Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 21 12:38:07 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Good questions
Mon Apr 02 10:00:41
The full list of questions from Russia to the UK:

1. Why has Russia been denied consular access to the two Russian nationals, Sergei and Yulia Skripal, that have become crime victims in the British territory?

2. What specific antidotes were administered to Mr and Ms Skripal, and in which form? How were those antidotes available for the medical staff on the site of the incident?

3. On what grounds has France been involved in technical cooperation with regard to the investigation of an incident in which Russian nationals had suffered?

4. Has the United Kingdom informed the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) of France's involvement in the investigation?

5. How is France relevant to the incident with two Russian nationals in the UK?

6. What British procedural rules allow a foreign state to be involved in a domestic investigation?

7. What evidence has been passed to France for studying and/or for a French investigation?

8. Were French experts present when biological material was taken from Mr and Ms Skripal?

9. Have French experts studied biological material taken from Mr and Ms Skripal, and at which laboratories?

10. Does the UK possess the results of the French investigation?

11. Have the results of the French investigation been passed to the OPCW Technical Secretariat?

12. On the basis of which characteristics ("markers") has it been ascertained that the substance used in Salisbury "originated from Russia"?

13. Does the UK possess reference samples of the military-grade poisonous substance that British representatives identify as "Novichok"?

14. Has the substance identified by British representatives as "Novichok" or analogous substances been researched, developed or produced in the UK?

Mon Apr 02 22:35:00
"1. Why has Russia been denied consular access to the two Russian nationals, Sergei and Yulia Skripal, that have become crime victims in the British territory?"

Haha, Russian humor really is great.
large member
Tue Apr 03 01:35:50
The UK cannot legally deny consular access to the two Russian nationals. This is regulated by international law.

The questions are in sum pretty damning and do undermine the narrative that Russia has a unique monopoly on the chemicals 3 people were exposed to in sufficient amounts to require hospitalization.
large member
Tue Apr 03 01:36:34
In sum: The Russian Foreign Ministry was almost certainly not behind the exposure.
Tue Apr 03 07:31:34
jergul, just how much $ does it cost to buy loyalty these days? I'm always interested in keeping my employment options open.
Tue Apr 03 08:37:00

RE legal obligation, Article 36 b and c clearly do not apply as they have not been detained.

Article a) means that the UK can't prevent Russia communicating with them. However Skipral is in Coma and Yulia doesn't seem to want to talk to them.

And she is a witness and the Russian state the suspect, I think there are very good reasons not to bend over backwards to allow any Russian diplomat to, for example, ask whether her children need special attention while she is helping the UK with its inquiries.

I believe such communication as necessary could be achieved by conveying a written message.

The incident is a terrorist attack with chemical weapons on the UK. We can involve whowever we like, and if we wish to use expertise of French staff, that's explicitly allowed for in the OPWC.

We are unlikely to have specific procedural rules that explicitly permit things. We work on the opposite principle.

large member
Tue Apr 03 08:54:40
The episode involved 3 people being hospitalized after exposure to chemicals.

Just to be clear on what happened.
large member
Tue Apr 03 09:00:15
"Shall have access to them" Do Russian diplomats have access to the two citizens in question?
Tue Apr 03 09:31:35

Skpiral sr. is a British citizen who has been explicitly barred from re-entering Russia.

So Yulia is the only individual in question. As she is now concious, and in hospital, I think the question is whether she wishes to have access.

I don't think, to date, that Article 36 a) has been used succesfully to compell a host country to compell a citizen of the sending country to sit down and talk to a diplomat. Is there precedent for that?
Tue Apr 03 09:35:03
Particularly one who has not been detainned.

What consular functions listed in the treaty would Russia be performing here?
Anarchist Prime
Tue Apr 03 09:44:10

By John Helmer, Moscow

The British public telephone is two years short of a century old. The Salisbury Hospital has dismantled the outdoor models because it is now possible for patients to receive and make telephone calls from their bedside. The hospital has contracted with a company called Hospedia to provide patients with personal access to telephones (television, internet, games too). The patients must pay.

The business of overcharging them for incoming and outgoing calls was such a corrupt scandal, Hospedia’s predecessor company went bankrupt. The Royal Bank of Scotland took over the assets, and then went even more corruptly bankrupt itself. So the bank sold the hospital telephone business to Marlin Equity Partners. That company presently controls most British hospital patient telephones; it is an American group specializing in investment in signal and cyber operations of every sort. It is based in Los Angeles and London.

If you are Yulia Skripal, you are likely to want to use Salisbury Hospital’s Hospedia telephone system to call home in Moscow. There she has a family consisting of a grandmother and a cousin; an uncle lives in St. Petersburg and another cousin in Primorye. All of them have been identified by name and address in the Russian press. Yulia Skripal also has a fiancé with whom she was living, and about whom considerable detail of his marital intentions, occupation, mother, father, home address and black Land Rover have also been published. Their 90-second telephone call before Yulia took off on her fateful Aeroflot flight to London on March 3 has been published. So have details of her father Sergei’s request that she bring him packages of kasha and bay leaf in her luggage. Even the address of the pet hotel where Yulia Skripal’s dog Noir is staying at Rb800 per day is reported in the free Russian press.

Two Moscow reporters have specialized in this investigation – Lev Speransky and Yekaterina Sveshnikova. They have also published excerpts from the Skripal family photo album. Their evidence is that Yulia Skripal is human enough to want to call home.

However, she cannot do so. Salisbury Hospital officials, who have confirmed her capacity to listen and speak by telephone, will not say why.

On March 22, a High Court judge ruled in London that Yulia Skripal was almost totally incapacitated. She was alive, comatose, stable medically, but “unable to communicate in any meaningful way… It is not possible to say when or to what extent Mr or Ms Skripal may regain capacity.” For the court judgement, click to open. For the larger story of the court proceeding, read this.

High Court Justice David Williams (right) repeatedly decided he knew what the Skripals would want if they could talk. He wrote that they “would wish for the further analysis [of blood samples]”; that testing for poison was what they “would wish be conducted and they would want to assist in that by providing samples”; that they “would be likely to want to support the work of the international body [Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons] set up by international law knowing that its processes are unimpeachable”; and “they would want to support the UK Government in taking steps on the international plane to hold those responsible to account.”

Despite this volubility of the Skripals, the judge didn’t say whether they would wish to use the telephone to take a call or make a call with their next of kin. He ruled instead that in their comatose state, “it did not appear practicable or appropriate to seek the views of others who might be interested in the welfare of Mr Skripal (his mother perhaps) or Ms Skripal’s (perhaps a fiancé).”

Williams wrote that on March 22. Three days later, Speransky and Sveshnikova reported in Moskovsky Komsomolets (MK) how the court and the hospital could get in contact with both Skripal’s mother, Yulia’s grandmother, and Yulia’s fiancé. By then, and for several days earlier, Yulia’s Moscow cousin Victoria Skripal had reportedly made telephone contact with Salisbury Hospital and with the Russian Ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko. Yakovenko requested proofs of Victoria’s identity and relationship, and Victoria has told reporters Speransky and Sveshnikova that she provided them.

Justice Williams also ruled there was no legal obligation for the Russian Embassy in London to be informed by the hospital or the government “pursuant to Articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 as Ms Skripal is a Russian national.” The reason the judge gave was that because Article 37 had not been incorporated in domestic British law, it did not apply to the case of Yulia Skripal.

Noone in court challenged this. Neither the court-appointed lawyer for Skripal, Vikram Sacheva, nor the judge appears to have known that a bilateral consular convention between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union was ratified by the British parliament and became legally binding domestic law in 1968; it is much more explicit than the Vienna Convention. The treaty text, signed in Moscow in 1965 and presented to the House of Commons in November 1968, can be read here.

Russian Embassy access to Yulia Skripal is required by Articles 30, 31(f), 35 and 36. The last of these is the most explicit. In British statutes the word “shall” means must — obligatory, mandatory, required, no discretion allowed.

For a detailed review of the law, read Alexander Mercouris.

Article 36(1)(a) makes it illegal under British law for the British Government to prevent Russian Embassy officials from having access to Yulia Skripal in hospital directly or indirectly. One of the indirect measures the Russian Embassy has yet to take is the engagement of British lawyers to represent her in a court action for habeas corpus and to require the Home Office to justify to a judge the restrictions they have imposed on Skripal at the hospital; for details, read this.

The second sub-section of the Article makes it illegal for the Salisbury Hospital to prevent Yulia Skripal communicating with Russian Embassy officials in London and their lawyers, or vice versa.

On March 29, the hospital reported she was “improving rapidly and is no longer in a critical condition. Her condition is now stable. Her father remains in a critical but stable condition.” The British state radio has reported “separate sources that Ms Skripal is conscious and talking.”

Following these reports, the head of the hospital Cara Charles-Barks (right) and her two press spokesmen were asked what telephone contact Yulia Skripal has made with her next of kin in Moscow. They are refusing to answer. They were also asked to clarify the hospital’s policy on contact between patients and next of kin, and to give their legal authority for blocking communication between Yulia Skripal and her next of kin in Russia. They do not reply.

Yesterday Speransky reported that cousin Victoria Skripal is applying for her international passport so she can travel to Salisbury. She has yet to file for a British visa. “I hope I will be able to understand something there on the place,” Victoria Skripal told the newspaper.


large member
Tue Apr 03 09:47:31
He remains a Russian citizen and the UK is obligated by treaty to allow access. The same goes for his daughter.

We get it that the UK has gone rogue. That was clear from the start.

Now all that remains is to see how rogue.

In the interests of affording us a measure to gauge its overall credibility in interstate relations.

Tue Apr 03 09:57:12

The Russian's initially stated they they didn't believe he was a citizen. They've changed their tune of late.

I think there is little grounds to claim we have gone rogue given the British position is that the treaty provisions do not apply and that Russia has yet to even make a formal challenge in the courts- which it is perfectly able to do.

Tue Apr 03 09:57:55
N.B. the treaty makes it clear that the purposes of the clauses they appear to be relying on, it is the recipient country's laws that apply.
Tue Apr 03 10:00:27
e.g. the article swordtail has just posted hangs an awful lot on the refusal of Julia's spokesperson to break the data protection act to satisfy a Russian journalists curiosity.

All the Russian's need to do here is file a simple motion before the court to resolve the issue here.

The fact they chose not to do so seems to me that they want the issue of supposed witholding of access more than they want access.

It's such a shame that people fall for this kind of rubbish.
large member
Tue Apr 03 11:27:48
The only rubbish people are falling for is May's narrative.

Tue Apr 03 11:33:38
Da, comrade. But thirty or so of our allies appear to buy it and that's what that matters.

But hey, the litmus test here is whether the Russians request a JR or other process to challenge the govts interpretation.

That's the behaviour at least consistent with a state looking to protect its citizens. Moaning but not availing itself of those measures is only consistent with a state looking to wage a campaign of disinformation.
large member
Tue Apr 03 11:47:39
UK is acting in a manner inconsistent with finding its conclusions credible.

If it can cheat on treaty wording, then it can cheat on anything.
Tue Apr 03 11:56:16

I think it's acting exactly as it would if it found it's own conclusions credible.

You would not involve Russia in the investigation as it's the prime suspect.

You would not give the suspect access to the witness.

You would not provide them with the details of the case against it until the investigation was complete.

And we wouldn't in other situations provide consular access for a state to those detecting or seeking asylum from it.
Tue Apr 03 12:01:05
Russia leadership is like the equally "trolly" but infinitely smarter version of the Trump admin.
Anarchist Prime
Tue Apr 03 12:06:25
He said: "We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify that it was military-grade nerve agent.

"We have not identified the precise source, but we have provided the scientific info to Government who have then used a number of other sources to piece together the conclusions you have come to."

He said establishing its origin required "other inputs", some of them intelligence-based, that the Government has access to.

Mr Aitkenhead added: "It is our job to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured."

However, he confirmed the substance required "extremely sophisticated methods to create, something only in the capabilities of a state actor".

He said there was no known antidote to novichok.

Porton Down's boss would not comment on whether the lab had developed or keeps stocks of novichok, but dismissed suggestions the substance used to poison the Skripals had come from Porton Down.

"There is no way anything like that could have come from us or left the four walls of our facility," said Mr Aitkenhead.

large member
Tue Apr 03 12:10:39
I have absolutely no doubt May believes her theory.

I am sure May is working hard at convincing Yulia she wants asylum.

May is in violation of treaties governing diplomatic access.

Anyway, the lab has released it has in no way indicated the source of the chemical samples it analyzed beyond it being a military grade chemical in the novichik family.

You better find the person who delivered it and prove he or she was on a State mission.
Tue Apr 03 12:11:14
”He said there was no known antidote to novichok.”

And yet Skripal’s daughter has been treated and is now feeling well again.

How do we know that they really were poisoned and dying? No independent doctor has seen or treated them, right? Are there pics?

”There is no way anything like that could have come from us or left the four walls of our facility," said Mr Aitkenhead.”

Why don’t they prove it? :P
Tue Apr 03 12:12:32
”You better find the person who delivered it and prove he or she was on a State mission.”

I would start with that police officer who also got poisoned.
Anarchist Prime
Tue Apr 03 13:37:08
April 03, 2018

Operation Hades - A Model For The 'Novichok' Case?

(This is a 'working thread' to collect various items related to the alleged 'Novichok' incident in Salisbury and the fate of the British spy Sergej Skripal and his daughter Yulia. For a wider overview of the case please check our longer write-ups linked at the end of this post.)

The Russian government sent fourteen specific questions to the British government and thirteen questions to the OPCW. There seems to be some French involvement in the investigation of the alleged nerve agent and Russia ask why that is the case.

Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador to Britain, further increased the pressure on Theresa May by publicly asserting that the Skripal case was a 'provocation' carried out by British intelligence.

Telepolis points out (in German) that this would not be the first time that a 'western' service would stage such a 'provocation'. The Skripal case is indeed quite comparable to Operation Hades.

On August 10 1994 German officials in Munich 'found' 363 grams of plutonium on a plane coming from Moscow. They immediately asserted, that the plutonium 'must' have come from a Russian reactor. There was a lot of media panic, international political noise and condemnation of Russia.

This put pressure on the Russian government to increase its security at its nuclear sites. The U.S. offered to 'help' with nuclear security and thus got easy access to Russia's nuclear secrets. The case broke in the mid of the federal election campaign in Germany and helped chancellor Kohl to get re-elected.

Months later first leaks appeared, enterprising reporters dug deeper into the story and it started to unravel.

Der Spiegel filled ten pages (in German) with the explosive story.

It turned out that the plutonium was not from Russia but had been planted by the German equivalent of the MI6, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). Leaks and counter-leaks created a convoluted story to hide the truth behind it. A parliamentarian commission investigated the case but the Kohl government eventually shut it down without any political consequences. Shortly thereafter the deeply involved BND head, Bernd Schmidbauer, was sent into retirement.

The Russian depict the 'Novichok' case as a staged 'provocation'. There is a historic antetype for such a 'provocation' by a 'western' intelligence service. That gives the Russian claim some significant merit.


It took only nine month for the 'Operation Hades' story to fall apart. The 'Novichok' fairy-tale may now see an even earlier end.

Sky News Breaking @SkyNewsBreak - 2:59 PM - 3 Apr 2018
Chief executive of Porton Down research laboratory has told Sky News scientists have not been able to prove the Novichok nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal came from Russia or establish its country of origin

Mind the gap, Mrs. May. Mind the credibility gap.

Video of Mr. Aitkenhead's Sky News interview. (Nice word play included: He only provides scientific evidence. The government may additionally have 'other' (i.e. unscientific) evidence to make a case.)

In light of the Proton Down statement we can now state that Boris Johnson, on March 20 on DW, proved to be an 'absolutely categorical' liar:

You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
BJ: Let me be clear with you … When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory …

So they have the samples …

BJ: They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt.

In the interview Boris Johnson tried to preemptively put any eventual fault in the case on Porton Down. Today he received the response.

Payback is a bitch, Mr Johnson. A biting bitch.


The Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, a number British academics, published an update to their briefing ‘Doubts about Novichoks’ at Tim Hayward's site.

The update carefully distinguishes and discusses the various chemical substances and research programs relevant to the British 'Novichok' claims. The 'Novichok' nerve agents Vil Mirzayanov describes in his book seem to differ from the substances other Russian scientists talked about in their recent interviews. The U.S. though, as well as other countries, has evidently worked on some of the substances described by Mirzayanov and concealed these efforts from the OPCW. The Working Group concludes:

The UK government has asserted that “No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent and motive” to carry out the Salisbury poisonings. Published studies show that these compounds can be synthesized at bench scale (sufficient for an assassination) in other countries. The UK government’s declared case therefore rests only on subjective judgements of “intent and motive”, which are open to question.


A few days ago Victoriya Skripal, a cousin of Yulia Skripal, was interviewed by the Russian website MKRU (Ru). The Stalkerzone provides an English translation of the full interview. From it we learn that:
•Victoriya Skripal tried to get information on her allegedly poisoned cousin Yulia and uncle Sergej from the British embassy in Russia since March 5. She also unsuccessfully tried to contact the hospital in Salisbury. She heard from the Russian embassy in Britain that Yulia is awake, can eat and drink and can say a few words.
•Shortly before the incident Yulia had gained access to some $200,000 owned by her deceased brother. This, for now, seems to have nothing to do with the case.
•Sergej Skripal is not a lone man but has a number of friends and family in Russia and in Britain who visited him regularly in Salisbury.
•Sergej Skripal has two cats and two guinea pigs. Victoriya Skripal asks: What happened to them? (They licked the doorknob and turned into walking-dead?)
•Victoriya Skripal wants to travel to Britain and bring at least Yulia back home with her.

Victoriya Skripal apparently also did an interview with the Mail Online (or the Mail plagiarized its piece from MKRU). There seems to be no additional information in it.


British officials spread various theories about where and how the Skripal's were poisoned. According to 'official' leaks to the British press the alleged nerve agent was smeared to the door of Sergej Skripal's car, was in a pizza, in Yulia Skripal's luggage or perfume, or in the car's air vent. I may have been sprayed by a mini drone, or the stuff was smeared onto to the doorknob of Skripal's house or maybe it was, as claimed yesterday, in buckwheat cereals brought from Russia on Sergej Skripal's request.

In my view none of these explanation is plausible. The multitude of the discussed possibilities alone shows that either no one has a clue of what happened and how it happened, or someone is trying to bury the case in a heap of misinformation. We shall call this phenomena 'Novi-fog'. It unmasks headlines like this one as mere propaganda: Poisoned Door Handle Hints at High-Level Plot to Kill Spy, U.K. Officials Say. "It was on the doorknob (maybe)! Thus Putin himself did it!"


John Helmer, who reports from Moscow, documents that the British government is breaking several British laws as well as international agreements by keeping the family and the consular service of the Russian embassy in Britain away from the Skripals.

large member
Tue Apr 03 13:47:00
May must be pretty desperate to have Yulia seek asylum. The fact of her seeking asylum proving the Russian regime is out to get her.

I think in fact that Yulia needs protection from you. She must be under horrendous pressure to condemn Russia and seek asylum.
Tue Apr 03 15:52:58

No violation jergul. The relevant situation isn't covered by the treaty and the Russians have yet to formally challenge the uk govts position in the competent court as per the treaty. So we can assume that despite the bluster, they agree.

If the Russians really feel she needs protection from us, why haven't they filed?

I think they'd rather foster conspiracy theories for the likes of you, paramount and swordtail.

It's funny how you are a stickler for procedure except when you aren't.

Tue Apr 03 17:51:36
"It turned out that the plutonium was not from Russia but had been planted by the German equivalent of the MI6, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND)."

Just wrong. It was coming from Moscow and the BND did not plant it. Until today the true origin is not clear, the nuclear plant could not be identified. So it could have been from another country only "travelling" through Russia.
Sam Adams
Tue Apr 03 18:11:43
Lol. The russian propaganda coming from the usual clowns is exceptionally pathetic. And russia pays for this?
Anarchist Prime
Tue Apr 03 19:19:16
"That raises another question for the German intelligence watchdogs: The German constitution, written in the days when bad memories of the Gestapo were still fresh, strictly prohibits spy agencies like the BND from engaging in police work on German soil. Doesn't sending a BND agent, disguised as an interpreter, to participate in a nuclear sting in Munich, violate this rule?

In any case, with hidden tape recorders rolling, the men negotiated their big deal. The undercover police officer offered $276 million for nine pounds of plutonium--about what it would take for a developing country to build a hydrogen bomb. Torres hastened back to Moscow to pick up his plastic-wrapped shipment, which was to have been the first installment.

And, significantly, he once again managed to elude surveillance at precisely the moment that critics contend mattered most--when he met with his supplier to receive the 408 grams of plutonium that made it aboard the plane."


of course the BND didn't plant it,they just conveniently didn't catch the big fish for some strange reason.
large member
Wed Apr 04 01:50:29
Violation. The willingness to violate treaties and obligations fundamentally undermines UK credibility and begs the question of Yulia needing protection from exessive pressure that is inherent to the desparation May is demonstrating.

You be scientific. The evidence is not in line with the depth of UK accusations.

We know politicians lie. Your trust of the May is pathetic.
large member
Wed Apr 04 03:06:51
WASHINGTON, April 4. /TASS/. Russia is free to send personnel to replace 60 diplomats declared persona non grata by the United States in late March, a US Department of State spokesperson told TASS on Tuesday.

"As with similar incidents in the past, the Russian government remains free to request accreditation for vacant positions in its bilateral mission. Any requests for new diplomatic accreditation will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis," the source said.

"The Russian Federation has not informed us that it intends to reduce the total number of personnel allowed in our bilateral Mission," the spokesperson said.

According to the official, the United States assumes that Moscow is ready to accept new US diplomatic personnel to fill the positions of diplomats who have been expelled from Russia.

On March 26, in the wake of the Skripal incident in Salisbury, a number of EU member countries, the United States, Canada and Australia announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats. In particular, Washington expelled 60 diplomatic workers and closed the Russian consulate in Seattle.

Last week, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced retaliatory measures against counties that had expelled Russian diplomats. In particular, Moscow expelled 60 US diplomats and closed the US consulate general in the city of St. Petersburg.

Wed Apr 04 05:24:39


The treaty is very clear that the rights the Russian's wish to use are subject to the laws of the recipient country and contingent on the Sending country exercising consular functions.

As the UK govt believes that the Russian state is the prime suspect, it doubts the Russian state is performing a consular function in seeking access.

As the treaty says subject to recipient law, establishing violation would mean exhausting UK legal process to establish if the UK is adhering to UK law, and then referring it to international court of justice and suggesting that UK law is contrary to the intent of the treaty.

large member
Wed Apr 04 05:42:20
The treaty is very clear that May is in violation of it.

You seem to not understand that this is a credibility issue. May is undermining her credibility and shifting initial hesitant support to neutrality at best.

I frankly believe that Yulia needs protection from the UK authorities who are almost certainly heavily pressuring her to a life in exile.

large member
Wed Apr 04 05:52:46
Also, her status as witness is subject to the UK believing she at worst unwittingly brought the chemicals to the UK and suffered exposure there (it is one of the theories the ever so trustworthy UK government has leaked).

Another possibility is of course that she was aware of what she was doing, but suffered a mishap.

The possibility makes her a person of interest more than a witness.

This in turn suggests she needs legal council and the support of councilar services. In addition to protection from the UK.
Wed Apr 04 06:31:18

I'm sorry but your interpretation holds little weight.

As a credibility issue, our allies are with us.

And I don't find your resaoning indicative of broader view of our credibility.

"her status as witness is subject to the UK believing she at worst unwittingly brought the chemicals to the UK"

No. For example, if the posion was on the inside of the door, she would know who might have visited the house in the previous day. For example.

I think the general view here is she needs protection from the Russian state, who as the prime suspect may seek to influence her statements by threatening her family.

The Russian's are free to dispute whether the UK Govt is abiding by the law by filing a motion in the courts.

They have not done so.
Wed Apr 04 06:32:51
So formally, they are not disputing the governments interpretaion of the treaty.

Nor have they, or could they, refer to the Hague.
large member
Wed Apr 04 07:53:49
I am sorry that your interpretation holds so little weight.

Are they with you? The US State Department just signalled it would be happy for new diplomats to return.

Any allies at all say anything in support of the UK after the laboratory held a press conference stating it had no indication of where the chemicals were produced.

I am sure your view is that she needs protection from the Russian State and you are therefore pressuring her heavily to live a life in exile.

It is one of the reasons she needs protection from you.

The treaty wording is clear. You are in breech of treaty. If you are willing to cheat on that, then you are willing to say or do anything.

Which allows for speculation on if any facility in the UK has or could have produced the chemicals in question.

A rogue regime doing whatever the hell it likes, can do whatever the hell it likes unless held to account.

I think we should hold you to account.
large member
Wed Apr 04 08:06:24
Boris caught flat-out lying is simply indicative of the lengths the UK has gone to manufacture a crisis.

You know, the guy who responsibility was to rally the allies.

No wonder the US State Department answered with reinviting Russian diplomats to Washington.
Wed Apr 04 08:36:44

"The US State Department just signalled it would be happy for new diplomats to return."

So? The important point is kicking out of those demed spies - disrupts the inteligence gathering.

"after the laboratory held a press conference stating it had no indication of where the chemicals were produced."

I don't think as many people are going to be so confused as you are about the idea that there is a mix of forensic and inteligence based evidence.

"I am sure your view"
The view of the British Government, which the Russians are free to challenge in the competent court as per the convention.

"It is one of the reasons she needs protection from you"
Yes, but who cares about your view Jergul? You don't have any legal standing to challenge these points, nor are you an authority.

The fact remains, the Russian's have yet to contest this matter in a formal setting, either in the competent Juristidction or appeal to the ICJ yet there is ample opportunity to do so.

"The treaty wording is clear"
It is indeed: the Russians are not deemed to be performing a consular function, and even if they did its rights are subject to the recipient countries law in respect of safegaurding. It's clear and explicit. The next step to challenge the UK Government would be to ask a court to adjudicate whether the UK Govt does indeed have reasonable grounds to feel that the Russians are not performing a consular function (i.e. does the UK government have a good enough case to believe that the Russian state is not performing a consular function in seeking access to Yulia) and if they feel that British law in that case fundamentally violates the Vienna Convention then the next port of call is the ICJ.

It has yet to do so.

Russia remains the key suspect and, as with e.g. defectors or asylum seekers, Russian diplomats attempt to gain access cannot be viewed as protected consular functions.

The attempt to argue that the UK engaged in a chemical attack on itself in order to manufacture a political crisis is the stuff of tin foil hat conspiracy theories jergul.

large member
Wed Apr 04 08:51:37
No, the point was to show solidarity with the UK and react against a chemical incident on UK soil. Based on what the UK had told it allies (which we now know have been established as lies).

"Evidence" suggests some factual basis I think we can disregard as farfetched at this juncture. Now that we know the UK is simply creating information.

I think we have to ask the question "who gains?" and move the UK up as the primary suspect in this case.

Given its complete disregard for the truth and for treaties it has signed.

May is doing a great job! Feel victimized yet? You will.
Wed Apr 04 09:03:29

"Based on what the UK had told it allies (which we now know have been established as lies)."

I'm sorry, why do you think this has been established as lies?
Wed Apr 04 09:05:05
If the UK has signals inteligence, for example, that shows a Russian laboratory produced Novichok in the last year, would that consitute evidence in your mind? And would the director of Porton Down have that evidence?

Wed Apr 04 09:08:11
What we know is that the allied governments were briefed by UK inteligence service and several changed their policy to be much tougher than they had been indicating previously having demanded evidence.

So how is it we now know that the UK lied to these governments given you have no information at all about whath was discolsed to them?

Previously, your view was to basically pretend that because those briefings were in camara, not public, they basically had no evidence.

Now you maintain they did have evidencce, but the evidence was a lie.

It seems you are wanting to have your cake and eat it in order to pursue your increasingly boring knee-jerk Russo-phillia.
Wed Apr 04 09:19:17

To jergul's point, we've well established that the UK and its allies will make major international decisions based on less tham conclusive evidence. See Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011.

I think it's fair to say that Russia in all likelihood is responsible just because this is a classic Russian move and the nerve agent did come from Russia, but that the UK may be acting more based on that premise than on the results of any comprehensive investigation of the facts.
Wed Apr 04 09:22:33

And yet you see France and Germany both following through with strong support (both of which hardened their stance after briefing); when in the case of Iraq they led opposition.

It looks to me more like you are in danger of reaching a position based more on a premise than an assessment of the facts.
Anarchist Prime
Wed Apr 04 09:26:30
"It looks to me more like you are in danger of reaching a position based more on a premise than an assessment of the facts."

right,and that's your shtick.
bad rugian.
Wed Apr 04 09:35:56

It seems like you're not taking the wider context into account. For the past couple of years now, a major aspect of European politics is how Russia has reemerged as a highly dangerous threat to liberal democracy in Europe, as well as to the European idea. As the leading champions of the EU, Merkel and Macron both have a vested interest in opposing Russia at any turn.

Contrast that to Iraq, which was not an immediate threat in any sense (to which I might add that western Europe was hostile to GWB from Day 1, so that was a factor as well).

jergul is just earning his Russian propaganda pay here. But that doesn't mean I trust the UK or any other country to be making policy based primarily on hard facts rather than on assumptions, instinct and self-interests.
Wed Apr 04 10:13:05

So, how come they started off being distinctly unenthusiastic but then hardened after the UK provided an inteligence briefing?

Neither Merkel nor Marcron have a particular interest in having a diplomatic spat with Russia right now, though broadly yes they do have interest in working out better ways of contianing Russia. Arguably, they wouldn't want to spend capital on responding to this.
large member
Wed Apr 04 10:30:45
Boris lying to his allies and outed by the executive director of the research facility.

Get a grip.

The only pattern it fits is one of British accusations.

We were asked to take on faith UK claims. Despite my better judgement, I actually did. In sense that I understood why May had to create a diplomatic incident once she made her view public (I recommended the UK recall its ambassador for consultations and put its embassy in caretaker mode for a defined period of time). It all on the record in a thread somewhere.

Now it is proven they lied, have violated treaty obligations and only with the greatest reluctance involved the organization responsible for chemical monitoring.

I hold the UK to a higher standard than Russia.

Silly, I know.
large member
Wed Apr 04 10:32:09
For someone totting garbage for his literal paymasters, see: Seb.
Anarchist Prime
Wed Apr 04 10:44:27
Wed Apr 04 10:55:05
”The important point is kicking out of those demed spies - disrupts the inteligence gathering.”

Did the US find out that they were spies just when Skripal was posioned, or did the US know about prior to this incident? And if the US knew they were spies before Skripal was poisoned why did the US expel the spies earlier?

”So, how come they started off being distinctly unenthusiastic but then hardened after the UK provided an inteligence briefing?”

I guess they were all having a discussion and they discussed how ”Russian trolls” are dangerous and Merkel and Macron agreed that trolls are a threat, and then maybe the UK said ”trust us on this” and they did. Perhaps elements in the US (not necessarily the Trump admin) put alot of pressure on the European leaders too. Hilary hates Putin. Obama promised a revenge on Russia.
Wed Apr 04 10:56:23
*why DIDN’T the US expel the spies earlier?
Wed Apr 04 11:04:17
After the Iraq war and shit, one can not trust Western governments anymore. That people now shows disbelief in what the UK is saying is a consequence of that. It is going to take time until one can trust Western governments again. UK could start by providing some evidence that proves their accusations.
Wed Apr 04 11:05:18

Porton Down is a lab specialising in reasearch on defensive measures against biochemical weapons.

Why do you think that the director of Porton Down would have access to the full range of evidence the government might have (e.g. signals inteligence, human inteligence etc.)?

"We were asked to take on faith UK claims"
Who is "we"? I don't believe the UK has asked you for anything.

"I recommended"
To whom, exactly?

"Now it is proven they lied"
How is it the case that they have been proven to Lie?

"I hold the UK to a higher standard than Russia."

Yes, we've all noticed. We remember your view on annexation "Cry me a river" varies starkly depending on who has done it.

I would suggest you might have more credibility if you started to hold Russia to account and stop pointing the finger at the west at every opportunity.

Anarchist Prime
Wed Apr 04 11:05:24
"*why DIDN’T the US expel the spies earlier?"

because they weren't sure that jump from cold war to tepid war was possible so soon.
now that brits have assured them it is possible,they're on board.
Wed Apr 04 11:06:24

Once you think a diplomat might be a spy, you tend to watch him.

Or hell, just kicking out diplomats is disruptive as few other countries will want to accept them on the basis they might be spies.
Wed Apr 04 11:10:15
It's funny that Jergul is pushing the kremling talking point comming from Russian media that the director of portondown's statement somehow contradicts Boris statement and shows him to be lying.

It's quite simple: there are other institutions and agencies and bits of evidence that would lead to the conclusion it was Russian agents.

The director of Porton down can only speak for the forensic analysis of the chemical.
Wed Apr 04 11:21:29

"So, how come they started off being distinctly unenthusiastic but then hardened after the UK provided an inteligence briefing?"

My guess is, *at a minimum* they received evidence of the identity of the nerve agent and at least casual evidence that Russia was somehow involved, which were bolstered by the nature of the target, aggressive diplomatic outreach (May was quite busy on her Blackberry after the attack), and the implicit instinct of all parties involved to look at Russia as a badboy actor. AKA the standard of proof for the Iraq War.

Beyond that, you and I aren't going to know what they were briefed on, not until it no longer manners anyway.

The reason why I doubt the proof is substantially more definitive than the above is twofold:

1. The aggressive timeline. France, Germany and America all threw their support behind the UK within ten days of the attack, which is hardly enough time to have a thorough investigation.

2. The fact that the state actors involved have previously demonstrated on repeated occasions that substantive proof is not a requirement for them to draw conclusions on matters like this.

So Russia probably did it. But I'm skeptical we have the proof that they did.
Wed Apr 04 11:26:32
Or, Russia probably did not do this, and you probably have the evidence clearing them. But yeah, we are not going to know until it no longer matters. Or until a brave whistleblower emerges.
Wed Apr 04 11:28:17

If BoJo making an ass out of himself in public is enough for you to dismiss the entire UK government, we could never trust anything Theresa May says ever again.

Seeing as how the identity of the nerve agent is not seriously in question, there's only three likely possibilities here:

1. Russia did it
2. A rogue actor with access to Russian supplies did it
3. Someone trying to frame Russia did it

So now we're back to talking false flag, which you have denied claiming and which in any case makes little sense (no one else had motive to poison the targets involved and while this incident has sparked a significant diplomatic row, its not like it would be any sort of tipping point in Russian-Western relations).

To put it bluntly, what are you offering in terms of an alternative offender?
large member
Wed Apr 04 11:30:16
Wow, you are such a tool.

Anyways, Boris is on record stating the research facility had identified Russia as the source of the chemicals. A lie that was part and package of evaluations made by other countries.

Who will now need to carefully re-evaluate information given them by the UK as truth obviously is not a factor.

I am on record in this forum. Where else?

I am also on record (in this forum) stating catagorically and without reservation that the Russian annexation of Crimea is a far more serious crime than the invasion and occupation of Iraq was back in the day. Though as crimes go - people hung for planning and initiating both kinds in Nurenburg.

Holding to account? No one has challenged my view on the seriousness of Russia's crime, so there is little to debate.

I generally pre-empt the talking points. Maybe Russia is monitoring this forum. Or maybe the talking points simply make sense.

May and her cabinet went way beyond what there is evidence to claim.

As to credibility: You would think I cared what posters here think. Hurt? Crimea river.
large member
Wed Apr 04 11:34:48
There are 10s of thousands of research facilities that could produce the chemical at bench level production rates (small volume).

I would tend to point at Ukraine who has most to gain from Russia being targetted. Followed closely by the UK itself.

Remember if you will that we do not actually have any dead people from what is supposed to be one of the most deadly chemicals known to man.

Low level exposure designed to make people a bit ill, but no more - trace amounts in other words.

And a screw-up that had people become more ill than intended.

But just ask yourself who gains from the fall-out?

That would be your list of suspects.
large member
Wed Apr 04 11:35:26
Ah yes. Novichik is in the public domain. Released in 1996 in the US.
Wed Apr 04 11:59:23
”Crimea is a far more serious crime”

Why? Israel can invade, annex, and murder people, with the West’s blessing. We even reward Israel with very favorable trade agreements, etc. So why can’t Russia follow Israel’s example?

If you can grab land and kill people and if you can hold on to that land then it is yours. Everyone who wants should be allowed to do this.
Wed Apr 04 12:08:01

So false flag, which was obscured by a rush to judgement. Fair enough, except how does the UK benefit from this at all? May gets a few weeks of looking like a toughie and the UK gets to expel a bunch of diplomats. Im not seeing the longterm gain here.
Anarchist Prime
Wed Apr 04 12:15:05
british butthurt statement

Wed Apr 04 13:13:52

"Anyways, Boris is on record stating the research facility had identified Russia as the source of the chemicals"

Actually, he didn't say that if you are referring to the statement I think you are referring to.

I think you are referring to a deleted FCO tweet from a live-tweeting of a briefing by a British ambassador that incorrectly summarised the Ambassadors statement and which was subsequently deleted.

RT's coverage kinda conflates the two, so I see how you might be getting the wrong end of the stick.

"There are 10s of thousands of research facilities that could produce the chemical at bench level production rates"

The director of Porton Down put it at around 20. Cherry picking?

Anarchist Prime
Wed Apr 04 13:22:34
Date 04.04.2018
Author Richard Connor

Boris Johnson accused of making misleading Russia Novichok claim in DW interview

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has come in for criticism over a DW interview in which he said he had been assured the nerve agent came from Russia. However, UK government scientists have said they do not know.

Johnson's comments to DW were met with skepticism on Wednesday, after scientists said they could not be sure that the toxin used against former Russian agent Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia, had come from Russia.

The comments that drew criticism of Johnson were made by him in a DW interview last month, when the British foreign minister was asked how he knew Russia was the source of the Novichok nerve agent.

"How did you manage to find out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of this?" DW's Zhanna Nemtsova asked Johnson in the DW video.

After a lengthy preamble about his efforts to improve relations with Russia, Johnson appeared to return to the subject of whether Russia was responsible.

"When I look at the evidence, the people from Porton Down, the laboratory… they were absolutely categorical, I mean, I asked the guy myself, I said, 'are you sure?' and he said 'there's no doubt.' And so, we have very little alternative but to take the action that we have taken."

Britain's Porton Down biological and chemical weapons laboratory on Tuesday announced that the toxin was in a category of Soviet-era nerve agents called Novichok, although they could not yet determine whether it was made in Russia. It prompted criticism of Johnson for his previous comments.

Russia strongly rejects the claim that it is responsible for the poisoning.

Questions over source

Among those hauling Johnson over the coals for his DW interview was the oppostion Labour Party Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, who retweeted a post featuring an edited clip from the interview.

Speaking on Wednesday, Abbott questioned why Johnson had made such a robust assertion that Putin was responsible when Prime Minister Theresa May had taken the more cautious approach "with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia."

"[May] was quite careful in her initial statement. But Boris Johnson apparently going on international media and saying he was 101 percent certain it was Putin - I don't understand where he got that information from,” Abbott told the BBC.

Abbott added that she hoped Labour would "get some credit for taking a more thoughtful approach and asking the right questions."

Meanwhile, an embarrassed Foreign Office blamed the mistake on it tweeting a briefing given by the UK’s Ambassador to Russia “in real time” for the blunder. The now-deleted tweet read: “Analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down made clear this was a military-grade Novichok nerve agent produced in Russia.”

"One of the tweets was truncated and did not accurately report our ambassador’s words. We have removed this tweet," a Foreign Office spokeswoman said.

While many Western countries have shown solidarity with Britain over the poisoning incident, withdrawing diplomats from Russia, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has raised doubts that Putin was responsible, instead suggesting it could have been the work of "mafia-like groups" in Russia.

Skripal and his daughter Yulia have been in hospital since they were found unconscious in the southern English city of Salisbury on March 4. The 33-year-old Yulia is said to be improving, while her 66-year-old father remains in a stable but critical condition.

Anarchist Prime
Wed Apr 04 13:46:33
Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) is a unit of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British intelligence agency.[1] The existence of JTRIG was revealed as part of the global surveillance disclosures in documents leaked by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Mission
2 Operations
3 See also
4 References
5 External links


See also: Computer network operations

The scope of the JTRIG's mission includes using "dirty tricks" to “destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt” enemies by “discrediting” them, planting misinformation and shutting down their communications.[2][3] Known as "Effects" operations, the work of JTRIG had become a "major part" of GCHQ's operations by 2010.[2] The slides also disclose the deployment of "honey traps" of a sexual nature by British intelligence agents.[2]


In 2011, the JTRIG conducted a denial-of-service attack (DoS) on the activist network Anonymous.[1] Other JTRIG targets have included the government of Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan.[2]

Campaigns operated by JTRIG have broadly fallen into two categories; cyber attacks and propaganda efforts. The propaganda efforts (named "Online Covert Action"[citation needed]) utilize "mass messaging" and the “pushing [of] stories” via the medium of Twitter, Flickr, Facebook and YouTube.[2] Online “false flag” operations are also used by JTRIG against targets.[2] JTRIG have also changed photographs on social media sites, as well as emailing and texting colleagues and neighbours with "unsavory information" about the targeted individual.[2]

A computer virus named Ambassadors Reception has been used by GCHQ “in a variety of different areas” and has been described in the slides as “very effective.” The virus can “encrypt itself, delete all emails, encrypt all files, [and] make [the] screen shake” when sent to adversaries.[2] The virus can also block a user from logging on to their computer.[2] Information obtained by GCHQ is also used in “close access technical operations,” in which targets are physically observed by intelligence officers, sometimes in person at hotels. Telephone calls can also be listened to and hotel computers tapped, the documents ask, “Can we influence hotel choice? Can we cancel their visits?”.[2]

In a "honey trap" an identified target is lured “to go somewhere on the Internet, or a physical location” to be met by “a friendly face”, with the aim to discredit them.[2] A “honey trap” is described as "very successful when it works” by the slides.[2] The disclosures also revealed the technique of “credential harvesting”, in which journalists could be used to disseminate information and identify non-British journalists who, once manipulated, could give information to the intended target of a secret campaign, perhaps providing access during an interview.[2] It is unknown whether the journalists would be aware that they were being manipulated.[2]

A JTRIG operation saw GCHQ "significantly disrupt" the communications of the Taliban in Afghanistan with a "blizzard" of faxes, phone calls and text messages scheduled to arrive every minute.[2] Specific JTRIG operations also targeted the nuclear programme of Iran with negative information on blogs attacking private companies, to affect business relationships and scupper business deals.[2]

JTRIG also undertook cyber-operations as part of a wider GCHQ mission to prevent Argentine takeover of the Falkland Islands. The scope of the cyber tactics used in this operation are unclear.[4]

In June 2015, NSA files published by Glenn Greenwald revealed new details about JTRIG's work at covertly manipulating online communities and internal activities within the United Kingdom. UK agencies that JTRIG says it co-operates with include the Metropolitan police, Security Service (MI5), Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), Border Agency, Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and National Public Order and Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). It is also involved in what it calls "missions" with various other agencies described as "customers", including the Bank of England, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. [5]

Anarchist Prime
Wed Apr 04 13:48:15
The Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), a unit in one of Britain’s intelligence agencies, is tasked with creating sockpuppet accounts and fake content on social media, in order to use "dirty tricks" to "destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt" enemies by "discrediting" them. In this talk, we reveal some of that content, in relation to infiltrating activists groups around the world, including during the Arab spring and Iranian revolution.

Tentacle Rapist
Wed Apr 04 15:31:15
15) How many of your siblings were fathered by Putin?
large member
Thu Apr 05 01:34:57
May has benefitted massively. Thatcher strategy of finding an external enemy to ensure domestic support. UK has both helped Brexit negotiations, cloaked some unacceptable parts of current negotiations it has agreed to, and helped define UKs security position in a post brexit world.

The same is true for the branch of the MOD that does chemical research and any security organization that can expect a budget increase to deal with "threats" of low intensity attacks by state actors.

"Labour said in an interview given to German TV last month, Mr Johnson said that "people from Porton Down" were "absolutely categorical", adding: "I asked the guy myself. I said 'are you sure?', and he said 'there's no doubt'."

But on Tuesday the Porton Down laboratory said it could not verify the precise source of the Novichok nerve agent used, although it did say it was likely to have been deployed by a "state actor".

Labour called on the prime minister to launch an investigation into whether Mr Johnson broke the ministerial code"


The Ministery tweet would be a different source of misinformation.
Thu Apr 05 01:44:29
Categorical about what, exactly?

And a deleted tweet by a junior Comms guy?

Da comrade. A slam dunk case.

Thu Apr 05 02:14:33

Front page of the times. UK security services appear to have claimed they identified the lab where Russia manufactures novichok, and have known about it prior to Salisbury incident.

So, there you go.
large member
Thu Apr 05 02:16:08
That would be a different source of disinformation that was later deleted (is that even allowed? Concealing released information by Government would not be legal in Norway). The deletion fits a fog-and-mirror pattern incidentally.

But lets us be clear that I have never mentioned that as a source. You have.

I was looking at what Boris said in a broadcast interview.

So yes, old-chap. It does not look good. There will be alliance back-blow. You have mislead them.
large member
Thu Apr 05 02:17:45
Then the UK security services should request the relevant organization inspect the site.

The UK site that manufactures Novichuk is run by the MOD incidentally. The executive director there was pretty clear on having produced the chemical there.
large member
Thu Apr 05 02:18:21
One of the UK sites at least.
Thu Apr 05 04:10:10

I have too. And I think if you want to c/p the transcript here you will see he didn't lie at all.

"Then the UK security services should request the relevant organization inspect the site."

As you know, the UK has already requested the OPCW to investigate and they are doing so. One that has been completed it may well demand an inspection.

You claim the UK manufactures novichok. There's no evidence to that.

You say the surveyor is clear that it has been manufactured. Can you provide a source to that?

large member
Thu Apr 05 04:31:46
I said pretty clear. He was catagorical on it not leaving the sites 4 walls.

Your problem is the narrative. "Waah, only Russia could have produced", while we actually know that many actors would have produced samples of the chemical for research purposes (for example in antidote research).

I saw that he lied. Feel free to c/p if you like.

So your security services feel time is not essential and it is important that there be a window that Russia could have used to remove all signs of Novichik research so you can later claim "well, they had time to remove all the signs of research"

Good one! Why even try to produce evidence when the important thing is that Russia is guilty until it proves a negative.
Thu Apr 05 04:57:24

Again, I think you are reading something that wasn't in the text. Why don't you provide the text you are citing?

"while we actually know that many actors would have produced samples of the chemical for research purposes (for example in antidote research)."

About 20, reckons the director of porton down.

"I saw that he lied. Feel free to c/p if you like."
I'd rather you provided as I can't be sure which quote you are referring to.

"So your security services feel time is not essential"
I imagine our security services don't want to disclose an active source.

"Russia could have used to remove all signs of Novichik research"
Production jergul. Novichok production.
Russia can delay any inspection anway, as they did in Syria.

As you admitted, you apply double standards. Your pro-Russian anti-west bias is noted.

large member
Thu Apr 05 07:29:12
Novichuk research is far more than sufficient to produce doses large enough to hospitalize 3 people.

Why were they micro-dosed anyway, since we are speculating. Enough to make them ill, but not kill them?

Which security agencies would gain from micro-dosing a former Russian agent with smaller than lethal doses of a chemical compound supposedly amongst the most lethal known to man?

Who gains Seb? That is the question you should be asking yourself, old chap.

Your own paliament has called into question Boris' comments. Calling for a review.

Not anti-west. I am seriously questioning the UK narrative. You should learn to distinguish between these things as part of your own personal Brexit preparedness scheme.

You will be alone soon. For better, not for worse.
large member
Thu Apr 05 07:37:56
We should probably suspect nimi given that micro-doses of novichuk were used. It fits his pattern, you see.
Thu Apr 05 07:38:27

"Why were they micro-dosed anyway, since we are speculating. Enough to make them ill, but not kill them?"

Dosage is imprecise when you are using these covert measures - there are examples of failed poisonings before. The contact that Skripal senior has seems to have been sufficient to all extents and purposes kill him. You should look at the accounts of the Russian scientist who accidentally dosed himself. He survived the initial phases thanks to swift medical intervention (as has happened here, exacerbated by skin exposure vs inhilation or ingestion) but later died from chronic long term complications.

This is nasty stuff and you are extrapolating.

"Who gains Seb?"
Indeed, and the plausible explanations here seem to be Russia predominantly gains.

"Your own paliament has called into question Boris' comments"

You mean some opposition MPs did? Well, I think they, like you, are making hay out of some very slight ambiguities.

Like I said, post a transcript or give some other precise information so I can take the exact words he stated and we can discuss if it is truly a lie, or just a bit of politicla opportunism.

"Not anti-west."
Jergul, in the 20 odd years I've been active on this forum I cannot once think of you ever not taking the Russian talking points in any east/west conflict. And you yourself openly admit to applying double standards.

"You will be alone soon."
We shall see. Snow on line, UK cut off from Jergul is something I'm sure is keeping our senior officials up at night.

large member
Thu Apr 05 07:44:42
Stiff upper lip, old chap. You seem miffed about something.

Its not my fault May's narrative lacks credibility.

But good on you for rallying around the flag.

Top ticket, that.
Thu Apr 05 09:17:20
I think the only person lacking credibility here is you!

Here is the transcript that was referred to in Parliament:

Q:"you argue that the source of this nerve agent, novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain posesses samples of it?"
A: "Let me be clear with you... When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the Laboratory..."
Q: "So they have the samples...?"
A: "They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said 'Are you sure?' And he said there's no doubt".

So it is quite possible that the second answer refers to the question as to whether Porton Down has samples of the chemical residues from the attack and have identified it as Novichok; whereas the first answer, if not interrupted, would have been on the lines of "when I look at the evidence from porton Down, the Laboratory, and that of the inteligence services, there is no doubt in my mind that the attack was from Russia".

This would be entirely consistent with the government line from the begining, and would explain why the briefing to foreign governments was from SIS, not from DSTL. It would fit with the reports from security officials too.

So I rather think the claim that Boris lied doesn't really hold any water at all.

It rather stretches the credibility, and the question has to be asked why an individual, such as yourself, would choose to interpret what is at best an ambiguous interview as a definitive lie. Certainly we know Corbyn and Labour have a vested interest in attacking government ministers for political purposes.

But as you say, you apply double standards when it comes to Russia and the UK.

large member
Thu Apr 05 09:39:09
And I think May's narrative and those that defend the narrative with waffling and sophistry lack credibility.

I think it is clear he lied and invoked authorative support that Russia was the source.

May does not have the evidence to support her narrative and has mislead her allies and the British public about the basis for her evidence.

Again. Its not like we have never seen the UK doe this before. You were looking for patterns.

Oh, and the first thing May did was award 45 million pounds for a new building (and yearly operating costs to run it above that) to people with the knowhow and access to facilities able to produce the chemicals that hospitalized 3 people.

To help you with your "Who gains?" efforts, since you struggle so.
large member
Thu Apr 05 09:46:13
Also, you are fundamentally misunderstanding this forum.

A few dozen people use it. Nothing here has any value in forming mass opinions, undermining governments, or supporting regimes.

Its ultimately all just about exploring news and research items in sometimes interesting and other times annoying ways.

Don't take yourself so seriously, bro.
Anarchist Prime
Thu Apr 05 10:01:02
Knobs and Knockers

large member
Thu Apr 05 10:52:37
For the record. That link author is not me.
Anarchist Prime
Thu Apr 05 11:09:50

for the record,i believe you.

large member
Thu Apr 05 11:30:14
Let it then be so recorded :).

May's narrative is a dead man walking.

Does that mean we know who did it? No
Does that mean we know Russia did not do it? No

Does it mean we are back to police work? Yes.

Start at the beginning. Find the person or people who exposed 3 people to chemical contamination that hospitalized them.
Thu Apr 05 12:04:15

The only sophistry here is on those attempting to construe a lie where there is non.
Thu Apr 05 12:06:16
Taking myself seriously?

You are the one that moved the conversation from assessing how governments are responding to whether you personally were convinced based on the evidence presented to you, and made that the yardstick for the UK governments credibility and integrity.

I think you need to get off your high horse.
Thu Apr 05 12:09:02
Ace of Spades
large member
Thu Apr 05 12:25:00
A statement with the intent to mislead is a lie. Feel free to argue that Boris had no intention of us believing Russia was the source of the chemicals. If you dare.

The discussion has move forward based on how poorly May has handled it combined with how weak the May's narrative turned out to be.

I am glad your foreign office finally had the sense to inform Yulia consular services are at her disposal if she requires it.

That small thing should alleviate a lot of the pressure she has been under.

And yes, you take yourself way too seriously.
Anarchist Prime
Thu Apr 05 12:52:07
for the record,spreading lies and misrepresenting facts ain't lighthearted shit.
only those with a pure heart carry this weight so the rest of us can sleep easier at night.
large member
Thu Apr 05 13:30:31
I don't know what to say to that beyond recognizing I may have overused the term "for the record" in this thread.
Thu Apr 05 17:14:12

You are assuming, without good reason, intent to mislead. And you are now engaging in a classic bait and switch.

The argument that his statement is not true rests on your incorrect interpretation that he is saying portion down confirmed the source rather than nature of the chemical.

Yes, Boris was intending us to understand he had evidence that Russia was the perpetrator, but because of the interuption and second question that shifts the focus on to the nature of the chemical, we don't hear why he thinks it's source is Russian. We know the UK govts belief is based on a number of different bits of evidence.

Quite why you are so keen to repeat and amplify Russian disinformation I'm at a loss Jergul, but it does raise big questions over your credibility. Particularly when you admit to applying double standards anyway.

You say weak, but it looks to me she's organised the bigges coordinated diplomatic response to Russia since they shot down that airliner (which you also shamelessly toed the Russian line over), and there's an ongoing OPWC investigation, with the Council overwhelmingly rejecting Russia's demands for joint investigation.

So we shall see jergul.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share