Last Updated on May 18, 2013 by RetiredAndAngry
Some of you may think that is nothing new at all, always disturbed.
Today, however, I am once more disturbed by things political.
Alexander Litvinenko fell ill after a meeting with former KGB contacts in London in 2006.
Litvinenko died in November 2006 after two former KGB agents – Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun – allegedly slipped radioactive polonium into his tea at London’s Millennium hotel. The Kremlin has refused to extradite the two spies, who have both vigorously denied Litvinenko’s murder.
Now, 7 years later, that bloody Tory William Hague, has stuck his finger in the pie, and made application to withhold certain evidence from the coroner on the basis that it’s SECRET.
Is it a coincidence that David Camoron has recently had talks with the Putin person and ‘relations have thawed’?
The coroner, Sir Robert Owen, reluctantly agreed to the foreign secretary’s request to hide material which suggested Russia’s state agencies were behind Litvinenko’s cold war-style killing. He also agreed to exclude other documents that examined whether UK officials could have done more to prevent the murder.
The question that is bothering me is Are we now sacrificing Justice on the altar of International Politics?
I’ve got no time for the Soviets, I don’t have any time for Camoron and his coalition chums at the moment, but I do have a huge amount of time for JUSTICE.
We have had trials before which have heard SECRET evidence. This is not a trial, it’s a coroner’s inquest, but surely the principle holds good. It woulkd seem that evidence exists to support the claim that this was MURDER. If such evidence exists does it not deserve to be heard and to be tested? Isn’t this what our constitution is built on? Are we now going to emulate some foreign dictatorships? If JUSTICE is to become a victim here can the last one out please turn off the lights, because I will rapidly become ashamed our our country. I thought we were better than that.
In his ruling, Sir Robert Owen said the inquest might now result in an “incomplete, misleading and unfair” verdict. The coroner said he was considering inviting the government to hold a public inquiry instead, which would hear the sensitive evidence buried by Hague.
So, if he’s now considering inviting the government to hold a public inquiry which examine this very same evidence, why on earth can’t a coroner’s inquest hear it in the first place? I’m confused. How can a public inquiry safeguard SECRET evidence better than a coroner’s inquest? Anyone know?
In my simple opinion the coroner should follow the evidence wherever it takes him and I’m sure there are systems in place to protect anything that is truly SECRET or affects National Security.
Alexander Litvinenko was working for MI6 alongside Spanish spies in the days before his death.
Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer who left to become a whistleblower, told the BBC’s Today programme the British government had demonstrated a “reckless approach” to protecting its sources.
She also suggested that MI6 may have broken the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by denying the right to life, article two of the declaration.
Call me cynical if you wish, but don’t you think that this has more to do with the government trying to cover something up than worrying about our recently revitalised relationship with Putin’s Russia?
If we abandon JUSTICE we abandon civilisation.
One thing is for certain, if I wasn’t already on a list somewhere, I may well be after this.