BTRFTG

For those stunned by Italy's failure remember no Italian player has ever won a Premier League Winner's medal. Some stat that.

You really think Stranraer Vs Cowdenbeath will sell out the MCG?

Residing in the land of the ? I believe, Phil, you are best placed to advance justice in proving said theory that one can consume 5 bottles of ? and then dial, having first managed to locate one's ? & remembered the applicable number, the emergency services. Perhaps you might upload an audio file to prove this possible? God forbid you attempt to inform the call-handler of the toppings you'd prefer on your ? or worse, inform them upon hanging up that," I loves you, I do........."

Now I might just buy The Old Bill randomly fake emergency call records then randomly turn up at the home of failed, thuggish ex-footballers. I might even be persuaded they then proceed to Deep Fake video footage from body cams showing invented physical injury. Simply, they've nothing better to do, have they? But what no silk could ever persuade me to accept (me and the wife being partial to a glass or two,) is that at a dinner party for 6 between 24 & 30 bottles of wine were consumed. If we had friends who turned up with a half case each I think we might first sit them down and ask if things were "OK?"

To all those mentioning that Martin is a 'model' or 'reliable' pro what does that mean? His pace is deceptive (he's slower than he looks.) He's less of an aerial threat than The Vatican's Air Force. The only way in which he bothers defenders is to confuse them into thinking they've overslept by a few seasons and are now plying their trade in the 4th tier. If we played a kid upfront next year who delivered little, well, that's not going to be much of a difference, is it?

Like Lucan, Shergar and Geoff Thomas Vs France I'll take to my grave the conundrum of whether Williams struck the greatest pass I've ever witnessed from a City player or perchance we lucked out from his wayward thrash at the ball. Matters not. Whatever Williams planned Weimann certainly knew what he wanted to do and he executed that, as they jest, with aplomb.

Specifically The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) ( Amendment) Regulations 2022 which delivered nebulous and wide ranging powers many of which do not appear to accord with basic principles of UK Law. Some of these difficulties will be closed out under the Economic Crime (Enforcement & Transparency) Bill ( if enacted,) but that's cart before horse and many of the measures it delivers are already available via other legislation. As with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 this Government has shown how it makes use a brief, emotive and minority swell of public opinion to drive through totalitarian measures without proper consideration. "We could use these powers as you suggest but we wouldn't...." And you'd trust a politician and their word?

I'm not defending RA as I'm uncertain whether he has anything for which to apologise, but he's already been adjudged 'guilty by association' without punished evidence. That has to be troubling for all.

Lest not forget the legislation with which they hope to punish those sanctioned isn't yet statute. Retrospectively convicting folks for crimes that weren't crimes at the time, where might that lead? Too late in the day the public and Courts are only now cottoning-on to the dangers and abuses in the likes of Police maintaining non-crime, hate incident databases. Where one may be unilaterally condemned and punished despite having done nothing wrong.

As the sanctions stand he wouldn't be able to contract any UK legal services. It's also a fundamental principle in UK law that one may appear in person. That's the issue here. The Government are making things up as they go, irrespective of what standing they might have legally. Of all the Government press releases yesterday not one indicated how or why any of those sanctioned had breached the terms of the latest knee-jerk legislation. If thise sanctioned support the war against Ukraine and it's destabilisation then say how they are so doing? Being wealthy and knowing Putin, well that applies to many around the world and not only Russians. At its extreme it's also not a civil case. Should the Government have been found to have permanently deprive those sanctioned of access to their assets for no established reason that would be theft. I think many a lawyer is going to enhance their wealth once this quickly and ill-thought legislation gets tested.

The Law is so wide ranging and nebulous as to not know where to start. There's also the Catch 22 (flaw in your argument) that without being able appear in court and without funds to support an action in the UK, how might RA defend himself? Would The Government provide him Legal Aid or permit him entry? If RA has breached whatever it is claimed by The Government they should openly publish the evidence. He may well be guilty, the problem being we don't know and have zero verifiable fact upon which to base our opinions. So much for 'innocent until proven guilty'. The Government appears to have turned lynch mob. If so, who next dangles from the branch to suit their purpose?

Aside from his politically generated wealth RA acquired money, power and influence in mopping up many of the shortcomings from the 'loans for shares' scam when bankers started to run for the hills. But those schemes, however iniquitous, weren't illegal, they were promoted by Yeltzen and his regime. Oh, and there's the oft forgotten architect of that scheme - The US Government who through USAID made certain capitalistic reforms were here to stay, that Communism should never again rear it's head. Reforms drafted by Ivy League economists and bankers. The US created a model that mirrored it's own capitalist expansion at the 'turn of the century'. A few individuals owning natural resource, transport, steel & communication who became extraordinarily wealthy. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt & Carnegie were pretty much oligarchs and though only now know for their once phenomenal wealth few recall those, like Rockefeller, who came from absolute poverty and amassed vast sums over a very short period of time. Right time, right place, right opportunity, the American way. Few accuse them of illegality or connivance. Funny how The West's 'entrepreneurs' are also The East 'criminals'.

Many of your points made re Crimea are exactly the same points made by Putin as to why he needs to reconcile Mother Russia with her historic homelands (and no I don't buy that either.) Recall Putin has stated he has no intention on annexing Ukraine, just those bits like Crimea that will strengthen his foothold in the region through strategic alliances with tinpot dictators dependant upon him. Ditto neighbouring countries to whom he knows he may dictate internal policy through fear of reprisal. The signal difference from the West (or is that indifference,) being how much does it impact us? We've no issue in invading Iraq to replace an abhorrent dictator with an even worse dictator, but when oil's at stake and it's far off who cares about morals or piles of bodies? Blair certainly didnt. Now Finland, that could get interesting.

Suggestions & accusations. Where's the proof? Abramovich's methods in acquiring wealth are well documented, as is his rise as Governor of Chukotka. As with Thatcher's denationalization programme folks were given an opportunity to participate but most failed to realize what was on offer? In Russia citizens were issued share certificates in denationalised enterprises whether they'd requested or not. 'WTF do I want this piece of paper for?' So when one of the many teams of Abramovich's door-knockers came calling and offered an aluminum saucepan, or trinket, or cutlery in exchange for a piece of paper one didn't need or want, especially given it was going to that nice politician who's improved local education and health more in the past 3 years than in your lifetime, that's a no-brainer. Folks were desperate to cash in on 'freebies' offered. Save that is the capitalistic astute who understood certificates true value. It's exploitative, but not theft and in his own region he improved folks living standards immeasurably, as he continues to do till today. What I do know is this. Suppose a foreign citizen is abducted from a European country and executed. Suppose one of the abductors identified themselves using a British Passport. Suppose the Home Sec may safely claim to Parliament the document was not officially issued by the UK authorities, it's a forgery, case closed. Suppose that's true, there is no official record. How annoying the voice in the wilderness asking how come other than the claimed official record the document was, to all intents and purposes, an officially issued document? All those security features. All the security protocols around materials et al. But they're wilderness voices. The press and Government have moved on. Nobody is really interested. The victim, well he wasn't a nice person in the first place. Be careful for that you wish and wedges with thin edges.

Interesting tonight our buffoon leader stated the NCA had been requested to establish evidence in the case against those designated, not that it's already in place. That they'll cite they may not disclose without compromising 'national security' (sic) goes without saying. My last role before packing it in was within OSCT ( I was there during Winchester.) I know how these things work. Recall the very same NCA (& Met) were 'unable to establish' that Covid rules had been broken in Downing St when all and sundry gawped at the images in the press That's what bothers me. This is the thin end of a wedge that you one day may find ruins your life. All unaccountable, all driven by sound bite. Far from being a conspiricist I'm Mr Assuredness and my refusal to turn a blind eye did for me at the HO. Amazing the gullible falling for the Government's line today, bolstered by the awful images coming out of Ukraine, didn't once batted an eyelid at the activities of those designated today post 2014, but why would they when those in authority claim not to have either? For the uninitiated, that's the date the barbaric Putin annexed Crimea and in doing so interfered in a sovereign territory, the very charges levelled today. Bit further east, not so close to home, but what's the difference? Just wait till the great unwashed discover The Chinese have gained a sovereign foothold in Montenegro. 'First we've heard of it......how did they allow that to happen?" they'll claim, yet decades in the making. As for Russians in the UK, no need to remind me. Second most observed language where I live.

Remind the circumstance of Berezovsky's comments? Remind The Judge's scathing comments as to Berezovsky's character and standing (akin a political Pulis,)? Remind the finding of The High Court? Clearly RA became a significant player in Russian politics. As with the world over the under the counter intertwining of commerce and politics is barely hidden, but folks are taking a leap in inferring RA and Putin are in each other's pockets. They may be, but where's the evidence?

Would that make a difference? I was told a tale the other day by somebody whose son regularly played some online game or other with mates around the world and had done so for years. Two of those mates, from Russia, are now dead. Sent as conscripted cannon-fodder in an ill-equipped attempt to 'protect' Ukrainian citizens, or at least that what they were told. Metropolitan Russians neither believe in Putin's rhetoric nor support his warmongering. We shouldn't lose sight of that fact.

Jeez, what world celebrity hasn't had their photo taken with Putin?

That's exactly it. Pride Park's 'value' (sic) was argued the cost of having to reproduce an equivalent facility should Pride Park be destroyed and nothing to do with what it might realise if sold. Recall Derby pay very little (if any) rent and that's a better measure of valuing a property asset. Say they paid £4m a year in rent and held a 25 year lease then the Freeholder is 'guaranteed' income of £100m. You may use that as a guide as to potentially what the freehold asset is worth. That was the scam. On book, as accounts allow one to do, by effectively 'selling to themselves' they doubled the supposed value of the asset (NB it never even had to change hands for cash,) and banked that theoretical 'profit' (sic) to avoid penalties under FFP.

Lots of coulda, woulda, shoulda but where's the evidence? Huge step from stating RA part owns a steel company to arguing it's products are used to destabalise Ukraine via weaponry. If it is he should be held to task, but is that the case? I own shares in tech companies some of whose products almost certainly are deployed in Russian munitions. Should I too be sanctioned because, if so, most on this forum hold likewise via their pensions? Of the measures now sought imagine these were applied to members of the House of Commons who deliberately acted to destabalise Iraq, or who preferentially let contracts with UK arms suppliers, or who grant export licences for weaponry used in wars around the world. Unlike RA the latter are proven matters of fact. Or take Greensill. Those politicians who sought private sector benefit from public influence whilst in office. Those who continue to take discounted benefit from influence they hold? What difference they and RA as I don't see them being held to account? Using the same logic I suppose we'll expect to see City suspend Massengo with immediate effect as thousands remind each week how his predilection for quaffing vodka presumably bolsters Russia's coffers?

Save that's what they have just fine to certain individuals. So where to draw the line?

Doubtless many with pensions on this forum have some investment in Russian companies. What's missing is where he personally breaches any of the blanket terms prescribed in The Act i.e. Is he destabalising Ukraine and, if so, how? In respect of Chelsea he's already stated his intention to dispose of the asset and offer all profit to charities seeking to assist Ukraine. He's wealthy, he made his money in Russia. Exactly the folks successive Governments have been falling over themselves to get in bed with these past decades.

It's the age old story of value and cost and how folks love to confuse them. Bespoke assets are difficult to value as, er, they're bespoke. There's either no or a very limited market for those who might wish to purchase them. For accounting purposes Derby adopted a DRC method (basically what would this cost to replicate) but why do that when you've the asset already? It's only useful for insurance purposes and is NOT a measure of value. In truth stadiums only have value if they may be put to other purposes (suppose an NFL franchise wanted to relocate to UK,) else they're worth the value of the land (site cleared) and 'Use Case' consents achievable (what planners will permit you to build on the site.) In practice snd when discounting by planning levies (S106/CIL,) that's a sum far less than folks imagine.

The valid criticism of these measures is they're an unfalsifiable blanket measure that permits The Government to accuse pretty much anybody of anything without having first to front evidence substantiating either claim or designation. The only truth in the Act is it's purpose, which is to place pressure on Putin. I'd argue measures taken today are likely to have the exact opposite on those designated. If any of those designated today have breached any of the specifics listed in the Act (other than the meaningless 'being known to somebody') then The Government should say so, in explicit terms. That they haven't and are unable so to do, go figure? I get The Government wants to show arms-length support but this Act and it's present implementation is nothing shy of Big Brother enforcement, exactly the dictatorial behaviour it professes it seeks to address.

Then why doesn't the Government state its evidence and badis of claim?