Follow @JohnPlatinumG
At the time of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow for political reasons, purportedly over the USSR's involvement in Afghanistan, Margaret Thatcher urged athletes not to compete in the Moscow Olympics and supporters to boycott the Games. One of the athletes who defied this advice was Sebastian Coe, who won a gold medal in the 1500 metres. I defied the advice too and went to Moscow where I was treated extremely well. Thatcher did not ban athletes from competing, she just advised them not to go.
The same Sebastian Coe who defied Thatcher has now, as President of the IAAF, spoiled the dreams of athletes, who like him in 1980, have been training for life for this opportunity. It is clearly a political decision and has nothing to do with the few athletes of all nations who choose to cheat by using performance-enhancing drugs. Sadly politics has ruined sport and sportsmanship as I demonstrated in my last post.
Ever since the west set up a puppet-government in Ukraine and imposed sanctions against Russia for following the wishes of the population of Crimea and its alleged military involvement in the civil-war started by Poroshenko, the west has not missed an opportunity to try to punish Russia. Blame Russia. Blame Putin. These are the slogans on the lips of every MSM mouthpiece.
It disturbs me that my country, and other western countries, have gone down the same road as Adolf Hitler in his attitude towads black and non-Aryan people including non-Aryan athletes. Thankfully Hitler was put in his place and Jesse Owens returned to the US with four gold medals only to be snubbed by President Roosevelt. Racism against blacks was the bigotry of the day replaced today by persecution of Muslims. The west in its xenophobic hatred of Russians is no different from Hitler in his belief that Aryans were superior, except he did not ban Jesse Owens from competing.
Sebastian Coe, no angel himself and in the middle of several corruption scandals, should be ashamed of himself for toadying to the US/UK attempts to discredit Russia. The US economy is on its last legs and this is a cynical diversionary tactic. As a lad I used to run, I was never any good, at the various clubs in the West Riding including Hallamshire (where Coe ran). Coe should think back to those days and all the work he put in building up the speed and stamina that made his dream come true. Then he should consider what this stupid decision of the IAAF has done to crush the dreams of good honest Russian athletes. Nobody from Russia will compete under any flag but Russian.
Can somebody with the knowledge please start a petition to support Russian athletes? I'll link it here and spread it. Thanks.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Monday, June 13, 2016
Soccer: England did not deserve victory against Russia
Follow @JohnPlatinumG
What alarmed me with this page was the top story under Headlines: MH17 Prosecutors want Russian answers. Remember this is a sports page. It is concerned with Ukraine and its match against Germany. But the first headline is reinforcing a meme which the BBC, and other mainstream outlets, have adopted as their mantra - blame Russia, blame Putin. They have perpetuated this ever since the western-sponsored coup to remove the legitimately-elected government of Ukraine. Click the link and you can learn how certain Australian lawyers are trying to get compensation for MH17 victims - nothing to do with football, nothing to do with Europe.
The irony here is that Russia is being called upon to provide evidence about the shooting down of MH17. Russia was the first to provide evidence. Countries withholding evidence are the USA (its alleged satellite images) and Ukraine (its air-traffic control records for the day). Not that that will bother the BBC which used to have some credibility but has sold itself so far down the road of perfidy there can be no turning back. In Ukraine for months before the coup the BBC covered street protests on the Maidan. When the overthrow took place and Poroshenko started a civil-war in which 10,000 have been killed the BBC virtually clammed up.
With street-fighting back in the international football frame, and FIFA threatening to ban Russia and England from the tournament because of fan behaviour, it is time to take a measured response to what is happening. Not all football followers are fanatical. Not all regular match-goers are fanatical. I enjoy watching a game of football myself and I agree it can get emotional. Drumming up hatred is something the mainstream media should not be doing. It should instead present unbiased politics-free sport. But even in the sport itself there is blatant disinformation.
Then came the so-called foul that led to England's goal. While England had been pressing it was becoming ever more evident they would not score from open play. In the 72nd minute Dele Alli ran into Georgy Shchennikov instead of around him. For some unaccountable reason, and right on the edge of the box, the referee penalised Shchennikov, yellow-carded him, and awarded a free kick in a very dangerous position. The goal that followed was superbly executed from a set-piece.
I thought at the time that it was never a foul. But ITV1 continued as though it was. No replay of the 'foul' was shown, and even after the match, when the talking heads summed up a match that Hodgson claimed should have been a victory but seemed more like a defeat because of Russia's late equaliser from open play there was still no replay. Because I did not believe it was a foul I tried in vain to get footage of the 'foul'. Google is crap. In the end I had to go to a Russian broadcasting station, Вести, to see the alleged foul. You can judge for yourselves. It starts three and a half minutes in. However many times I have watched this it is not a foul in my eyes. But the deceit, this time ITV1, is what most concerns me. As with the BBC over the non-reporting of the Ukrainian civil war they indulged in what Catholics call a sin of omission.
The BBC, politics, sport and lies
Mainstream media has a lot to answer for in the way it propagandises everything: including sport. There used to be a policy to try and keep politics out of sport. But when the main defaulter in this policy is the BBC it is little wonder that the fans follow their lead. This is a page I came across when trying to select which matches I wanted to watch. It relates to promoting last night's match between Germany and Ukraine.
What alarmed me with this page was the top story under Headlines: MH17 Prosecutors want Russian answers. Remember this is a sports page. It is concerned with Ukraine and its match against Germany. But the first headline is reinforcing a meme which the BBC, and other mainstream outlets, have adopted as their mantra - blame Russia, blame Putin. They have perpetuated this ever since the western-sponsored coup to remove the legitimately-elected government of Ukraine. Click the link and you can learn how certain Australian lawyers are trying to get compensation for MH17 victims - nothing to do with football, nothing to do with Europe.
The irony here is that Russia is being called upon to provide evidence about the shooting down of MH17. Russia was the first to provide evidence. Countries withholding evidence are the USA (its alleged satellite images) and Ukraine (its air-traffic control records for the day). Not that that will bother the BBC which used to have some credibility but has sold itself so far down the road of perfidy there can be no turning back. In Ukraine for months before the coup the BBC covered street protests on the Maidan. When the overthrow took place and Poroshenko started a civil-war in which 10,000 have been killed the BBC virtually clammed up.
With street-fighting back in the international football frame, and FIFA threatening to ban Russia and England from the tournament because of fan behaviour, it is time to take a measured response to what is happening. Not all football followers are fanatical. Not all regular match-goers are fanatical. I enjoy watching a game of football myself and I agree it can get emotional. Drumming up hatred is something the mainstream media should not be doing. It should instead present unbiased politics-free sport. But even in the sport itself there is blatant disinformation.
A dubious foul that led to England's goal
I watched the England-Russia match (ITV1) with interest and am pleased to say that England had much more possession, especially in the first half, and more scoring opportunitites. That is not to say the Russian defence was shoddy, just that England were good. They passed well and showed the speed a young side should be able to show. Russia defended most of the attacks well and even put one or two together themselves.Then came the so-called foul that led to England's goal. While England had been pressing it was becoming ever more evident they would not score from open play. In the 72nd minute Dele Alli ran into Georgy Shchennikov instead of around him. For some unaccountable reason, and right on the edge of the box, the referee penalised Shchennikov, yellow-carded him, and awarded a free kick in a very dangerous position. The goal that followed was superbly executed from a set-piece.
I thought at the time that it was never a foul. But ITV1 continued as though it was. No replay of the 'foul' was shown, and even after the match, when the talking heads summed up a match that Hodgson claimed should have been a victory but seemed more like a defeat because of Russia's late equaliser from open play there was still no replay. Because I did not believe it was a foul I tried in vain to get footage of the 'foul'. Google is crap. In the end I had to go to a Russian broadcasting station, Вести, to see the alleged foul. You can judge for yourselves. It starts three and a half minutes in. However many times I have watched this it is not a foul in my eyes. But the deceit, this time ITV1, is what most concerns me. As with the BBC over the non-reporting of the Ukrainian civil war they indulged in what Catholics call a sin of omission.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Hammond egg on his face
Follow @JohnPlatinumG
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention after due consideration reached the conclusion that Julian Assange was being 'arbitrarily detained', that he should be released, compensated and given back his passport. Our Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, did not agree with the decision - though when earlier given an opportunity to appeal against the courts findings declined. Instead he waited for their conclusion and lambasted the international lawyers who had made the advice. This is most improper and childish of someone without a legal background yet so high-ranking in the UK government.
"I reject the decision of this working group. It is a group made up of lay people and not lawyers. Julian Assange is a fugitive from justice. He is hiding from justice in the Ecuadorian embassy.
He can come out any time he chooses.. . . But he will have to face justice in Sweden if he chooses to do so. This is frankly a ridiculous finding by the working group and we reject it."
First let us see if he is right. Are they lay people? I think not. Click on this link which gives the credentials of the five international lawyers. These are biographies of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. The only person commenting adversely on these experts' credentials and opinions is someone least qualified to do so: Philip Hammond.
Can the UK reject the findings of the Working Group? Yes. One of the problems with international law is that findings can be rejected by a nation state. The UN Working Group is a higher authority than a nation state and the UK has a lot to lose by not applying the advice. You expect countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia not to abide by international law but traditionally, before the turn of the century, not countries like the UK.
All that changed with Tony Blair's illegal war on Iraq and since then human rights in the UK have gone decidedly downhill. There are all kinds of Acts to hold people in prison without trial, to hold courts in secret so that evidence cannot be tested, to prevent coroners from conducting inquests by replacing the inquest with an Inquiry, as in the recent Robert Owen Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Human rights, going right back to the Magna Carta (1215), are being dumped in the twenty first century. This, I believe, is part of a last-ditch attempt by failing empires to enslave the planet.
I am working on a draft to petition parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, Philip Hammond himself, and Jeremy Corbyn to compel Hammond to obey international law. The UK is a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations and Hammond is trying to make a mockery of that body. The reason the League of Nations (predecessor to the United Nations) failed was because certain countries did not abide by League of Nations' findings.
The powerlessness of the League of Nations was demonstrated most conspicuously in the Lytton Inquiry which investigated the false-flag Mukden Incident (1931), in which the Japanese blew up a railway siding, blamed it on the Chinese, and used it as an excuse to invade Manchuria. Despite Japan being culpable according to the League of Nations, Japan ignored the findings and withdrew from the League of Nations in spring 1933. Three years later Haile Selassie petitioned the League of Nations to intervene to stop Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia (Abyssinia). Again it proved to be powerless to help. Finally Hitler's planned invasion of the Sudetenland, in what may have been a genuine attempt to avoid war by the UK and France a quadrilateral agreement between Italy, Germany, UK and France, allowed Germany to march into Czechoslovakia. The League of Nations stayed silent. Some may be old enough to recall that Japan, Germany and Italy were enemies of the allied forces in World War II.
With the case of Julian Assange the UK and Swedish governments are proposing to disobey international law in order to perpetrate the same kind of nation-state criminality the League of Nations was unable to prevent. Even if Julian Assange took advantage of a woman he had earlier that night had consensual sex with, he has been incarcerated for five years, in prison, house arrest and where he is now at the Ecuadorian Embassy. For a first offence it would be more than a severe punishment. Thinking people know that this is an attempt to get him extradited to the United States because of his revelations through Wikileaks of war crimes by that country. We really need to oppose these breaches before we end up being called fascists ourselves.
"I reject the decision of this working group. It is a group made up of lay people and not lawyers. Julian Assange is a fugitive from justice. He is hiding from justice in the Ecuadorian embassy.
He can come out any time he chooses.. . . But he will have to face justice in Sweden if he chooses to do so. This is frankly a ridiculous finding by the working group and we reject it."
First let us see if he is right. Are they lay people? I think not. Click on this link which gives the credentials of the five international lawyers. These are biographies of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. The only person commenting adversely on these experts' credentials and opinions is someone least qualified to do so: Philip Hammond.
Can the UK reject the findings of the Working Group? Yes. One of the problems with international law is that findings can be rejected by a nation state. The UN Working Group is a higher authority than a nation state and the UK has a lot to lose by not applying the advice. You expect countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia not to abide by international law but traditionally, before the turn of the century, not countries like the UK.
All that changed with Tony Blair's illegal war on Iraq and since then human rights in the UK have gone decidedly downhill. There are all kinds of Acts to hold people in prison without trial, to hold courts in secret so that evidence cannot be tested, to prevent coroners from conducting inquests by replacing the inquest with an Inquiry, as in the recent Robert Owen Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Human rights, going right back to the Magna Carta (1215), are being dumped in the twenty first century. This, I believe, is part of a last-ditch attempt by failing empires to enslave the planet.
I am working on a draft to petition parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, Philip Hammond himself, and Jeremy Corbyn to compel Hammond to obey international law. The UK is a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations and Hammond is trying to make a mockery of that body. The reason the League of Nations (predecessor to the United Nations) failed was because certain countries did not abide by League of Nations' findings.
The powerlessness of the League of Nations was demonstrated most conspicuously in the Lytton Inquiry which investigated the false-flag Mukden Incident (1931), in which the Japanese blew up a railway siding, blamed it on the Chinese, and used it as an excuse to invade Manchuria. Despite Japan being culpable according to the League of Nations, Japan ignored the findings and withdrew from the League of Nations in spring 1933. Three years later Haile Selassie petitioned the League of Nations to intervene to stop Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia (Abyssinia). Again it proved to be powerless to help. Finally Hitler's planned invasion of the Sudetenland, in what may have been a genuine attempt to avoid war by the UK and France a quadrilateral agreement between Italy, Germany, UK and France, allowed Germany to march into Czechoslovakia. The League of Nations stayed silent. Some may be old enough to recall that Japan, Germany and Italy were enemies of the allied forces in World War II.
With the case of Julian Assange the UK and Swedish governments are proposing to disobey international law in order to perpetrate the same kind of nation-state criminality the League of Nations was unable to prevent. Even if Julian Assange took advantage of a woman he had earlier that night had consensual sex with, he has been incarcerated for five years, in prison, house arrest and where he is now at the Ecuadorian Embassy. For a first offence it would be more than a severe punishment. Thinking people know that this is an attempt to get him extradited to the United States because of his revelations through Wikileaks of war crimes by that country. We really need to oppose these breaches before we end up being called fascists ourselves.
Friday, January 22, 2016
The Litvinenko Farce - your legal rights are vanishing under your nose
Follow @JohnPlatinumG
This is my first blogpost for over twelve months. The reason is I am writing a novel about Russian emigre poet George Ivanov (1894-1958) and this takes much of my spare time. However, with the Litvinenko Inquiry I am so incensed, I cannot stay silent. A High Court judge, Sir Robert William Owen, has taken it upon himself, with authorisation from David Cameron, against the advice of his Home Secretary, Theresa May, to pronounce judgment on the death of the shady Alexander Litvinenko. Unlike his former boss, the shady Boris Berezovsky, there has been no completed inquest into Litvinenko's death
My colleagues at News Junkie Post, Gilbert Mercier and Dady Chery, have kindly published my thoughts in an article and added some excellent illustrations, so I will not repeat it. You can read it at the link below. Please feel free to share it with your friends and on other sites. And if you like it, give the 'Like' button a nudge. Thanks!
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2016/01/22/litvinenko-inquiry-death-of-justice-in-the-united-kingdom/
Right, it's back to the novel for me.
My colleagues at News Junkie Post, Gilbert Mercier and Dady Chery, have kindly published my thoughts in an article and added some excellent illustrations, so I will not repeat it. You can read it at the link below. Please feel free to share it with your friends and on other sites. And if you like it, give the 'Like' button a nudge. Thanks!
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2016/01/22/litvinenko-inquiry-death-of-justice-in-the-united-kingdom/
Right, it's back to the novel for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)