Russia Today's UK bank accounts frozen, says editor

1995 27 February – Maxim Shabalin, politics editor of Nevskoe Vremya newspaper (St Petersburg).[62] and Felix Titov, the paper's photographer, disappeared on an assignment to Chechnya. Despite numerous expeditions, from 1995 to 1999, no trace was found of the two men's remains. Missing [J].

20 March 1996 Chaikova, correspondent for the Obshchaya gazeta (Moscow) weekly newspaper disappeared while on assignment. Her body was found buried in the Chechen village of Gekhi on 11 April, blindfolded and bearing signs of mistreatment. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the back of the head. The identity of her executioners remains disputed. According to documents from Dudaev's archive, that came into hands of Russian special services in 2002, she was killed by people from so called "Department of state security of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" (Russian: Департамент государственной безопасности ЧРИ).[152][153] At the time there were strong suspicions that Russian security services were involved.

So far we have a list of two, not very prominent, journalists, who disappeared twenty years ago while reporting on a war with well-documented atrocities on both sides. I don't believe this is what the GP had in mind, writing that "prominent people (journalists, politicians, businessman) who uncover 'too much information' - just 'disappear'".

As an unrelated aside, this happened during the good Russian administration -- dynamic, democratic, West-approved Yetsin, who was so popular in his own country, that Bill Clinton himself came to Russia to support his election campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/18/opinion/mr-clinton-and-mr-...

President Clinton arrives in Russia today facing issues that will severely test his diplomatic mettle. Mr. Clinton's primary purpose is to join other world leaders in a weekend summit meeting on nuclear safety and security that seems primarily designed to burnish Boris Yeltsin's prestige as he campaigns for re-election as Russian President.

However, the sense in which this word is usually used in this context, is different. It usually denotes a forced disappearance, when a person is secretly abducted or imprisoned by a state or political organization or by a third party with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the person's fate and whereabouts, with the intent of placing the victim outside the protection of the law.[1].

For instance, the following can be validly said about Pinochet's regime and government in Chile: "He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them) ... Pinochet's name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex.” — Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation, National Review

I'll take doping scandal over institutionalized torture any time.

Your definition of what might 'weaken another nation' is your own and doesn't represent the views of everyone in the country. Just because something might deflate your nationalistic commie-hating boner or whatever doesn't mean it should be banned.

Your response that it's ok because "it's Russia" reminds me of a story that I heard. A man asks a doctor whether it's ok to pull the legs off a spider for amusement, and the doctor says it's not. The man asks why, since the spider isn't capable of feeling any pain. The doctor replies "I'm not concerned about what will happen to the spider. I'm concerned about what will happen to you."

That's what pretty much all major western media outlets do as well.

> Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)?

Like what laws?

> What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]?

Whats wrong with filming action? Seems like courage and dedication to me.

> But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen?

You don't realize how hilarious that is? You can find 100 equivalent western propaganda pieces for every one of RT's. I don't see people like you being against those media outlets.

> Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists.

Yes they will. They invite plenty of people for interviews that criticize Putin and Russia, and actually give them decently long time which Western media almost never do (like Noam Chomsky - youtube it).

> Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies.

Not nearly as well as Western media channels. Russian propaganda is children's cartoons compared to Western propaganda.

> "Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie.

Funny how you only have a problem with this when its a particular party expressing views you happen to disagree with.

What's more interesting to me is that Wikileaks is mentioned specifically in that release. I'm surprised they did this. They'd surely score more points by not acknowledging that Wikileaks exists. The fact that they did, really clearly supports what the OP said, in my opinion.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/reaction-to-us-...

While that'd be interesting on it's own, if the ancient lizard people aren't in charge of the UK finance ministry then it has nothing to do with this.

> What's the point of even stating something like this?

I'm making fun of the GP poster downplaying this as a non-issue. A bank doesn't drop a customer for no reason and given their for-profit motivation the only reason would be political pressure.