Ludge Lady Phillimore

I ask you to note that in my article named after Maria Ilyinichna, I did not mention Slonim and do not really understand why she considered herself the right to move to personalities , and even in such a impudent form. Apparently, she believes that our long -standing acquaintance gives her such a right. Strange logic. Yes, we are familiar with forty years, and close enough. That is why her attempt to imagine me some kind of paranoic who seems to be the KGB under each bush ("sees a conspiracy") looks so ugly. She knows very well that I do not belong to this category of people. Even Professor Lunz at the Serbian Institute did not make me such a diagnosis.

On the contrary, it is precisely because I have been working with this institution for the past half a century, and I am quite successful, I have nothing to cause anything but contempt for the FSB-KGB. Contempt and more boredom, for they are predictable to yawn. And now, after the collapse of the USSR, they were disqualified to the level of the Zaraysk police station, so that even an ordinary residential building in their own Ryazan cannot blow up without sleeping. They killed Yandarbiev in Qatar - got caught. They killed Litvinenko in London - got caught. Have mercy, any paranoia will be cured without a trace, if you recall at least a fun flock of Russian "non-allegations", driven home, to his native stall, embarrassed by American cowboys.

Moreover, Maria Ilyinichna knows very well that by my nature I am by no means prone to hasty conclusions or unreasonable ("wild") accusations. Suffice it to say that over 35 years of life in the West, I published 8 books, hundreds of articles, but no one, nowhere and never sued me for slander. Well, if they were served, they would lose with a guarantee. Camp education accustoms accountable for his words. After all, the rules are simple there: you can’t prove - be silent, otherwise - four on the side, there are no yours.

So if I write something, then, be dead, I am ready to confirm this in the English court, and the laws of slander here are the most stringent in the world. Here they will demand from me to prove every word. What I am, however, is not ready, is to be responsible for words that I have not said. I must note that, reading comments on my articles on the Russian Internet, I have long paid attention to a stable percentage of comments, as if to my texts not related. Either a person Vivs did not read me written, or he looked around diagonally, and immediately rushed to comment. It was difficult for me to understand this behavior until someone explained to me that now in Russia it is considered fashionable to visit hundreds of blogs, forums, chats and everywhere to leave a comment like a business card. Of course, with such hard work there is no time to read.

So my last article caused a certain number of comments like: "Ah, did the FSB bought all the BBC?" That is, these commentators did not even read the very first line of my article, where black and white said: “They deftly used the BBC film“ Putin, Russia and the West. ” Note, it was said“ used ”, and did not“ make the film ”and did not“ bought the BBC. ”It seems that it is easier: the FSB (KGB) always tries to use people, deceive the brains, but their loungers again. The meaning of what was said, however, if I can imagine a blogger, who has no time to read, who has no time to read Maria Ilyinichn . Brooke Lapping in the work of the FSB.

Not just stupid-I don’t dream of this in a nightmare, so that all these thousands of BBC employees work for the FSB. If this happened, I would have respected these last ones in my life for the first time in my life. Say, Maria Ilyinichna does not understand the difference between "working on" and "be used"? He understands perfectly. She, as it were, express herself more sewage, is cunning. You know, a little crafty is very decorating the lady.

"An interview with Jonathan Powell was recorded a year ago ... Powell only admits that the espionage stone was really. He does not hint that Russian human rights defenders were funded by English intelligence! It was not the BBC guilt and even Jonathan Powell that the Russian authorities used a story with a stone for their own purposes."

"The BBC made a press release a story with a stone because it is a sensation."

And again our lady is cunning. Where is the sensation? Some retired official of the former government "recognizes" something there. Yes, and an official with a bad reputation. Well, not a sensation for Britain. But this is definitely a sensation for Russia, where Putin's propaganda (and behind it and the layman) will certainly say: "Yeah, it means the FSB was right, there was a stone! And since the FSB is right in this, then, probably, it is right and otherwise." It was in order to strengthen the sensation in Russia, the BBC Russian-speaking site goes to a direct deception, reporting this “sensation” under the heading: “ London admitted that he used the“ spy stone ” .” The English-language site of the same BBC on the same day gives the news much more modest: “Former Blair Aide Reveals Uk ON RUSSIA USING FAKE ROCK” confirms that Britain was spinning in Russia using a fake stone ”). So who, nevertheless, “recognized” the Spy Stone - “London” (which traditionally means “Government of Great Britain”) or “former assistant Blair”? The government did not make any statements about this. How did a certain Powell suddenly become London?

Well, the sensation followed: in three days (!), Mamontov, a propaganda video slanted by Mamontov, quite predictably revived the campaign of slander for human rights defenders. The statement of some General of the FSB followed that, they say, we always said this, so London confirmed now. And it is time, they say, to close such spy organizations as “Voice” or “Memorial”. The expulsion of the “Voices” from the premises, a raid on the Moscow office of the “Memorial” police with dogs ... The easily predictable “sensation” began.

All this, we note, is suspiciously record time for traditionally sloppy Russia. And knowing the Zaraysky level of the current Chekists, I dare to say: they waited, knew in advance, prepared. So they did not know how to respond quickly in the old time.

Of course, "not the fault of the BBC ... The fact that the Russian authorities used a story with a stone for their own purposes" in 2006. And now? It was possible at least not to make an artificial sensation from this dubious story?

"Our film is not about how Putin came to power. This is a topic for another film, and such a film has already been shot. And not one. Our film begins with the transfer of power from Yeltsin Putin. And this is a fact. And the analysis of what Putin was in power was not part of our task."

Again cunning. The film, by the way, chronologically begins on August 9, 1999, with the appointment of Putin as Prime Minister, then jumps to the announcement of Yeltsin’s successor and the famous Putin phrase “Wet in the toilet”. The Western viewer will not even quite understand what such terrorists should be sought in the toilet and why. That is, it is obvious that even the mention of the explosions of houses is deliberately avoided. Otherwise, I would have to say who did it. And then whatever you say is bad: after all, no one was caught besides the two FSB officers in Ryazan. "And this is a fact", as Maria Ilyinichna writes.

"As for the interview with Russian political figures, no one asked and no one gave (the BBC never does this!) No guarantees about the fact that the film will not be directed against them or against anyone. The film was released, like all the films that Brooke Lapping and the BBC, without approval from someone else ... We did not give any promises and guarantees regarding the directing of directing. The film.

We agree, however, that excessive cunning no longer decorates the lady - for him there are other names in Russian. Never say "never." Among those documents that I copied in the archive of the CPSU Central Committee in 1992, there is a whole pack of cooperation with the Western press, including television and specifically with the BBC. Themes are diverse, only the main condition does not change, "to take note that under the terms of the agreement the film can be shown according to the American [English, Japanese, etc.] television only after the approval of its APN ." There are so many these materials that I eventually stopped copying them. Here is just a fluent listing that I was not too lazy to write out:

January 6, 1969. On the APN negotiations with the New York Times on the preparation in 1969-1970. joint materials about the USSR.
July 30, 1970. On the joint television program of the APN and the American producer J. Fleiling "in the Country of Soviets."

May 20, 1971. The joint television program of the APN and Granada (England) "Soviet Woman".
26 Mal 1971 . The joint television program of the APN and the BBC "Culture and Art of Georgia".
December 28, 1971. On the negotiations of TASS with the Reuters agency.
August 22, 1972. On the joint filming of the APN and the "Granade" of the television film "Education in the USSR".
March 13, 1973. On the joint filming of the APN and the BBC film about Novgorod.
June 28, 1973. On the joint production of the APN and the BBC film "Kiev City, Events, People".
July 10, 1973. On the joint production of the APN and the "Thames-Television" four episodes about the role of the USSR in the Second World War.
October 24, 1973. On the joint filming of the APN and the BBC documentary about Shostakovich.
May 27, 1974. On the filming of the BBC television program on European security issues under the control of the State Committee of Radio and Television.
June 18, 1974. On the joint filming of the APN and the BBC of the television movie "Lake Baikal".

February 14, 1975. On the provision of production and creative services of the English television company BBC in the filming of a feature film about the Soviet director Alexandrov.
April 9, 1976. On the preparation of the APN, together with the company "The Weekend Television" Television Program "Soviet Union after the XXV Congress of the CPSU".
May 26, 1976. On the filming of the APN, together with the campaign "Yorkshire, television" Telefilm "Soviet Family"
July 10, 1979. On the provision of production and creative services of the American television company "PI-Ti-VO Production Inc." In the filming of a multi -part documentary film about museums, architectural and historical monuments of the USSR.
April 3, 1980. On the provision of production and creative services of the American company "Forin Transexhnz Corporation" in the creation of a series of documentaries dedicated to the 1980 Olympic Games cultural program and Moscow.
July 1, 1980. On the provision of production and creative services of the English television company "Granada" in the filming of a documentary television film about the history of Soviet cinema. (You say: “So what? This is a completely innocent topic.” And you will be mistaken. This is what the Soviet embassy thought: “... Creating a series of films about the history of Soviet cinema can have a positive propaganda effect. Especially taking into account the current situation in England.”)

Particularly cute, in my opinion, is: "On the filming of the BBC television program on European security issues under the control of the State Committee of Radio and Television." So do not teach me what the free press is, please. (For history lovers - several examples of such documents can be seen here .)

"The Russian side we did not give any promises and guarantees regarding the direction of the film."

The statement is strong, but it is not clear what is based on. After all, as it turns out, not Maria Ilyinichna was negotiating with the "Russian side" on these issues:

“I participated in the preparation of the series“ Putin, Russia and the West ”as a senior consultant, planned and conducted an interview - including with Jonathan Powell - and I can say that the truth is much easier than the sensation lovers,” a certain Engus Roxburgh (Angus Roxburgh) tells us. It turns out that he wrote a book that was accompanying the film and, it seems, wrote a press release, although he himself does not speak about it. “This was mainly by my business as the main consultant of the series - to convince the Russians to take part. In the previous three years, I worked as an adviser to Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov, and I joined the project, feeling confident that I could attract any Russian to the“ master ”, as Peskov called him, inclusive,” he writes in another place.

Not weak. Indeed, the truth turned out to be much simpler. Consultant at Peskov for working with the Western press. That is, Peskov taught how to improve the image of the Putin regime, while this regime killed children in Beslan, killed independent journalists and human rights activists, plundered billions of state money, planted Khodorkovsky. Well, dear man, isn't it? So who is this lover of Russian sensations? We transfer from Wikipedia :

Since 1992, Roxborough has been a Moscow BBC correspondent, and since 1998-the BBC European correspondent. He wrote the book “Preachers of Hate” about strengthening the extreme right in Europe. For three years, since 2006, he worked in the Brussels PR company GPLUS as an adviser to the Russian government. In 2009-2011, he participated in the work on the second series of the BBC about Russia “Putin, Russia and the West” and wrote the book “Strong hand: Vladimir Putin and the struggle for Russia”. In April 2011, the Communist Cosmos Documentary Radio program was made on the BBC Radio 4 on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the space flight of Yuri Gagarin.

And what is this PR company GPlus ?
"Ketchum Inc. and its GPlus Europe branch are among the PR agencies used by the Russian government to advertise the alleged advantages of partnership with Russia. The Russian government is allegedly spent on these operations. GPlus specializes in the hiring of former officials of the European Union and famous journalists. Gregor Kroytshuber (Grener Kreuzhuber), heading the company's operations in the interests of Gazprom, is a former press secretary of the European Commission for Industry.

Continue - or will you find it yourself? So which of us is paranoid: I or Wikipedia?

But back to our crafty lady. Although I am not Vladimir Ilyich, it would not be a strictly advised to recall the old joke with three morals, the last of which was: "Having got into the g ... but do not take it." And what kind of hunting to play the role of a defender of honor of the uniform of the BBC? The uniform is not the first freshness for a long time. The days were sunk into oblivion when there was "the custom in Rus' at night to listen to the BBC." Like many other great institutions, the BBC was degrading, turned into the stronghold of the most unbridled leftist (only the Communists can call it right). All England knows that by a number of questions (in no way related to Russia-for example, about European integration), the BBC is engaged in propaganda. There were official investigations of this issue (e.g. the commission of Lord Wilson), and the charges against the BBC were confirmed. Hundreds, if not thousands of the British now, are fundamentally refused to pay a TV tax, because the money goes by the BBC, and paying for their propaganda is contrary to their conscience.

“We publish the sensation that we have fed, we don’t think about the consequences and do not answer for them” - this is a mammoth position in its purest form. There is such a thing as responsible journalism. And there is such as journalism irresponsible. If, for example, the Kremlin slandered people to justify political repressions and then some bastard was found in the West who agreed to confirm this slander (completely or partially), then to inflate from this sensation is just journalistic irresponsibility. Especially when the hedgehog is clear that the sensation will be used by the Chekists for repressions against innocent people.

History is full of examples, when quite honest people were involuntarily drawn into Chekist provocations - from the "trust" to this day. The only worthy way out in such a situation is to publicly apologize and tell everything that you know on the merits of the matter. We have to determine - either you were framed (and this exempts you from all obligations of loyalty, confidentiality, etc.), or you are a conscious accomplice and you will fully justify the evil you have done.

Everyone in life has moments when you have to choose: to sacrifice a warm place in the BBC, on the NTV, in the Union of Soviet writers-or sacrifice the conscience and reputation. For people who are involuntarily drawn into the gabash provocation on the BBC, such a moment has come now.

Maria Ilyinichna is right in the right: BBC do not care about who will win and who will lose in the elections in Russia. I willingly admit that Lady Phillimore does not give a damn. But do you give a damn Masha Slonim?