Sunday, 14 February 2016

Davis: “Radek Sikorski, thank you very much. Well with me is George Galloway, leader of the Respect Party, also presenter of a show called Sputnik on the TV channel Russia Today which is funded by the Russian government, and Alex Goldfarb, close friend of Alex Litvinenko, who was with him in fact at his death, and has been a central part of his family’s campaign for justice. Good evening to you both. I mean Alex, do you accept at least that the evidence on Putin per se was entirely circumstantial. In a way it was if you like the weakest part of the report.”

Goldfarb: “Well, the legal code-word that Sir Robert used, “probably”, relates to the civil litigation standard of proof. That means ‘more likely than not’ as opposed to ‘I am sure’, a formula which means ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. Yes, it’s circumstantial but, for example, if Marina sued Mr Putin for damages she would have won…”

‘Probably’ rubbish – civil litigation involves a wealth of judicial safeguards that were completely absent from Sir Robert Owen’s shoddy and bigoted anti-Russian witch-hunt.

Davis: “…in a UK court, could have won. George Galloway. You’ve given Putin the benefit of the doubt on lots of things. You’ve called him ‘Man of the Year’ and I think called him a good thing in previous broadcasts. What is your reaction to this report and this evidence?”

Galloway: “You’re a presenter on a state broadcaster too Evan; let’s not doubt each other’s integrity because of where we work. Well look – Carlsberg is ‘probably’ the best lager in the world, but perhaps not. This tragedy of this foul murder, has been followed by another Whitehall farce. This is the Hutton Inquiry all over again. Secret evidence, closed sessions… You said at the top of the show that the story was now known but it isn’t, because large sections of this process were closed to the public and to the media...”

Davis: “Well, do you not accept the conclusions?”

Galloway: “I don’t. I certainly don’t. Because I no longer believe and neither do many people in Britain, automatically what the security services say.”

Davis: “Do you accept the two culprits, Lugovoy and Kovtun did it? Do you accept that they are the people who put the Plutonium [sic] 210 in his tea?”

Galloway: “I know Polonium-210 - I was at Yasser Arafat’s bedside in France when he died from Polonium-210, so I know how foul a murder this was – and they are obvious suspects. But this process is so riddled with imperfection that it cannot be relied on…”

From a BBC article, ‘Q&A: Investigation into Yasser Arafat's death’ dated 26 December 2013 

“It said that scientists at the Institute of Radiation Physics (IRA), which is part of Switzerland's respected Vaudois University Hospital Centre, had found "significant" traces of a highly radioactive and toxic material on personal effects given to his widow after his death, including his trademark keffiyeh.
Francois Bochud, the director of the institute, said its tests had found an "unexplained, elevated amount of unsupported polonium-210 in the belongings of Mr Arafat that contained stains of biological fluids".”
“On 6 November, al-Jazeera revealed the findings of 10 experts at the Vaudois University Hospital Centre (CHUV) in Lausanne. British forensic scientist David Barclay told al-Jazeera that at least 18 times the normal level of polonium-210 had been found in Arafat's rib.”
“The scientists from Lausanne have stressed caution over their findings, because polonium is a very unstable element with a half-life of 138 days. This means that after four months, the amount of polonium in a sample would have halved; after a year there would be just one eighth of the original amount.
Since Arafat was exhumed eight years after he died, only a tiny fraction of polonium would remain.”

Hence there is very good reason to believe that Polonium-210 was used to assassinate Yasser Arafat; a crime for which Israeli intelligence would be prime suspects. So, like the ‘Lavon’ and ‘Hindawi’ affairs (see 'Russia's bad rap', above), if Arafat’s possible poisoning by Polonium-210 had been common knowledge in Britain in November 2006, would people have been so quick to jump to the conclusion that Russia was responsible for killing someone using the same method?

No comments:

Post a Comment