Chelsea fan so read bias into my comments if you feel that's what's going on.
Note I am
not saying Roman is in the clear and should not be sanctioned. I can't say that because I do not know it to be true. My problem is that no evidence is being supplied to back up the claims made against him. The accusations against Roman are full of assertions but empty of evidence.
The Panorama program, which I saw being praised above, was a very poor piece of journalism. Examples: -
- Their evidence of links between Roman and Putin was that they were at a party together ten years ago! In any case that there are links doesn't matter. What matters is the nature of any links and whether they amount to Roman corruptly aiding Putin and supporting his war efforts.
- For legal protection the programme mentioned that Evraz denies suppling steel to the Russian armaments industry. They then continued making their point as if the denial is not true. That's fair enough. If they are confident of their information then they are justified in sticking to their guns but they have a responsibility to show how they know that the allegation is true. They didn't even hint at how they know however. It was typical tabloid tactics. Chuck the sensational headlines out there and rely on the fact that people will already have decided what they think before they notice the lack of evidence to backup the headline.
- The program asked us to accept that a 29 year old low level businessman of no repute was the architect of Boris Yeltsin's policy of rigged bidding processes for the sale of Russian state assets. This is obvious nonsense. It is no secret that Ronan paid bribes to acquire his Gazprom shares. This is not unusual, just look what is happening in our own country, but it is illegal. It can be grounds for barring Roman as a club owner but it is not a reason for sanctioning him.
If Roman is guilty of the things alleged then act against him but you have to show your evidence or at the very least explain why the evidence can't be revealed and and convince us that you are not lying. As it is, when MPs are only willing to state their assertions under Parliamentary privilege they surely have to understand why that weakens their position with anyone who is not prepared to simply lap up what they have to say.