Denial in Donetsk
David Aaronovich uses his column in The Times to suggest that some of the British-based 'fruit loops' who regularly spread misinformation and propaganda on Russia Today should be exposed.
Well I'm already doing my bit I'm pleased to say, but I'm also prepared to step up the pace because RT is certainly is a joke of a TV news channel.
Which I was reminded of again the other day as I listened to ridiculous conspiracy theories about Flight MH17 that were all cynically designed to divert attention away from the role of Russia in this terrible incident.
At the same time the evidence piling up against Russia and pouting towards its pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk was completely ignored.
By David Aaronovich - The Times
Notebook
Readers may remember that most of last week’s Notebook was set on flights to and from Sydney via Malaysia in the past month. Both journeys involved flying with Malaysia Airlines over Ukraine, the air-map showing a red line with a plane symbol edging over places with newly familiar names such as Donetsk and Dneprpetrovsk. .
I looked at the screen and the thought did cross my mind that there we would be, serene and safe at 33,000ft, while men with a strange taste for weapons roamed about far below. It did not occur to me that we might be in danger. Because it did not occur to me that the leader of a world power would be so reckless and, yes, wicked as to lend a long-ranging surface-to-air missile system to the Cossack equivalent of the English Defence League.
We were in a packed double-decked A380 Airbus carrying 500 people (the same one, both trips) and it could just as easily have been us, or the Air India or Singapore Air flights that use the same route, that took a missile believed by some balaclava-ed drunkard to have been aimed at a Ukrainian transport plane. I could have had my scattered belongings — passport, guidebooks, Mac — put on a pile and photographed, along with the toys of the two small kids in the row in front. It could have been us carted by God knows who to God knows where ending in “sk”.
But it was someone else’s body and different children’s toys — though it is quite possible that some of the charming cabin crew on those journeys are now somewhere between the sunflower fields and the makeshift morgues. And there I had been, 33,000ft up and, like you, maybe, worried about turbulence.
In denial
In 1988 the USS Vincennes, operating in the Gulf of Hormuz, shot down an Iranian civil airliner flying at about 10,000ft, mistaking it for a fighter-bomber coming in to attack: 290 people were killed.
Although the Americans “expressed regret” and paid reparations of about $130 million, they never apologised. But there was at no stage an attempt to deny responsibility. Nor, given the scrutiny of American and western press and media could such a denial have fooled anyone.
Not so of Mr Putin’s Russia. Most of its most influential media is state-controlled, its editorial and management staff in effect appointed by the government. And they have been assiduous in creating scenarios in which anyone but the Russian authorities and their militia allies take the blame for shooting down Flight MH17.
The problem is that there are no plausible or evidence-based alternative explanations, so they have been forced to improvise a new sub-genre of conspiracy theories. These include the idea that the Ukrainians shot down the plane, thinking it was carrying Mr Putin (who was visibly in South America at the time), that it was seen from the ground being accompanied by Ukrainian fighters (at 33,000ft!), and — most rococo — that pro-Russian militias reported the bodies to be bloodless, so the plane had been filled with dead people and dropped out of the sky to discredit the freedom fighters of Donetsk.
Ridiculous? Yes, and so was Abu Hamza.
Their master’s voices
An important aspect of the theorising and routine propagandising that helps Russians to believe the unbelievable is that much of it appears to be corroborated by foreigners. To this country’s shame, some of those parading across English-language channels such as RT (formerly Russia Today) and active on social media are British.
Anchors, such as Rory Suchet, “reporters” like the ex-Central Office of Information employee Graham Phillips and contributors such as the conspiracy theorist Tony Gosling play an important role in keeping Russians and others misinformed. It’s time they were exposed.
Notebook
Readers may remember that most of last week’s Notebook was set on flights to and from Sydney via Malaysia in the past month. Both journeys involved flying with Malaysia Airlines over Ukraine, the air-map showing a red line with a plane symbol edging over places with newly familiar names such as Donetsk and Dneprpetrovsk. .
I looked at the screen and the thought did cross my mind that there we would be, serene and safe at 33,000ft, while men with a strange taste for weapons roamed about far below. It did not occur to me that we might be in danger. Because it did not occur to me that the leader of a world power would be so reckless and, yes, wicked as to lend a long-ranging surface-to-air missile system to the Cossack equivalent of the English Defence League.
We were in a packed double-decked A380 Airbus carrying 500 people (the same one, both trips) and it could just as easily have been us, or the Air India or Singapore Air flights that use the same route, that took a missile believed by some balaclava-ed drunkard to have been aimed at a Ukrainian transport plane. I could have had my scattered belongings — passport, guidebooks, Mac — put on a pile and photographed, along with the toys of the two small kids in the row in front. It could have been us carted by God knows who to God knows where ending in “sk”.
But it was someone else’s body and different children’s toys — though it is quite possible that some of the charming cabin crew on those journeys are now somewhere between the sunflower fields and the makeshift morgues. And there I had been, 33,000ft up and, like you, maybe, worried about turbulence.
In denial
In 1988 the USS Vincennes, operating in the Gulf of Hormuz, shot down an Iranian civil airliner flying at about 10,000ft, mistaking it for a fighter-bomber coming in to attack: 290 people were killed.
Although the Americans “expressed regret” and paid reparations of about $130 million, they never apologised. But there was at no stage an attempt to deny responsibility. Nor, given the scrutiny of American and western press and media could such a denial have fooled anyone.
Not so of Mr Putin’s Russia. Most of its most influential media is state-controlled, its editorial and management staff in effect appointed by the government. And they have been assiduous in creating scenarios in which anyone but the Russian authorities and their militia allies take the blame for shooting down Flight MH17.
The problem is that there are no plausible or evidence-based alternative explanations, so they have been forced to improvise a new sub-genre of conspiracy theories. These include the idea that the Ukrainians shot down the plane, thinking it was carrying Mr Putin (who was visibly in South America at the time), that it was seen from the ground being accompanied by Ukrainian fighters (at 33,000ft!), and — most rococo — that pro-Russian militias reported the bodies to be bloodless, so the plane had been filled with dead people and dropped out of the sky to discredit the freedom fighters of Donetsk.
Ridiculous? Yes, and so was Abu Hamza.
Their master’s voices
An important aspect of the theorising and routine propagandising that helps Russians to believe the unbelievable is that much of it appears to be corroborated by foreigners. To this country’s shame, some of those parading across English-language channels such as RT (formerly Russia Today) and active on social media are British.
Anchors, such as Rory Suchet, “reporters” like the ex-Central Office of Information employee Graham Phillips and contributors such as the conspiracy theorist Tony Gosling play an important role in keeping Russians and others misinformed. It’s time they were exposed.
Strange Coincidences (20 July 2014)
Alexander Mercouris, is a self-styled 'legal expert' and blogger, who pops up on Russia Today (RT) regularly and his views are all slavishly pro-Russian which seems to be a prerequisite for appearing on RT if you ask me.
Now I don't know Mr Mercouris, but how strange is it that someone with exactly the same name was struck off by the Bar Standards Council in 2012 according to this report from The Lawyer magazine.
Could it be that the two men are known to each other?
Could it be that the two men are known to each other?
Barrister who forged Baroness Hale's signature struck off by BSB
By Sam Chadderton - The Lawyer
A former Middle Temple barrister has been struck off by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for concocting a web of “tortuous deceit” over a “phantom” £1m payout to his client.
Baroness Hale
Alexander Mercouris broke down in tears at the BSB disciplinary tribunal as he admitted bringing the profession into disrepute by forging Supreme Court Justice Baroness Hale’s signature and claiming that Supreme Court president Lord Phillips had tried to blackmail him.
The ex-Citizens Advice Bureau employee had worked in the Royal Courts of Justice for 12 years before being called to the bar in 2006.
In October 2009 he offered to represent Lorna Jamous in a damages claim against Westminster Council over a care hearing involving her son Tariq.
Today the BSB’s counsel, Stephen Mooney of Bristol’s Albion Chambers, told the tribunal that the barrister-client relationship went from “supportive and helpful” to “bizarre, unhelpful and profoundly dishonest”.
The tribunal heard that Jamous had been offered a without prejudice £5,000 settlement by the local authority, but Mercouris told her he could take further action to get her hundreds of thousands of pounds. She accrued debts based on the promise of a future windfall.
Mooney told the hearing that there was never any litigation and that Mercouris “embarked on ever more bizarre assertions to hide the truth”.
These included fabricated meetings with barristers and then a forged letter alleging to be from Baroness Hale expressing concern that the £983,000 payment from Westminster Council had not been forthcoming.
But there was no such settlement and Mercouris then talked Jamous out of attending a hearing where she would have discovered the truth, claiming her presence would “derail sensitive negotiations”.
Next he told her he had applied for an interim £50,000 payment, then tried to say that his brother had stolen the whole £983,000 payout, before coming up with what Mooney described as “the most peculiar allegation” of them all.
Mercouris claimed that after he made a phone call to try to recover the money, bogus police officers kidnapped him and took him to a meeting with Phillips SCJ. He alleged that Phillips SCJ told him to drop the claim in return for a £50,000 bribe, plus his debts and mortgage paid off.
Mercouris admitted making up the allegations that the senior law lord threatened to take away his 102-year-old grandmother and put her into care.
Mooney summarised the “extremely convoluted story” as a “tortuous deceit”. He said: “In my opinion, Mr Mercouris is not fully in control of his faculties.”
The panel then heard from Mercouris, who was diagnosed with depression after a nervous breakdown in the autumn of 2007 due to caring for his sick grandmother.
Representing himself, Mercouris broke down as he said: “Mr Mooney has referred to some of my actions as bizarre, I cannot dispute that. I’m very sorry. I worked very hard to become a barrister and disbarment is a bitter thought.”
He told the panel he was out of work, living alone with two cats.
He admitted five counts of bringing his profession into disrepute through misconduct and panel chairman Crawford Lindsay QC struck him off.
Lindsay called the “fantasy scheme” a “sad case”, adding: “These are extremely serious allegations where you deceived the client, involving two distinguished members of the judiciary.
“Mr Mercouris has worked for a number of years at the Citizens Advice Bureau in the Royal Courts of Justice and no doubt helped and gave advice to a number of people.
“He went completely off the rails.”
In a break in proceedings a member of the public who was attending the hearing began berating Mercouris about another case. She had been in contact with Jamous through the ’Solicitors From Hell’ website.
By Sam Chadderton - The Lawyer
A former Middle Temple barrister has been struck off by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for concocting a web of “tortuous deceit” over a “phantom” £1m payout to his client.
Baroness Hale
Alexander Mercouris broke down in tears at the BSB disciplinary tribunal as he admitted bringing the profession into disrepute by forging Supreme Court Justice Baroness Hale’s signature and claiming that Supreme Court president Lord Phillips had tried to blackmail him.
The ex-Citizens Advice Bureau employee had worked in the Royal Courts of Justice for 12 years before being called to the bar in 2006.
In October 2009 he offered to represent Lorna Jamous in a damages claim against Westminster Council over a care hearing involving her son Tariq.
Today the BSB’s counsel, Stephen Mooney of Bristol’s Albion Chambers, told the tribunal that the barrister-client relationship went from “supportive and helpful” to “bizarre, unhelpful and profoundly dishonest”.
The tribunal heard that Jamous had been offered a without prejudice £5,000 settlement by the local authority, but Mercouris told her he could take further action to get her hundreds of thousands of pounds. She accrued debts based on the promise of a future windfall.
Mooney told the hearing that there was never any litigation and that Mercouris “embarked on ever more bizarre assertions to hide the truth”.
These included fabricated meetings with barristers and then a forged letter alleging to be from Baroness Hale expressing concern that the £983,000 payment from Westminster Council had not been forthcoming.
But there was no such settlement and Mercouris then talked Jamous out of attending a hearing where she would have discovered the truth, claiming her presence would “derail sensitive negotiations”.
Next he told her he had applied for an interim £50,000 payment, then tried to say that his brother had stolen the whole £983,000 payout, before coming up with what Mooney described as “the most peculiar allegation” of them all.
Mercouris claimed that after he made a phone call to try to recover the money, bogus police officers kidnapped him and took him to a meeting with Phillips SCJ. He alleged that Phillips SCJ told him to drop the claim in return for a £50,000 bribe, plus his debts and mortgage paid off.
Mercouris admitted making up the allegations that the senior law lord threatened to take away his 102-year-old grandmother and put her into care.
Mooney summarised the “extremely convoluted story” as a “tortuous deceit”. He said: “In my opinion, Mr Mercouris is not fully in control of his faculties.”
The panel then heard from Mercouris, who was diagnosed with depression after a nervous breakdown in the autumn of 2007 due to caring for his sick grandmother.
Representing himself, Mercouris broke down as he said: “Mr Mooney has referred to some of my actions as bizarre, I cannot dispute that. I’m very sorry. I worked very hard to become a barrister and disbarment is a bitter thought.”
He told the panel he was out of work, living alone with two cats.
He admitted five counts of bringing his profession into disrepute through misconduct and panel chairman Crawford Lindsay QC struck him off.
Lindsay called the “fantasy scheme” a “sad case”, adding: “These are extremely serious allegations where you deceived the client, involving two distinguished members of the judiciary.
“Mr Mercouris has worked for a number of years at the Citizens Advice Bureau in the Royal Courts of Justice and no doubt helped and gave advice to a number of people.
“He went completely off the rails.”
In a break in proceedings a member of the public who was attending the hearing began berating Mercouris about another case. She had been in contact with Jamous through the ’Solicitors From Hell’ website.
