Alexander Litvinenko - a British cover up

As the Russian Federation had asked for Boris Berezovsky's return to the Russian Federation, Tony Blair's government could not give him up. After all Boris Berezovsky had facilitated the transit of American and British troops into Afghanistan and was an actual CIA asset.

The fact the Alexander Litvinenko was Boris Berezovsky's second in command was for the Russian Federation exactly what they needed to compromise the British government and force the British government to either return Boris Berezovsky to the Russian Federation or face a gigantic scandal as the man Tony Blair was protecting was acting as a double agent by supporting Czechen Rebels allied to the men that were killing British and American soldiers in Afghanistan and to do so had links with Latin American drug cartels.

Andrei Lugovoi was sent to London to negotiate with Alexander Litvinenko safe passafe for him and his family to the Russian Federation. All sins would be forgiven in exchange for compromising evidence against Boris Berezovsky and against the British government.

When the British got news of the coming of Andrei Lugovoi, they decided in a rush to get rid of Alexander Litvinenko to prevent a scandal and it was fairly easy to blame an innocent called Andrei Lugovoi. After all, the public has been trained to believe that whatever ever bad happens might be the fault of the Russian Federation. War Criminal Tony Blair was not going to stop at anything. After all, he had fabricated a case for war based on fabricated evidence.

I worked for a team supporting Andrei Lugovoi's innocence. The so called radioactive material is fabricated by Britain and was fabricated by Britain at a time when a weapons merchant called Sergei Skrypal, a traitor and a criminal, and other people were targetted.

The time came when without Alexander Litvinenko's help, the Russian Federation could still get to Boris Berezovsky who by then had lost strategic value. Knowing that the British decided to kill Boris Berezovky and other operators close to him. As they could not trust that Roman Abramovich would not reveal the plot, they decided to prevent Roman Abramovich from returning to the United Kingdom.

 

Labour's 1997 historic majority led to Afghanistan and Iraq, but a war in Europe is a different cup of tea

 

Tony Blair / Prime Minister

Labour's historic majority in 1997 led straight to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Years later, we face the prospect of yet another war - although much more catastrophic if it ever happens.

In one of his initial appearances, Keir Starmer told the country and the world that he will allow the use of British weapons to attack the Russian Federation.

No interpretation needed. It is all too clear in which direction the wind is blowing.

And this is the same Labour Leader that opposed National Service. When conscription letters arrive telling young untrained men and women that they have to fight a war, I wonder what the public response will be.

Be assured that Keir Starmer will have no hesitation in terms of sending untrained British citizens to war, because reality tells that the British Armed Forces have been severely weaknened and do not have the manpower nor the equipment for any long term war.

It is not secret that Britain as well as other NATO countries expect that the USA will send young Americans to the slaughter house to defend European countries that have been entirely negligent when it comes to compliance of NATO Article 3 that demands that each member has to be able to defend itself.

Britain has done very little to beef up its Armed Forces. In fact, the now former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps could hardly explain why what he called an increase in defense expenditure was what actually a reduction in real terms. He couldn't because it was a reduction.

British morale is at an all time low affecting recruitment. Reports about more than 64% of those serving members of the Armed Forces living in substandard accommodation do not help. Let's see what Keir Starmer has to say about beefing up the Armed Forces because if he does not pay attention to the Armed Forces then we will know that all the rhetoric is based on thin air. 

Britain: What happens after the General Election? The package of promises falls apart when confronted with reality.

 

A few days ago came the news that life for 4 million people in the UK will turn into a nightmare if they don´t manage to regularize their visas turning paper visas into digital visas. 4 million people? How much can the state apparatus do from now until 31 December 2024? 

How many people are needed to locate and process 4 millon visas in such a short period? But this is a minute dot in terms of things that will need to be done. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves has formally committed a new Labour government to increase salaries across the entire public sector and Unions are already on a war footing to keep the now Shadow Chacellor of the Exchequer accountable.

The promise about getting rid of Zero Hour Contracts might erode even more public services in an attempt to improve working conditions in the UK and the effect in the private sector must not be underestimated. Faced with the prospect of having to issue regular contracts with all legal requirements, both the public sector and the private sector will struggle.

Grant Shapps as Defence Secretary has been struggling to explain where he is going to find more than 70 billion Pound to beef up the Armed Forces. The same questions will be asked to a new Defense Secretary since Grant Shapps has publicly acknowledged that he believes that the Conservative Party will lose the General Election.

The clock is ticking and many of the faces we see today as symbols of power and decision making will vanish and probably soon to be forgotten. Should announcements made about critical issues be postponed until we know who is going to be in command? Whatever the present authorities say today could be absolutely irrelevant in a few days time. It is a tradition that a new Parliament is not bound to follow what the outgoing Parliament decides.

With a new Parliament, today´s points of reference will vanish. There will be a new political reality. Rachel Reeves has already announced that there will be a new relationship with the European Union. Does this mean the end of Brexit? Reform´s campaign might have a lot to do not with destroying the Conservative Party but with assurances regarding the present relationship with the European Union. the irony is that freedom from any budgetary restrictions gives Britain the necessary flexibility to increase public deficits. We known what happened with the ERM, precursor of the EURO. Will a government headed by Keir Starmer want to fall into the same trap John Major and his government were in before finally deciding to step out of the ERM? What did Tony Blair and Gordon Brown avoid joining the EURO? Precisely because of what happened with the ERM?  

  

BBC: Where there is danger, there is opportunity - Time for change?

 For some of us, moves concerning the BBC and the now really and trully defunct BBC World Service (what now exists is merely a skeleton service and a shadow of what used to be the record breaking broadcaster) were a catastrophic mistake. The BBC actually withdrew from the international arena, very much like other international broadcasters.

In 1991, I attended a gathering organised by an organisation based in Barcelona. Representatives from the BBC, Radio Netherlands, Deutsche Welle, Radio France International, Radio Austria International, Radio Moscow International, and others met in Sitges. What happened afterwards was forseable. For several broadcasters the writing was on the wall. In Britain, the move towards Value for Money (translated as Value for Rubbish) was already underway and one of the promoters of such move was none other than John Birt (now Lord Birt). Kenneth Clarke and Tony Blair sealed the fate of the radio and television services provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Britain lost and lost pre-eminence in many parts of the world including Latin America.

Year after year, budget cuts followed by very bad management have led to more and more service cuts at the BBC. There was a time when the BBC was supposed to present two opposite points of view and have three independent sources that could confirm the veracity of what was being reported. Not anymore. In the rush to very much mirror the private sector, the BBC have lost credibility dramatically. The move to replace BBC presenters with agency staff was catastrophic and there were reports of presenters being adviced to register as external service providers in order to avoid taxes. Having what are supposed to be BBC flagship programmes presented by agency presenters was not a happy idea and the recent Lineker Affair is a clear example of what is wrong about the BBC - vast amounts of TV Licence paid to external presenters and producers while the BBC is forced to scale down the organisation because of budgetary constraints.

Going into Afghanistan in 2001 was an act of madness. Leaving in 2021 after 20 years of occupation was another act of madness.

 

Osama bin Laden was the reason George Bush and Tony Blair gave as justification to go, bomb and invade a country of more than 38 million people.

They went in like Bomber Harris, bombing, bombing and bombing indiscriminately because they wanted to kill Osama bin Laden.

Imagine if we were to bomb Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia or any other country because we wanted to flush out a group of narco-traffickers.

And the world watched the so called War on Terror that became a war against the people of Afghanistan, most of who had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and AlQaeda. From the war on terror, we went into the Nation Building Approach with talk about a promising future of the people of Afghanistan with social developments including education. 

Now, Joe Biden has put an end to social developments and education and replaced them with another war in which Taliban is going against its own people to turn the clock back and the number of casualties to whom promises were made about a brilliant future. Those who dared to believe in a promising future are being stabbed in the back by President Joe Biden. 

As soon as Western troops started to pull out the slaughter began.

Kim Leadbeater: In a first past the post election, we should think more about the qualities of the candidate than about the qualities of the leader of a political party

 

Whether Kim Leadbeater is or isn't the sister of Jo Cox that used to represent Batley and Spen - there will be a by-election next July - is for some people a relevant issue and some think that she was selected to stand because she is the sister of Jo Cox.

For me, personally, it is about the qualities of the candidate and it should not matter who is the Leader of the Labour Party. It is a first-past-the-post election. We should focus on the candidate and not on who is the Leader of the party.

By the same token, people in Manchester voted for Andy Burnham because Andy Burnham was the man standing, I am sure that many of those voting for Andy Burnham do not agree with the way Keir Starmer is leading the Labour Party, but they still voted for Andy Burnham because they like the way he runs Manchester as Mayor of Manchester. The same should apply to Batley and Spen.

Some Labour MPs have publicly said that if the Labour Party loses the by-election in a seat that they have held since 1997 (the year when Tony Blair came to power as Prime Minister), it will be curtains for Keir Starmer's leadership. For some, this is about the Labour Party. I think this is about the person that the people of Batley and Spen want to represent them in Westminster.

Trying to equate Hartlepool with Batley and Spen is wrong for various reasons. Firstly, the by-election in Hartlepool was called because the local Labour MP resigned because of an ongoing investigation into sexual abuses. The situation is Batley and Spen is radically different. The by-election in Batley and Spen was called because Tracy Brabin - the local Labour MP - was elected Mayor of West Yorkshire. 

There is a significant factor. In the EU Membership Referendum, 60 per cent of those who voted voted for Brexit. Therefore, some in the Labour Party should tone down their anti-Brexit rhetoric and at least try to respect the will of the voters of Batley and Spen.

Kim Leadbeater has spoken with wisdom. She has reminded the official Labour Party that far too many Labour MPs have no experience of the real world and that this contributes to their detachment from ordinary voters. 

Brexit and Nationalisation: Reality and fiction

Brexit and Nationalisation: Reality and fiction

Overnight, with the flick of a switch, Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise every single utility company and railway services. Now, apart from the monies needed for such enterprise, who is going to run the said companies and who is going to work for the said companies? Will the top managers and the middle managers want to become state employees? Will the workers want to become state employees?

Will specialized individuals want to work receiving lower salaries? What about the shareholders' position in what looks like a massive expropriation process? We are talking about billons of Pound invested in shares in companies that are valued in the London Exchange. The financial sector is the hearbeat of Britain and anything that affects the heartbeat of Britain can have widespread repercussions.

This proposed nationalisation has little to do with improving services for the general public. It has more to do with increasing the power of the trade unions that was dramatically reduced. In past public companies were used by the Labour Party for political purposes. Governments of a different political persuasion had to contend with the reality that despite having won an election they were often kept hostage by Labour Party controlled trade unions.

It was Tony Blair that despite being the Leader of the Labour Party knew that unless he curbed the powers of some elements within the Trade Union Movement the then Labour Party as it was would be unelectable. So he set out to transform the trade unions. The first thing that he looked at, together with John Prescott, was Clause Four - block vote.

The only way to weaken the influence of the bosses of the trade unions was to implement the rule of "one member, one vote". Having done that, for thirteen years - the Labour government firstly led by Tony Blair and in the end by Gordon Brown, never nationalised any utility companies and didn't nationalise railway services. Why? Because they didn't want to become themselves hostages of the trade unions.

When Labour Party MPs and now former Labour Party MPs speak against Jeremy Corbyn and describing him as dangerous, they know very well that Jeremy Corbyn is trying to turn the clock back in the Labour Party and in the country as a whole. The whole agenda is about power and control. Those led by Jeremy Corbyn want total control and controlling mass media and social media and any form of communication is very much appropriate in a dictatorial regime.

They will also control education in Britain. The idea of abolishing private institutions and the idea of putting everything under the control of a single authority will ensure that those born and growing up in Britain will have to conform to the ideological dictats. We have already seen quite a few examples when people who have different ideas or beliefs are excluded by Student Unions, Colleges and Universities.

At every level, this Labour Party Leadership is leading the nation towards a dictatorial regime dressed as a democracy in which everything you do will be scrutinized by ideological zealots. With this Labour Leadership we are going back to the days before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Massive tax increases, massive borrowing, loss of incentives for private investors, and in a country like the United Kingdom this will mean having to pay ever higher interest rates to attrack people willing to buy state bonds to manage the debt. The reality of low interest rates comes to an end and will go back to boom and bust that in the end will more bust than boom. The moment interests rates start rising homeowners that have mortgages will be hit hard and unable to make payments and we know what happens when this happen. 

Wasn't the banking crisis caused by a crisis in the housing market in the USA when people could not afford to make mortgage payments and many lenders found themselves with massive debts and devalued housing stocks? This is called negative equity. The words was repossesion. Thousands upon thousands of homes repossessed and the state having to go out and rescue banking institutions to prevent total collapse of the economy. 

And we will get to the moment when borrowing will not be borrowing to invest or to pay for public services. It will be borrowing to pay debts and for little else. At this stage, Britain becomes a Third World Country, no more the thriving economy of today, but a country at the mercy of foreign lenders. This is the cost of the approach proposed by the present Leaderdhip of the Labour Party. 

For Jeremy Corbyn, Brexit is an unexpected issue to have to deal with. The real issue is the creation of a completey different kind of Britain. Some say that he is a secret supporter of Brexit because the enormity of the changes he plans to implement would not fit in in a free and democratic society. This is not just about Political Correctness. This is about Democratic Centralism and those who know the meaning of Democratic Centralism and the source of such expression will be horrified. 

    

Tommy Robinson: Defamed and Libelled by Members of Parliament

Tommy Robinson: Defamed and Libelled by Members of Parliament

Whoever hides behind Parliamentary Immunity to launch a tirade of insults, defamation and libel against a private citizen whose sin is to have denounced abuses against children committed by Muslim paedophiles is a bloody coward and this does not surprise me.

Coming from a Labour Party that for more than sixteen years looked the other way when children were plied with alcohol and drugs to be gang raped, it couldn't surprise at all.

This is the same Labour Party who had a Home Secretary called Jacqui Smith that declared the acquisition of pornographic videos as part of Parliamentary Expenses.

The same Labour Party that had an illustrious and prominent Member of Parliament called Denis McShane who lied to Parliament about his Parliamentary Expenses. Denis McShane was forced by the British National Party and by its Sleaze Buster Michael Barnbrook to resign his seat in the House of Commons. 

The same Labour Party who had a War Criminal as Prime Minister called Tony Blair, a true Weapon of Mass Destruction, that complete destabilised the Middle East leading to the rise of Islamic State - the same Islamic State that is very much loved by some Muslims living in Britain that force the British People to live in fear and the country to invest vast amounts of money that should be invested in Health, Education, Transport and Housing and other segments of the British economy.

Under the Labour Party, Britain imported vast numbers of terrorists that launched attacks in the United Kingdom and have also used Britain to launch attacks elsewhere. 

I have met Tommy Robinson in numerous occasions. I have heard him talking to the crowds in the United Kingdom and never ever has he incited any kind of racial hatred. He has never incited people to commit violence on his behalf. People of all races follow Tommy Robinson. Sectors of the Jewish Community support Tommy Robinson and this at a time when the Labour Party stands accused of hatred against Jews.

This is the same Labour Party that supported terrorists that were killing British Police Officers, British Soldiers, British Politicians and ordinary citizens across the United Kingdom.

Those who launch attacks hiding behind Parliamentary Immunity are cowards and don't deserve to be Members of Parliament.    

Michael Heseltine: I side with Lord Tebbit. Michael Heseltine must go.

Michael Heseltine: I side with Lord Tebbit. Michael Heseltine must go.

Those who remember what led to the debacle in the Conservative Party that lost the 1997 General Election must surely remember the role Michael Heseltine played as a member of a team of conspirators that included John Major and Ken Clarke and what followed after they destroyed Margaret Thatcher.

John Major, Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine were the protagonist of a very sad and very tragic saga that could have bankrupted Britain. The ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism, precursor of the EURO) was a complete and utter disaster. No matter how many efforts the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont made to protect the Pound, Britain was forced to sell massive amounts of Gold reserves that incidentally ended up in German hands.

The Trio that could hardly ask for any Oath of Allegiance since they have behaved as traitors went on to lead a Conservative Party that was de-facto four political parties in one. The ERM, like the EURO, is not an economic idea. It is an ideological idea and even the most ardent supporters of the EU like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown stayed well away from the EURO. They knew the potential for disaster.

The latest statement made by Michael Heseltine - now Lord Heseltine - saying that he prefers a government headed by a Marxist is yet another example of Michael Heseltine's Conservatism. But he is not alone. His co-conspirator Ken Clarke should also be given his marching orders. John Major is doing his best to undermine the Conservative government and those who stand for Britain and made it plainly clear at a speech he made as a host of the Church of England. 

What was Germany like in the 1930s?

What was Germany like in the 1930s?

The question is extremely relevant and especially today when vested interests give you a completely falsified image of Germany in that period of history.

Look at his picture, for example. Do they look any different from youngsters you could see today? The answer is no. This is not the image of a repressive society. Quite the opposite.

They went around having fun and making the best of what they had. Such image doesn't fit in with the stereotypes the mass media and other interested parties are feeding you on a 24/7 basis. Why is that?

Today's mass media and other operators want you to believe that National Socialist Germany was all about aggression, violence and racism, all about salutes and hostile marching individuals. Nothing could be more different from the truth. They want you to believe their misrepresentations because their misrepresentations suit their political agenda. They demonise Germany in the 1930s and promote today's depravity and degradation as images of progress.

The so called Multicultural Society, filled up with drugs and lack of moral values that lead to social disintegration is nothing to be proud of but, the mass media and the political elites want to believe that this so called Multicultural Society is marvellous and anybody who rejects social degradation and depravity is called Racist and ultimately a Nazi or Neo Nazi or Fascist.

To start with, there never were any Nazis. Nazis didn't exist. If you want to use the real name you should say National Socialist. They were National Socialist. That was the proper name and the party that promoted National Socialist ideas was the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

It is fundamentally important to distinguish between Germany before what we call World War Two and Germany during and after World War Two. The people who supported National Socialist Germany wanted jobs, families, education, health, a good and decent life. They didn't think about going to war or enslaving other peoples. They thought about the goodness of living together and helping each other as one big family and because of this they showed enormous enthusiasm and this is why they supported so much the ideals of National Socialism.

The people who voted for Tony Blair in 1997 thought about a Labour Party that was offering new and better alternatives and this is why the Labour Party had such an enormous electoral success in 1997. What happened afterwards? What happened after Tony Blair took the country to war against Iraq? How did the political picture change? The people who supported the National Socialist German Workers' Party in the 1930s were not much different from the people who believed in Tony Blair in 1997. They wanted change. They wanted something better. We cannot blame ordinary people when all they wanted was a better life.

After the First World War, Germany was decimated. Germany was completely demoralised and knew extreme poverty. Suddenly, in the early 1920s came a time of apparent prosperity but it was a prosperity based on borrowing. When by the end of the 1920s, Germany was struck by the crisis in Wall Street and loans were recalled by American banks and the country once again was faced by mass unemployment and extreme poverty. As this was happening came a group of people led by Adolf Hitler that promise them bread, jobs, families, a return to a life of normality after a life of deprivation and they believed in him because they needed to believe that a better life was possible.

Modern mass media specialise in insulting people and distorting history and reality. The Germans of the 1930s were people like you and I, trying to make ends meets, trying to enjoy life to the full. War and violence happened along the way but it wasn't something they were looking for. If they had known that there would be war and that much of their country was going to be destroyed and occupied they wouldn't have supported the party and the man leading such political party. They didn't vote for war and violence. They voted for a better life.

Tony Blair: Ban on prosecution goes back to court

A higher magistrate is going to study the existing ban on private prosecution cases brought against Tony Blair.

What transpires from an article published by The Guardian is that the British Justice System is hidden behind a veil of secrecy. Some things might never change.

This is one major characteristic of a weak Democracy that cannot face its demons head on because its citizens are denied access to information they should know for Democracy to be a real Democracy.

Secrecy leads to speculation that undermines Democracy because there is always the presumption that things are kept secret because they are dirty, illegal, fraudulent, criminal. This is the country that has Laws that prevent members of the public from knowing what their rulers are up to with archives that will never be made public or will be made public not less than a 100 years afterwards.

Berezovsky/Litvinenko/Islamic Dreams

June 22, 1941 - Unternehmen Barbarossa

June 22, 1941, Unternehmen Barbarossa - Wehrmacht launches invasion of the Soviet Union, after massing forces along the borders. 2017- Nato masses forces along the borders of the Russian Federation. Mmmm......

Alexandr Litvinenko

Massively publicised death of Alexandr Litvinenko who was on the payroll of the British Security Services but played a double game supporting Chechen rebels linked to AlQaeda and Taliban at the time when Britain was involved in military offensive against AlQaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan. Alexandr Litvinenko was contacted by Russian Federation envoys offering him safe passage in exchange for documents that could compromise Boris Berezosvky who was working with the CIA facilitating exile in Britain of "businessmen and foreign politicians" involved in corruption scandals- also a double game since Berezovsky was dealing with the Italian Mafia to provide weapons and money for Chechen rebels. A meeting with a certain Italian journalist presumably investigating Mafia comes to mind. Alexandr Livtinenko eliminated by British Agents to protect both Tony Blair and Boris Berezovsky from a massive scandal. His wife tried to force British Services to acknowledge that her husband was officially working for them. The British Establishment used him used him as long as he was useful to them and then they killed him.

Boris Berezovsky

Soon afterwards, Boris Berezosvky himself was "suicided" by British agents once he ceased to be useful and became much more of a liability. I was asked to travel to a Latin America country to collect information that could have brought down Berezovsky and the British government. I didn't manage to get to the airport as the new broke out that Berezovsky had been found dead.

As always, the mass media fully cooperate to provide cover ups and brainwash the wider public with a mythology that they easily swallow, a mythology they have been fed since birth by mass media, politicians and the entertainment industry that funnily enough uses the same strategies to attack a President Elect in the USA. Today, a CIA high ranking official attack President Elect Donald Trump. Coincidences? There are no coincidences.

In the meantime, the build up of forces prone to attack the Russian Federation continues. If they attack the Russian Federation, will they say that the Russian Federation attacked herself?

When they bring back Litvinenko, you know that dirt is coming

Alexandr Litvinenko

Whenever the BBC brings back Alexandr Litvinenko, killed by British agents in London to protect CIA operator and former Russian powerful man Boris Berezovski, you know that dirt is coming.

Alexandr Litvinenko, former KGB agent, in his new re-incarnation was the right hand man of Boris Berezovski, a former Boris Yeltsin supporter, who having left Russia in a hurry had dealings with Muslim Chechen rebels carrying out terrorist attacks.

Boris Berezovski was also working for the CIA and bringing in to the West politicians that fell out of grace including sons of Presidents. The way things worked was that they would arrive in Britain and the same firm of lawyers working for Boris Berezovsky would get them visas to remain in Britain or perhaps travel to other parts of the so called Western World including the US.

Both Boris Berezovsky and Alexandr Litvinenko were seen as insiders who in theory possessed valuable information about the USSR that gave way to the Russian Federation. The US needed access to landlocked Afghanistan and who better to contact 'old friends' than Boris Berezovsky and his lieutenant Alexandr Litvinenko.

What wasn't so convenient was the fact that both Boris Berezovsky and Alexandr Litvinenko had links with Chechen rebels linked to AlQaeda and Taliban at a time when British Forces were fighting in Afghanistan under Prime Minister Tony Blair.

In every transaction you needed valuable friends and who better in terms of knowing about dirty dealings that the Italian Mafia and this is where Mario Scaramella, an Italian lawyer, that was supposedly investigating Italian Mafia links. When it came to money and weapons Chechen terrorists needed what better than the Italian Mafia.

Mario Scaramella

Alexandr Litvinenko was very small fish but you always need a good bait to catch a bigger fish and in this particular case the Russian Federation was after Boris Berezovsky and the best way of getting Boris Berezovky was to make Tony Blair's position unsustainable. Revealing details about Boris Berezovsky's operations in Chechnya, linked to what was happening in Afghanistan, would force the British Government to give up Boris Berezovsky. But given that Berezovsky was also helping the CIA and facilitated transit of US troops into Afghanistan, the British Establishment had to move quickly to avoid public embarrassment and protect a man that was considered an asset at the time.

When Andrei Lugovoi, former colleague of Alexandr Litvinenko, came to London to persuade Alexandr Litvinenko to cooperate with the Russian Federation in exchange for a free passage agreement this signalled big danger for the British Establishment killing Alexandr Litvinenko to protect Boris Berezovsky became a number one priority.

Even until this day Marina Litvinenko is trying, unsuccessfully, to get the British Establishment to acknowledge that Alexandr Litvinenko was in fact working for the British Establishment. The British Establishment wants none of it because they believe that such acknowledgement would create a snowballing effect leading to the truth about how and why Alexandr Litvinenko was killed by British agents.

Marina Litvinenko

With Alexandr Litvinenko, out of the picture by courtesy of the Security Services of Tony Blair, the Russian Federation still had an interest in exposing Boris Berezovky and this is why I was asked to travel to Brazil where Brazilian prosecutors had valuable information that would seriously incriminate Boris Berezovsky. Oh, surprise, hours before my trip to Brazil, Boris Berezovsky appeared dead in his bathroom. Conveniently enough, Boris Berezovsky had been left without bodyguard protection.
By that time, Boris Berezovsky had become a public embarrassment and was no longer useful and therefore he was more of a liability for the British Establishment. After losing a very public litigation in British courts when facing Roman Abramovich, it was said that 'Boris Berezovsky was feeling depressed'. Killing Boris Berezovsky, the British Establishment destroyed a very embarrassing link.

Roman Abramovich

A saga like the Litvinenko Affair is used over and over again by the British Establishment to try and cause some damage to the Russian Federation, when in fact War Criminal Tony Blair should be the one on the spot.

Well, it is business as usual for the British Security Services and poor Marina Litvinenko will have to wait more than 100 years to read de-classified papers when the matter is no longer remembered nor relevant.