This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/litvinenko-widow-threatens-sue-rt-libellous-claims

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Litvinenko widow threatens to sue RT over 'libellous' claims Litvinenko widow threatens to sue RT over 'libellous' claims
(about 2 hours later)
The widow of Alexander Litvinenko is to sue RT and another pro-Kremlin channel after they screened “libellous” claims that the Russian dissident was murdered by his close friend Alex Goldfarb. The widow of Alexander Litvinenko is threatening to sue RT and another pro-Kremlin TV channel after they screened “libellous” claims that the Russian dissident was murdered by his close friend Alex Goldfarb.
Marina Litvinenko and Goldfarb have demanded retractions from two Russian networks. RT and state-run Channel One made a series of “reckless and defamatory allegations” in March and April, in the aftermath of the poisonings of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, they say. Marina Litvinenko and Goldfarb have demanded retractions from RT and the state-run Channel One after they made a series of “reckless and defamatory allegations” in March and April, in the aftermath of the poisonings of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, they say.
The British government blamed Moscow for the attack on the Skripals. The Kremlin responded with a noisy media counter-offensive, featuring press conferences by Russia’s ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, and a domestic campaign aimed at persuading Russians the claim is a smear. The British government blamed Moscow for the attack on the Russian former double agent and his daughter in Salisbury. The Kremlin responded with a media counter-offensive, featuring press conferences by Russia’s ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, and a domestic campaign aimed at persuading Russians the claim was a smear.
Litvinenko’s father, Walter, played a starring role in this. Litvinenko was murdered in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea. Initially, Walter blamed Vladimir Putin. But in 2012 after an unhappy period of exile in Italy he returned to Russia, begging Putin for “forgiveness”. Litvinenko’s father, Walter, played a starring role in this campaign. Litvinenko was murdered in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea and his father initially blamed Vladimir Putin. But after an unhappy period of exile in Italy, he returned to Russia in 2012 and begged the president for “forgiveness”.
In April RT screened a 30-minute interview with Walter, in which he claimed Goldfarb was a “CIA agent”. He said Goldfarb murdered Litvinenko in his hospital bed, citing a “confession” by Goldfarb’s late wife. Goldfarb then murdered his wife to cover up the crime, Walter alleged. In April, RT screened a 30-minute interview with Walter Litvinenko, in which he claimed Goldfarb was a CIA agent. He said Goldfarb murdered Litvinenko in his hospital bed, citing a “confession” by Goldfarb’s late wife. Goldfarb then murdered his wife to cover up the crime, he alleged.
RT translated the interview into English. It was broadcast on the Worlds Apartshow, hosted by Oksana Boyko. RT this week acknowledged the legal complaint but has so far not commented. RT translated the interview into English and aired it on the Worlds Apartshow, hosted by Oksana Boyko.
Walter’s claims have no basis in fact. In 2016 a public inquiry into Litvinenko’s death ruled that his polonium killers were Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun – two assassins sent, it said, by Russia’s FSB spy agency. Putin and the FSB’s then boss, Nikolai Patrushev, “probably approved” the assassination on British soil, the inquiry found. RT this week acknowledged the legal complaint but has so far not commented.
Walter Litvinenko’s claims have no basis in fact. In 2016 a public inquiry into Litvinenko’s death ruled that his polonium killers were Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun and that they were sent by Russia’s FSB spy agency. Putin and the FSB’s then boss, Nikolai Patrushev, “probably approved” the killing on British soil, the inquiry found.
Speaking to the Guardian, Goldfarb said he initially took the RT claims “impersonally”, seeing them “as just another shot in the propaganda war”.Speaking to the Guardian, Goldfarb said he initially took the RT claims “impersonally”, seeing them “as just another shot in the propaganda war”.
“But then when everybody started teasing me as ‘Alex the murderer’ and I imagined millions had watched these programmes I realised that somehow it sticks. A creepy feeling,” he said. Goldfarb’s wife, Svetlana, died of cancer in 2010, four years after Litvinenko’s murder.“But then when everybody started teasing me as ‘Alex the murderer’ and I imagined millions had watched these programmes I realised that somehow it sticks. A creepy feeling,” he said. Goldfarb’s wife, Svetlana, died of cancer in 2010, four years after Litvinenko’s murder.
Goldfarb and Marina Litvinenko have written to RT’s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, and the Channel One chief, Konstantin Ernst, demanding retractions. They have also launched a crowdfunding page to help pay hefty legal costs, estimated at over $300,000 (£225,000). The case has been lodged before a federal court in Manhattan. Goldfarb and Marina Litvinenko have written to RT’s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, and the Channel One chief, Konstantin Ernst, demanding retractions. They have also launched a crowdfunding page to help pay the legal costs, estimated at more than $300,000 (£225,000). The case has been lodged before a federal court in Manhattan.
Marina Litvinenko said that for over a decade she has put up with “huge pressure and propaganda” from Moscow. She said she had done her best to protect her husband’s reputation from “lies and fake stories”. Her father-in-law’s recent public support for Putin saddened her, she said. Marina Litvinenko said she had put up with “huge pressure and propaganda” from Moscow for more than a decade, and she had done her best to protect her husband’s reputation from “lies and fake stories”. Her father-in-law’s recent public support for Putin saddened her, she said.
The Kremlin’s TV campaign was “politically motivated”, and an attempt to deflect blame from her husband’s real murderers. Russia’s modern spy agencies were using “old-school KGB methods” and cynically exploiting Litvinenko’s family members, she said. She added: “I believe in justice”. The Kremlin’s TV campaign was politically motivated, and an attempt to deflect blame from her husband’s real murderers, she said. Russia’s modern spy agencies were using “old-school KGB methods” and cynically exploiting Litvinenko’s family members. She added: “I believe in justice”.
Channel One screened libellous material on four separate broadcasts, including the popular prime-time show Person and Law, she alleges. During one broadcast Walter Litvinenko shared a sofa with an uncomfortable-looking Lugovoi, whom British authorities have charged with Litvinenko’s murder. Lugovoi is a deputy in Russia’s parliament and the recipient of an honour from Putin. Channel One screened libellous material in four separate broadcasts, including the popular primetime show Person and Law, she alleges. During one broadcast Walter Litvinenko shared a sofa with an uncomfortable-looking Lugovoi, whom British authorities have charged with Litvinenko’s murder. Lugovoi is a deputy in Russia’s parliament and the recipient of an honour from Putin.
The state-run network additionally claimed Marina Litvinenko lied to the public inquiry, which heard evidence of how the two killers left a polonium trail across London. Walter Litvinenko told RT, by contrast, that Russia’s president was a “decent person”, and therefore was incapable of doing “nasty things”. The state-run network also claimed Marina Litvinenko lied to the public inquiry, which heard evidence of how the two killers left a polonium trail across London. Walter Litvinenko told RT, in contrast, that Russia’s president was a “decent person”, and incapable of doing “nasty things”.
On Tuesday the New York-based lawyer Bertrand Sellier wrote to Simonyan: “Your actions constitute intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress on our clients, particularly Mrs Litvinenko. She struggled for 10 years to have her husband’s murderers named in a court of law. On Tuesday, the New York-based lawyer Bertrand Sellier wrote to Simonyan: “Your actions constitute intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress on our clients, particularly Mrs Litvinenko. She struggled for 10 years to have her husband’s murderers named in a court of law.
“Undermining the court’s finding with a fake narrative before tens of millions of viewers adds insult to injury. We hereby demand that you issue a full and immediate retraction and apology with equal reach and prominence as the broadcast itself.”“Undermining the court’s finding with a fake narrative before tens of millions of viewers adds insult to injury. We hereby demand that you issue a full and immediate retraction and apology with equal reach and prominence as the broadcast itself.”
Channel One did not respond to a request for comment.Channel One did not respond to a request for comment.
RT faces multiple Ofcom investigations including in connection with the Skripals’ novichok poisoning. The broadcast watchdog said it was examining a number of instances in which the channel potentially breached laws on impartiality. RT faces multiple investigations by the UK broadcast regulator, including in connection with the Skripals’ novichok poisoning. Ofcom said it was examining a number of instances in which the channel potentially breached laws on impartiality.
“Since the events in Salisbury, we have observed a significant increase in the number of programmes broadcast that we consider warrant investigation as potential breaches of the broadcasting code,” the regulator said.“Since the events in Salisbury, we have observed a significant increase in the number of programmes broadcast that we consider warrant investigation as potential breaches of the broadcasting code,” the regulator said.
It added: “Ultimately, we may decide that the licence should be revoked because the licensee is not fit and proper, on broadcasting compliance grounds.” “Ultimately, we may decide that the licence should be revoked because the licensee is not fit and proper, on broadcasting compliance grounds.”
Alexander LitvinenkoAlexander Litvinenko
RTRT
RussiaRussia
EuropeEurope
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content