Even now, even as I am contemplating new things, I am also considering other elements from the previous article (about the slot machines), I figured out a few more things, but it seems wrong to put them here. I could, but who does it serve? Not me and not most people, it might interest the wrong people. Now in case of a previous article where I designed a weapon to sink the Iranian fleet, it makes sense to put it online (not merely to show support to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia), but mainly to show Iran that a lot of people have had enough of them. In the case of the slot machines, it serves the wrong crowd, yet the elements that I did not mention might find its use somewhere else, which might make for an interesting security setting for people like Google and Amazon, so I keep it in my back pocket. Part of it is already in my 5G IP, so there is that.
My issue today is with the BBC. They gave us this morning (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60736185) ‘Roman Abramovich: New evidence highlights corrupt deals’, I get it, everyone is on the anti-Russia beat. For the mot I do not care, Russia will find out the hard way how stupid they have been. At present they are seen as the weak player. It has taken them 3 weeks to get here and so far Ukraine is still free. The germans in WW2 took most of Western Europe in that same time. My issue is with “The Chelsea owner made billions after buying an oil company from the Russian government in a rigged auction in 1995. Mr Abramovich paid around $250m (£190m) for Sibneft, before selling it back to the Russian government for $13bn in 2005.”
They give us “The Russian billionaire has already admitted in a UK court that he made corrupt payments to help get the Sibneft deal off the ground.” As well as “he described in court how the original Sibneft auction was rigged in his favour and how he gave Mr Berezovsky $10m to pay off a Kremlin official” my issue here is that BBC Panorama is stated to be so competent. If so, what case was it? Which court was it? These are parts that I would have added for value. Something like “On [date] in [court location] the following statement was given by Roman Abramovich”, this isn’t rocket science, this is the stage of PROPER journalism! As such the setting of “BBC Panorama has obtained a document that is thought to have been smuggled out of Russia.
The information was given to the programme by a confidential source, who says it was secretly copied from files held on Mr Abramovich by Russian law enforcement agencies” is window dressing at best. I reckon that BBC Panorama likes cloak and dagger words like ‘smuggling’ and ‘secretly’, all whilst the initial issue was in a British court. As for the Russian deal, he used opportunity to get a nice deal that got him $13,000,000,000, to be honest, who cares? So when we are given “The document says that the Russian government was cheated out of $2.7bn in the Sibneft deal – a claim supported by a 1997 Russian parliamentary investigation. The document also says that the Russian authorities wanted to charge Mr Abramovich with fraud”, as such was he really a friend of Putin? The article gives us more questions (overall) than answers. And the fact that ‘Russian authorities’ wanted to charge him and did not calls for even more questions. This looks like a simple draw in the blank space and the lack of information is staggering, is that what BBC Panorama amounts to now? And when we get “trick the government and not pay the money that this company was really worth” we ‘merely’ see a government that did not do its homework and how is that the fault of Abramovich? So when we get these emotional elements with “the document says” what EVIDENCE do they hold, what is factually verifiable? Me? I do not care, I really do not. I do not care for soccer, or Chelsea so there is that too and I find these lame articles from a place that states that they are trustworthy whilst they refuse to properly investigate the murderer of Lady Diana Spencer (Martin Bashir) that is how I see it, so personally I think that BBC Panorama needs to up their game by a lot. This article was a wash, washing what is unclear but it was not the stuff the BBC and BBC Panorama were known for in the past.