Useful idiots in the Skripal case — the NHS, the Times, the Green Party, IPSO & others

In Russian culture there’s a tendency to treat women as princesses. It’s not universal, and some would consider it a form of condescension, rather than veneration or respect. But the tendency certainly exists, and many Russian men and women endorse or are influenced by it. For example, a few years ago I was ticked off for challenging a political statement by a Russian woman, not because my response was incorrect or ill-mannered (it was not), but because it was impolite to challenge a (Russian) woman in this way.
As another example, a Kremlin old-timer interviewed by (I think) Der Spiegel proudly condemned the attacks on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve in 2015, stating that the men committing such assaults would simply have been killed, if it had happened in Russia.
If it’s considered unmanly to have a normal, robust discussion with a Russian woman making a statement in public, how does the Russian macho mentality deal with the poisoning of a harmless, pretty Russian woman, Yulia Skripal, and her father, a former spy, in the first nerve agent attack on European soil in memory? (Dawn Sturgess, the British woman who was not just poisoned, but died, after coming into contact with the nerve agent, is less likely to trouble Russian consciences, as she is not «Наши».)
Russians, with a “freely elected” leadership who, with a high degree of probability, ordered (or at least enabled) the attack, might find this a little difficult to reconcile with their “protection of [Russian] women” ethos.
Russians mostly avoid this threat of cognitive dissonance by failing to listen to or read any news which is not directly or indirectly a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. Although the internet in Russia is not yet under strict control / censorship, a publication or journalist which is critical of the authorities is likely to face problems and a short life expectancy. Russia is ranked 148 in the World Press Freedom index (below states such as South Sudan, Venezuela and Pakistan).
All too often it seems that those with the language skills or curiosity to venture outside of the Russian disinformation sphere, do not seek out sources with a reputation for competence and impartiality, but are instead drawn to conspiracy theory websites and their ilk. Some of these sites may have connections to the Russian propaganda industry, but even those which have no such formal or informal links are delighted to promote the Kremlin line, as it aligns with their overarching agenda of considering every act and motive of Western governments to be nefarious.
Of the hundreds of Russians whose personal views I know or could have a good guess at, I shiver to think how many believe that the Skripal attacks had no connection to the Russian authorities or their associates. At best you might get some false-equivalence inanity such as “I disapprove of all governments” or “истина у каждого своя”. (I exclude those Russians I know who have moved abroad — most of those do have a nuanced understanding of what’s going on.)
Another example — you would struggle to find a more brazen example of Russian state-sponsored murder than the poisoning of Litvinenko with polonium. Far from being investigated or imprisoned or fading into the background, one of the perpetrators, Andrey Lugovoi, was rewarded with a seat in the Duma. I have heard a grand total of one of my Russian acquaintances express concern about this.
Changing the subject: Those of us who are not in the frontline can’t do much about what Kremlin assassins do. But we can control or correct what we say, do and think about related matters. The following real life case study, however, suggests than British institutions — including the NHS, the Times and the Green Party— really can’t be bothered.
The below letter — which remains sitting uncorrected as of 7 September 2018 at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/british-retaliation-against-russia-s-actions-p5hmpj8jh — was published in the Times on 16 March, and is now a key piece of evidence in one-hundred-and-one conspiracy theory websites:
“Sir, Further to your report (“Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment”, Mar 14), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.
Stephen Davies
Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust”
The conspiracy-mongers include the Green Party in the UK, and the Ron Paul Institute (as in the former candidate for US president):
https://twitter.com/ronpaulinstitut/status/979731519504896001?s=12
No follow-up letter or other correction was ever published in the Times or by the NHS, to the best of my knowledge. The Times has an e-mail address for readers to send in queries / corrections — they did not respond to the two e-mails I sent. Patrick Butler, Head of Communications at Salisbury NHS, sent me a ridiculously inadequate response, ignoring the misinformation published under his watch, and suggesting I should check the NHS website for generic updates on the incident.
In the absence of a correction, members of the public were presumably supposed to take the published statement at face value: i.e. “no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury”; and “no member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved” [i.e. novichok].
Therefore [the conspiracy-mongers reported], the various UK authorities are liars, the UK has orchestrated a baseless international campaign against Russia, Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible, etc.
As I wrote to the NHS and the Times: What on earth is going on with the management at the hospital / trust (not to mention the doctor who has his name on the ill-considered letter)?
One can equally ask — what on earth did the Times think it was doing in publishing this, and leaving it there uncorrected? Does no-one at the Times read this stuff before publishing it?
The related article on 16 March — https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-salisbury-poison-fears-allayed-by-doctor-vf9v0zg0m — is marginally clearer, but still links to and quotes from the letter, without bothering to mention that the letter is misstated. It’s one thing for conspiracy websites to trade in disinformation and lies, but here they’re accurately reporting what the NHS said, according to the Times. If this is the best that the relevant people at the NHS and the Times can do, perhaps it’s time to consider other forms of employment.
Given that this misinformation disseminated by the NHS in Salisbury and the Times is being widely used to besmirch the UK, and given the public safety and national security connotations, I also contacted the local MP John Glen, and Tom Tugendhat MP, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. No response.
Given that (per the above link) the Green Party also appears to be attaching its name to this misinformation, I also contacted their press office. No response.
I also contacted a Green Party councillor, Alex Harris. No response.
As the Times was clearly not up to the job, I filed an official complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation. In several rounds of communication with the junior officer, they seemed to struggle to understand that the statements in the letter, as published, were false.
IPSO formally responded that “We recognised that the letter’s statement “no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning” was capable of being confusing.” [It was not “confusing” — it was simply false.] “However, the letter made clear that “three patients” suffered “significant poisoning” and, when read as a whole, the letter did not suggest that Yulia Skripal, Segei Skripal and Nick Bailey had not been poisoned with a nerve agent. For this reason, we did not find that the article was inaccurate in the manner alleged.”
I responded to IPSO:
“Your interpretation of how the paragraph could be read is all very well, but in my complaint I included links to the opposite interpretation being used in “information wars” by the Ron Paul Institute (as in the former US presidential candidate) and the Green Party in the UK. In a five-minute internet search you could find a hundred other vehicles in which this letter has been interpreted in exactly this way. It’s a very useful letter indeed.
How does the above support your conclusion that the letter was clear? It’s almost as if IPSO are ignoring the real-life implications of what the letter says.
I’ll repeat — this isn’t a trivial matter where the price of milk has been stated as £0.55 instead of £1.55. It’s a major international diplomatic incident, and (near enough) a matter of life and death. A major UK newspaper is being accurately quoted, word-for-word, to support the argument that the whole incident has been fabricated by the UK — and you conclude that no correction is required?
It would require no effort at all The Times newspaper to arrange for the wording to be clarified, and the hundred-and-one sources claiming that the nerve gas poisoning never occurred could at least then be rebutted by referring to a reputable source (to the extent that The Times can be said to be reputable — see above).
The fact that The Times didn’t even bother to reply to my 2 e-mails regarding the matter is no less shocking than your own conclusion below. Astonishing complacency.”
Various things could have happened when I raised the above matter:
- The Times could have recognised its editorial incompetence in publishing the letter, and issued a correction
- The NHS could have requested that the Times publish a correction, and/or could have issued a correction of its own on the NHS website
- IPSO could have recognised that the letter was inaccurate—which is obvious to anyone with a basic command of English — and require the Times to issue a correction
- The local MP, John Glen, or Tom Tugendhat MP, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, could have shown some interest, and used their weight to encourage the Times or NHS to issue a correction
- The Green Party could have arranged for the misinformation on its website to be removed, and issue a correction / apology for the attention of anyone who may have read it and been misled
That is, there are at least 5 checks-and-balances that could have set the record straight, but each of the parties involved was either toothless, incompetent, or simply not bothered. Lenin, they say, used to use the phrase “useful idiots”…
