Abramovich: Having assets seized because of the company you keep

[Ben]

Let's keep politics out of this and focus on the legality/morality of what happened to Abramovich.

Essentially, he spent a considerable sum buying Chelsea FC (£140 million), with further investments (£1 billion) and loans (£1.5 billion).

Now because of circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to sell it without seeing so much as a penny.

Some news articles try to make a connection between the sanctions Abramovich received and the fact that he hasn't plainly condemned the war in Ukraine, but so what? A person is entitled to keep dubious company and hold, reserve or express their views as they see fit without sanction.

Imagine if our bank accounts and assets were confiscated because of an unsavoury friend we had. And no one in the news or leadership is condemning this.

Anyone else think this is wrong?

[JNugent]

On 27/05/2022 06:10 am, Ben wrote:

> Let's keep politics out of this and focus on the legality/morality of what happened to Abramovich.

> Essentially, he spent a considerable sum buying Chelsea FC (£140 million), with further investments (£1 billion) and loans (£1.5 billion).

> Now because of circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to sell it without seeing so much as a penny.
> Some news articles try to make a connection between the sanctions Abramovich received and the fact that he hasn't plainly condemned the war in Ukraine, but so what? A person is entitled to keep dubious company and hold, reserve or express their views as they see fit without sanction.
> Imagine if our bank accounts and assets were confiscated because of an unsavoury friend we had. And no one in the news or leadership is condemning this.
> Anyone else think this is wrong?

Absolutely, and have already said so.

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> posted

>On 27/05/2022 06:10 am, Ben wrote:
>
>> Let's keep politics out of this and focus on the legality/morality of
>>what happened to Abramovich.

>> Essentially, he spent a considerable sum buying Chelsea FC (£140

>>million), with further investments (£1 billion) and loans (£1.5

>>billion).
>> Now because of circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to sell
>>it without seeing so much as a penny.
>> Some news articles try to make a connection between the sanctions
>>Abramovich received and the fact that he hasn't plainly condemned the
>>war in Ukraine, but so what? A person is entitled to keep dubious
>>company and hold, reserve or express their views as they see fit
>>without sanction.
>> Imagine if our bank accounts and assets were confiscated because of
>>an unsavoury friend we had. And no one in the news or leadership is
>>condemning this.
>> Anyone else think this is wrong?
>
>Absolutely, and have already said so.

Yep, agreed.

--
Algernon

[RustyHinge]

On 27/05/2022 06:10, Ben wrote:
> Let's keep politics out of this and focus on the legality/morality of what happened to Abramovich.
>

> Essentially, he spent a considerable sum buying Chelsea FC (£140 million), with further investments (£1 billion) and loans (£1.5 billion).

>
> Now because of circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to sell it without seeing so much as a penny.
>
> Some news articles try to make a connection between the sanctions Abramovich received and the fact that he hasn't plainly condemned the war in Ukraine, but so what? A person is entitled to keep dubious company and hold, reserve or express their views as they see fit without sanction.
>
> Imagine if our bank accounts and assets were confiscated because of an unsavoury friend we had. And no one in the news or leadership is condemning this.
>
> Anyone else think this is wrong?

I certainly think confiscation is wrong. Should we take into account
how the assets were acquired in the first place? And is it our business?

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:10:42 -0700 (PDT), Ben <benada...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Let's keep politics out of this and focus on the legality/morality
>of what happened to Abramovich.
>
>Essentially, he spent a considerable sum buying Chelsea FC (£140 million),
>with further investments (£1 billion) and loans (£1.5 billion).
>
>Now because of circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to sell
>it without seeing so much as a penny.

The circumstances are not beyond his control. He could quite easily have
made it clear that he has broken all links with the Russian regime and
has chosen instead to align himself with the west. He has not done so.
Presumably, from a purely business point of view, he still thinks that
there's more money to be made by staying loyal to Russia and losing is
EU assets than by renouncing his loyalty to Russia and losing all his
Russian assets. And I suspect that he is probably right.

It is, no doubt, unfortunate for him that he has had to make this choice
in the short term. But it is, nonetheless the kind of risk that is
unavoidable when investing in a foreign country. You can never be
certain that your domestic obligations will never conflict with those
where you invest. And Mr Abramovich is far too shrewd an investor not to
have been aware of that from the outset.

When the war is over and Putin is long gone he will still be a very
wealthy man and will be able to invest once again in the UK. Maybe he'll
buy Manchester Utd instead and make them a decent football team again.
In the meantime, he neither needs nor deserves our sympathy for the fact
that he, like very many people all over the world, have lost money as a
result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Mr Abramovich will, at least,
ride it out, even if he has to make do with one less football team and a
smaller number of yachts.

>Some news articles try to make a connection between the sanctions Abramovich
>received and the fact that he hasn't plainly condemned the war in Ukraine,
>but so what? A person is entitled to keep dubious company and hold, reserve
>or express their views as they see fit without sanction.
>
>Imagine if our bank accounts and assets were confiscated because of an
>unsavoury friend we had. And no one in the news or leadership is condemning this.

Vladimir Putin is not merely an unsavoury friend. He is the head of a
country which is engaging in war crimes in a foreign, sovereign state.

>Anyone else think this is wrong?

I'm sure there are plenty of apologists for the war who do, yes.

Mark

[The Todal]

On 27/05/2022 06:10, Ben wrote:

Yes. We're adopting the same sort of morality as Iran, when it held a
certain woman prisoner until Britain paid a debt owed to Iran.

Here, we're trying to force Abramovich to exercise whatever influence he
(and his fellow rich Russians) might have, to get Putin to withdraw
Russian troops from Ukraine. And their influence may well be negligible.

I'm not especially sorry for any rich Russians, given that they are
rich, but I don't think this sort of populist move enhances Britain's
reputation for straight dealing.

[GB]

On 27/05/2022 15:14, Mark Goodge wrote:

> The circumstances are not beyond his control. He could quite easily have
> made it clear that he has broken all links with the Russian regime and
> has chosen instead to align himself with the west.

Would that not reduce his life expectancy?

[Ben]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 5:34:22 PM UTC+3, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:10:42 -0700 (PDT), Ben <benada...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Let's keep politics out of this and focus on the legality/morality
> >of what happened to Abramovich.
> >
> >Essentially, he spent a considerable sum buying Chelsea FC (£140 million),
> >with further investments (£1 billion) and loans (£1.5 billion).
> >
> >Now because of circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to sell
> >it without seeing so much as a penny.
> The circumstances are not beyond his control. He could quite easily have
> made it clear that he has broken all links with the Russian regime and
> has chosen instead to align himself with the west. He has not done so.
> Presumably, from a purely business point of view, he still thinks that
> there's more money to be made by staying loyal to Russia and losing is
> EU assets than by renouncing his loyalty to Russia and losing all his
> Russian assets. And I suspect that he is probably right.

There is no guarantee that even if Abramovich condemned and distanced himself from Putin's war, that he would not be sanctioned anyway.

> It is, no doubt, unfortunate for him that he has had to make this choice
> in the short term. But it is, nonetheless the kind of risk that is
> unavoidable when investing in a foreign country. You can never be
> certain that your domestic obligations will never conflict with those
> where you invest. And Mr Abramovich is far too shrewd an investor not to
> have been aware of that from the outset.

A conflict of interest making you lose your money if you invest in Somalia or North Korea is one thing. Having your investments confiscated by new laws rushed in consequence to a war you didn't start and had no control over, in the supreme paragon of moral virtue and rectitude that is Great Britain is another.

> When the war is over and Putin is long gone he will still be a very
> wealthy man and will be able to invest once again in the UK. Maybe he'll
> buy Manchester Utd instead and make them a decent football team again.
> In the meantime, he neither needs nor deserves our sympathy for the fact
> that he, like very many people all over the world, have lost money as a
> result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Mr Abramovich will, at least,
> ride it out, even if he has to make do with one less football team and a
> smaller number of yachts.

Whether or not he was and will continue to be a wealthy man is irrelevant to the morality of confiscating his assets.

> >Some news articles try to make a connection between the sanctions Abramovich
> >received and the fact that he hasn't plainly condemned the war in Ukraine,
> >but so what? A person is entitled to keep dubious company and hold, reserve
> >or express their views as they see fit without sanction.
> >
> >Imagine if our bank accounts and assets were confiscated because of an
> >unsavoury friend we had. And no one in the news or leadership is condemning this.
> Vladimir Putin is not merely an unsavoury friend. He is the head of a
> country which is engaging in war crimes in a foreign, sovereign state.

My statement was factually correct, and so is yours.

> >Anyone else think this is wrong?
> I'm sure there are plenty of apologists for the war who do, yes.

ITYWF that there are (probably) no apologists for the war here. The horrors unleashed by a wholly unnecessary war is plain for all with access to free media, to see. The question is whether two wrongs make a right.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 17:14:33 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:

Possiby. In which case, he is acting in rational self interest. And,
equally, he can have no complaints about the downsides of that decision.

Mark

[Adam Funk]

I don't think that's a fair comparison.

Zaghari-Ratclife is a normal person who was abused as a political
football by the fairly illegitimate (measured in terms of human
rights) government of Iran.

Abramovich is filthy rich because he participated in the corrupt
disposal of state assets for political gain by Yeltsin, who later put
Putin "on the throne" and contributed to the mess we (including the
majority of ordinary Russian people, who are innocent) are in now. He
may (as Mark said earlier) have to suffer from having fewer yachts,
but he's not in prison.

The UK's government is by no means perfect but it is much more
legimate than Russia's or Iran's and more so than most in Africa and
Asia.

[The Todal]

Would we have taken any action against Abramovich if it hadn't been for
the invasion of Ukraine and the need to exert pressure on rich Russians
to intercede with Putin?

I doubt it.

[Ben]

Oh, so now it is a matter of degree then? Stealing a tuppence from the rich is OK, but we draw the line at stealing their entire fortune?

[Fredxx]

On 27/05/2022 06:10, Ben wrote:

Given humans rights are cited where the government disadvantages a group
I thought there could well be a legal case in the future.

I am mindful of some of the arguments regarding property leaseholder vs
freeholder regarding buying out leases which disadvantage the freeholder
and potential claims against the government.

On the other hand, he has admitted, perhaps foolishly, that he bribed
officials as a means of acquiring his wealth.

[Ben]

I haven't been to Russia but it is not uncommon in some countries with dreadful and/or corrupt bureaucracies to have to bribe officials to get anything done.

If you're suggesting his wealth is forfeit because he bribed officials to get it, some questions do arise:
1. Where and in what jurisdiction did the bribing happen?
2. Does the UK have jurisiction over it?
3. Why did we accept his money earlier?
4. What due diligence was done?
5. Is the decision to confiscate it related at all to the bribes, or to the war on Ukraine and his alleged relationship with Putin?

Also, in the bigger picture:
1. What sort of due process was he given before he was sanctioned? Trial by jury or just a few civil servants deciding to do populist politics?
2. What department are these civil servants from that can decide who to sanction and what degree of pain to inflict?
3. Is there any oversight into the powers these civil servants wield?
4. What other powers do these civil servants wield?

May I suggest that anyone who jumps onto the populist "he's posh anyway" bandwagon examine themselves and see whether their support of sanctions-by-fiat policies is so different from the Soviets we claim to oppose.

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:10:42 -0700 (PDT), Ben <benada...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Let's keep politics out of this and focus on the legality/morality
>>of what happened to Abramovich.
>>
>>Essentially, he spent a considerable sum buying Chelsea FC (£140 million),
>>with further investments (£1 billion) and loans (£1.5 billion).
>>
>>Now because of circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to sell
>>it without seeing so much as a penny.
>
>The circumstances are not beyond his control. He could quite easily have
>made it clear that he has broken all links with the Russian regime and
>has chosen instead to align himself with the west. He has not done so.

This argument seems to be predicated on the idea that the British
government can reasonably confiscate the UK assets of any non-resident
who does not publicly declare his agreement with some aspect of British
foreign policy.

I do not recall previously hearing any such argument, or any such legal
principle. Nor does it seem compatible with traditional Western thinking
on human rights. Was it introduced before Mr Abramovich bought Chelsea
FC, or after? Does it also apply to UK residents? Does the individual's
declaration have to be genuine and truthful, or purely formal? What
purpose is it supposed to serve?

>Presumably, from a purely business point of view, he still thinks that
>there's more money to be made by staying loyal to Russia and losing is
>EU assets than by renouncing his loyalty to Russia and losing all his
>Russian assets. And I suspect that he is probably right.

Yes. The same would apply to British investors who choose to stay loyal
to Britain in any circumstances. Presumably you would approve of foreign
countries expropriating their overseas assets too.

Irrespective of any ethical points, such a system doesn't seem very
encouraging to international investment, when investors who refuse to
renounce their allegiance to their country of birth can be deprived of
their assets without recourse.

>It is, no doubt, unfortunate for him that he has had to make this choice
>in the short term. But it is, nonetheless the kind of risk that is
>unavoidable when investing in a foreign country.

It might be in North Korea, or African banana republics. But one might
have hoped that that wouldn't be the case in Britain, which has
generally tended to uphold fairness and due process. Partly as a a
result of that policy it has benefitted greatly from foreign direct
investment.

>You can never be
>certain that your domestic obligations will never conflict with those
>where you invest. And Mr Abramovich is far too shrewd an investor not to
>have been aware of that from the outset.

What obligations does Mr Abramovich have to the UK, other than to ensure
his commercial enterprises obey the law ? Is he obliged to support UK
foreign policy? Was he informed of this obligation when he bought
Chelsea FC twenty years ago?

>When the war is over and Putin is long gone he will still be a very
>wealthy man and will be able to invest once again in the UK. Maybe he'll
>buy Manchester Utd instead and make them a decent football team again.

What has that got to do with the rights and wrongs of confiscating his
assets?

>In the meantime, he neither needs nor deserves our sympathy for the fact
>that he, like very many people all over the world, have lost money as a
>result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

He may not need it, but he has mine. Moreover, I doubt that this new
British policy will improve our future prospects of inward investment
from other countries whose actions we may not always approve of.

>Mr Abramovich will, at least,
>ride it out, even if he has to make do with one less football team and a
>smaller number of yachts.
>
>>Some news articles try to make a connection between the sanctions Abramovich
>>received and the fact that he hasn't plainly condemned the war in Ukraine,
>>but so what? A person is entitled to keep dubious company and hold, reserve
>>or express their views as they see fit without sanction.
>>
>>Imagine if our bank accounts and assets were confiscated because of an
>>unsavoury friend we had. And no one in the news or leadership is
>>condemning this.
>
>Vladimir Putin is not merely an unsavoury friend. He is the head of a
>country which is engaging in war crimes in a foreign, sovereign state.
>
>>Anyone else think this is wrong?
>
>I'm sure there are plenty of apologists for the war who do, yes.

I remember this argument from the Iraq war. Everyone who criticised the
US-UK attack was accused of supporting Saddam Hussein.

--
Algernon

[Roger Hayter]

I am not going to enter the debate as to whether influencing a country by
sanctioning its political and financial elite figures is moral or not. But to
suggest that "civil servants" decided to sanction Abramovich without detailed
political approval at the very highest level of government is frankly absurd.
The government even gave him a few weeks to rearrange his affairs before
making the decision. And a money pit like a football club is hardly a
financial asset. It may be prestigious to own one, but I'm pretty sure even
giving it away would save him money.

I'm more concerned about real assets in the UK that he probably sold or put in
impenetrable trusts while the sanctions were delayed.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 28 May 2022 at 09:51:08 BST, "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:10:42 -0700 (PDT), Ben <benada...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's keep politics out of this and focus on the legality/morality
>>> of what happened to Abramovich.
>>>

>>> Essentially, he spent a considerable sum buying Chelsea FC (£140 million),

>>> with further investments (£1 billion) and loans (£1.5 billion).

>>>
>>> Now because of circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to sell
>>> it without seeing so much as a penny.
>>
>> The circumstances are not beyond his control. He could quite easily have
>> made it clear that he has broken all links with the Russian regime and
>> has chosen instead to align himself with the west. He has not done so.
>
> This argument seems to be predicated on the idea that the British
> government can reasonably confiscate the UK assets of any non-resident
> who does not publicly declare his agreement with some aspect of British
> foreign policy.
>
> I do not recall previously hearing any such argument, or any such legal
> principle. Nor does it seem compatible with traditional Western thinking
> on human rights. Was it introduced before Mr Abramovich bought Chelsea
> FC, or after? Does it also apply to UK residents? Does the individual's
> declaration have to be genuine and truthful, or purely formal? What
> purpose is it supposed to serve?
>
>>

We tend to go along with US sanctions against people or countries they are
waging economic camppaigns against, such as Iran, Iraq and China over the last
few decades (and many others I have not kept track of). Indeed, our banks
could not really function if they did not obey American instructions on
sanctions. These have generally involved confiscation or freezing of
individual's assets. Perhaps we would have noticed this more if any prominent
Iranians had bought popular sports clubs. On the other hand, Iranian politics
(for all their faults) does not obviously involve the corrupt acquisition of
billions of pounds of state assets by individuals.



--
Roger Hayter

[pensive hamster]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:47:43 AM UTC+1, Ben wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:12:08 AM UTC+3, Fredxx wrote:

> > On the other hand, he has admitted, perhaps foolishly, that he bribed
> > officials as a means of acquiring his wealth.
>
> I haven't been to Russia but it is not uncommon in some countries with dreadful and/or corrupt bureaucracies to have to bribe officials to get anything done.
>
> If you're suggesting his wealth is forfeit because he bribed officials to get it, some questions do arise:
> 1. Where and in what jurisdiction did the bribing happen?
> 2. Does the UK have jurisiction over it?

There is some information about how Abramovich made
his money here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/21/roman-abramovich-billionaire-oligarch-money-russia-chelsea

'... His elevation into an oligarch is unusually well documented,
chronicled in painstaking detail in an English high court judgment
of Lady Justice Gloster in 2012, when Abramovich succeeded
in defending a lawsuit brought by his former mentor, Boris
Berezovsky.'

The Guardian gives a link to that judgment (which I haven't read):

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/berezovsky-judgment.pdf

> 3. Why did we accept his money earlier?
> 4. What due diligence was done?
> 5. Is the decision to confiscate it related at all to the bribes, or to the war on Ukraine and his alleged relationship with Putin?

Some people may consider Abramovich's investments in this
country to be a form of money laundering.

[pensive hamster]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:47:43 AM UTC+1, Ben wrote:

> If you're suggesting his wealth is forfeit because he bribed officials to get it, some questions do arise:
> 1. Where and in what jurisdiction did the bribing happen?
> 2. Does the UK have jurisiction over it?

ps 'Unexplained Wealth Order' may be relevant:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51387364
5 February 2020

'Woman in £16m Harrods spend loses wealth seizure challenge

'... The Court of Appeal has rejected Zamira Hajiyeva's attempt
to stop the UK's first ever Unexplained Wealth Order from being
implemented against her.'

[JNugent]

Oh... in that case, should they have gifted him another ten clubs?

>
> I'm more concerned about real assets in the UK that he probably sold or put in
> impenetrable trusts while the sanctions were delayed.

Please explain why you are "concerned" about private citizens being able
to stay in possession of their property.

Has it always bothered you?

[Ben]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 5:10:13 PM UTC+3, Roger Hayter wrote:

> I am not going to enter the debate as to whether influencing a country by
> sanctioning its political and financial elite figures is moral or not. But to
> suggest that "civil servants" decided to sanction Abramovich without detailed
> political approval at the very highest level of government is frankly absurd.

How reassuring, that the very highest level of government (the same ones partying while the rest of us are in lockdown) approved the confiscation of assets.

So I presume you agree with the notion that our overlords may perform sanctions-by-fiat? No judicial oversight needed?

What other powers would you like to bestow upon them, to facilitate their glorious reign over us? You know, smoothing along those little inconvenient bureaucratic hiccups. The death penalty, extra-territorial rendition and a nice top secret prison island, surely?

> The government even gave him a few weeks to rearrange his affairs before
> making the decision. And a money pit like a football club is hardly a
> financial asset. It may be prestigious to own one, but I'm pretty sure even
> giving it away would save him money.

Well, clearly selling a football club is like flogging sundries at auction. Anyone who doesn't sell it in one week deserves to have it confiscated.

Serves him right for not selling it in time, let's help ourselves to the loot.

> I'm more concerned about real assets in the UK that he probably sold or put in
> impenetrable trusts while the sanctions were delayed.

Those assets are *his*, and just a few months ago there was this quaint notion that no person's property may be confiscated without going through the courts.

[Roger Hayter]

All I'm saying is that we've been doin this at the American's behet for thirty
years at least, I'm not sure why people have suddenly noticed it.


--
Roger Hayter

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> posted

I don't think that's correct, though.

>I'm not sure why people have suddenly noticed it.

--

Algernon

[Roger Hayter]

On 29 May 2022 at 08:48:22 BST, "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

In recent years this has a applied to Iranian, Chinese and Venezuelan
individuals to my knowledge. But I haven't actually researched it and there
may be a lot more.

--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

On 29/05/2022 11:59 am, Roger Hayter wrote:

> Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> posted

>>> "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>>> Please explain why you are "concerned" about private citizens being able
>>>> to stay in possession of their property.
>>>> Has it always bothered you?
>
>>> All I'm saying is that we've been doin this at the American's behet for thirty
>>> years at least,
>
>> I don't think that's correct, though.
>
>>> I'm not sure why people have suddenly noticed it.
>
> In recent years this has a applied to Iranian, Chinese and Venezuelan
> individuals to my knowledge. But I haven't actually researched it and there
> may be a lot more.

What? Outright confiscation of assets and property?

Forced sales of businesses?

You'll need to provide a few citations for that claim.

As a behaviour, it sounds more like the USSR, PRC, Vietnam (post '75),
Cuba, etc.

[Pamela]

The UK government officially stated that Abramovich ....

"... is or has been involved in destabilising Ukraine and
undermining and threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty
and independence of Ukraine, via Evraz PLC, a steel manufacturing
and mining company in which Abramovich has a significant
shareholding and over which Abramovich exercises effective control”.

Considering the corrupt origin of Abramovich's money, Britain should
never have permitted his investments in the UK in the first place.

The UK is now belatedly correcting its shameful past in acting as a
laundry for dirty money.

I can't see why anyone would object to this, other than perhaps Chelsea
football fans.

[Roger Hayter]

You may be right about the confiscation (though the Americans are fond of
doing this) and rather tasteless "reallocation". But freezing assets is more
usual.

Ignoring the rule of law, or making intemperate law, started with the
so-called "war on terror", but jingoistic hatred towards an "enemy" has popped
up historically quite often. Don't worry, comrade, you have nothing to fear
and total freedom of speech as long as you keep to the rather narrow range of
appropriate democratic, western thoughts.






--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

On 29/05/2022 03:33 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 29 May 2022 at 12:17:16 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2022 11:59 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>
>>> Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> posted
>>>>> "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Please explain why you are "concerned" about private citizens being able
>>>>>> to stay in possession of their property.
>>>>>> Has it always bothered you?
>>>
>>>>> All I'm saying is that we've been doin this at the American's behet for thirty
>>>>> years at least,
>>>
>>>> I don't think that's correct, though.
>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure why people have suddenly noticed it.
>>>
>>> In recent years this has a applied to Iranian, Chinese and Venezuelan
>>> individuals to my knowledge. But I haven't actually researched it and there
>>> may be a lot more.
>>
>> What? Outright confiscation of assets and property?
>>
>> Forced sales of businesses?
>>
>> You'll need to provide a few citations for that claim.
>>
>> As a behaviour, it sounds more like the USSR, PRC, Vietnam (post '75),
>> Cuba, etc.

I forgot to add the 1933-1945 period in Germany.

[Martin Brown]

I think he is entitled to feel hard done by. He is in a lose-lose bind.

Losing some (actually quite a lot of) money is still preferable to
ending up dead though! He can really only choose what he loses.

Russian expats that Putin dislikes tend to find Novichok on their door
handle or in their underpants (or some other weird hard to detect exotic
toxin). Or polonium in their tea. We didn't protest very much about any
of these extra judicial state sponsored murders...

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/780759713/in-new-book-journalists-alleges-russian-links-to-mysterious-deaths-abroad?t=1653821689746

Some other mysterious Russian expat premature deaths in the UK also look
a bit dodgy but we chose not to look too hard at them for fear of what
might be found.

Unless the ultratrace forensic analysts get really lucky the cause is
likely to be put down to natural causes, suicide or cause unknown.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Ben]

Well we do protest these extra judicial state sponsored murders, also by N. Korea and Saudi Arabia. But this sort of thing is par for the course for them.

But confiscation of assets without judicial oversight by a Western democracy?

[pensive hamster]

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:13:39 PM UTC+1, Ben wrote:

> But confiscation of assets without judicial oversight by a Western democracy?

As I understand it, Abramovich's assets have been frozen,
rather than confiscated:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/10/uk-freezes-assets-of-russian-oligarchs-including-roman-abramovich

'UK freezes assets of seven Russian oligarchs including
Roman Abramovich'

[Adam Funk]

Should we have done something earlier?

[Fredxx]

On 29/05/2022 17:30, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 27/05/2022 19:03, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 17:14:33 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/05/2022 15:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>
>>>> The circumstances are not beyond his control. He could quite easily
>>>> have
>>>> made it clear that he has broken all links with the Russian regime and
>>>> has chosen instead to align himself with the west.
>>>
>>> Would that not reduce his life expectancy?
>>
>> Possiby. In which case, he is acting in rational self interest. And,
>> equally, he can have no complaints about the downsides of that decision.
>>
>> Mark
>
> I think he is entitled to feel hard done by. He is in a lose-lose bind.
>
> Losing some (actually quite a lot of) money is still preferable to
> ending up dead though! He can really only choose what he loses.
>
> Russian expats that Putin dislikes tend to find Novichok on their door
> handle or in their underpants (or some other weird hard to detect exotic
> toxin). Or polonium in their tea. We didn't protest very much about any
> of these extra judicial state sponsored murders...
>
> https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/780759713/in-new-book-journalists-alleges-russian-links-to-mysterious-deaths-abroad?t=1653821689746
>
>
> Some other mysterious Russian expat premature deaths in the UK also look
> a bit dodgy but we chose not to look too hard at them for fear of what
> might be found.

Some are more overt, like the killing of Osama Bin-Laden. Extra-judicial
killings are not confined to Russia.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 09:02:32 -0700 (PDT), Ben <benada...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 5:34:22 PM UTC+3, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:10:42 -0700 (PDT), Ben <benada...@gmail.com>

>> wrote:
>> >Let's keep politics out of this and focus on the legality/morality
>> >of what happened to Abramovich.
>> >
>> >Essentially, he spent a considerable sum buying Chelsea FC (£140 million),
>> >with further investments (£1 billion) and loans (£1.5 billion).
>> >
>> >Now because of circumstances beyond his control, he is forced to sell
>> >it without seeing so much as a penny.

>> The circumstances are not beyond his control. He could quite easily have
>> made it clear that he has broken all links with the Russian regime and

>> has chosen instead to align himself with the west. He has not done so.

>> Presumably, from a purely business point of view, he still thinks that
>> there's more money to be made by staying loyal to Russia and losing is
>> EU assets than by renouncing his loyalty to Russia and losing all his
>> Russian assets. And I suspect that he is probably right.
>

>There is no guarantee that even if Abramovich condemned and distanced himself from Putin's war, that he would not be sanctioned anyway.

>
>> It is, no doubt, unfortunate for him that he has had to make this choice
>> in the short term. But it is, nonetheless the kind of risk that is

>> unavoidable when investing in a foreign country. You can never be

>> certain that your domestic obligations will never conflict with those
>> where you invest. And Mr Abramovich is far too shrewd an investor not to
>> have been aware of that from the outset.
>

>A conflict of interest making you lose your money if you invest in Somalia or North Korea is one thing. Having your investments confiscated by new laws rushed in consequence to a war you didn't start and had no control over, in the supreme paragon of moral virtue and rectitude that is Great Britain is another.


That presumes that GB is still the supreme paragon of moral virtue and
rectitude. Not everyone would agree with that.

>
>> When the war is over and Putin is long gone he will still be a very
>> wealthy man and will be able to invest once again in the UK. Maybe he'll
>> buy Manchester Utd instead and make them a decent football team again.

>> In the meantime, he neither needs nor deserves our sympathy for the fact
>> that he, like very many people all over the world, have lost money as a

>> result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Mr Abramovich will, at least,

>> ride it out, even if he has to make do with one less football team and a
>> smaller number of yachts.
>

>Whether or not he was and will continue to be a wealthy man is irrelevant to the morality of confiscating his assets.

>
>
>> >Some news articles try to make a connection between the sanctions Abramovich
>> >received and the fact that he hasn't plainly condemned the war in Ukraine,
>> >but so what? A person is entitled to keep dubious company and hold, reserve
>> >or express their views as they see fit without sanction.
>> >
>> >Imagine if our bank accounts and assets were confiscated because of an
>> >unsavoury friend we had. And no one in the news or leadership is condemning this.

>> Vladimir Putin is not merely an unsavoury friend. He is the head of a
>> country which is engaging in war crimes in a foreign, sovereign state.
>

>My statement was factually correct, and so is yours.

>
>> >Anyone else think this is wrong?

>> I'm sure there are plenty of apologists for the war who do, yes.
>

>ITYWF that there are (probably) no apologists for the war here. The horrors unleashed by a wholly unnecessary war is plain for all with access to free media, to see. The question is whether two wrongs make a right.

[pensive hamster]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 6:50:33 PM UTC+1, Ben wrote:

> ITYWF that there are (probably) no apologists for the war here. The horrors unleashed by a wholly unnecessary war is plain for all with access to free media, to see. The question is whether two wrongs make a right.

George Galloway at times seems to come close to being
an apologist for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. (I'm not
reallly sure what to make of George Galloway, at times he
seems to make some valid points, at other times he seems
to be make some rather wild and unjustifiable points).

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/war-in-ukraine-all-for-unity-collapses-as-galloway-called-an-apologist-nvz00375p

'Scotland’s most fervent anti-independence party has collapsed
after George Galloway, its co-leader, was accused of being
"an apologist" for Putin’s war on Ukraine.'

----------------------

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/world-news/ranting-george-galloway-blasted-pro-26405772

'Ranting George Galloway blasted for pro-Russian Sputnik show
as he spouts bizarre "biological weapons factory" claim'

[The Todal]

On 30/05/2022 22:46, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 6:50:33 PM UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>
>> ITYWF that there are (probably) no apologists for the war here. The horrors unleashed by a wholly unnecessary war is plain for all with access to free media, to see. The question is whether two wrongs make a right.
>
> George Galloway at times seems to come close to being
> an apologist for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. (I'm not
> reallly sure what to make of George Galloway, at times he
> seems to make some valid points, at other times he seems
> to be make some rather wild and unjustifiable points).

I see nothing wrong with being an apologist, ie for explaining a point
of view which is controversial or unpopular.

But when the information given is misleading or untruthful, that then
becomes abhorrent.

In Britain we have a proud tradition of truthful politicians, truthful
party leaders and truthful journalists. Who would ever doubt it? Yet, as
they say, the first casualty of war is the truth.

[Ben]

Open ended seizure of assets from a mortal, for the foreseeable future is de facto confiscation.

Across the pond our good friends the Yanks are more blunt about it; "confiscate and sell":
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-26/u-s-seeks-more-authority-to-seize-russian-assets-to-aid-ukraine

[Ben]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:11:47 AM UTC+3, The Todal wrote:

> I see nothing wrong with being an apologist, ie for explaining a point
> of view which is controversial or unpopular.

Indeed.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

> But when the information given is misleading or untruthful, that then
> becomes abhorrent.

100% agreed. And unfortunately it is becoming vogue these days to tell lies and untruths to advance one's position or gain popularity/views.

> In Britain we have a proud tradition of truthful politicians, truthful
> party leaders and truthful journalists. Who would ever doubt it? Yet, as
> they say, the first casualty of war is the truth.

Unfortunately sarcasm does not translate well over the internet and my sarcasto-meter is beeping but inconclusive.

Truthful politicians and party leaders? Surely you jest.

[Andy Burns]

The Todal wrote:

> I see nothing wrong with being an apologist, ie for explaining a point of view
> which is controversial or unpopular.

I'd think of an apologist as defending rather than merely explaining the
unpopular point of view.

[Ben]

It's too bad Putin couldn't/didn't have/didn't want to listen to anti-war apologists before embarking on his war. How many lives wasted as a direct consequence of the war, and the ripple effects in politics, economies, food/fuel shortages, etc.

Having worked in a few large organisations (academic, commercial and governmental) in democratic/relatively free countries I can tell you the peer pressure to "agree with the boss" and not "ruffle and feathers" is palpable indeed.

People who go against the prevailing winds or swim against the current become the nail that sticks out, that gets hammered down.

The point being that dissent is good, healthy and dissenters should be protected however much we disagree with them. However the line must be drawn at dissent supported by lies or untruths.

[JNugent]

On 31/05/2022 09:07 am, Ben wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:11:47 AM UTC+3, The Todal wrote:
>
>> I see nothing wrong with being an apologist, ie for explaining a point
>> of view which is controversial or unpopular.

> Indeed.
>
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
>
>> But when the information given is misleading or untruthful, that then
>> becomes abhorrent.
>
> 100% agreed. And unfortunately it is becoming vogue these days to tell lies and untruths to advance one's position or gain popularity/views.

"We couldn't find a seat on that train so had to sit on the floor, and
here's the photograph to "prove" it".

>> In Britain we have a proud tradition of truthful politicians, truthful
>> party leaders and truthful journalists. Who would ever doubt it? Yet, as
>> they say, the first casualty of war is the truth.

> Unfortunately sarcasm does not translate well over the internet and my sarcasto-meter is beeping but inconclusive.
>
> Truthful politicians and party leaders? Surely you jest.

"What is truth?" said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

[JNugent]

I'd think of an apologist as someone who issues an apology, whether on
his own behalf or that of another person or entity.

[Roger Hayter]

My understanding is that an apologist tries to at least partiallys justify an
action, or position, to an audience who feel that said action or view is
unjustifiable. Certainly not someone who admits something was totally wrong
and unreservedly apologises for it. Usually someone who thinks said action was
fully justifiable but realises his audience is not going to agree.

--
Roger Hayter

[The Todal]

Well, not the correct meaning of the term. But one might adapt it to say
that Boris Johnson is an apologist for breaking the covid rules. A man
who issues insincere apologies and in private takes the view that it is
infinitely trivial in the context of all the very important work he is
doing.

[Max Demian]

On 30/05/2022 22:46, pensive hamster wrote:

I don't know what Mr Galloway says, but, however evil Putin or the
Russians are, and however unjustified their invasion of Ukraine is, it
may be pragmatic for the Ukrainians to give up Donbas and Crimea (and
whatever other bits of Ukraine they want) rather than suffer the
destruction of their country if defeat is inevitable. Western supply of
arms has just increased the misery so far, without guaranteeing victory.

If Putin dies or is overthrown it's possible that Russia will give up
their aims, but they'll probably finish the job of destroying as much as
possible of Ukraine before they leave.

--
Max Demian

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 31 May 2022 10:26:38 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

You might indeed think that. But, actually, that's not what it means. A
apologist is someone who defends a particular point of view or course of
action, and is related to the word "apologia":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologia

The secondary meaning of "apologise" to mean an expression of contrition
has now taken over from the original, but the related term for someone
who apologises in that sense is "apologiser". "Apologist" still retains
its original meaning of someone who gives an apologia.

Mark

[Ben]

It is fait accompli now (the war and ensuing misery) but when the Russian bear was sniffing around the back yard of Ukraine, the Ukrainians should have understood the Russians well enough to know that Putin needed to be thrown a bone to be allowed to de-escalate with some of his Despot's Dignity intact.

Being led by a dictator is both an opportunity and a problem; the opportunity is that there is just one man the Ukrainians had to appease to get the Russians to leave them alone. The problem is that Putin probably doesn't even get truthful reports from his own people and everyone in the chain of command is afraid of reporting truthfully.

So the Ukrainians could have said something like "Yeah we won't join NATO in the foreseeable future" or "We accept neutral status". Words are cheap and lives are not, especially when made to a dictator who if reports are to be believed, has already one foot in the grave and is now more interested in how history will remember him as the Restorer of the Great USSR. In 5-10 years Putin would probably have kicked the bucket and Ukraine can re-evaluate their position.

I'm not excusing the Russian invasion in any way; just saying it *may* have been avoided if they gave Putin some token concession and clearly these concessions while hurting pride are cheaper than the actual ensuing harm.

As it is even in the most optimistic scenario of the war ending tomorrow and reconstruction money pouring into Ukraine - the flattened Ukrainian cities, lost youth of both Russia and Ukraine, broken families, destroyed infrastructure, etc would mean that both countries have been set back at least a generation if not more.

[GB]

On 31/05/2022 14:31, Ben wrote:

> Being led by a dictator is both an opportunity and a problem; the opportunity is that there is just one man the Ukrainians had to appease to get the Russians to leave them alone. The problem is that Putin probably doesn't even get truthful reports from his own people and everyone in the chain of command is afraid of reporting truthfully.

The Soviets have form on this. Their tanks rolled into Hungary, and then
Czechoslovakia, essentially without opposition. I'm sure that Putin was
expecting much the same result this time round - and as you say nobody
was prepared to tell him it wouldn't work out.

>
> So the Ukrainians could have said something like "Yeah we won't join NATO in the foreseeable future" or "We accept neutral status". Words are cheap and lives are not, especially when made to a dictator who if reports are to be believed, has already one foot in the grave and is now more interested in how history will remember him as the Restorer of the Great USSR. In 5-10 years Putin would probably have kicked the bucket and Ukraine can re-evaluate their position.

I thought the reports of Putin's illness were perhaps greatly
exaggerated, but, since Sergei Lavrov strenuously denied his illness
yesterday, I think he really must be gravely ill.

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted

>
>You might indeed think that. But, actually, that's not what it means. A
>apologist is someone who defends a particular point of view or course of
>action, and is related to the word "apologia":
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologia
>
>The secondary meaning of "apologise" to mean an expression of contrition
>has now taken over from the original, but the related term for someone
>who apologises in that sense is "apologiser". "Apologist" still retains
>its original meaning of someone who gives an apologia.
>

As the first person on this thread to use the term (in "I'm sure there
are plenty of apologists for the war who [think the treatment of
Abramovich is wrong]", could you name some of these apologists and tell
us exactly what they said? Just to clear up any confusion.

--
Algernon

[Fredxx]

On 31/05/2022 14:31, Ben wrote:

All countries that have a principle leader such as a president are led
by a dictator. The difference is that some stand re-election without
imprisoning or poisoning the opposition.

> So the Ukrainians could have said something like "Yeah we won't join
> NATO in the foreseeable future" or "We accept neutral status". Words
> are cheap and lives are not, especially when made to a dictator who
> if reports are to be believed, has already one foot in the grave and
> is now more interested in how history will remember him as the
> Restorer of the Great USSR. In 5-10 years Putin would probably have
> kicked the bucket and Ukraine can re-evaluate their position.

I agree with this sentiment. If anything else the incursion towards Kiev
would not have had less justification. Currently numerous countries
essentially blame Ukraine for their current situation with their blatant
desire to join NATO. NATO is seen by many as an offensive pact.

> I'm not excusing the Russian invasion in any way; just saying it
> *may* have been avoided if they gave Putin some token concession and
> clearly these concessions while hurting pride are cheaper than the
> actual ensuing harm.
>
> As it is even in the most optimistic scenario of the war ending
> tomorrow and reconstruction money pouring into Ukraine - the
> flattened Ukrainian cities, lost youth of both Russia and Ukraine,
> broken families, destroyed infrastructure, etc would mean that both
> countries have been set back at least a generation if not more.

This is a West's proxy war at Ukraine's expense. Sending arms to Ukraine
against Russia has been the greatest test of Russian forces anyone could
possibly have imagined.

[Fredxx]

Didn't Hitler do something similar against the Jews? How history repeats
itself.

[Roger Hayter]

No, this is nothing even remotely similar to what Hitler did, and I won't
insult your intelligence by explaining that comment. What it is similar to is
1950s American witch hunts against communists. It is now more apparent that
"communist" in American eyes is a label for for foreign peoples whose power or
independence we would like to crush. Clearly they don't think Russians have to
be communists to deserve crushing. Ditto Chinese. Whether the Americans
deliberately entrapped the Russians into invading Ukraine or whether that
stupidity was all Putin's fault I don't know; but it certainly plays into the
Americans' hands.

--
Roger Hayter

[Ben]

I would like to remind you that the Americans "confiscated" gold from private citizens in 1933 and forced them to sell their physical bullion in exchange for paper money at a set rate. It became a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

[Martin Brown]

On 31/05/2022 15:49, GB wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 14:31, Ben wrote:
>
>> Being led by a dictator is both an opportunity and a problem; the
>> opportunity is that there is just one man the Ukrainians had to
>> appease to get the Russians to leave them alone. The problem is that
>> Putin probably doesn't even get truthful reports from his own people
>> and everyone in the chain of command is afraid of reporting truthfully.
>
> The Soviets have form on this. Their tanks rolled into Hungary, and then
> Czechoslovakia, essentially without opposition. I'm sure that Putin was
> expecting much the same result this time round - and as you say nobody
> was prepared to tell him it wouldn't work out.

I expect he did. Ukraine had other ideas. It is their land to defend.

>> So the Ukrainians could have said something like "Yeah we won't join
>> NATO in the foreseeable future" or "We accept neutral status". Words
>> are cheap and lives are not, especially when made to a dictator who if
>> reports are to be believed, has already one foot in the grave and is
>> now more interested in how history will remember him as the Restorer
>> of the Great USSR. In 5-10 years Putin would probably have kicked the
>> bucket and Ukraine can re-evaluate their position.
>
> I thought the reports of Putin's illness were perhaps greatly
> exaggerated, but, since Sergei Lavrov strenuously denied his illness
> yesterday, I think he really must be gravely ill.

Modern technology and with deep fakes the world could be kept ignorant
of his demise for years. The days of some cardboard cutout colour photo
waving woodenly from some distant balcony are long gone.

I expect they do have a traditional body double or two lurking in the
wings as well much like the inestimable Herr Blofeld in the 007 movies.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[The Todal]

On 01/06/2022 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2022 at 10:32:55 BST, "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 31/05/2022 07:43, Ben wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 8:56:14 PM UTC+3, pensive hamster wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:13:39 PM UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But confiscation of assets without judicial oversight by a Western democracy?
>>>> As I understand it, Abramovich's assets have been frozen,
>>>> rather than confiscated:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/10/uk-freezes-assets-of-russian-oligarchs-including-roman-abramovich
>>>>
>>>> 'UK freezes assets of seven Russian oligarchs including
>>>> Roman Abramovich'
>>>
>>> Open ended seizure of assets from a mortal, for the foreseeable future is de
>>> facto confiscation.
>>>
>>> Across the pond our good friends the Yanks are more blunt about it;
>>> "confiscate and sell":
>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-26/u-s-seeks-more-authority-to-seize-russian-assets-to-aid-ukraine
>>
>> Didn't Hitler do something similar against the Jews? How history repeats
>> itself.
>
> No, this is nothing even remotely similar to what Hitler did, and I won't
> insult your intelligence by explaining that comment.

It seems at least "remotely" similar to me.

Jewish homes and property were seized under the Nazi administration and
given to non-Jews. The rightful Jewish owners, if they survived the
holocaust, had to sue for the return of their property.

Seizing the property of Russian oligarchs seems to target the owners for
being rich and Russian. The question of whether the assets were obtained
corruptly in the first place does not seem to figure largely in the
decisions.

I am not saying that I necessarily disapprove of seizing the property of
rich people. Perhaps I should worry about whether some of these rich
Russians happen to be Jewish.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:18:44 +0100, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:

>On 01/06/2022 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>
>> No, this is nothing even remotely similar to what Hitler did, and I won't
>> insult your intelligence by explaining that comment.
>
>
>It seems at least "remotely" similar to me.
>
>Jewish homes and property were seized under the Nazi administration and
>given to non-Jews. The rightful Jewish owners, if they survived the
>holocaust, had to sue for the return of their property.

Which nation, of which those Jews were citizens, had invaded a country
which was friendly to Germany?

Mark

[GB]

If you ask Jews now which was worse, a third of the Jewish population of
the World being killed, or some assets being seized, I'm pretty sure I
know the answer.

In contrast, none of the oligarchs has been killed by 'the West',
although some seem to have died in mysterious circs, probably at the
hands of the Russians.

"It seems at least "remotely" similar to me."

Very, very remotely, unless you entirely discount the murder of 6
million people.

[The Todal]

On 02/06/2022 18:37, GB wrote:
> On 02/06/2022 10:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:18:44 +0100, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/06/2022 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, this is nothing even remotely similar to what Hitler did, and I
>>>> won't
>>>> insult your intelligence by explaining that comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems at least "remotely" similar to me.
>>>
>>> Jewish homes and property were seized under the Nazi administration and
>>> given to non-Jews. The rightful Jewish owners, if they survived the
>>> holocaust, had to sue for the return of their property.
>>
>> Which nation, of which those Jews were citizens, had invaded a country
>> which was friendly to Germany?
>>
>
> If you ask Jews now which was worse, a third of the Jewish population of
> the World being killed, or some assets being seized, I'm pretty sure I
> know the answer.

Really?

If you ask a Jew which is worse, his grandfather's valuable art
collection being confiscated by the Nazis so that his heirs would never
have those works of art, or his grandfather being gassed in Auschwitz, I
think he would reply "what sort of a damnfool question is that? They are
both part of the same evil doctrine of Nazism. Why ask me to choose?"

>
> In contrast, none of the oligarchs has been killed by 'the West',
> although some seem to have died in mysterious circs, probably at the
> hands of the Russians.

Seizing the rightful possessions of other people is morally dubious to
say the least. Whether it's us seizing the property of Russian
oligarchs, or the Israelis seizing Palestinian land and property and
beating up the Palestinians when they resist.

>
> "It seems at least "remotely" similar to me."
>
> Very, very remotely, unless you entirely discount the murder of 6
> million people.
>

I entirely discount the murder of 6 million people, which is irrelevant
to this discussion.

[Ben]

To add insult to injury, many insurance companies after the war made it difficult or impossible for Jews to claim from policies, such as requiring those subject to arbitrary murder to produce death certificates.

https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20040201/STORY/100014063?template=printart

This follows the well known thread of:
1. Find a convenient target the powers that be would like to arbitrarily sanction, steal from, deprive the rights of, imprison or summarily execute;
2. Justify this with excuses such as: the money is laundered anyway, they are friends of our enemy, they are a fifth column, they look like our enemy, they are poisoning our water supply, they are not Aryans, etc.
3. Bypass the judicial system
4. Conduct (1) while the mob cheers.

A useful quote:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

- Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

> Seizing the property of Russian oligarchs seems to target the owners for
> being rich and Russian. The question of whether the assets were obtained
> corruptly in the first place does not seem to figure largely in the
> decisions.

Our government(s) are on the verge of moral and financial bankruptcy, with spiraling debt, the welfare bill exceeding income tax, and budget deficits. Asset confiscations are next, and the oligarchs make a convenient test case to gauge the public's response to extra-judicial seizure of assets. For now, the sound of silence to what is manifestly an unjust act is encouraging indeed.

[Fredxx]

On 01/06/2022 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:

> On 1 Jun 2022 at 10:32:55 BST, "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 31/05/2022 07:43, Ben wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 8:56:14 PM UTC+3, pensive hamster wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:13:39 PM UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But confiscation of assets without judicial oversight by a Western democracy?
>>>> As I understand it, Abramovich's assets have been frozen,
>>>> rather than confiscated:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/10/uk-freezes-assets-of-russian-oligarchs-including-roman-abramovich
>>>>
>>>> 'UK freezes assets of seven Russian oligarchs including
>>>> Roman Abramovich'
>>>
>>> Open ended seizure of assets from a mortal, for the foreseeable future is de
>>> facto confiscation.
>>>
>>> Across the pond our good friends the Yanks are more blunt about it;
>>> "confiscate and sell":
>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-26/u-s-seeks-more-authority-to-seize-russian-assets-to-aid-ukraine
>>
>> Didn't Hitler do something similar against the Jews? How history repeats
>> itself.
>
> No, this is nothing even remotely similar to what Hitler did, and I won't
> insult your intelligence by explaining that comment.

It's only "nothing even remotely similar" if you choose it to be. If you
substitute Jews for oligarchs in terms of seizure of assets, the forced
sale of businesses, it does seem reminiscent of past historical events.

Why do you deny this? Yes, I do agree no oligarchs have been sent to
concentration camps and that is where this comparison ends.

> What it is similar to is
> 1950s American witch hunts against communists. It is now more apparent that
> "communist" in American eyes is a label for for foreign peoples whose power or
> independence we would like to crush. Clearly they don't think Russians have to
> be communists to deserve crushing. Ditto Chinese. Whether the Americans
> deliberately entrapped the Russians into invading Ukraine or whether that
> stupidity was all Putin's fault I don't know; but it certainly plays into the
> Americans' hands.

So you wouldn't call Germany in the 1930s operating a witch-hunt against
certain races, that just happen to include Jews??

I wonder if these oligarchs will get some retribution through the courts
at some point in time. In much the same way some holocaust survivors
managed the same through various courts?

[Roger Hayter]

There is just such a disjunction between persecuting ordinary families in
their homes and making it impossible to live their life in peace, just because
of their race and persecuting a bunch of rich people with political
connections (as very rich people tend to have) to the extent that they are
slightly less rich and their travel restricted. But have no disruption of home
life if they want to go home.


The two cases are so wildly different that it is rather insulting to ordinary
German Jewish families to make the comparison; even before the mass murder is
considered.

I agree the reaction to Russians is hypocritical and based on geopolitical
rivalry, but a comparison between the persecution of rich Russians and that of
European Jews (and other minorities) just sounds offensive and detracts from
the point you want to make; which I otherwise largely agree with.




--
Roger Hayter

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> posted
>On 29 May 2022 at 12:17:16 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> What? Outright confiscation of assets and property?
>>
>> Forced sales of businesses?
>>
>> You'll need to provide a few citations for that claim.
>>
>> As a behaviour, it sounds more like the USSR, PRC, Vietnam (post '75),
>> Cuba, etc.
>
>You may be right about the confiscation (though the Americans are fond of
>doing this) and rather tasteless "reallocation". But freezing assets is more
>usual.

In fact, Abramovich does not appear to have been issued with
confiscation orders in the UK, not publicly at least. HMG have merely
frozen his assets. It isn't entirely clear what has caused him to sell
Chelsea FC now, rather than just hang on to it or appeal against the
freeze; perhaps some secret form of financial or political pressure.

>
>Ignoring the rule of law, or making intemperate law, started with the
>so-called "war on terror", but jingoistic hatred towards an "enemy" has popped
>up historically quite often. Don't worry, comrade, you have nothing to fear
>and total freedom of speech as long as you keep to the rather narrow range of
>appropriate democratic, western thoughts.


--
Algernon

[Simon Parker]

On 05/06/2022 15:39, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> posted
>> On 29 May 2022 at 12:17:16 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What? Outright confiscation of assets and property?
>>>
>>> Forced sales of businesses?
>>>
>>> You'll need to provide a few citations for that claim.
>>>
>>> As a behaviour, it sounds more like the USSR, PRC, Vietnam (post '75),
>>> Cuba, etc.
>>
>> You may be right about the confiscation (though the Americans are fond of
>> doing this) and rather tasteless "reallocation". But freezing assets
>> is more
>> usual.
>
> In fact, Abramovich does not appear to have been issued with
> confiscation orders in the UK, not publicly at least. HMG have merely
> frozen his assets. It isn't entirely clear what has caused him to sell
> Chelsea FC now, rather than just hang on to it or appeal against the
> freeze; perhaps some secret form of financial or political pressure.

An asset which is frozen cannot complete financial transactions.

Chelsea FC was granted a temporary order by HMG which allowed it to
complete a limited number of financial transactions but these were
limited both in scope and in value. (They have been discussed here in
detail previously, so I don't think it is necessary to repeat them.)

The temporary order ran until the end of May.

Had the sale of Chelsea FC not been completed by the date the order
expired, it would have quickly become insolvent and in addition to Mr
Abramovic losing everything invested in Chelsea FC, the club would have
ceased to exist in its current form and might never have recovered.

As it is, Mr Abramovic has lost everything invested in Chelsea FC, but
the club continues under new ownership.

Mr Abramovic lost either way, but this way the club was saved, FSVO "saved".

Regards

S.P.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 12:37:20 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:

>On 01/06/2022 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:

>> No, this is nothing even remotely similar to what Hitler did, and I won't
>> insult your intelligence by explaining that comment.
>
>It's only "nothing even remotely similar" if you choose it to be. If you
>substitute Jews for oligarchs in terms of seizure of assets, the forced
>sale of businesses, it does seem reminiscent of past historical events.

The Jews in 1930s Germany were completely and utterly[1] innocent of any
wrongdoing. They were citizens of the state in which they lived. And yet that
state chose to persecute them for no reason other than that the leadership of
that state found them a convenient scapegoat, motivated partly by political
convenience and partly by undisguised racism. And that persecution did not
merely extend to confiscation of assets, it went all the way to indiscrimiate,
cold-blooded wholesale murder.

The Russian oligarchs, by contrast, are not citizens of the UK, they are not in
any way having their lives threatened by the British authorities, and they are
not being attacked indiscriminately simply bcause of their ethnicity. Some of
them - and by no means all of them - are the subject of specific, targetted
measures because of their association with a foreign state which is engaged in
aggressive warfare against a nation which is friendly to the UK.

So no, what we are doing to the oligarchs is nothing like that which was done by
Nazi Germany to the Jews. It is a little bit like what we ourselves did to
German citizens who were unfortunate enougn to find themselves in the UK at the
outbreak of war, and what the US authorities did to Japanese citizens after
Pearl Harbor. And if you want to argue that those measures were unnecessary or
excessive, then do so. Some people might even agree with you. But neither of
those were in any way equivalent to the holocaust, and neither are sanctions
against Russian citizens today.

[1] As a group, obviously. I don't deny the probability that at least some Jews
were criminals, just as other Germans were. But as an ethnic group, they had
committed no crime or wrongdoing.

Mark

[JNugent]

The fact that what has been done and is being done to "Russian
oligarchs" is not the same thing as was done to Jews in Germany and then
in mainland Europe before and during WW2 does not mean that what is
being meted out to the Russian individuals is in any way justified.

[Roger Hayter]

On 6 Jun 2022 at 00:35:54 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>

snip

> The fact that what has been done and is being done to "Russian
> oligarchs" is not the same thing as was done to Jews in Germany and then
> in mainland Europe before and during WW2 does not mean that what is
> being meted out to the Russian individuals is in any way justified.

Indeed. What is being done to Iran, which we have to implement even if we
don't support, could equally be raised. That is why comparing what we are
doing now to what Nazi Germany did just confuses the issue, and the point gets
lost in annoyance at the comparison.

--
Roger Hayter

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 00:35:54 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>The fact that what has been done and is being done to "Russian
>oligarchs" is not the same thing as was done to Jews in Germany and then
>in mainland Europe before and during WW2 does not mean that what is
>being meted out to the Russian individuals is in any way justified.

No, of course not. Just like the fact that what we did to German citizens in
WWII was nothing like what Germany did to its own citizens doesn't automatically
justify the former, either. But if you can't make an argument against what we
are doing to the oligarchs without trying to imply that it's similar to what the
Nazis did to the Jews, then you probably don't have a very strong argument to
begin with. If the argument is worth making then it's worth making entirely on
its own account.

Mark

[JNugent]

In case there is any confusion abroad, that certainly isn't an argument
that *I* made.

[Roger Hayter]

Good point, I am sorry if it seemed I was accusing you of making that
argument.

--
Roger Hayter

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted

I have made such an argument on this thread, but no-one has tried to
address it.

--
Algernon

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> posted

>On 05/06/2022 15:39, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>> In fact, Abramovich does not appear to have been issued with
>>confiscation orders in the UK, not publicly at least. HMG have merely
>>frozen his assets. It isn't entirely clear what has caused him to sell
>>Chelsea FC now, rather than just hang on to it or appeal against the
>>freeze; perhaps some secret form of financial or political pressure.
>
>An asset which is frozen cannot complete financial transactions.
>Chelsea FC was granted a temporary order by HMG which allowed it to
>complete a limited number of financial transactions but these were
>limited both in scope and in value. (They have been discussed here in
>detail previously, so I don't think it is necessary to repeat them.)
>The temporary order ran until the end of May.
>Had the sale of Chelsea FC not been completed by the date the order
>expired, it would have quickly become insolvent and in addition to Mr
>Abramovic losing everything invested in Chelsea FC,

Why would he lose everything? AIUI when a company goes into insolvency,
the liquidator takes control, sells its assets, pays its debts, winds it
up and distributes whatever is left to its shareholders. Of course,
where a company is *actually* insolvent there usually wouldn't be
anything left, but in this case there probably would be, because Chelsea
FC is not actually insolvent, it's merely forbidden by law to pay its
creditors. It has enormous assets: whether these outweigh its
liabilities (which included a large debt to Abramovic) I have no idea.

There is also the issue that the liquidator would not be able to pass on
the proceeds of liquidation to Abramovic because of sanctions. However
they could hold it on trust for him until sanctions are lifted.

So in Abramovic's place I would be inclined to say to HMG, ok go ahead
and force Chelsea into bankruptcy. It won't hurt me, and you'll soon see
how popular it makes you. The fact that he hasn't done that suggests to
me that there is something we are not being told.

--
Algernon

[Simon Parker]

What you have failed to understand is that, whatever you, HMG, or others
may think of Mr Abramovich, he felt a sense of responsibility towards
Chelsea FC and wasn't prepared to see Chelsea destroyed merely to make a
point.

You clearly do not have the same loyalty or sense of responsibility to
the over 400 employees that depend on the club for their livelihood.

Yes, some of them are footballers that many consider are overpaid for
what they do but players represent a small minority of those employed by
a club. In addition to the main squad, there is the women's team, the
youth setup plus a whole raft of support staff.

Under the terms of the sanctions, Chelsea could not sell any new tickets
to matches, (so existing season ticket holders could attend matches, but
no additional revenue from additional ticket sales) which will means
losing slightly over £1m per match day. Additionally, many key sponsors
suspended their deals. For example, their main shirt sponsor (3
mobile), suspended their deal which is around just under £1m per week of
revenue lost.

So that's around £2m per week of revenue lost.

Furthermore, not only were they prevented from buying or selling
players, but they couldn't renegotiate contracts with existing players
so as their contracts run down their value drops until the contract
expires at which point they can leave the club for free.

Quite what you think liquidators would be able to sell is something of a
mystery as once the temporary order expired, liquidators would not be
able to sell anything as the club's assets were frozen.

In short, the only option for Mr Abramovich was to sell the club lock,
stock and barrel, taking the hit of a loan of around £1.5b he was owed
by the club, but which would allow the club to continue under new owners.

There are many articles on the precise situation facing Chelsea FC when
it was put up for sale, which was prior to Mr Abramovich being
sanctioned, and you would do well to read them.

Regards

S.P.

[The Todal]

And I can't follow your thinking at all. Somehow, whenever people
mention the Nazis and the Jews, the kneejerk response for some people is
to think "Holocaust, gas chambers, mass exterminations". Rather than
"biased courts, humiliating the government's opponents, police attacking
civilians and no longer protecting property but colluding in destroying
property".

The Nazis confiscated property. That's one of the bad things they did,
to usurp the normal law of the land in order to give preferential
treatment to Aryans and non-Jews.

The Israeli government has likewise turned a blind eye to Jewish
settlers seizing Palestinian land and property. If I say that's similar
to what the Nazis did, only a fool would think "eh? You're saying that
the Israelis are committing genocide now?"

I'm not a fan of any rich oligarch but I hope Abramovich has rights
under our laws. Maybe his rights will be upheld in a court of law.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roman-abramovich-one-of-uks-top-taxpayers-jgwz3jvqq

quote

Roman Abramovich has paid £1.75 billion in tax in the UK over the past
20 years, his lawyers claim.

Representatives of the former owner of Chelsea football club say he and
his businesses paid more than £41 million in 2019-20 alone in
corporation tax, stamp duty and employer’s national insurance contributions.

“This places Abramovich among the top 25 tax contributors in that year,”
they argue.

The revelations appear in legal submissions to the EU in which the
Russian oligarch, 55, claims sanctions against him are discriminatory,
disproportionate and based on false allegations about his closeness to
President Putin. It is thought similar submissions have been made to the
UK government.

The papers add: “Mr Abramovich does not have a privileged relationship
with President Putin in order to maintain his wealth and does not
benefit from Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of
Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine.

Abramovich says he has never expressed support for Putin’s policy
towards Ukraine.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:05:35 +0100, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:

>On 06/06/2022 10:52, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 00:35:54 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that what has been done and is being done to "Russian
>>> oligarchs" is not the same thing as was done to Jews in Germany and then
>>> in mainland Europe before and during WW2 does not mean that what is
>>> being meted out to the Russian individuals is in any way justified.
>>
>> No, of course not. Just like the fact that what we did to German citizens in
>> WWII was nothing like what Germany did to its own citizens doesn't automatically
>> justify the former, either. But if you can't make an argument against what we
>> are doing to the oligarchs without trying to imply that it's similar to what the
>> Nazis did to the Jews, then you probably don't have a very strong argument to
>> begin with. If the argument is worth making then it's worth making entirely on
>> its own account.
>

>And I can't follow your thinking at all. Somehow, whenever people
>mention the Nazis and the Jews, the kneejerk response for some people is
>to think "Holocaust, gas chambers, mass exterminations". Rather than
>"biased courts, humiliating the government's opponents, police attacking
>civilians and no longer protecting property but colluding in destroying
>property".

But the point is that the holocaust, gas chambers and mass exterminations were
the things that made what Germany did to the Jews (and other minorities) unique.
By picking Nazi Germany as the comparator, you are unavoidably implying that the
actions you are criticising are in some way similar to the worst of what the
Nazis did, not that they are similar to some of the more trivially bad things
the Nazis did.

>The Nazis confiscated property. That's one of the bad things they did,
>to usurp the normal law of the land in order to give preferential
>treatment to Aryans and non-Jews.

If you want an example of states confiscating property or infringing civil
liberties, there are hundreds of others to choose from, including our own
previous behaviour. And several of those are far more analogus to what we are
currently doing to the Russian oligarchs than what the Nazis did to the Jews,
not least because one of the key attributes of what we are doing now is that we
are doing it to foreign citizens, whereas Nazi Germany did it to their own
citizens.

>The Israeli government has likewise turned a blind eye to Jewish
>settlers seizing Palestinian land and property. If I say that's similar
>to what the Nazis did, only a fool would think "eh? You're saying that
>the Israelis are committing genocide now?"

I don't think that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is anything like
what the Nazis did to the Jews either. But I do think that what we are doing to
the oligarchs bears comparison with what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
That is, it is arguably justifiable, but it is also arguably unjustifiable, with
a rational argument capable of being made on both sides. And either argument
needs to be made on its own merits, not by triggering Godwin's Law.

Mark

[Fredxx]

No, the point is I said, "Didn't Hitler do something similar against the
Jews? How history repeats itself." This was purely about the
confiscation of property.

You took it upon yourself to claim that Jews were "innocent of any
wrongdoing". I guess that depends on whether wrongdoing involves
foreclosing of loans, the removal of tenants in rent arrears, and the
placing of families onto streets, both homeless and starving.

[GB]

Can you just clarify something - was it only Jewish lenders who
foreclosed, and Jewish landlords who evicted? If there were non-Jewish
lenders and landlords involved in such wrongdoing, were they apt to be
gassed, too?

Were those Jews who were neither lenders nor landlords spared?

[The Todal]

On 08/06/2022 14:54, Fredxx wrote:

> On 08/06/2022 14:00, Mark Goodge wrote:

>>
>> But the point is that the holocaust, gas chambers and mass
>> exterminations were
>> the things that made what Germany did to the Jews (and other
>> minorities) unique.
>> By picking Nazi Germany as the comparator, you are unavoidably
>> implying that the
>> actions you are criticising are in some way similar to the worst of
>> what the
>> Nazis did, not that they are similar to some of the more trivially bad
>> things
>> the Nazis did.

I don't see the confiscation of property as trivial. You imply that you
regard it as trivial. I accept that nobody would have made a movie such
as "Schindler's List" if the plot involved saving the possessions of
Jews from confiscation and nothing more. Hollywood prefers to depict
mass-murder rather than abuses of civil rights.

>
> No, the point is I said, "Didn't Hitler do something similar against the
> Jews? How history repeats itself." This was purely about the
> confiscation of property.
>
> You took it upon yourself to claim that Jews were "innocent of any
> wrongdoing". I guess that depends on whether wrongdoing involves
> foreclosing of loans, the removal of tenants in rent arrears, and the
> placing of families onto streets, both homeless and starving.

Here I would want to point out that my grandfather, a headmaster in a
local school and a veteran who won the Iron Cross, and my grandmother
who was a nurse, didn't ever foreclose on any loans or remove any
tenants or do anything of that sort, yet they (as German Jews) were
taken to Auschwitz and gassed.

[pensive hamster]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 10:05:55 AM UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
> Somehow, whenever people
> mention the Nazis and the Jews, the kneejerk response for some people is
> to think "Holocaust, gas chambers, mass exterminations". Rather than
> "biased courts, humiliating the government's opponents, police attacking
> civilians and no longer protecting property but colluding in destroying
> property".

That may be due to the successful high profile of what
Norman Finkelstein termed "the Holocaust Industry"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry

[...]

> I'm not a fan of any rich oligarch but I hope Abramovich has rights
> under our laws. Maybe his rights will be upheld in a court of law.

I agree that Abramovich's legal rights should be respected.
I imagine he can afford good lawyers.

> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roman-abramovich-one-of-uks-top-taxpayers-jgwz3jvqq
>
> quote
>
> Roman Abramovich has paid £1.75 billion in tax in the UK over the past
> 20 years, his lawyers claim.

[...]

> The revelations appear in legal submissions to the EU in which the
> Russian oligarch, 55, claims sanctions against him are discriminatory,
> disproportionate and based on false allegations about his closeness to
> President Putin. It is thought similar submissions have been made to the
> UK government.
>
> The papers add: “Mr Abramovich does not have a privileged relationship
> with President Putin in order to maintain his wealth and does not
> benefit from Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of
> Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine.
>
> Abramovich says he has never expressed support for Putin’s policy
> towards Ukraine.

On the other hand, I haven't heard that he has ever expressed
any criticism of Putin’s policy towards Ukraine.

Russians who get the wrong side of Putin seem to risk dying
under mysterious circumstances.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 14:54:42 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:

>On 08/06/2022 14:00, Mark Goodge wrote:

>> But the point is that the holocaust, gas chambers and mass exterminations were
>> the things that made what Germany did to the Jews (and other minorities) unique.
>> By picking Nazi Germany as the comparator, you are unavoidably implying that the
>> actions you are criticising are in some way similar to the worst of what the
>> Nazis did, not that they are similar to some of the more trivially bad things
>> the Nazis did.
>
>No, the point is I said, "Didn't Hitler do something similar against the
>Jews? How history repeats itself." This was purely about the
>confiscation of property.

Then why not choose a comparison where it is far more obvious that you are only
talking about the confiscation of property?

>You took it upon yourself to claim that Jews were "innocent of any
>wrongdoing". I guess that depends on whether wrongdoing involves
>foreclosing of loans, the removal of tenants in rent arrears, and the
>placing of families onto streets, both homeless and starving.

As I said, I am sure that, individually, some Jews were guilty of wrongdoing,
just as some non-Jews were guilty of wrongdoing. The criminal tendency can be
found in all ethnic groups. But Jews were (and are) no more likely than any
other ethnic group to engage in wrongdoing. But, as a definable group, they were
innocent of wrongdoing. They certainly did not in any way deserve what was meted
out to them by the Nazis.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

Mr Abramovich is an exceedingly wealthy man. He has, presumably, made the
entirely rational decision that it is better to risk the loss of his UK assets
than to risk the loss of his life. I don't think anyone can reasonably criticise
him for making that choice. But it is, nonetheless, a choice he has made, and a
choice which has consequences. Assuming he successfully stays alive, he will
still be an exceedingly wealthy man. And when Putin is gone, he will be able to
invest in the UK once again. I don't think anybody needs to feel sorry for him.
If he is an honourable man, I don't think he would expect us to.

Mark

[Pancho]

The point is not that all, or indeed any Jews, deserved to be gassed,
they didn't. However, that does not imply that the Jewish group did
nothing wrong. That isn't to suggest that it does imply they did
something wrong, just that we would need to look elsewhere to decide the
question.

The point is that groups can exhibit negative group characteristics. The
British Raj, White people in the Confederate slaver states of the USA,
or Oxbridge Graduates. So it is theoretically possible that Jews in
pre-war Germany exhibited some negative group behaviours, were in some
small way responsible for anti-Jewish sentiment. I have no specific
evidence that Jews were on average any worse, in any way, than the
average German, but we should not categorically exclude that possibility
and prohibit any discussion of it.

So, if we accept negative group tendencies exist, we then have to
consider how fair it is to hold an individual member accountable. I
would argue it is an essential part of human behaviour, human history.
It is an essential tool we use to protect ourselves from other groups
and any negative behaviours they may exhibit. Saying that collective
punishments are wrong, and we should not use them, is like saying
killing is wrong, and we should not have an army.

Abramovich is also a strange case, because I'm deeply sceptical he is a
strong ally of Putin, I suspect he bought Chelsea specifically to defend
himself from Putin. I can't see that sanctioning him serves any useful
purpose in the Ukrainian context. However, I also strongly suspect
Abramovich only got to be as rich as he is by indulging in some shady
business, so he isn't a person I would rush to defend.

[Adam Funk]

I don't think those are comparable. The UK and USA are not
confiscating or freezing assets of ordinary people who happen to be
Russian (including a friend of mine). Germans were rounded up here on
the basis of nationality alone, and the USA (and Canada, I think)
interned not only Japanese citizens but their own citizens who
happened to be immigrants or their children. It's also worth noting
that a major reason for emigration from Japan was distaste for its
militaristic government, so those people were not loyal to Japan.

[Adam Funk]

You seem to be implying that reducing foreigners' civil rights is OK.

[Fredxx]

Legally, they did no wrong. In reality it was easy to blame Jews for
their greed as bankers. Perhaps it would help if every time a Labour
politician blamed economic collapse and poverty on "bankers" for the
2007/8 crash, you substituted "Jews" for "bankers". It might create the
flavour of the historical hatred to Jews aka 'bankers' and the hatred
dished out by left-wing politicians after 2007/8, albeit to bankers who
aren't a protected characteristic.

Most of the European banks had a Jewish history, which most banks tried
hard to discard by changing names etc.

> They certainly did not in any way deserve what was meted
> out to them by the Nazis.

On this we are entirely in agreement.

[Fredxx]

I suspect he also has family still in Russia and hence dare not speak
out against Putin or the war.

[JNugent]

On 08/06/2022 09:11 pm, pensive hamster wrote:

> The Todal wrote:

>> Somehow, whenever people
>> mention the Nazis and the Jews, the kneejerk response for some people is
>> to think "Holocaust, gas chambers, mass exterminations". Rather than
>> "biased courts, humiliating the government's opponents, police attacking
>> civilians and no longer protecting property but colluding in destroying
>> property".
>
> That may be due to the successful high profile of what
> Norman Finkelstein termed "the Holocaust Industry"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry
>
> [...]

>> I'm not a fan of any rich oligarch but I hope Abramovich has rights
>> under our laws. Maybe his rights will be upheld in a court of law.
>
> I agree that Abramovich's legal rights should be respected.
> I imagine he can afford good lawyers.
>
>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roman-abramovich-one-of-uks-top-taxpayers-jgwz3jvqq
>
>> quote
>

>> Roman Abramovich has paid £1.75 billion in tax in the UK over the past

>> 20 years, his lawyers claim.

> [...]

>> The revelations appear in legal submissions to the EU in which the
>> Russian oligarch, 55, claims sanctions against him are discriminatory,
>> disproportionate and based on false allegations about his closeness to
>> President Putin. It is thought similar submissions have been made to the
>> UK government.
>

>> The papers add: “Mr Abramovich does not have a privileged relationship

>> with President Putin in order to maintain his wealth and does not
>> benefit from Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of
>> Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine.
>

>> Abramovich says he has never expressed support for Putin’s policy

>> towards Ukraine.
>
> On the other hand, I haven't heard that he has ever expressed

> any criticism of Putin’s policy towards Ukraine.

Is he obliged to do so?

If so, by what and by whom?

> Russians who get the wrong side of Putin seem to risk dying
> under mysterious circumstances.

Some might say you've answered my question.

[pensive hamster]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 1:55:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 08/06/2022 09:11 pm, pensive hamster wrote:
> > The Todal wrote:

> >> Abramovich says he has never expressed support for Putin's policy

> >> towards Ukraine.
> >
> > On the other hand, I haven't heard that he has ever expressed

> > any criticism of Putin's policy towards Ukraine.

>
> Is he obliged to do so?

No, he is not obliged to, I was just trying to say that his
reported statement that he has never expressed support
for Putin's policy towards Ukraine, could be seen as a
cautious partial truth. It could be considered to be paltering.

Equally, it could be seen as a sensible caution under the
circumstances.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:57:10 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-08, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> If you want an example of states confiscating property or infringing civil
>> liberties, there are hundreds of others to choose from, including our own
>> previous behaviour. And several of those are far more analogus to what we are
>> currently doing to the Russian oligarchs than what the Nazis did to the Jews,
>> not least because one of the key attributes of what we are doing now is that we
>> are doing it to foreign citizens, whereas Nazi Germany did it to their own
>> citizens.
>
>You seem to be implying that reducing foreigners' civil rights is OK.

Yes, it is OK, at least in principle. The details, of course, are a matter of
balance, and the any reduction of the civil rights of foreigners does need to be
proportionate. But provided we do not attempt to infringe their rights in their
own country, and they are still free to return to their own country, we are
entitled to reduce their rights as compared to those of our own citizens.

After all, we do that even for entirely friendly visitors, by placing visa
requirements on them and not giving them voting rights unless they acquire
British citizenship. The difference between that and asset confiscation and
expulsion of hostile foreign citizens is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:56:19 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-05, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> So no, what we are doing to the oligarchs is nothing like that which was done by
>> Nazi Germany to the Jews. It is a little bit like what we ourselves did to
>> German citizens who were unfortunate enougn to find themselves in the UK at the
>> outbreak of war, and what the US authorities did to Japanese citizens after
>> Pearl Harbor. And if you want to argue that those measures were unnecessary or
>> excessive, then do so. Some people might even agree with you. But neither of
>> those were in any way equivalent to the holocaust, and neither are sanctions
>> against Russian citizens today.
>
>I don't think those are comparable. The UK and USA are not
>confiscating or freezing assets of ordinary people who happen to be
>Russian (including a friend of mine). Germans were rounded up here on
>the basis of nationality alone,

Actually, they weren't, at least not in the UK. They were all dealt with
individually, and categorised as one of three classes, A, B and C. Those in
category A were subject to internment, B were exempt from internment but subject
to restrictions on their activities, and C were exempt from both internment and
restrictions (essentially retaining the same rights as they had pre-war). The
vast majority of German citizens in the UK were category C, and subject to no
restrictions. Of the 77,000 "enemy aliens" registered in the UK at the start of
the war, 66,000 were intially assessed as category C. Most, but by no means all,
of those were German Jews who had fled the Nazis prior to the outbreak of war.

After the initial assessments, only around 500 German or Austrian citizens were
in category A. Some were later added to it as assessments were revisited. After
the fall of France, with the increased threat of invasion, another 8,000 were
interned, and when Italy entered the war Italian citizens in the UK were also
deemed enemy aliens and subject to the same assesment with 4,000 being interned.
At the peak, over 22,000 enemy aliens were interned by the UK. But it was soon
realised that many of these had been interned unnecessarily, and releases
started in 1941. By 1942 the number interned was down to below 5,000. There was
never a blanket policy of rounding up people on the basis of nationality alone.

Mark

[JNugent]

On 09/06/2022 09:46 am, Mark Goodge wrote:

> pensive hamster <pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> The Todal wrote:
>
>>> Abramovich says he has never expressed support for Putin's policy
>>> towards Ukraine.
>
>> On the other hand, I haven't heard that he has ever expressed
>> any criticism of Putin's policy towards Ukraine.
>
>> Russians who get the wrong side of Putin seem to risk dying
>> under mysterious circumstances.
>
> Mr Abramovich is an exceedingly wealthy man. He has, presumably, made the
> entirely rational decision that it is better to risk the loss of his UK assets
> than to risk the loss of his life. I don't think anyone can reasonably criticise
> him for making that choice. But it is, nonetheless, a choice he has made, and a
> choice which has consequences. Assuming he successfully stays alive, he will
> still be an exceedingly wealthy man. And when Putin is gone, he will be able to
> invest in the UK once again. I don't think anybody needs to feel sorry for him.
> If he is an honourable man, I don't think he would expect us to.

When did it become acceptable to deprive someone of their assets on the
basis of their national origin as long as their total wealth was more
than a given amount?

Whatever happened to due process (particularly for people not even
suspected to have committed an offence)?

Has Magna Carta been suspended?

Or did she die in vain?

[JNugent]

On 09/06/2022 02:32 pm, pensive hamster wrote:

> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 1:55:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 08/06/2022 09:11 pm, pensive hamster wrote:
>>> The Todal wrote:
>
>>>> Abramovich says he has never expressed support for Putin's policy
>>>> towards Ukraine.
>
>>> On the other hand, I haven't heard that he has ever expressed
>>> any criticism of Putin's policy towards Ukraine.
>
>> Is he obliged to do so?
>
> No, he is not obliged to, I was just trying to say that his
> reported statement that he has never expressed support
> for Putin's policy towards Ukraine, could be seen as a
> cautious partial truth. It could be considered to be paltering.

And would that justify the confiscation of his property?

> Equally, it could be seen as a sensible caution under the
> circumstances.

Why should anyone in a civilised country be under any sort of pressure
at all to make statements which they do not wish to make?

How would the failure to do so justify the appropriation of his property?

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:57:10 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-06-08, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>
>>> If you want an example of states confiscating property or infringing civil
>>> liberties, there are hundreds of others to choose from, including our own
>>> previous behaviour.

Does that make it all right?

I'd be interested to see this example of "our own previous behaviour".

>>>And several of those are far more analogus to what we are
>>> currently doing to the Russian oligarchs than what the Nazis did to
>>>the Jews,
>>> not least because one of the key attributes of what we are doing now
>>>is that we
>>> are doing it to foreign citizens, whereas Nazi Germany did it to their own
>>> citizens.
>>You seem to be implying that reducing foreigners' civil rights is OK.
>
>Yes, it is OK, at least in principle. The details, of course, are a matter of
>balance, and the any reduction of the civil rights of foreigners does
>need to be
>proportionate. But provided we do not attempt to infringe their rights in their
>own country, and they are still free to return to their own country, we are
>entitled to reduce their rights as compared to those of our own citizens.
>
>After all, we do that even for entirely friendly visitors, by placing visa
>requirements on them and not giving them voting rights unless they acquire
>British citizenship. The difference between that and asset confiscation and
>expulsion of hostile foreign citizens is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Such is your opinion, but others do not share it. There is a difference
in kind between residence, immigration and voting rights, which are
generally accepted as within the competence of national governments, and
property rights. There is, for example, special mention of the latter in
EHCR Article 1.

--
Algernon

[pensive hamster]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:46:45 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/06/2022 02:32 pm, pensive hamster wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 1:55:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 08/06/2022 09:11 pm, pensive hamster wrote:
> >>> The Todal wrote:
> >
> >>>> Abramovich says he has never expressed support for Putin's policy
> >>>> towards Ukraine.
> >
> >>> On the other hand, I haven't heard that he has ever expressed
> >>> any criticism of Putin's policy towards Ukraine.
> >
> >> Is he obliged to do so?
> >
> > No, he is not obliged to, I was just trying to say that his
> > reported statement that he has never expressed support
> > for Putin's policy towards Ukraine, could be seen as a
> > cautious partial truth. It could be considered to be paltering.
>
> And would that justify the confiscation of his property?

Some Russian and Ukrainian people seem to be against
sanctioning Abramovich:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/13/kirill-serebrennikov-war-exile-opera-russian-director-ukraine
Mon 13 Jun 2022
'... At one press conference in Cannes, [Russian stage and
screen director] Serebrennikov called for the lifting of western
sanctions on Roman Abramovich, one of the investors behind
his latest film.

'Asked about his public defence of a man considered by many
to be an enabler of Putin's regime, Serebrennikov said he was
merely repeating the words of the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelenskiy, who in March asked the US president, Joe Biden, to
hold off on imposing sanctions on the former Chelsea owner
because the Ukrainians felt he might be useful in their talks with
the Russians.

'When pressed on the issue again, Serebrennikov said it would
have been "dishonest" for him to stay quiet.

"It was important for me to speak out. Abramovich has helped
Russian contemporary culture a lot. He literally helped Russian
artists survive," he said, revealing that the oligarch paid for the
medical treatment of the Oscar-nominated director Andrey
Zvyagintsev in Germany.'

[Adam Funk]

So much for all the Thomas More quoted around here: rule of law is
only absolute for "people like us". Filthy politicians love to kick
immigrants around because "Catch-22 says they have a right to do
anything we can't stop them from doing". I'm disappointed by the view
that it's morally acceptable to treat people as inferior because of
their place of birth.

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:

Interesting, thanks.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:27:35 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> After all, we do that even for entirely friendly visitors, by placing visa
>> requirements on them and not giving them voting rights unless they acquire
>> British citizenship. The difference between that and asset confiscation and
>> expulsion of hostile foreign citizens is a matter of degree, not of kind.
>
>So much for all the Thomas More quoted around here: rule of law is
>only absolute for "people like us". Filthy politicians love to kick
>immigrants around because "Catch-22 says they have a right to do
>anything we can't stop them from doing". I'm disappointed by the view
>that it's morally acceptable to treat people as inferior because of
>their place of birth.

They're not being treated as inferiour because of the place of birth.
Fundamental human rights apply to everyone. But the privileges of citizenship
are distributed across many countries. The right to marry and have a family is a
fundamental human right. But that doesn't mean all of us have the right to marry
Cara Delevingne. Everybody has a right to be a citizen of somewhere, but not
everybody has a right to be a citizen of the UK. And we are perfectly entitled
to decide for ourselves who is entitled to the privileges of UK citizenship,
just as Cara Delevingne is entitled to decide who (if anyone) is permitted to
enjoy the privileges of married life with her.

Equally, all human rights are subject to limitation when justified by the need
to protect other people. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to the
right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, nor to slander or abuse. The right
to personal property does not extend to the right to own an unlicensed gun. The
right to personal liberty can justifiably be removed from a murderer or rapist.
And so on. Even the most fundamental right of all, the right to life, we still
accept can be justifiably removed from someone - such as an enemy combatant, or
a terrorist - who poses an immediate threat to our lives and safety or those of
innocent potential victims.

So there is no question that we can restrict the rights of persons associated
with a hostile foreign state. The question that does need to be asked when we
restrict the rights of persons associated with a hostile state is "Are these
restrictions proportionate and justified?". And if the answer is "yes", then no
fundamental human rights have been infringed.

Mark

[Adam Funk]

Due process and rule of law must apply equally though, or they are
worth nothing.

As for "associated with a hostile foreign state" (which sounds a lot
like "guilt by association"), I think you'll find that many (if not
most) ordinary Russians living abroad are not Putin supporters.

[Ben]

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 8:52:55 PM UTC+3, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 12:37:20 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 01/06/2022 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
> >> No, this is nothing even remotely similar to what Hitler did, and I won't
> >> insult your intelligence by explaining that comment.
> >
> >It's only "nothing even remotely similar" if you choose it to be. If you
> >substitute Jews for oligarchs in terms of seizure of assets, the forced
> >sale of businesses, it does seem reminiscent of past historical events.
> The Jews in 1930s Germany were completely and utterly[1] innocent of any
> wrongdoing. They were citizens of the state in which they lived. And yet that
> state chose to persecute them for no reason other than that the leadership of
> that state found them a convenient scapegoat, motivated partly by political
> convenience and partly by undisguised racism. And that persecution did not
> merely extend to confiscation of assets, it went all the way to indiscrimiate,
> cold-blooded wholesale murder.
>
> The Russian oligarchs, by contrast, are not citizens of the UK, they are not in
> any way having their lives threatened by the British authorities, and they are
> not being attacked indiscriminately simply bcause of their ethnicity. Some of
> them - and by no means all of them - are the subject of specific, targetted
> measures because of their association with a foreign state which is engaged in
> aggressive warfare against a nation which is friendly to the UK.
>

> So no, what we are doing to the oligarchs is nothing like that which was done by
> Nazi Germany to the Jews. It is a little bit like what we ourselves did to
> German citizens who were unfortunate enougn to find themselves in the UK at the
> outbreak of war, and what the US authorities did to Japanese citizens after
> Pearl Harbor. And if you want to argue that those measures were unnecessary or
> excessive, then do so. Some people might even agree with you. But neither of
> those were in any way equivalent to the holocaust, and neither are sanctions
> against Russian citizens today.

Just because the Americans did something does not make it right. You do not have to go very far into American history to find some examples of apartheid and eugenics that would fit into a Nazi playbook.

> [1] As a group, obviously. I don't deny the probability that at least some Jews
> were criminals, just as other Germans were. But as an ethnic group, they had
> committed no crime or wrongdoing.
>
> Mark

In quantitative terms of course the cold-blooded extermination of a race is not even morally comparable to asset confiscation.

However in qualitative terms, moral decay is a slippery slope. Would you be OK with stealing a penny but not pounds?

Also in chronological terms, the persecution of the Jews began with non-lethal singling out of a target group, such as registration and wearing Yellow Stars.

[Ben]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 4:01:05 PM UTC+3, Mark Goodge wrote:

> If you want an example of states confiscating property or infringing civil
> liberties, there are hundreds of others to choose from, including our own
> previous behaviour. And several of those are far more analogus to what we are
> currently doing to the Russian oligarchs than what the Nazis did to the Jews,
> not least because one of the key attributes of what we are doing now is that we
> are doing it to foreign citizens, whereas Nazi Germany did it to their own
> citizens.

I do not understand this distinction you are making. Shouldn't everyone be equal under the law?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that we may do to foreign citizens as we please? Or that they have different rights to ours?

> >The Israeli government has likewise turned a blind eye to Jewish
> >settlers seizing Palestinian land and property. If I say that's similar
> >to what the Nazis did, only a fool would think "eh? You're saying that
> >the Israelis are committing genocide now?"
> I don't think that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is anything like
> what the Nazis did to the Jews either. But I do think that what we are doing to
> the oligarchs bears comparison with what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
> That is, it is arguably justifiable, but it is also arguably unjustifiable, with
> a rational argument capable of being made on both sides. And either argument
> needs to be made on its own merits, not by triggering Godwin's Law.
>
> Mark

Kindly share with us what sort of justification do you advance for the seizure of the oligarchs' assets (not only Abramovich and not only us, but other countries as well)?

It is good that we are debating it here but tragic that it didn't get much debate in the true corridors of power. Sadly our leadership may have been somewhat hungover from Partygate and I fear a bit too eager for populist politics to boost the ratings.

[Ben]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 11:05:22 PM UTC+3, The Todal wrote:
> Here I would want to point out that my grandfather, a headmaster in a
> local school and a veteran who won the Iron Cross, and my grandmother
> who was a nurse, didn't ever foreclose on any loans or remove any
> tenants or do anything of that sort, yet they (as German Jews) were
> taken to Auschwitz and gassed.

May they be of blessed memory.

You have my sincere condolences. We catch a glimpse of the Holocaust on two people and already it is a terrible tragedy. Multiplied 3x2 million times over and it is incomprehensible.

Sadly the lessons of the Holocaust are too often not taught, downplayed, whitewashed or forgotten these days.