Barry Pring: Absolutely Betrayed by the British Legal System

As some of you know, I’ve extensively covered the case of Barry Pring, as all evidence shows, murdered by his Ukrainian wife Anna Ziuzina by Kiev, in 2008:

In January of this year, an inquest was held, which delivered a verdict of unlawful death, and more, the coroner, Dr Elizabeth Earland, stated that Barry had been ‘tricked’ into standing by the side of the road – clearly the only person who could have done this, his Ukrainian wife, Anna Ziuzina (pictured with Barry).

Things really started to move after that, with the case even being raised in Prime Minister’s Question Time, in late February, as MP Neil Parish asked the Prime Minister to ensure that justice was served against Anna Ziuzina. Pressure grew, and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson was due to discuss it with high-level Ukrainian officials in early April.

All of this was highly inconvenient for the UK, and their position of blanket support for Ukraine, whitewashing of any negatives in Ukraine. Boris Johnson was involved in the case, but never once publicly mentioned it – even when he was in Ukraine at that time. Actually, following the inquest verdict, there was considerable attention on it, all of which risked putting something in the public domain entirely, dangerously contradictory to the message the UK wants to project on Ukraine: corruption is just as bad, or worse, than it ever was there. (The UK message is that ‘everything in Ukraine is getting better after Euromaidan, reform‘ etc).

Actually, when I’d interviewed MP Neil Parish in February, he stated the problem with corruption in Ukraine:

As the case was going up, it was clearly going to have ramifications, and implications. The UK, only used to fawning over Ukraine (just have a look at Boris here, at the recent ‘UK / Ukraine reform conference’ in London. ), was going to have to ask some uncomfortable questions of Ukraine. The UK, used to only issuing glowing reports about Ukraine, was going to have to say some hard words.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

But just as things were about to get very inconvenient for the UK, something happened. After a letter by Ziuzina’s lawyer, long, rambling, full of factual errors, just two months after the inquest, the verdict was quashed. Just like that.

The coroner had had nine years to look over the facts of the case. Yet a claim based on easily disproved evidence by Ziuzina’s lawyer (and having earlier had his letter, I wrote to the coroner disproving it – he claimed a U-turn was 200 metres from the restaurant, it was actually over 600 metres – easily checkable on Google Maps), had the coroner suddenly ‘becoming aware of new evidence of this practice of hailing taxis’. This was one of 3 reasons cited in the quashing.

Meanwhile the coroner suddenly dismissed my evidence as being based on ‘commercial interest’ – despite the e-book I wrote on the subject not being on sale for over 4 years, that never having been for ‘commercial interest’, and my having done nothing of any ‘commercial interest’ on the theme. Plus, my evidence, praised so fulsomely in January by the coroner, was now ‘hearsay evidence’, despite everything in the 58-page document I’d submitted being fact-checked, and referenced.

The other reason given for the quashing was that Ziuzina herself was not present, despite her being given every notification, and opportunity to attend.

The quashing of the inquest verdict was a farce, an insult to the Pring family, a mockery of the reputation of the British legal system. Since then, Ziuzina has lauched a PR campaign to clear her name, with members of the UK press seemingly happy to take her lawyer’s word, perhaps more than that, and the UK government more than happy to allow the Ziuzina campaign, to avoid pressure for a second inquest from which may emerge more uncomfortable details of the UK’s new ‘best friend’, Ukraine, and its true nature.

The injustice for Barry Pring just goes on, as his murder in 2008 becomes an ‘inconvenience’ for the UK government in 2017.

More to come.

‘Gay Britannia’ – Onanistic Self-Absorption Britannia

I was just in the UK for a bit there, and have to say, I very quickly got sick of ‘Gay Britannia’ plastered everywhere, all over the tv, as part of the ‘Gay Britannia’ season.

Why can gay rights not include just living their lives as anyone else does, without constantly, literally, forcing it down people’s throats?

It’s not equal rights etc, it’s just undue fixation on people’s sexual orientation when there are things far more deserving of time, and attention.

And I don’t get how any one group has the right to add their own adjective to ‘Britannia’ either…. all just onanistic self absorption.

And that’s that.

My flat in Odessa: Now for Sale

In 2012, I fell in love with the city of Odessa. In summer of 2013, I used what I’d saved in my working life, and borrowed some, to buy a flat there, a few kilometres out of the centre, in the Kotovsky area, for $55,000, in September.

I imagined a life there. But it didn’t work out that way. In November of 2013, Euromaidan began, in March of 2014, crisis, conflict, April 2014 – war, and I left for Donbass, not to return (as of this point in time).

I’ve not returned to Odessa since, being banned from Ukraine for 3 years. However, my ban from Ukraine has now expired. 

Thus, I am now entitled to sell the apartment in Odessa, with full rights, and as I am not banned from Ukraine, I shall expect FCO support in this, if necessary.

This is not a farewell to Odessa, but I’m not a rich man, and can’t just have an apartment somewhere, unsure when I’ll be able to visit. Moreso with the amount of radicals, terrorists in Ukraine, and Ukrainian media having splashed my apartment all over the news:

If I have to pay tax to fund Ukraine’s war against civilians in Donbass ‘ATO’, I’ll give that same amount to the armies in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics to defend themselves from ‘ATO’.

I will do everything fairly, and reasonably, as always. And we go forward.

My 3-Year Ban from Ukraine Has Now Expired: Statement

My 3-year- ban from Ukraine has now expired, and I’m legally free to enter Ukraine again.

I have no current plans to do this, the radicals and terrorists there are unlikely to pay much heed to my having served the ban, and even obeyed it – I did not once go into Ukrainian territory in this time.

However, it can’t be used to ‘discredit’ my work from Donbass any more by the BBC, other propagandists.

I am now not banned from Ukraine, and work in Donbass just like any other journalist.