• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Wait! Sorry, are you trying to claim these police personnel were some kind of bunch of low level cleaners and filing clerks?
Click to expand...
Shameful Vixen, absolutely shameful.

Nobody claimed anything about the civilian administration staff who were on the Estonia being low level cleaners or filing clerks or junior staff on a jolly or minnows.

Those are all things nobody here has said or claimed or implied, but that you invented and have tried to say that others have claimed, when in fact nobody said or remotely implied anything of the sort.

This is just naked transparent dishonesty from you, shoving arguments into others mouths so you can chide them for saying things they never said.

Go on, quote where anyone claimed that the civilians working for Stockholm police on the Estonia, were anyone of those things.
 
zooterkin said:
No, that's the same as last time, so Mojo's post still applies:


Try again.
Click to expand...

Stop pretending you do not know what a treaty is.

If you do not understand the concept of 'disappearing' people was dealt with in the Rome Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law as opposed to other types of Treaty) then I cannot help you. Sorry.

I am out.

You can have the last word.
 
Vixen said:
Stop pretending you do not know what a treaty is.

If you do not understand the concept of 'disappearing' people was dealt with in the Rome Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law as opposed to other types of Treaty) then I cannot help you. Sorry.

I am out.

You can have the last word.
Click to expand...
What "Rome Treaty 1988" are you talking about?:confused:

It's not in the link you supplied.
 
Vixen said:
Stop pretending you do not know what a treaty is.

If you do not understand the concept of 'disappearing' people was dealt with in the Rome Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law as opposed to other types of Treaty) then I cannot help you. Sorry.

I am out.

You can have the last word.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep linking to a document from 19[size=+2]9[/size]8 when you have repeatedly referred to the "Rome Treaty 19[size=+2]8[/size]8"?
 
The text of the Rome Statute reproduced herein was originally circulated as document A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998 and corrected by procès-verbaux of 10 November 1998, 12 July 1999, 30 November 1999, 8 May 2000, 17 January 2001 and 16 January 2002. The amendments to article 8 reproduce the text contained in depositary notification C.N.651.2010 Treaties-6, while the amendments regarding articles 8 bis, 15 bis and 15 ter replicate the text contained in depositary notification C.N.651.2010 Treaties-8; both depositary communications are dated 29 November 2010. The table of contents is not part of the text of the Rome Statute adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998. It has been included in this publication for ease of reference.

Done at Rome on 17 July 1998, in force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544, Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations, http://treaties.un.org.
 
Vixen said:
Stop pretending you do not know what a treaty is.

If you do not understand the concept of 'disappearing' people was dealt with in the Rome Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law as opposed to other types of Treaty) then I cannot help you. Sorry.

I am out.

You can have the last word.
Click to expand...
Who pretended to not understand what a treaty is? Zooterkin was clearly not claiming that, he was just claiming that your link was not to the thing you cited, and that it did not say what you said it does. Again.

Do you even read your own sources?

You keep linking to a treaty from 1998 that founded the International Criminal Court. It said nothing about disappearing people. You're just lying at this point.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Stop pretending you do not know what a treaty is.

If you do not understand the concept of 'disappearing' people was dealt with in the Rome Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law as opposed to other types of Treaty) then I cannot help you. Sorry.

I am out.

You can have the last word.
Click to expand...

This is so absurd it's verging on disturbing.
 
Vixen said:
He [Bildt] flew to Turku the same day with Laar from Tallinn and PM Aho of Finland and by the afternoon had put out a press release it was the bow visor, even though Sillaste was the only one interviewed as of that time.
Click to expand...

That's your statement that started the discussion this time. You have of course made this specific claim many times earlier in the thread, but I can't be bothered to find all instances of it.

I answered you with this:
Here_to_learn said:
Citation please. In the reports I have been able to find in newspaper archives this is not supported. https://www.dn.se/arkiv/inrikes/carl-bildt-kande-folk-ombord/
https://www.svd.se/arkiv/1994-09-29/7¨
(Subscription required)

In the second article, there is some information about the press conference.


My translation:
"At the press conference, Carl Bildt was also asked if he was aware of the information that a front hatch on the ship was not closed and that it caused large bodies of water to rush into the ship.
Carl Bildt rejected the question and said that it was not the prime ministers' job to handle tasks belonging to the Accident Investigation Board."

So Vixen, show your sources that your oft repeated statement is true.
Click to expand...
Here I have a report from the press conference. We can see that Carl Bildt was speaking at that conference, and that he specifically did not claim that the bow visor was the cause.

We now come to your post as of today:
Vixen said:
The JAIC was the appointed body and thus, it was Kari Lehtola on behalf of Bildt, Aho and Laar, who acted as spokesman for the three nations at that press conference, in his JAIC function. When an investigation is going on, all comments and questions come and go to the investigator's and usually there is a nominated spokesperson.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that you now have moved away from claiming that Bildt did say that the bow visor was to blame during the press conference. That your original claim was that it was in a press release you seem to have forgotten.

Instead, you now seem to claim that Lehtola on behalf of Bildt said something. Exactly what he said you haven't provided.

That Lehtola is a spokesman for the three PMs is of course ********. Lehtola is a spokesperson for the JAIC only. The three country leaders speak for themselves.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You keep linking to a treaty from 1998 that founded the International Criminal Court. It said nothing about disappearing people.
Click to expand...


Actually, it does mention “Enforced disappearance of persons” at Article 7(1)(i), but only as one of the crimes against humanity that are within the jurisdiction of the court. It says nothing about Sweden disappearing people, and its presence in the list in no way “must mean that it had been happening”, in Sweden or elsewhere. For example, Article 7(1)(j) is “The crime of apartheid”, which hadn’t been happening since 1991 and which I doubt even Vixen would accuse Sweden of.
 
Vixen said:
Seriously? On Deck 6 where a relatively modest 'Junior Suite' costs €1,620? (As compared to a B-Travel Class which is only €99?)

Sure it might have been 'cheap' for a whole party of people but to claim that these were necessarily a bunch of junior staff out on a jolly is not quite true.

We know that some of this 'administrative police' group were in the luxury cabins because divers went there specifically to retrieve police documents and effects.
Click to expand...

Are there any facts you won't twist to justify your unhealthy paranoia?

None of this has anything to do with the bow-visor being knocked off by rough seas. Quit blowing smoke.
 
In any case, the Estonia sank in 1994, so linking the creation of an international court by 2001 to this tragic accident seems like a pretty crazy red herring, yeah?
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC was the appointed body and thus, it was Kari Lehtola on behalf of Bildt, Aho and Laar, who acted as spokesman for the three nations at that press conference, in his JAIC function. When an investigation is going on, all comments and questions come and go to the investigator's and usually there is a nominated spokesperson.
Click to expand...
Wait, what?

You've made repeated insinuations against Bildt over what he said at that press conference and now it sounds as if you're saying it was actually Lehtola who spoke instead. What the hell is going on here?
 
Vixen said:
Seriously? How incredibly ignorant. So according to you, doctors and nurses have a higher social status than a Hospital Administrator and the head of M15 is a mere 'back office' lackey compared to some aspiring spook on a need-to-know basis in a 'cell'. Thanks for the fascinating insight into how you perceive the world.

FYI the fact they worked in the Administrative Offices DOES NOT mean they are 'back office functionaries: HR, finance, facilities, etc.' I have worked in the Civil Service and I can assure you they are extremely well paid in the higher grades.
Click to expand...


What?????

In the context of the police force, the term "administrator" describes someone who works for the police, but who is not actually a police officer. And the people who work for the police force and are not police officers are - by definition - the support staff. Unless you think personnel such as the Chief of Police are not actually police officers LMAOOOOOOO

Are you actually deliberately trying not to understand this concept?
 
Vixen said:
How do you know they weren't? Not all cops pound the beat.

I've worked with investigators. They don't wear uniform.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?

Nobody said anything about uniforms.

The reason that people say that the police employees onboard the Estonia weren't police officers, it's because the facts are that they were civilian employees of the police, who were members of a civil service union going to a union conference.

Those are the facts. Deal with them.

They wren't elite police from an MI5-type internal security branch, as you admittedly guessed they possibly were. This is getting really laughable Vixen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom