Skip to main content

The Cretin troll is back at The Independent

I see that The Independent is making known its considered view of the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko.

Pity that they can not check the most basic facts. President Yuschenko of Ukraine was not poisoned by Thallium, but by Dioxin, as the most cursory check would have shown.

It is hard to take the Indy seriously as a newspaper of record when it can not even get the most basic facts right.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I also like the assumption that the FSB represents the Russian “services” in plural. So it could not possibly be the SVR or GRU then.

This error is probably a hangover of the UK press always calling MI5 the ‘security services’ rather than its official name the ‘Security Service’.
12:46 pm
Anonymous said…
Cicero,

How long have you been reading the Indy, now? Surely you have realised that, while sympathetic to our cause, it is a rather sorry excuse for a paper.

OTOH, The Times has an excellent quality of journalism but seemingly an editorial policy of positioning us firmly in their blind spot.

The Gruniad can't spell, the Torygraph can't feel, and the rest are too busy reporting reality TV to pick up on any real news.

You can't win! Stick to the blogosphere; you'll be happier in the long run.
3:30 pm
Etzel Pangloss said…
It's a miserable rag.
4:26 pm
Anonymous said…
I gave up regular reading of the UK daily press long ago. Too much opinionated sub standard reporting. Now I subscribe to the Economist and get my daily updates from the web.
4:41 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...
Post a Comment
Read more

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...
20 comments
Read more

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...
14 comments
Read more