The terrible death of Dawn Sturgess casts a new shadow over the Salisbury Affair. Dawn appears to have been a popular and well grounded woman with close friend and family ties, whose life had taken a downward turn before being cruelly ended.
The illogical, inconsistent and shifting government narrative over events in Salisbury and Amesbury had appeared so ludicrous as to be tragi-comic. Any sense of amusement is now abruptly dispelled. But less us take a serious and sober look at the government case.
Savid Javid stated today:
We know back in March that it was the Russians. We know it was a barbaric, inhuman act by the Russian state. Again, for this particular incident, we need to learn more and let the police do their work.
Actually, we know no such thing and, contrary to Javid’s deliberate insinuation, the police have adduced no evidence that it was the Russian state.
The media appear to have entirely excluded from the narrative that Porton Down specifically stated that they cannot determine the origin of the poison that attacked the Skripals. Nor has the OPCW. There are scores of both state and non-state actors who could have produced the nerve agent. No evidence has been produced as to the physical person who allegedly administered the poison. In short, nothing so far has been shown which would lead any reasonable person to conclude a case against the Russian state was proven.
I believe this following is the government narrative currently. I hope I am not mistating it:
Russia has a decade long secret programme of producing and stockpiling novichok nerve agents. It also has been training agents in secret assassination techniques, and British intelligence has a copy of the Russian training manual, which includes instruction on painting nerve agent on doorknobs. The Russians chose to use this assassination programme to target Sergei Skripal, a double agent who had been released from jail in Russia some eight years previously.
Only the Russians can make novichok and only the Russians had a motive to attack the Skripals.
The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow. Their trained assassin(s) painted a novichok on the doorknob of the Skripal house in the suburbs of Salisbury. Either before or after the attack, they entered a public place in the centre of Salisbury and left a sealed container of the novichok there.
The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even though the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the Skripals because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain.
Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the doorknb, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were affected.
Four months later, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were rooting about in public parks, possibly looking for cigarette butts, and accidentally came into contact with the sealed container of a novichok. They were poisoned and Dawn Sturgess subsequently died.
I am going to leave you to mull over that story yourselves for a while. I believe it is a fair statement of the British government narrative. I also believe almost (but not quite) every single sentence is very obviously untrue. I hope tomorrow to publish a detailed analysis explaining why that is, but want you to look at it yourselves first.
One final thought. I trust that Dawn Sturgess will get a proper and full public inquest in accordance with normal legal process, something which was denied to David Kelly. I suspect that is something the government will seek to delay as long as possible, even indefinitely.
Dawn’s demise is sad news. But had she recovered there would have been a good case for treating her as a prime suspect in the Skripal affair. Namely, her apparent access to novichok as well as the cctv footage of a blonde woman with a red bag in the vicinity of the Skripals just prior to their poisoning .
There are indeed disturbing parallels with the women implicated in the death of Kim Jon-un’s brother-in-law at KL Airport in February 2017 by a VX nerve agent (of a type manufactured by Britain). And hopefully Dawn was not considered expendable by those who orchestrated things.
RIP Dawn and sincere condolences to your family, friends and acquaintances.
First let’s assert and attest habeas corpus.
An urn doesn’t count.
Actually , that is a good point the parallel between the two girls in Kuala Lumpur Airport . I remember one of them was wearing a pink top with the word “LOL” and she tried to leave the scene by getting a taxi . And yes , VX was made by Britain so by the British Goverment logic , they are highly likely responsible for it .
On a serious note , I never queried the perpetrators of that Malaysia poisoning , but maybe I really should .
on another note there has been reports that the highest concentration of novichok was in their hands . Now that makes even less sense , they only fell ill the next day , they would have contaminated the bus , their friend , anyone and everything they came in contact with .
Either they are witnesses or they are active parts of the first act .
Let us say for a moment, that Russia is infact guilty of the two attacks, or one attack, and a misfortunate knock on event in the other.
What could the British government hope to achieve through Russian guilt? What is the punishment, or channels of punishment for committing such an act?
Sanctions, Russian ostracisation, in certain commonly shared fields. Possibly even armed conflict.
State actors can be caught and punished, but in my opinion the big states they serve, are very rarely held to account.
My guess is UN security Council is the goal. 5 countries have veto power, they are US, UK, France, China and Russia. Kick out Russia, don’t you know it is terroristic state using chemical weapons and grabbing land from neighbour countries?
Here you are, only China stays, but you can possibly bend it with trade war.
Here you are, from now on you can use military force in another sovereign state on ‘ legal’ agreement from UN. NATO bases are conviniently located all over the world already. Global domination.
Tatyana
This has been suggested before but there is no mechanism by which this can be applied and its achievement would only mean the end of the U.N.
SA, ha ha ))) google for ‘un needs reform’ and ‘russian un representative denied of US visa’
France, UK, US on the one side and Russia on the other. China mostly abstaine if a case smells a tiny bit of politics.
France, UK, US – hurriedly launched missiles in Syria before OPCW inspectors arrived.
And the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is expanding all the tiime to rival NATO.
SCO is not a military alliance
They don’t need to get Russia off the UNSC. They have just got what they want by empowering the politically controlled OPCW (no veto) to assign blame. They can just buy enough votes now to blame whoever they like after they have corrupted the labs that do the testing (already done).
It needs less money to have a UNSC without Russia, than staging chemical attacks every time 🙂 at last, it s risky, anyone would notice the pattern.
@Tatyana
Last time Russia(thenUSSR) was out of the Security Council, the UN got involved in the three-year Korean War;hardly a cost saving.
Hopefully Putin like Trump will be deploying people he can rely on for protection at Helsinki. The temptation to take both of them out at the same time would appeal to certain interests.
Tatyana, interesting. However, the British Government has not, to date, been able to provide a single shred of evidence to support their claim in relation to the Skripals, let alone this one. I doubt if this is the endgame as the UK Government is in complete disarray at the moment. I don’t know whether anyone would believe them any more. Certainly here in the UK and around the world, a large percentage of the general public don’t believe it!
It seems that the current UK government like Ukraine, for some reason (fracking sources, maybe?) At a guess, they want to be able to give Crimea “back” to Ukraine. They probably would like to see Ukraine take over Russia and turn it into an image of Ukraine, with a failing economy. The EU should not get involved, but for some reason the UK seems to be spoiling for a fight.
I am not really sure that this is for the sake of Ukraine, it is just a way of making Russia powerless and compliant. This has already been tried in the Yeltsin years but reversed by Putin and that is why he is hated.
Their love to Ukraine based on Crimea (very special place for a naval base. If not Russian, but a NATO base, it means going half the planet across to get to Mediterranian or to European seaports)
And general anti-russian hysteria task.
Vickie Nudelman & Geoffrey Pyatt was hoping to stand on the shores of Sevastopol and wave goodbye to the Russian Black sea fleet om their way to Novorossiysk. Her dream of a milk & honey kind of a Khazaria 2.0 for the “chosen ones” failed spectacularly…
Wow, bet the dumb banderista ukrops who were in the Maidan still dont know about Khazaria 2.0 with Odessa as capital.
Actually, US made a great gift to Putin by supporting and sponsoring nationalist politics in Ukraine. They were so insanely overracting with their hatred towards russians… that russians in Donbass and Crimea just could not stand those going into government and decided to separate.
If I didn’t know of US support, I could suppose Putin paid himself for anti-russian hatred in Ukraine, just to have a plausible ground to turn Crimea back.
—–
I answered this question at Quora, you may like to watch videos
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-a-lot-of-Russians-say-that-Ukrainians-are-Nazis/answer/Tatyana-Naumova
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-separatists-in-Ukraine-want-to-join-Russia/answer/Tatyana-Naumova
Serious question;
how do we know Dawn is dead?
You’re right, they could have mixed her up with Christopher Alder.
Good question Bob, however going by Craig’s tone at the beginning of his piece, he seems to think she’s a real person, maybe Craig has inside info and has been tipped off that she exists.
I should add however that in my opinion, it’s not unknown for security services to bump people off to point the finger of blame.
Well the government veiws her as a good for nothing, druggy, dirty rotten scrounger, who should be getting of her ass and paying her own way. Therefore expendable….
Unlike the Skripals, who are valuable assets of the security services.
As a local, I’ve met people who knew them – they’re genuine.
No, sorry, she’s def. deed, disposable people are very useful ! Don’t worry, there will be more !
I don’t normally comment, cos WTFDIK, but, but, this government must be one of the most, rapacious, avaricious, vicious, duplicitous, stupidous bunch of incompetous arseholes, (sorry), the world has ever seen ! And, to be fair, RUSSIA, whooops,capslock problem, but apposite, er, forgot point…
This is why you shou, shoodnot post wyle pished !
I di have a good point, sometime ago…
I’ve been asking that question here three times, even in the previous thread (where for some unknown reason my comment was deleted).
good movie.
Dawn of the Dead.
Today was the first time ever I’ve been called in to airport security to have my already checked-in bag searched.
A few minutes beforehand, I had texted my friend, who is Arab and Muslim, to tell her I was at the airport.
The blanket snooping on all communications in and around airports and the AI crossreferencing sender/receiver profiles is worrying, but in your case it was the dismantling and throwing of the phone in a bin after sending the text that initially got you flagged.
Which airport?
@bj One in Scotland. That’s all I want to say.
@flatulence’ 🙂
@N_
Officers sent to smaller airports tend to get bored and start looking for work (to fill in report sheets) that they would not bother with at larger airports. I had an hour interview at one on flying in to the UK indirectly. The questions were pretty much the same pattern as the Stasi’s on one crossing from West to East Berlin.
The MSM news channels keep having Alastair Campbell, the warmonger’s apprentice, on to comment. Today, Boulton on Sky News was talking to him in Albania. The BBC have him on too. He is after a re-run of the Brexit referendum for his master of course. He was keen to criticize Corbyn while he was at it.
I prefer “enabler” to “apprentice”
CNN recently had what they called a’beautiful British team’ to comment on Trump’s upcoming visit:Campell, Jeremy Hunt and the new edittrice of The Economist
Just a few thoughts;
(a) in each poisoning there has been a witness reporting, one a policeman,one a friend?. Are they actually the perpetrators?
(b) Israel has developed drones specifically to deliver chemical weapons. If Porton Down was used as the loading base then such drones would have limited range (Salisbury/Amesbury) but, silently there and back, no trace, no CCTV, no person of interest.
Mmmm!
Most of the CCTVs in Salisbury were taken out of commission quite some time ago (lack of finance, apparently).
Chris mmmm indeed. I had a thought about the fact two policeman seem to have been involved in these incidents. One who is neither back at work or been seen since and now this one whose car the Audi possibly is?
Question: –
\
Could someone with up to date information tell – where are the Skripals?
I doubt even the Skripals could tell you that one
There was an appallingly bad line today in the Commons from Jeremy Corbyn: “For the good of this country, the government needs to get its act together. And if it can’t, make way for those who can.”
Someone tell this guy to concentrate on the message. Here you go:
* this government is the most incompetent in living memory
* in 2 years since the referendum, the best it has come up with is a ludicrously self-contradictory, unworkable crock of shite
* RESIGN NOW
* CALL A GENERAL ELECTION NOW
Don’t say the Tory government should get its act together.
I think that was exactly what he was saying, without the CAPS LOCK on
Erm, I apologise for being ghoulish, but… Can we see the body??
It may be that I find it a little bit hard to believe that the British state would actually commit murder; of course, it may be just another blunder – would anyone go mountain climbing with these people? Rhetorical question.
Is hubris a subject topic in public schools?
“Is hubris a subject topic in public schools?”
The short answer is no, but in the long term perhaps the idea says a lot about the whole British story. Call me prejudiced, but I’ve always taken the view that the Tory ruling class elite are scum and they know they are.
The Tory ruling class certainly don’t think they are scum. They think everyone else is, and that they’re infinitely superior to those they were ‘born to rule over’; and that’s why they’ve no compunction about telling the most whopping and outrageous lies to those they consider little more than vermin.
Latest headline in the Miami Dade county Chronicle: –
“Loser Drug-Abuser with a penchant for dumpster-diving and cheap alcohol begins luxurious new life in all-expenses paid beachside condo”….
remember where you read it first
I too doubt that the British state would murder someone unless it was extremely urgent to do so (David Kelly).
I would say that the last thing anyone would want to use to commit murder is a nerve agent! The motive must either be morbid curiosity by someone with access to this chemical, or an attempt to falsely incriminate the Russian state.
My theory, for what it is worth, is that someone in Porton Down has gone rogue – decided to try one of their poisons out on actual people. I reckon many of the people who work there must be pretty psychopathic individuals.
Maybe this person walked around the park in Salisbury and heard two people speaking Russian, and chose them as their first victims – perhaps just giving them some contaminated object.
Our clumsy government seized on the Russian story even though it made no sense – perhaps they thought they could look statesman like handling it!
Eventually the murderer felt the urge to attack again.
Perhaps she was not murdered by anyone.Perhaps she was the victim of a drug overdose or bad batch and someone saw an opportunity?
Yes, but that would be the boring version. In any case, don’t you think that it’s a little coincidental that she and Charles Rowley were the two initial suspects caught on CCTV (the footage of which was released prematurely by the police before they’d got clearance to do so from the Special Branch)?
Johnson’s resignation letter. You will have to use zoom to read the two pages.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnsons-resignation-letter-brexit-dream-is-dying-11431429
Sajid Javid’s nonsense about knowing that the previous attack was by the Russian state is just out-and-out lies.
One of the saddest parts of this whole episode, apart from the death of an innocent woman, is how supine & unquestioning the mainstream media have become, with a few notable exceptions (Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, for example).
If Craig Murray and I know that nobody has proved who made the novichok which was used in Salisbury, then surely journalists know that as well, and they are just obediently toeing the establishment line, when they should be calling Javid out on his lies.
They are obedient servants. John Pilger must be disgusted with the lot of them.
How do we know the cause of death?
Matthias, we don’t
If the couple newly poisoned are the couple in the CCTV footage…..
The footage is blurry but it certainly looks at least possible. Here is how I would view it all:
The Skripals were never poisoned with A-234, but with BZ shortly before they were located in the park. Intelligence/police sprayed decoy A-234 in a selection of places they visited that day. A-234 was spiked into blood samples before being sent to OPCW or Porton Down. The plan to accuse the Russians of slipping the poison into Yulia’s luggage collapsed when Nick Bailey also fell ill.
Charlie and Dawn had the misfortune of seeing the attack with BZ and therefore the intelligence community feared – rightly or wrongly – they might be a threat. This is why they were one of the few (only?) CCTV images released. Police (or if you prefer corrupt elements in the police) were trying to identify and locate possibly dangerous witnesses.
The second (and real) novichok attack is to eliminate potential witnesses. Hopefully, since intelligence/police control all aspects of the 2nd attack, they have managed to construct a solid link back to Russia this time, rather than rely on the dopey “they must have picked up the container”. My recommendation would have been to select a random Russian who just possibly could have undertaken the first attack, and then lured them back to Britain for a brief visit. Such a pattern of brief visits matching the dates of the two attacks would be cheerfully accepted as iron-cast proof by the nation’s media. Still, time will tell. Lets hope they haven’t screwed up a 2nd time and poor Salisbury won’t need to have a 3rd attack
Finally, treat everything friends and associates of the pair say with some reserve and caution. People in these types of sub-cultures are very vulnerable to bullying and coercion from all kinds of people – including but not limited to police. If it seems a bit convenient (“Oh yes, they just loved to go binning”), then possibly it is. Of course, some of them will be as honest as the day is long, just it isn’t always obvious who.
I disagree with some parts of your theory. But I’m too inclined to think that the second poisoning is meant to establish a solid link to Russia. It is therefore surprising that nothing has yet appeared to that effect. The reluctance to identify the poison as being from the same batch is also baffling. Perhaps relevant announcements are simply being delayed because of the World Cup.
That all sounds very plausible. Though I tend to the option that Rowley and Sturgess were unwitting dupes who were bullied / threatened (threats of further imprisonment for further drugs offences) into delivering the BZ and its delivery device to the Skripals; or even just spraying it into the faces of the Skripals as they walked past them in the park.
Rowley and Sturgess then had to be dealt with – being that they couldn’t be relied upon the keep their mouths shut about what they’d done.
Everything is just speculation – my gut feeling is the CCTV images were put out because the authorities genuinely didn’t know who they were yet. A really professional planned hit would have tried to plan a route to and from the scene that avoided CCTVs as much as possible. Using Charlie and Dawn the chances of a cock-up seem simply too high – ideally you want at least one person known to the Skripals so that their close approach wouldn’t cause alarm. Of course this is all predicated that they are the couple in the CCTV, which is only a possibility on the evidence in the public sphere.
**Igor, the longer the police delay solving this, the greater the level of hysterical relief from the media when they finally give them something they can use to placate their viewers/readers. An investigation that lasts three months but finally produces a smoking gun will have greater verisimilitude than something that is solved by Monday.
From the first attack it seems likely to me that Britain’s intelligence agencies are in bed with Russian organised crime to a significant degree. In which case they should have plenty of assets to procure a DNA sample from a Russian patsy (just buy them a drink on a pretext, then swipe the bottle or glass when they have finished for example).
The biggest vulnerability is perhaps the people planning these things are suffering from Kruger-Dunning syndrome in regards to the dictates of science. For example I can foresee a scenario where the intelligence agencies thought that A-234 from the March attack would still be in pristine condition in July, only to be firmly informed after the attack by Porton Down that even if sufficient toxicity might be retained, it would certainly no longer be “exceptionally pure”.
In which case we may need a third attack so that finally all the ducks can be got in a row. If MI5/MI6/Special Branch need any help in the planning, they are welcome to get in touch. I’ve got plenty of good ideas about how it could be carried out
Having not long finished listening to the televised Amesbury statement by Home Secretary Sajid Javid and questions pertaining thereto (thank you ‘Sharp Ears’), I conclude that the entire membership of the HoC should be made to remain behind after school to watch ‘All the President’s Men’, as a salutary reminder that a small fuck up by underlings can have major consequences for government. (“Forget the myths the media have created about the White House. The truth is these are not very bright guys.” For ‘White House’ read ‘House of Commons’).
The session was grotesque, one of the first questions seeking the Home Sec.’s guaranty of safety for additional political exiles from Russia (Russian culpability over the Skripal poisoning being of course a ‘given’). Others were quick to jump on the ‘Russians dun it’ bandwagon, including Home Sec. Javid, who repeated the government’s conviction (they should all be convicted if you ask me) that Russia was responsible for Salisbury, as confirmed by the 23 other nations that saw fit to expel Russian diplomats. (That wouldn’t have been after we’d twisted the OPCW’s arm and lobbied said nations to fall into line would it?).
But Amesbury is different. “We must go where the evidence leads”. Really? So why was that dose of common sense not administered in March?
From this point it became even more ridiculous, if that were possible. De-contamination at Amesbury cannot proceed until the police have investigated the various sites potentially implicated in Dawn Sturgess’ murder (I trust Wiltshire Constabulary/Special Branch have sufficient reserves to meet any compensation claims in due course).
In answer to one of the less propagandizing entreaties, the Home Sec. responded that it was not possible to identify the Amesbury ‘nerve agent’ (the term was repeatedly bandied about) as being from the same batch as that responsible for disabling the Skripals, because all the analysts had to go on were blood samples from the victims, and “that was not enough.” And yet no more than this was required to identify the Salisbury toxin as ‘Russian’.
If the government thought they’d got away with their fantasy island story earlier, they clearly hadn’t reckoned on Murphy’s Law. The unfortunate death of Dawn Sturgess has turned the lights back on with a vengeance. Oh, and the Amesbury policeman wasn’t poisoned after all.
The Hansard record is on here. It is not complete yet.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-07-09/debates/F26838E5-B4D6-4CD5-9BC0-BE53133FBB54/AmesburyUpdate
At the moment it ends with Offord Con Hendon giving Basu a glowing reference. Incidentally Offord is a leading light in the Conservative Friends of Israel lobby group to which Javid also belongs. Javid once said he would like to live in Israel!
A puff piece here with that reference within.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/meet-sajid-javid-uks-top-muslim-pro-israel-politician-who-just-may-become-pm/
“Javid once said he would like to live in Israel!”
And you called him a traitor and an “Uncle Tom”. Nothing like a white person telling a brown person how they ought to think, eh Sharp Ears?
Ps, he actually said that given the choice he would rather live in Israel than any other state in the Middle East. Sensible choice, even for a Muslim.
A patently racist specimen ranting about others being racist.
“Even for a Muslim” because it is often alleged that Israel is terrible for Muslims, even though Israel is a better place for a Muslim to live than most of the Muslim states in the Middle East.
Apart from burning thier olive trees and killing children playing football on the beach.
@ 21.22
All I know is that this country has a penchant for killing and maiming brown skinned people. And, by the way, ‘Uncle Tom’ is not a phrase in my vocabulary.
I do call those supporters of another country who are in our parliament ‘traitors’, ie members of the Friends of Israel lobby groups in all THREE
parties.
Enough. Pop back into the woodwork now, there’s a good girl.
Thank you for the Hansard link Sharp Ears. Worth keeping for posterity and that ‘I told you so’ moment that’s looking increasingly inevitable.
Just an ‘out of the blue’ thought. What if there is no connection between the events at Salisbury and Amesbury beyond the victims all being poisoned, i.e. neither conspiratorial relationship nor motive?
The couple at Amesbury are now said to have received a strong (fresh?) dose. How can that result from residual contamination, after four months, by the seemingly weaker substance involved in the Skripal case?
If we disregard any ‘fluke’ contact with discarded containers and the like, then either there are two perpetrators each armed with the same toxin, or there is one responsible for both attacks. The latter being the more probable, he or she would likely be resident somewhere in Wiltshire, quite possibly Salisbury or Amesbury, with Porton Down in-between.
There are cases on record, in the USA certainly, of disgruntled employees exacting highly malevolent revenge. I wonder if anyone at PD with access to the drugs cabinet was given their marching orders earlier in the year?
Doodlebug, good points.
So we also need to discuss something which could determine the future of this country: the current Brexit debacle and the ongoing crisis of government. Is the Skripal affair and its sequel meant to distract from the incompetence of the current government? Well it seems to have achieved that on this blog.
The ongoing debacle is indicative of one thing. You can’t have your Brexit and eat it too. There is no way in my opinion that any form of Brexit other than a total or hard Brexit can represent the results of the referendum. Therefore there are 3 possible logical scenarios:
1. Total and hard Brexit with negotiating new terms.
2. Judicial review of results of the referendum to determine whether this is null and void due to some irregularities committed by the leave campaign and annul the results.
3. Persuade parliament that in view of the complexities and the misrepresentations and disadvantages of Brexit revealed in the last two years , that the electorate who are far better informed of the consequences of Brexit, should be given a second chance to make a more informed decision.
I personally do not think that it is possible to have anything other than a total Brexit on the results of the referendum and I know this view is not popular but maybe, just maybe, the hard Brexiters like Davis are right.
“Is the Skripal affair and its sequel meant to distract from the incompetence of the current government? ”
Is there any question about it?
“There is no way in my opinion that any form of Brexit other than a total or hard Brexit can represent the results of the referendum.”
Why? Any form of Brexit, from BINO to No Deal, corresponds to the referendum question. It is only the theologians of Brexit who have decided otherwise. I say “theologians”, because the position is very similar. Theologians are guys (males) who sit in rooms trying to figure out what God really meant from the very limited Holy Texts. Evidently it’s an act of logic, and frequently uncontrolled by reality. That’s what’s happening here – what could have been a very soft minor change has been mutated into a very harsh revolution by people interpreting “logically” what the divine decision of the referendum meant. It could have been otherwise.
We voted to leave the EU. There was no third option on the ballot. No little bit in or little bit out. The question was put to us whether we wanted to leave or not, and we voted to leave in the largest democratic mandate in this country’s history. All this crap about a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit is just a ploy to muddy the waters and keep us in. Now you may be of the opinion that the result of the referendum should simply be ignored by the political class, as Craig is, but please do not insult the intelligence of 17 million people by claiming they actually voted to remain in the EU.
‘We’ being 17m from a 46m electorate.
29m did not vote for it, and those who did not cast a vote to remain must have been content with the status quo and were influenced by the continual reporting in the media that remain would win. Additionally the leave campaign was not only based on nonsense and lies, but was illegally conducted.
Enough grounds to call into question the validity of HMG perusing such a policy when the result of the referendum was not even legally binding, and was deliberately kept that way to ease it’s passage through the House of Lords, otherwise the Lords may have insisted on a clear *majority of the electorate*.
perusing – pursuing.
Deb
That is what I am also arguing that the legitimacy of the referendum result comes into question. Moreover I think that you cannot ask a complex question like remaining or leaving by asking a simple question of yes or no.
The problem of how you count non-participants in a vote is a difficult one. At best you could just say they did not care enough about the outcome but they can certainly not all be counted with the remainders. That is a problem that can only be sorted if voting is made obligatory.
Is this a joke? You are saying that all the people who weren’t interested/didn’t bother to vote should be counted as remain voters and therefore we should stay in? Do you understand the full implications of the argument you are advancing here? If Brexit has revealed one very important thing about this country it is the sheer extent of contempt not just for the notion of sovereignty upheld by the Brexit vote, but for the democratic system itself held by a disturbingly large proportion of its inhabitants.
Of course it’s not a joke, it’s logical. If someone had a view to leave the EU then they would vote to change the status quo, whereas the opposite is not true. It’s a known phenomenon, i.e. people a less likely to go and vote for the status quo then they are to vote for change.
Anon1, let’s get something straight, it was not the ‘largest democratic mandate in the country’s history. The issue of hard or soft Brexit is not crap. A hard Brexit with a ‘No Deal’ outcome is going to be disastrous for the British economy and for people’s jobs. Why on earth do you think Moggie has moved his investment company to Dublin? Yep, right, because he knows the London financial market will be seriously damaged by a No Deal Brexit as there will be no Passporting rights and European banks are already starting to move their staff abroad. Why do you think Redwood has advised his investors not to invest in the U K because as he has told them, the economy is in a very poor state and he knows its going to get worse. So, the British public are going to suffer serious job losses, housing losses and others whilst the Tory MPs who are rabid brexiteers move their investment business out of the country into an EU one to protect their company and their investors. The other issue is, of course, that Treason May should never have triggered Article 50 before having a concrete negotiation plan in place that already had the approval of the Cabinet. Truth is, Brexit is a shambles, this Govt has no idea what it is negotiating or why. I doubt very much if those who voted Brexit voted for the chronic mess this Govt is making of it.
laguerre
I am a very committed remainder but cannot in any way are a validity in assigning different shades of Brexit. And the reason is not the British government but the EU itself. Time and again various spokesmen and women have clearly stated that the 4 cornerstone freedoms of the common market are non-negotiable but all other forms of ‘soft’ Brexit assume dilution of one of these. This is what the problem is.
Not really. They’ve offered “Norway” – that’s a very soft Brexit, and perfectly consistent with the referendum result. It’s only the Tory Brexiters who ex post facto interpret otherwise. None of these issues came up before the referendum.
I thought freedom of movement applied in Norway ? in which case a Norway solution would not be consistent with Referendum result as a great many out voters want it restricted.
Not really
“The EEA requires accepting the core principles of the EU’s internal market, including free movement of people: in fact, per head of its population, Norway has significantly higher EU immigration levels than Britain. It also entails following the EU’s social and product rules in areas such as employment, the environment and consumer protection, which are considered an integral part of the single market.”
The referendum question didn’t talk about freedom of movement. We were told constantly by the Leave movement that we would be staying in the single market, and the customs union, which of course implies freedom of movement. This is all more ex post facto interpretation from the Brexit ultras.
But, in any case, you have to be realistic, if we’re going to have anything more than Dunkirk isolation in our relationship with the EU, effectively there is going to be freedom of movement, once the Brexiters have got over their ideological hump. Anything else is unlivable.
“The referendum question didn’t talk about freedom of movement. ”
Maybe not directly but ‘taking control back of our borders’ and being swamped with immigrants were two of the most effective rallying cries of the Brexiters.
Terry’s comment (on page 1) mentioned a police investigation technique very familiar to anyone who watches police procedural TV programs: “They pin a map on the wall and stick a pin representing each crime scene location on the map.”
I suppose this can now be approximated with electronic screens, but it’s gone beyond maps and pushpins; the massive bulletin boards include photographs and documents, and the pins are augmented by various colors of yarn that connect persons and events of interest.
All this to say that the “police bulletin board” of the Salisbury/Amesbury case must look like the results of an explosion at the yarn factory and the pushpin factory next door.
In an effort to find a positive “silver lining”, I for one am encouraged at the way these murky incidents, brimming with official skulduggery at every level, are inspiring a new generation of espionage-thriller screenwriters. Playing “what might have been” and “what might be the truth of the matter” is becoming a craze that may rival the popularity of the “Trivial Pursuit” game some years ago.
After the still-mysterious events of 9/11/2001, I coined the term “pernicious factoids” to describe key blatantly false, ambiguous, or conveniently distorted factual assertions in official accounts of controversial events– “official” including both direct government sources, and the government’s mass-media consent manufactories.
Such factoids, to use an idiom popularized by US comedian Stephen Colbert, are “truthy” enough– that is, they seem superficially plausible and credible, to a point which an ignorant, credulous, or submissive person uncritically accepts them as factual and truthful.
To give a lapidary earlier example of a pernicious factoid, it is fairly commonplace to read articles about JFK that casually assert that he was assassinated by lone wolf Lee Harvey Oswald; the cumulative evidence does not support this assertion. It’s worth repeating that these untruths are pernicious because they become embedded in popular discourse, are taken for received wisdom, and are cited thoughtlessly as if they are either completely true, or close enough to the truth to cite confidently.
The Skripal/Sturgess affair is becoming a vast and burgeoning mosaic of pernicious factoids. But never mind the sad and dreadful aspect and implications. This is a chance for fun, imaginative story-crafting!
I should clarify that this case is genuinely fascinating, and it would be quite satisfying to learn the real circumstances– the truth of the matter.
But I don’t think that constructing hypotheticals and possibilities based exclusively on dodgy and deceptive official sources, or media-solicited commentary from parties allegedly connected to the victims or “crime scene” locations, etc. is likely to reach the truth.
Moreover, I notice that the preliminary descriptions of Rowley and Sturgess as known (“registered”) drug addicts has encouraged a new low: fitting the myriad pernicious factoids into a narrative involving stereotypical notions and judgments of the grossly unsavory habits of low-life druggies.
The vaguely bourgeois predilection for advancing guesses based on the knowing conviction that junkies are virtual bottom-feeders who will attempt any repulsive or disgusting means to get high is certainly convenient for constructing lurid melodramas.
So, to those who are disposed to engage in this form of amateur screenwriting, carry on and have fun!
Ort, I feel somewhat violated after reading that — can you summarise what your point was?
There are, of course, things that we don’t know we don’t know, but you could say that about the simplest experiment carried out under the most scrutinous laboratory conditions.
When it comes right down to it, you can’t absolute confirm a thing outside of theoretical mathematics.
https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2629314/bus-used-by-nerve-agent-victims-cleared-following-tests-at-porton-down/
The bus they travelled on from Salisbury to Amesbury 10.30 p.m. shows no sign of novichok.
So either they didn’t touch anything (unlikely) or the novichok was acquired in Amesbury.
But it raises another point. How did they pay the bus fare? The money if they had been exposed would have novichok on it.
And how did the Skripals pay in the public and Zizzis? Are contaminated notes in circulation?
There was something on the local news (BBC South Today) about a red van which Mr Rowley drove to Salisbury. Impounded and taken to Porton down for decontamination. LOL.
So far we have not had a repeat of the head honcho’s interview given last April. A little of it here
https://news.sky.com/video/porton-down-chief-we-dont-know-source-of-nerve-agent-11315445
The oleaginous little creep who acts as Mr Speaker at the end of Theresa’s stint today.
Speaker
‘I am most grateful to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all 95 Back Benchers who questioned the Prime Minister. Whatever people think about this matter, the Prime Minister has clearly scored highly today in terms of productivity. We should be clear about that.’
Yards of it and to make it more unreadable, the Hansard website has been altered. The text is now more widely spaced (?double spacing) and the font is new too. Jars on me.
Leaving the EU
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-07-09/debates/DFF149CD-3762-4293-82A3-ED03A0BA48D5/LeavingTheEU
She startst by offering condolences for Dawn Sturgess. Hypocritical woman.
used bus passes and credit cards? assume these have been tested .
Charlie Rowlie has recently been in prison for selling wraps of heroin to teenagers?anyone know when and how long? Anyone know how he came to be friends with Sam Hobson? Is he another druggie? Did they meet in prison? when did he meet Dawn and how long have they been an item?
Is it your intention to further demonize these poor souls?
Not at all but we are all assuming they were a couple 4 months ago. How do we know that? And where does Sam Hobson, who has told us most of what little we know about their relationship, fit into the picture? And it also seems to me that if Rowlie was indeed a small time drug dealer. with a prison sentence in his past, he might be just the sort of person to be exploited in some way by someone out to get the Skripals. Having said that, if he really was dealing heroin to teensgers, my sympathy would be limited.
Do you have any intimate knowledge you might share on the ‘poorness’ especially of the lad that lives in a 274,000 pound house?
The questions asked were perfectly legitimate and not at all stigmatizing or even demonizing like you imply and state.
Has anyone asked the Porton Down experts if they can absolutely rule out the possibility of the novichok being from their own stock?
They did try to ask that of the Head of Porton Down – but all he did was try to sell the latest Motorola phone his interlocutor. Old habits die hard.
Hilarious anti-Trump “documentary” on the Beeb right now, perfectly timed just before his state visit, featuring a pornstar in tears over how Trump ruined her life by — wait for it — offering her money for sex. That’s right, a woman whose chosen career is literally to be paid to have sex, crying on telly that her life was ruined by a man offering to pay her for sex.
Jeremy Hunt is the replacement Foreign Secretary. LOL
Musical chairs. Last one sitting in a chair gets to open the parcel.
and Matt Hancock (Pillock) is new health secretary – a digital version of a real MP
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/07/09/video-mays-voice-goes-up-eyes-down-when-told-tory-cttee-has-enough-letters-to-force-leader-contest/
tories calling time on the hapless one (i’m being kind)
Can’t come soon enough. Personally I can’t wait to see Mogg make complete mincemeat of Corbyn.
Well if he gets elected, I’m sure the required Bill to make that legal won’t be too far down the line.
You think so Anon1? Corbyn is an honourable man, a serious minded politician who has served in Parliament as an MP and now as Leader of the Opposition for many years truthfully, with conviction and honesty. Moggie is not really an MP is he? He owns an investment company, he hasn’t got an honest bone in his body and he doesn’t give a toss about the great British Public.
The crisis gets worse. I’d given up predicting government collapse before Brexit Day, but now it’s back.
They’ve replaced Billy Bunter with Mr Bean. Sure to give Lavrov more sleepless nights.
How will Jeremy find the time to deal with his growing property empire now?
See the tweets about him at the bottom of this RT piece.
Jeremy Hunt appointed new Foreign Secretary after Boris Johnson quits https://www.rt.com/uk/432424-jeremy-hunt-foreign-secretary/
Hopefully it’ll have some Novichok in it.
Aha! I see the cunning plan now, Johnson for Hunt, opposite ends of the charisma spectrum. That’ll confuse those foreign Johnnys right? Well for about 3 nanoseconds until they fall asleep.
Quick, there’s been a Brexit-related implosion! Throw on some more Novichok!
Novichok: the wonder drug that eases all disturbing ailments, creating the perfect balance of Cold War paranoia and arms expenditure.
I’d buy that for a dollar.
That is exactly what I am thinking.
The lyrics of this great country song apply to the Tory party.
“He said, “Son, I’ve made a life
Out of readin’ people’s faces
Knowin’ what the cards were
By the way they held their eyes
So if you don’t mind me sayin’
I can see you’re out of aces
For a taste of your whiskey
I’ll give you some advice”
Novichok is like whiskey, works better over time. One doesn’t even need an oak barrel, just throw it away.
The story just gets better in a ‘it would be funny if it wasn’t so serious’ way.
The father of Dawns two sons, who reside with him, works as a senior system engineer at RAF Boscombe Down (close to Porton Down, naturally) and has high security clearance.
On Janyary 24, 2018, the Swindon Advertiser ran a story about super-strength synthetic heroin being available in Wiltshire. It is reporrted to be 50 times more potent that normal heroin. It is also laced with fentanyl (cue initial reports that the Skripals were thought to have been affected by fentanyl).
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/15893615.Doctors_warn_of_super-strength_synthetic_heroin_on_the_streets_of_Wiltshire/
Thanks Yonatan, that is very relavant, especially so in these circumstances.
It would be very easy to find victims and then supply “other evidence” to suggest that they had died from other means, particularly as Porton Down is very close by.
someone shared info on carfentanil a few days ago here at craigs site.. it was some md and i think it is relevant and related to what you mention…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfentanil
the propaganda site wikipedia even has a tie in to porton down and russia back to 2012!!!
” 2012, a team of researchers at the British chemical and biological defence laboratories at Porton Down found carfentanil and remifentanil in clothing from two British survivors of the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis and in the urine from a third survivor. ”
these folks at porton down are amazing!
forgot to throw this in from the same wikipedia link “”Heroin Is Being Laced With a Terrifying New Substance: What to Know About Carfentanil”
You also didn’t mention that the wiki article has a section ‘potential for use as a chemical weapon’
Yonatan, now this is highly relevant. Is there any further way it can be pursued?
Well, there we go, Yonatan! I would say that’s pretty much case closed right there.
Now, if there are any corporate journalists with gumption left, they’ve got the scoop of their careers.
Any takers?
But surely there would be reports of others being killed with this contaminated heroin.
They’d also help restore a little faith in what is currently a dying industry.
Just a thought.
New ways to weaponise all that heroin coming out of Afghanistan and through Albania. Porton Down is a big place…7,000 acres to be exact.
The Yanks will be involved.
@Mike
Through “Greater Albania” perhaps.
Don’t the RAFand USAF flights from Afghanistan use Boscombe Down?
It’s inevitable that we will never know what happened on Salisbury. But I’d strenuously oppose any suggestion that British security would use nerve agents on its own turf, for any reason.
I’m not naive about the role of MI5 agents etc. in this world — they are undoubtedly involved in the most underhand stuff — but I know that there are basic ground rules when it comes to activities at home.
And, frankly, it’s not like there are any obviously huge rewards at stake here for the security services. I haven’t read one comment amongst all the conspiracy theories on here that gives a credible answer to that most basic question; if they were responsible, in what way have the British security services benefitted from the Skripal affair?
In law it’s a basic requirement to show motive. Nobody here who alleges that British security was involved in deploying nerve agents on the streets of Salisbury has adequately done that. They haven’t even come close.
The motive might easily be simply to further discredit Russia. However, the same test can equally be applied to Russia. Surely a reckless use of a nerve agent to kill a national traitor who had already been pardoned defies reason. So how would Russia gain by such a nonsensical action? I strongly hold that in no way would she benefit.
And I agree that it’s also difficult to explain a Russian motive. It’s also difficult to explain why anybody who wanted the Skripals dead wouldn’t use more conventional and reliable means, such as a simple bullet to the skull.
I presume, though, that Russian agents would have more freedom of expression since they would be acting abroad.
Hat
You make some assumptions. It is not inevitable that we don’t know this cannot be determined now.
Secondly you assume that whoever poisoned The Skripals wanted them dead.
The third assumption that Novichok was involved is far from proven since the only official confirmation of its presence is that it was found in a state of high purity, something incompatible with its ‘weaponisation’ and presence exposed on a doorknob open to the elements.
If the motive is to discredit Russia, how about Ukraine?
Mary, there is a definitely a point there considering it is now controlled economically and politically by the USA and is a seriously corrupt Government who are killing its own people (dissenters or Russians). Ukraine is also involved in a World Court dispute over Russian owned energy company Gazprom. It is also Russia’s neighbour.
As you observe it is “inevitable that we will never know what happened…”
This leaves the field open for conspiracy theories – some of the most implausible of such theories will likely be advanced by agents of the state. Bizarre and whack job theories – lizard people and so forth, are guaranteed to dull the interests of all sensible people and so they simply give up bothering or questioning.
As for your own elimination of certain theories it does not stack up well against the likely circumstances surrounding the demise of Dr. David Kelly. No doubt the Scottish nationalist zealots find the strange death of Willie McRae somewhat disturbing.
The crucial point is that no-one cares, and those that do care are either painted as eccentric obsessives or are goaded into making lurid suggestions.
Somewhere, somehow the government are culpable – exactly how will never be known, but what does it say about the mass of the citizenry who are largely unconcerned that they live under a criminal regime that so despises its own population that they simply murder people that they don’t like for any reason at all or possibly for no reason at all.
Go to the UK and make a proposal to reintroduce the death penalty and there would be mass protests – why some of them even protest executions in the US. Tell these same people that their government just randomly kills people and no-one cares.
Loony, three things.
1) “Somewhere, somehow the government are culpable”
Show me the evidence. Circumstantial evidence is no evidence at all.
2) I asked for a motive. Explain to me how British Security would benefit from using nerve agents on British soil. It won’t do to simply say it might be part of some wider campaign to blacken Russia’s already blackened name.
3) I don’t doubt for a second that British security might have took part in assassinations in the UK and elsewhere. In a certain sense that’s what you would expect of them. But using nerve agents is a very different proposition. And, going back to 2 above, for what?
Loony, I don’t often agree with you but in this case, you are right. The motive on the part of the UK Govt is too create Russophobia and discredit Russia internationally assisting Trump in his drive for world domination or a new world order.
MI5 only operate at home.
Hatuey, the motive for our security services would be to prevent Skripal talking about his and their complicity with Obama’s administration in attempting to prevent Trumps election and subsequently trying to bring him down with the Russia fiddled the election hoax.
Public knowledge of such duplicity would put the special relationship on hold (which it probably already is) and could lead to the dissolution of NATO, especially if the Germans were in cahoots with us too. The stakes could not be any higher for a country about to embark on Brexit.
I’m not saying this is what happened. But it would be a motive for a murderous cover up.
Phil, that’s very interesting but you miss my point. There may have been very compelling reasons for the British doing Skripal in along the lines you suggested. But why use nerve agents? Clearly nerve agents are unreliable, they are difficult to deploy, highly dangerous to those using them, and they attract a lot of unhelpful attention and condemnation.
If Britain wanted Skripal dead, it would have been far more effective to use a gun or drive over him with steam-roller — and had the would-be assassins succeeded in doing that, nobody in here would be discussing it right now because that sort of stuff is relatively uncontroversial.
I can’t think of a more stupid way to try and kill someone than using Novichok.
hatuey, if russia wanted the skripals dead – the same applies – it would have been far more effective to use a gun and etc. etc… i suppose it is just a coincidence that both salisbury and amesbury are just down the road from porton down and that the one place in all of uk where these novichok ingredients are definitely located is in the same place… this is what leads many including myself to suggest the onus of responsibility for laying blame on this event to russia, or britian reside in the uk… so far – the uk authorities have been unsuccessful… no amount of talk is changing any of this either… now, granted – novichok is a nice word with a russian sound to it, but that is not enough to convince most of any connection that the uk has made to russias culpability… so far – the uk authorities have nothing, except egg on face basically..
James, added to which they have not produced a single shred of evidence to support their case.
Hatuey, the Government wouldn’t use a shotgun as it would not implicate Russia would it? Remember, there is no evidence to say it was Novichok that was used. There has been an anti-Russian agenda here since 2014. What Trump and UK don’t like is that Russia, under Putin, has become a significant world power, it has rebuilt its economy and is not saying yes sir no sir to Trump, Putin is standing his ground with excellent statecraft rather than warmongering. Now this is unpalatable to the USA and UK who want a weak Russia – hence the Sanctions Trump has recently imposed on them – they are not for ‘bad behaviour’ they are protectionist for the USA designed to boost USA energy sales to Europe.
I think you are right that the intention of whoever was behind it was not to kill Skripals. Especially not of UK secret services who could finish them off on the hospital bed just as well.
Depends on how we define “nerve agent”. If it is something that is ultimately harmless, as appears to be the case with Skripals, then why not?
As to the benefits, I think timing is key. The attack happened just before most recent strike on Syria. It was the first time when Russia warned that it will strike missile launchers (planes and ships) if lives of its personnel are endangered. Excuse me not going into details here, but several sources confirmed that war was a real possibility. I think the aimg was to build support for it, in public as well as in parlament.
Yes, I understand all that.
We know now, though, that Russia was given all sorts of assurances and advance warning of the attack and everything was done to avoid hitting their military assets in Syria during the strikes.
If British Intelligence were using nerve agents on the streets of the UK in order to manipulate the public into a confrontation with Russia, then we really are in the twilight zone. I know, I know, false flags , etc., etc., but I just don’t buy it.
Couldn’t they think more creatively than that?
Russia’s reputation has been pretty black for years now, they’ve heaped layer upon layer of propaganda on them for sure, but I don’t see significant enough benefits following from what’s been suggested on here.
My theory is that the US pro-war faction that was behind Skripal poisoning lost the argument, so the Syrian strike ended up being in the name only. But it could very well go the other way.
Suppose that defeat in Syria is not acceptable to some influential groups in the US. Any way to avert it without military intervention? No. OK, we need military intervention. The justification was there (Douma “chemical attack”, now disproved by OPCW), the means were there. Then Russia, rather unexpectedly, raised up the ante by saying that its personnel is everywhere in Syria and it will strike launch platforms as well as missiles if their lives are endangered. I can tell you this was rather unexpected even in Russia and scared people a great deal. It was later confirmed (Pozner interview on Echo Moskvy) that it was not a bluff.
US were to either back off and lose face or risk an all-out war. A direct military confrontation with Russia WAS a very real possibility at that time. The day before the strike the US supreme commander called his Russian counterpart and they spoke for and hour and a half. The topic of their conversation was not revealed. The strike hurt no one and knocked down one empty building.
US political hawks were prepared to go to war with Russia in Syria and advised their UK allies to prepare urgently. The language used by UK goverment and their eagerness to lay the blame in the first few days cannot be explained otherwise. Now it all sounds a bit too far-fetched because the situation around Syria has changed massively.
Igor, good analysis.
good response igor and below as well… hatuey is absent in giving a response to most of us here too.. what does that say about hatueys position?
Speaking of nerve agents, I suggest you consider the original Porton Down expert testimony to judge Williams (search for Skripal’s name on UK judicary website). It gets a bit creative with the English language but refuses to say definitely that it was a nerve agent. I just don’t buy that given time and full access to victims and places of interest Porton Down scientists could not tell with certainty that it was a nerve agent if it indeed was one.
The security services may not have had a motive to create a dodgy dossier about WMD but the government of the day did.
Plus The security services are involved in espionage, which involves confusing both enemy and populations alike. The security services have already achieved 40 million £ grant for chemical weapon facilities and the allied arms forces are hoping to get a massive increase in thier budget. None of these are motives?
The dodgy dossier was compiled by Labour politicians, not British security. The motive was clear — create grounds for attacking Iraq (a risk-free attack on a defenceless country that had huge oil reserves). They didn’t use nerve agents on the streets of the UK in order to convince anyone.
I don’t see any real similarities.
@ Hatuey July 10, 2018 at 09:32
I believe Salisbury was set up to beef up belief in the Assad CW lie, in the knowledge of the upcoming False Flag hoax, and the missile ‘response’ already planned.
Hatuey
What is the evidence that someone used ‘nerve agent on the streets of the UK?
If that was the case you would have seen many people dead and before you could even get them to hospital. None of this happened. Nerve agents were produced on a doorknob, and blood tests from victim showed certain properties that are compatible with nerve agent exposure but could also possibly be caused by other agents. Anyway the authorities neuther then, nor now showed any great concern in initiating a manhunt or closing borders or warning civilians of danger.
I didn’t say nerve agents were used. I’m willing to accept the possibility that they were not used. But I’d struggle to believe any Russian with more than 2 brain cells would smuggle them into the country to use in an assassination plot, just as I’d struggle to believe and oppose the idea that British security would deploy them on British soil.
If I was forced to choose a country that might do that sort of thing for self-serving manipulative reasons, it wouldn’t take long but since nobody else has accused the elephant in the room I don’t see why I should.
Shalom!
Hatuey, the dodgy dossier was not compiled by Labour – I think you mean the Democrats – it was compiled by a former MI5 officer – Christopher Steele, whose handler was Pablo Miller – Sergei Skripal did contribute to it.
No he is right, this refers to the Iraq wmd dossier
hatuey, you are wrong as jo dominich highlights below..
It could be ex or rogue officers.
Motive 1: To take Skripal out of circulation, probably because of what the Mueller investigation was turning up about the Trump Golden Shower dossier.
Motive 2: Part of the campaign to make the link, in the minds of the masses, between Russia and chemical weapons. That’s also one of the motives for this last horror.
Tip to the Home Secretary, who is instigating a murder enquiry: several really dodgy looking fellows recently seen running into a big building on the Albert Embankment……probably still hiding there.
Hmmmmm. On 1, it would be easier to push him under a bus or smash his skull in with a tin-opener, and 2 isn’t an end (motive), it’s a means to an end — what would the end purpose, reward, and motive be in 2?
I whole heartedly agree with your disbelief of the government statements and you are quite right to assert that no evidence links Russia to these events. It seems the success of the World Cup and the delight expressed by visiting fans in their host country and its people have been to much for the UK state. There really must be an open and full inquiry but I am full of doubt that can happen. I very much look forward to your full analysis.
If I were a journalist interviewing Mrs. May, I would ask one only question ‘Mrs. May, who advised you that ONLY Russia can produce Novichok’
She is not researching herself, there must be an advisor.
Tatyana – I think you may have far too high an opinion of the British and how they conduct themselves.
In the UK an adviser confines himself/herself to merely advising that instructions have been received and that those instructions are to be acted upon. You never get to meet the people issuing the instructions.
Loony, I may be use wrong word, I should ask ‘ who gave you this info, Mrs. May’. Yes, you are right, I have high opinion on British.
Also, I know if you try to deceive, so you must keep as close to reality as possible.
With so many people involved, it would be extremely hard to stage everything up to a tiny bit.
I think everyone in this case tells his own part of what he belives to be true.
00:02 British time – that must be 3 or 4 in the morning in Kazan ?
Alvin, I live in Krasnodar, my time is GMT+3, the same as Kazan and Moscow
That’s the conspicuously missing newspaper headline (among others) in all this affair: “MI5 lied to Theresa May about who has Novichok”.
Tatyana, I am a journalist. I just do not work for MSM. If I were allowed to interview Theresa May I should want to know how she and Boris Johnson could “almost certainly” know that Russia was behind the Skripal poisoning. Where they are now. Are they alive? How do we
know? Can I speak with either of them? And a hundred other questions. You should never only have one question, especially with an ongoing farce like this.
I predict, would bet on it, that poor Jane Sturgess’ partner will never be heard from again/
Hello, John )))
I’m no journalist, I studied languages and I learned about different types of questions.
I would choose very simple and straight questions and won’t give her chance for evasive multi-worded explanations.
Very simple, like ‘who…?’ She can tell us who provided her that information, can’t she? Either the name, or his/her position.
The problem is Mrs. May doesn’t want interviews.
—-
I remember Mr. Trump was angry with his advisors about expelling russian diplomats. Trump ordered to align with partnners, and an advisor summed up all expels it made 60 diplomats.
That’s right. She does not do interviews other than scripted interviews with Sunday morning media moguls with flash cars.
So apparently the Skripal’s novichok dose was sub lethal, but there was enough of it for detectable samples to be strewn all through Salisbury, spread by their own hands it seems
The dose for the Amesbury couple is said to be massive, yet no environmental samples appear to be available. The bus they travelled on between Salisbury and Amesbury at 10:30 comes up clean…no novichok
Another small quibble I have is that in all the hours between Dawn and Charlie being dosed and then succumbing, they don’t appear to have gone to the toilet and washed their hands, which would have washed all the novichik away.Instead large amounts apparently have been found on their palms
Can someone attempt a credible explanation?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/09/novichok-wiltshire-death-dawn-sturgess-highly-likely-same-batch-used-on-skripals
Is all of this intended to just do our heads in ?
This affair is not about finding answers.
It’s about finding great questions and contradictions, such as yours.
More are here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZSYWlp8ro&t=3126s
Maureen, clearly there’s an absence of evidence and a lot that happened that we don’t know about. As for washing hands, is it beyond the realms of plausibility that someone might go several hours and visit the toilet without washing his or her hands? My God, I should introduce you to my stoner cousin…I swear that guy changes his socks once a month at most.
According to Sam Hobson, Charlie had just come out of the shower when he started showing serious symptoms, even so , there’s that damned novichok on his palms
If in fact contact took place in Amesbury, it points to a separate incident, and quite possibly a rogue PD employee
wasn’t Dawn supposed to have been in the bathroom when she collapsed? And the CCTV shows her looking clean and well turned out certainly not a bag lady.
The question is you can’t have large quantities of novichok on your palms and not contaminate buses and other other things and in fact many people such as first responders.
A bus would have multiple CCTV cameras. Each surface they touched could be pinpointed. Also travel card (unhelpfully called “key” by Salisbury Red) would be contaminated.
And has the cash they paid for cans with in shops being looked for? Other customers warned to not handle notes they got in change? Shops and banks closed? No.
So if we can believe anything, they were not exposed in Salisbury.
Here’s an old and unanswered question.
Why is it that the CCTV video footage of the Skripals and the mystery woman, and also the CCTV video footage of the mystery couple — both these video footages are actually footage of a computer screen showing the CCTV footage, shot from a ridiculous angle at that screen, so exceedingly poor derivatives, and as a result extremely terrible to base any conclusions on?
I guess that its easier to record the screen with your smartphone than actually swipe the CCTV hardrive. Regardless, the silence about especially the couple (that look very much like Dawn and Charlie is suspicious, I wonder if there is a D Notice involved?)
I think the the Skripals we can be certain a D notice exists. Regards latest incident, probably but once the Met Police have control of it, the info released will be minimal. I would be looking at local sources leaking out info before Met realises and clamps down, as most likely source of new info e.g. the policeman rushed to hospital and then given the all clear. This is the equivalent of ” Move along now, nothing to see here.” The truth might be rather different. Has it not occurred to anyone that it might be in the authorities interest to claim they know nothing: “Investigatons continue””, “investigations expected to take many months”, this means they do not have to release any information to the public.
It is in fact very common. It is much easier to get a permission to film screen that get data out of heavily protected police computers.
This morning it occurred to me that the explanation for the extremely slanted way of both these CCTV-footage recordings might be that they were recorded on the sly, secretly (in an occupied or crowded office), with for instance a smartphone (by a leaker or whistleblower?)
I’d have to take a look at both video’s (which I am unable to do now) to see if that might be a plausible explanation for the very odd way these two recordings of CCTV-recordings have come to us.