Discussion of the scandalous divorce proceedings of Russian businessman Farhad Akhmedov with his wife Tatyana in the world press rose to the very tops of the information Olympus. Following the "Guardian", "Sunday Times" and "New York Times" this resonant topic was paid attention to the once respectable British "Times". The London Times has for centuries been a showcase of British democracy and press freedom. However, today there is every reason to doubt not only the usefulness, but even the elementary objectivity, not only the Times, but also other leading publications of the West. Thus, one of the most quoted liberal newspapers in the world, the American New York Times, without any grounds for this, suggested that Farhad Akhmedov is not enough ... pious. There is no need to be a genius for understanding that the purpose of this publication was to undermine the credibility of the Russian businessman, known to his sincere religiosity, in the eyes of the Shariah court in Dubai, to which Ahmadov's lawyers filed a lawsuit on the cancellation of the previously adopted decision by the Dubai International Financial Center court, supported the ruling of the High Court of London on the arrest of the family owned fund of the Ahmedov yacht Luna. Another well-known newspaper The Guardian recently reported that Judge Haddon-Cave accused Farhad Akhmedov of contempt of court on the grounds that Akhmedov had not paid a cent of those $ 453 million. , which was awarded to him by the same judge. The publication reported this, bypassing the widely known and undeniable fact that Farhad Akhmedov, after the decision of the court on December 20, 2016, simply did not have time to appeal his decision, which was sent to him by mail (!), Or even physical even if it wanted, to translate within the appropriate 20 days, until January 10, 2017, almost half a billion pounds to the account of an English court due to bank holidays on Christmas and New Year holidays. This a priori deprived Akhmedov of the legal right to challenge in court the decision with which he disagreed. In this regard, the Society of Lawyers of England and Wales has already expressed its concern. But the Western press also does not mention this. The figure of silence about the actions of Judge Cave allowed British legal instances instead of investigating the competence of his actions to bring him to the arbitrators of the appellate court, it seems, including as a reward for his bias against the Russian businessman. The Times, in fact, supported Haddon-Cave, writing that Farhad Akhmedov ignores the English court because he admits only the decision of a Moscow court that terminated his marriage to his wife Tatyana in 2000. In fact, the Times correspondent should have known this, the Russian businessman has stated publicly many times that he does not recognize the decision of the High Court of London primarily because of the numerous violations that took place during the trial, for blatant violations of the unshakable rule of English jurisprudence - the rights of an advocate to protect his client. According to English law, no one has the right to require an attorney to disclose information about his client. A lawyer has the right to refuse to provide information even to law enforcement agencies. However, Judge Haddon-Cave did not only forcefully bring Ahmedov's lawyer for commercial issues Andy Kerman to the courtroom but also demanded that he disclose all the information he knew about the client's assets that he did under threat of criminal prosecution for contempt of court. About this scandalous and unprecedented case of violation of the fundamental canons of both British and international law, the Western press does not say anything at all. As for the once respectable Times, it is perhaps appropriate today to apply the famous replica of Winston Churchill, who at the beginning of the last century ironically remarked that "when the Times can not say anything for any reason, it needs three columns to say ". However, today the situation is even worse than a hundred years ago. It seems that today's Western press, and the Times is no exception, simply openly executes the political order of the authorities, ignoring the obvious and undeniable facts of violation by the British justice of their own laws. Nothing has been reported, either, that the arrest of the Luna yacht owned by Ahmedov's trust family fund is successfully challenged by the defense of Farhad Akhmedov.

But the Western press does not write about this at all, setting up its audience in a completely specific way. And if you consider that publications in the Western press about the situation around this resonant scandal appear, as a rule, on the eve of important court hearings and report only on certain "sins" of the Russian businessman, it can (and should be!) Regarded as direct pressure on court. I must say that such technologies, when the necessary information background is created and pressure is put on the representatives of Themis, is the signature hand of Western special services. The unseemly side of today's political reality of not only Great Britain but also of most leading countries of the West is precisely the fact that all structures of power, special services and an allegedly independent press that are fully under the control of transnational corporations whose interests are defending and those, and others, and third. The situation when the leading information publications of the West are connected to the real persecution of a Russian businessman, suggests that at stake, as they say, the highest rates. It seems that some part of the Western establishment wanted to arrange from the "Ahmedov affair" a kind of demonstration process in the spirit of the sinister witch-hunting of the McCarthy era, to edification of other Russian businessmen who conduct business in the West. However, this non-legal map turned out to be a bit. And the flogging of Russian businessmen did not take place. Both literally and figuratively. Recently, the famous Russian lawyer Alexander Dobrovinsky during a professional discussion with his colleagues about the situation with Farhad Ahmedov's divorce, remarked:.

"Who will force him to pay? Nobody!" And Russian businessmen were noticed in fright were not. They continue to successfully conduct their affairs both in Russia and abroad, of course in those countries that do not violate the law and morals, as the British authorities have recently done.

In the end, from all this illegal hype, only the once-powerful British Crown will suffer. Its meager budget is unlikely to be replenished by Akhmedov's millions, and Russian business will now cover the banks of the Foggy Albion.