little tinkers are at it again in Africa:
It was interesting that the BBC reported on this story leading up to Christmas last year.
What caught my attention was that they were far more matter of fact in blaming Russia than they were after the Salisbury and MH17 disinformation campaigns.
 

Zhopa

War Hero
What caught my attention was that they were far more matter of fact in blaming Russia than they were after the Salisbury and MH17 disinformation campaigns.
It's a great deal easier to favour matter-of-factness over "balance" if (as in this case) it's a niche product like Africa Eye, where you will be far less in the spotlight of the central BBC thought police.

After all, it's only for Africans, isn't it, so they don't need to be protected from stuff like domestic audiences....
 

Slime

LE
It's a great deal easier to favour matter-of-factness over "balance" if (as in this case) it's a niche product like Africa Eye, where you will be far less in the spotlight of the central BBC thought police.

After all, it's only for Africans, isn't it, so they don't need to be protected from stuff like domestic audiences....
It had nothing at all to do with balance or lack of.
The BBC report from most countries in the world, this story coming from Africa was just one of many regular BBC stories from Africa.
 

Zhopa

War Hero
It had nothing at all to do with balance or lack of.
The BBC report from most countries in the world, this story coming from Africa was just one of many regular BBC stories from Africa.
Begging your pardon but... the point is not where the story was from, but who made the programme. Africa Eye comes under World Service: if this were instead domestic TV, they would have had to follow the far less direct line that you've noted in other reporting on Russia - a.k.a. "balance", a.k.a. the requirement to point out that there are "two sides to every story" even when in reality there is only one. However, since they are at several removes from domestic programming, they are able to be a bit more straightforward about it (and hence balance or lack of it really is what makes the difference).
 

Slime

LE
Begging your pardon but... the point is not where the story was from, but who made the programme. Africa Eye comes under World Service: if this were instead domestic TV, they would have had to follow the far less direct line that you've noted in other reporting on Russia - a.k.a. "balance", a.k.a. the requirement to point out that there are "two sides to every story" even when in reality there is only one. However, since they are at several removes from domestic programming, they are able to be a bit more straightforward about it (and hence balance or lack of it really is what makes the difference).
Feel free to beg away :)
I wasn’t referring to the programme or even the BBC service you mention.
I WAS referring to domestic Beeb radio and TV channels.

There was if course ‘balance’ as far as could be done in the articles I watched and listened to.
There was the content provider who listed the sites, posting origins, links between posters and content of those sites (so the word direct from the horses mouth), and then there was the Russian government saying it wasn’t us.

At the end of the day we need to ask ourselves who knows more about what Facebook have done to investigate, Facebook themselves journalists with no access to the secret details of the investigation?

My money is on Facebook :)
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top