Poisoned Russian spy.

[Gorgiewave]

Porton Down can identify the nerve agent, that it's military grade and that it would require facilities and resources only a state would have to make it.

 

This is combined with intelligence gathered by intelligence agencies to reach the conclusion that Russia is the source of the nerve agent.

 

I doubt the nerve agent says "Made in Russia" on it.

[maroonlegions]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Britain avoiding a joined up approach with Porton Down saying it can't say nerve agent was from Russia.

 

They must have their reasons. 

Aye the reason being they still have no evidance it came from Russia. May looking like a right f@@ny now.

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Gorgiewave said:

Porton Down can identify the nerve agent, that it's military grade and that it would require facilities and resources only a state would have to make it.

 

This is combined with intelligence gathered by intelligence agencies to reach the conclusion that Russia is the source of the nerve agent.

 

I doubt the nerve agent says "Made in Russia" on it.

 

Foreign Office have just said this

 

 

[maroonlegions]

Just now, Gorgiewave said:

Porton Down can identify the nerve agent, that it's military grade and that it would require facilities and resources only a state would have to make it.

 

This is combined with intelligence gathered by intelligence agencies to reach the conclusion that Russia is the source of the nerve agent.

 

I doubt the nerve agent says "Made in Russia" on it.

 

You have sources in the intelligence agency??

 

Still no hard fast evidence  it came from Russia then , only conjecture and finger pointing. Imagine this was in a court of law, it would never had made it to trial. 

If we are now pointing the fingers at countries without hard evidence then what a way to treat other nations, would you be happy if the finger was pointing at you for something that there was no real hard evidence for, i would imagine you would not be happy.

[maroonlegions]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Foreign Office have just said this

 

 

 

So what ,if any ,was the hard evidence that made them clear from  the very beginning.??

 

Seems they think they are above the scientific  findings now or at least are acting out of pure embarrassment of their claims, claims that have now been  dented by science.

[Space Mackerel]

Here’s BoJo lying out his arse about the whole saga :-D

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

Naw, we didnae. They're gangsters, we're no.

 

Vlad vs Ann.

 

Yes we did. We helped and encouraged Russia down that lunatic path after the USSR collapsed. **** the people, there was money to be had! I doubt you know anything about that period tbh.

 

3 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

Unwittingly, yes. A bore.

 

Not enough of a 'bore' to not have you constantly replying to and launching ad hominems at me.  

 

But that's neither here nor there. That you, sitting there in Spain, having made a whole new life for yourself in Spain, having spent much of your life excoriating nationalists only to morph into the very worst kind of one yourself, have the brass neck to condemn someone else for frequently criticising Britain, is so far beyond parody it's almost not worth bothering with. 

 

Except for this simple point. It is the absolute obligation of anyone who believes in democracy - for anyone who believes in progress - to question, scrutinise and hold their countries' governments and policies to account. Many of your posts suggest to me that you don't even understand democracy, let alone seek to protect it. In your case, it's "my country (even though you abandoned that country many years ago), right or wrong. Four legs good, two legs bad". An absolutely pathetic stance from someone as educated as you are.

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

Posts by you expressing disdain for Britain.

 

Post by you expressing disdain for the worship of British soldiers, disdain for cynical governments... and joyfully celebrating the European Union.

 

 

Post by you condemning British imperialism, after earlier suggesting that many British forces over the years have partaken in genocide.

 

 

That was Gorgiewave, the critical thinker. Gorgiewave, the independent minded. Gorgiewave, the conscientious objector.

 

God only knows what you are now.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Space Mackerel]

1 hour ago, Gorgiewave said:

Porton Down can identify the nerve agent, that it's military grade and that it would require facilities and resources only a state would have to make it.

 

This is combined with intelligence gathered by intelligence agencies to reach the conclusion that Russia is the source of the nerve agent.

 

I doubt the nerve agent says "Made in Russia" on it.

 

Did you do the trials at Porton Down?  You’re going a bit Jacobs Ladder here :-D 

[Gorgiewave]

54 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Post by you expressing disdain for the worship of British soldiers, disdain for cynical governments... and joyfully celebrating the European Union.

 

 

Post by you condemning British imperialism, after earlier suggesting that many British forces over the years have partaken in genocide.

 

 

That was Gorgiewave, the critical thinker. Gorgiewave, the independent minded. Gorgiewave, the conscientious objector.

 

God only knows what you are now.

 

 

Gorgiewave, then and now:

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

Gone a bit quiet from the MSM fanbois on here. Weird likes. 

[Thunderstruck]

So the scientists cannot say precisely where the nerve agent came from but, as it says below, that is not their job and other intel has been combined to give a fuller picture. 

 

We should be grateful that corroboration remains a fundamental part of our legal systems (despite the SNP’s attempt to get rid of the “outdated rule”). Evidence of guilt from several sources leads to a more convincing and safe case. 

 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

33 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

So the scientists cannot say precisely where the nerve agent came from but, as it says below, that is not their job and other intel has been combined to give a fuller picture. 

 

We should be grateful that corroboration remains a fundamental part of our legal systems (despite the SNP’s attempt to get rid of the “outdated rule”). Evidence of guilt from several sources leads to a more convincing and safe case. 

 

 

 

 

Who was/were the Russian hitman mate? :-D

They left that deadly persistent nerve agent on the front door handle but the polis going in and out for the last 3 weeks have been unaffected. 

 

Weird likes. 

[Thunderstruck]

13 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Who was/were the Russian hitman mate? :-D

They left that deadly persistent nerve agent on the front door handle but the polis going in and out for the last 3 weeks have been unaffected. 

 

Weird likes. 

 

So, if it wasn’t the Russians, who do you think carried out the attack and what evidence do you have to support your accusation?

BBC/MI5/MI6/MFI/Mr Blobby*

* delete as appropriate

 

 

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

So the scientists cannot say precisely where the nerve agent came from but, as it says below, that is not their job and other intel has been combined to give a fuller picture. 

 

We should be grateful that corroboration remains a fundamental part of our legal systems (despite the SNP’s attempt to get rid of the “outdated rule”). Evidence of guilt from several sources leads to a more convincing and safe case. 

 

 

 

 

So why did the Foreign Secretary say that the scientists HAD said precisely where it had come from?

[Space Mackerel]

5 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

So, if it wasn’t the Russians, who do you think carried out the attack and what evidence do you have to support your accusation?

BBC/MI5/MI6/MFI/Mr Blobby*

* delete as appropriate

 

 

 

I don’t think anything happened. It’s just a load of concocted nonsense, after all, some lassies just survived x10 Sarin and there’s no known antidote to Novichock ?

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

So why did the Foreign Secretary say that the scientists HAD said precisely where it had come from?

 

He cant answer that. He’s too busy reading Tom Dunn on Twitter. 

[Space Mackerel]

Poor Gary Aitkenhead, probably end up like David Kelly now :-/

[Thunderstruck]

8 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

So why did the Foreign Secretary say that the scientists HAD said precisely where it had come from?

 

The Foreign Secretary said, in his interview, that Porton Down scientists had identified that it was Novichok and that had originated in Russia. 

 

The scientists confirmed today that it IS Novichok, that it IS military grade which was what they were asked to do. They cannot say precisely where it came from but, given that it is an indisputable fact that Russia developed Novichok and that Russia built a stockpile of weapons grade Novichok, it seems clear that the nerve agent originated in Russia. 

 

In other words, DSTL know what it is and who made it but rightly refuse to speculate on its journey to Salisbury; that is not their role. 

 

It seems likely that Johnson conflated the scientific analysis with corroborating evidence but nothing has come forth that shows him to be wrong in his assessment.  

 

What seems to be lost in today’s noise is the plea by the Russians to put “this incident behind us”. This is in their MO - strident denial/plausible deniability then shrug of shoulders and say “shit happens, vodka anyone?”. 

 

As as I said last week, Putin has what he wanted out of the incident - he gets to look hard to ordinary Russians and he gets to test Western resolve. He is unlikely to bother too much about tit for tat expulsion but is cautious of further sanctions so needs to get this out of the limelight. 

[Space Mackerel]

19 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

The Foreign Secretary said, in his interview, that Porton Down scientists had identified that it was Novichok and that had originated in Russia. 

 

The scientists confirmed today that it IS Novichok, that it IS military grade which was what they were asked to do. They cannot say precisely where it came from but, given that it is an indisputable fact that Russia developed Novichok and that Russia built a stockpile of weapons grade Novichok, it seems clear that the nerve agent originated in Russia. 

 

In other words, DSTL know what it is and who made it but rightly refuse to speculate on its journey to Salisbury; that is not their role. 

 

It seems likely that Johnson conflated the scientific analysis with corroborating evidence but nothing has come forth that shows him to be wrong in his assessment.  

 

What seems to be lost in today’s noise is the plea by the Russians to put “this incident behind us”. This is in their MO - strident denial/plausible deniability then shrug of shoulders and say “shit happens, vodka anyone?”. 

 

As as I said last week, Putin has what he wanted out of the incident - he gets to look hard to ordinary Russians and he gets to test Western resolve. He is unlikely to bother too much about tit for tat expulsion but is cautious of further sanctions so needs to get this out of the limelight. 

Any word on the assassins pal? Who dunnit? 

 

How come the polis didnt die guarding the persistent nerve agent on the door handle? 

 

As someone trained in NBC, what was her access to Antropine and Diazapam for the initial effects of nerve or chemical agent poisoning? How come she survived? 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Space Mackerel

[jake]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

So, if it wasn’t the Russians, who do you think carried out the attack and what evidence do you have to support your accusation?

BBC/MI5/MI6/MFI/Mr Blobby*

* delete as appropriate

 

 

Whether or not you think it's the Russians or in fact take any accusation of crime.

Innocence isn't subject to naming who is guilty.

 

[felix]

All a bit embarrassing .

Maybe there's other evidence we're not allowed to know about.

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The head of Britain’s military research centre said on Tuesday it was unable yet to say whether the military-grade nerve agent that poisoned a Russian double-agent last month had been produced in Russia....

Armin Laschet, a conservative ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said the comment raised questions about Britain’s drive to persuade allies to expel Russian diplomats.

“If one forces nearly all NATO countries into solidarity, shouldn’t one have certain evidence? Regardless of what one thinks about Russia, my study of international law taught me a different way to deal with other states,” Laschet, premier of the state of North Rhine-Westphlia, said on Twitter.

Edited April 4, 2018 by felix

[XB52]

14 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

So the scientists cannot say precisely where the nerve agent came from but, as it says below, that is not their job and other intel has been combined to give a fuller picture. 

 

We should be grateful that corroboration remains a fundamental part of our legal systems (despite the SNP’s attempt to get rid of the “outdated rule”). Evidence of guilt from several sources leads to a more convincing and safe case. 

 

 

 

Good try at shoe horning a bit of snp bashing into a totally unrelated thread. Unfortunately for you, this thread is about something that happened in England which, unlike Scotland, does not require corroboration. Please try harder next time, or just stay on topic.

[Thunderstruck]

6 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Good try at shoe horning a bit of snp bashing into a totally unrelated thread. Unfortunately for you, this thread is about something that happened in England which, unlike Scotland, does not require corroboration. Please try harder next time, or just stay on topic.

 

“Advice is like cooking--you should try it before you feed it to others.”

 

Firstly, the post you quote was on topic - relating to the evidence gathered and the responsibilities of the various investigators. 

 

Secondly, I don’t recall that I said it applied specifically in England.

 

Thirdly, England does have corroboration albeit applicable in more limited circumstances which could well apply in this instance. The application of the rule would be for any court to decide. 

 

Finally, this is being played out in the international arena where the various jurisdictions will have different requirements for corroboration. Meeting the highest standards of evidence is, therefore, necessary in the “court” of international opinion. 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

I see a tweet from Boris Johnstones Home Office has been removed.

 

 

Below is the original tweet from the Home Office;

 

 

 

That is not what Porton Down said. Subtle but significant difference is they identified it as ‘of the type developed in Russia’.

 

 

Now this tweet that was deleted by the Home Office contradicts what Boris and May had said from day one and puts into serious questions about the credibility of both May and her clown Boris in regards to their original public statements to the house of commons and media news outlets.They are taking the public for utter fools.

 

Then this denial manifests from the government; Spin in full overdrive.

 

UK Foreign Office denies claiming nerve agent from Russia, despite tweet and Boris Johnson interview;

 

The UK government has admitted to deleting a Twitter message about Russia which was "not accurately" reported - after Porton Down revelations over Novichok.

 

RT.COM

 

 

 

This is  now an administration sinking into psychosis.

 

And the BBC should be reminded that Britan did not accuse Russia it was the Conservative government and all those Blairites that did.

 

 

Positive identification of the substance used is not positive proof that it came from Russia, or that it was administered by a Russian agent.

 

 

[XB52]

3 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

“Advice is like cooking--you should try it before you feed it to others.”

 

Firstly, the post you quote was on topic - relating to the evidence gathered and the responsibilities of the various investigators. 

 

Secondly, I don’t recall that I said it applied specifically in England.

 

Thirdly, England does have corroboration albeit applicable in more limited circumstances which could well apply in this instance. The application of the rule would be for any court to decide. 

 

Finally, this is being played out in the international arena where the various jurisdictions will have different requirements for corroboration. Meeting the highest standards of evidence is, therefore, necessary in the “court” of international opinion. 

 

 

so  nothing to do with the snp then, glad you agree. 

[Sraman]

4 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

 

Finally, this is being played out in the international arena where the various jurisdictions will have different requirements for corroboration. Meeting the highest standards of evidence is, therefore, necessary in the “court” of international opinion. 

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure what to say about this, but I am definitely sure it was worth quoting.

[Victorian]

The government have stated that the position is still that they "know that Russia is the only one who made and stockpiled" the agent.     Porton Down's function is and can only be to identify the chemical.     It is for other agencies to determine it's origin.    This is still the case.

 

Porton Down do not perform a Doctor Quincy M.E. style,  one man investigation.    Maybe the bacofoil bunnets think life does imitate art.

 

[Sraman]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

The government have stated that the position is still that they "know that Russia is the only one who made and stockpiled" the agent.     Porton Down's function is and can only be to identify the chemical.     It is for other agencies to determine it's origin.    This is still the case.

 

Porton Down do not perform a Doctor Quincy M.E. style,  one man investigation.    Maybe the bacofoil bunnets think life does imitate art.

 

 

So the best chemists in Britain cannot determine where the individual chemicals needed to make such a substance originate from or if there are any hallmarks relating to which state lab it could have been made in (at the moment, the scientific answer to that is, any state. The United States?, The Islamic State? The Whata State, or even the Whathaveiju State) . I suppose, it must have been an awfy wee sample that they were able to retrieve so not much data to go on. We're really lucky they had enough to be able to state that it was a "military grade newcomer".

 

Ah, but we need to consider the other three factors. These other three factors must be the key to the whole thing. I sincerely hope that Boris and Teresa aren't two of them.

 

The wait continues.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Sraman said:

 

So the best chemists in Britain cannot determine where the individual chemicals needed to make such a substance originate from or if there are any hallmarks relating to which state lab it could have been made in (at the moment, the scientific answer to that is, any state. The United States?, The Islamic State? The Whata State, or even the Whathaveiju State) . I suppose, it must have been an awfy wee sample that they were able to retrieve so not much data to go on. We're really lucky they had enough to be able to state that it was a "military grade newcomer".

 

Ah, but we need to consider the other three factors. These other three factors must be the key to the whole thing. I sincerely hope that Boris and Teresa aren't two of them.

 

The wait continues.

I think the point is that Porton Down cannot PROVE that a particular chemical or compound has originated from a particular place,  regardless of whatever knowledge it has regarding which chemicals have been known to have been developed,  manufactured and stockpiled by particular countries.    It is the function of the intelligence and security forces to seek out, gather, verify and understand that information.

 

Since the government has oversight of both the work of Porton Down and the intelligence services,    it is for the government to employ the information provided by both together in order to inform it's policies.

 

One agency does one thing... the other agency does the other.    Someone else puts them together and decides what to do or say.     

 

I can provide pictures if this remains troublesome.

[Victorian]

10 minutes ago, Barack said:

At least the girl's getting better. Some positive news, at least.

 

No? 

 

It is for the baco-bunnets.   The theory is that the miraculous recovery betrays an insidious,  'false flag' botch job.   The Russians could never failed to kill the intended targets 'cos they're too good at this sort of thin.... oh wait.

[jake]

33 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It is for the baco-bunnets.   The theory is that the miraculous recovery betrays an insidious,  'false flag' botch job.   The Russians could never failed to kill the intended targets 'cos they're too good at this sort of thin.... oh wait.

Hold on a minute.

This bacofoil nuts shite you keep spouting does that apply to one of our allied ministers .

Who quite rightly cited international law .

The UK government have made a rip roaring arse of it.

And also ignoring international agreement on the accusation of nations using chemical weapons by refusing the Russians samples of this chemical weapon.

 

No matter if you choose to believe it was the Russians or not there are standards .

And if the UK fail to keep to them or the law then they are no better than those they accuse.

 

You and others continued childish bacofoil chants are embarrassing.

 

 

[jake]

On 03/04/2018 at 18:58, shaun.lawson said:

 

Yes we did. We helped and encouraged Russia down that lunatic path after the USSR collapsed. **** the people, there was money to be had! I doubt you know anything about that period tbh.

 

 

Not enough of a 'bore' to not have you constantly replying to and launching ad hominems at me.  

 

But that's neither here nor there. That you, sitting there in Spain, having made a whole new life for yourself in Spain, having spent much of your life excoriating nationalists only to morph into the very worst kind of one yourself, have the brass neck to condemn someone else for frequently criticising Britain, is so far beyond parody it's almost not worth bothering with. 

 

Except for this simple point. It is the absolute obligation of anyone who believes in democracy - for anyone who believes in progress - to question, scrutinise and hold their countries' governments and policies to account. Many of your posts suggest to me that you don't even understand democracy, let alone seek to protect it. In your case, it's "my country (even though you abandoned that country many years ago), right or wrong. Four legs good, two legs bad". An absolutely pathetic stance from someone as educated as you are.

Pity then that you dismiss this obligation when posters on this subject exercise it.

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, jake said:

Pity then that you dismiss this obligation when posters on this subject exercise it.

 

 

 

I'm more than happy to scrutinise and hold to account the British government on this Jake. As I am with the Russian government and regime.

 

As has already been said, it's not the remit of scientists at Porton Down to establish where the agent used came from and who made it. That's the remit of others - and we can't reveal more exact information for perfectly legitimate reasons of national security.

 

So the doubters will say "no proof!"; the non-doubters will say "there's plenty!"; and round and round we go.

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, jake said:

Hold on a minute.

This bacofoil nuts shite you keep spouting does that apply to one of our allied ministers .

Who quite rightly cited international law .

The UK government have made a rip roaring arse of it.

And also ignoring international agreement on the accusation of nations using chemical weapons by refusing the Russians samples of this chemical weapon.

 

No matter if you choose to believe it was the Russians or not there are standards .

And if the UK fail to keep to them or the law then they are no better than those they accuse.

 

You and others continued childish bacofoil chants are embarrassing.

 

 

Embarrassed by the word bacofoil but not embarrassed to post this load of old shite.

[jake]

5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Embarrassed by the word bacofoil but not embarrassed to post this load of old shite.

It's your only argument.

 

You embarrass yourself .

You are the one ready to believe without evidence.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, jake said:

It's your only argument.

 

You embarrass yourself .

You are the one ready to believe without evidence.

 

No.    I and others are ready to believe with evidence.   Not evidence one can view.   Evidence that can reasonably be inferred,  based on other information and rational understanding.

 

This is the glass ceiling of understanding suffered by you and other similar types.    You can only comprehend concepts on what you can directly see.    In other words,  the evidence you aren't being shown.    

[Gizmo]

If in doubt, just rely on the fact that absolutely everything that comes out of Boris Johnson's mouth is the opposite of the truth. 

[jake]

23 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

No.    I and others are ready to believe with evidence.   Not evidence one can view.   Evidence that can reasonably be inferred,  based on other information and rational understanding.

 

This is the glass ceiling of understanding suffered by you and other similar types.    You can only comprehend concepts on what you can directly see.    In other words,  the evidence you aren't being shown.    

Wait a minute.

You are ready to believe evidence that you cannot see but you are told is there.

 

Told to you by the same people who brought us Iraq .

 

And when someone says I'm not convinced until I see the evidence because we have been here before .

Then they are the ones to be mocked?

 

I have not seen one post on here holding up the Russian regime on a pedestal.

 

There are legitimate questions being asked.

Not least by Space .

 

Alarm bells start ringing for me when there are no awkward questions asked by our so called free press.

 

There was one asked by a BBC reporter.

She asked why the UK government wasn't sharing samples with Russia as international agreement when one country accuses another. 

She was slapped back firmly in her place.

 

There are of course alternate news views.

Ex CIA agents high level who I could quote.

 

But what's the point.

 

Any argument is just dismissed as bacofoil.

 

And I'm sure (correct me if I'm wrong) on other topics you have agreed with me on media ignoring problems or not reporting as a healthy news media should.

Edited April 4, 2018 by jake

[ri Alban]

32 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

No.    I and others are ready to believe with evidence.   Not evidence one can view.   Evidence that can reasonably be inferred,  based on other information and rational understanding.

 

This is the glass ceiling of understanding suffered by you and other similar types.    You can only comprehend concepts on what you can directly see.    In other words,  the evidence you aren't being shown.    

Evidence ? Cause the UK government said so.

 

 

[Victorian]

It's not a simple case of believing something because of something being told.    It's believing something based on a reasonable appreciation of how and why governments take the hugely serious actions we have seen.    A rational calculation of the facts that are known,  the motives and risks of what our government has said and done,  as well as what other governments and international organisations have said and done.     Simple, two dimensional, black and white choices are the preserve of others.

 

The Iraq / WMD comparison is a deeply flawed and meaningless argument.    The two situations have very little in common.    On the face of it and in wider geo-political terms.    The international response has been the polar opposite of the reaction towards the policy to intervene in Iraq on the WMD ticket.    Ir's lazy and stupid to conflate the two.     And it isn't "the same people" either.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

The government have stated that the position is still that they "know that Russia is the only one who made and stockpiled" the agent.     Porton Down's function is and can only be to identify the chemical.     It is for other agencies to determine it's origin.    This is still the case.

 

Porton Down do not perform a Doctor Quincy M.E. style,  one man investigation.    Maybe the bacofoil bunnets think life does imitate art.

 

let's hope you don't ever get accused of murder.

The PF " We have evidence Victoria murdered the victim, but we can't show the jury. But we know it was Victoria, honest."

ok 23 years.

Edited April 4, 2018 by ri Alban

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Evidence ? Cause the UK government said so.

 

 

Absorbing information and inferring things from events is not the same as blindly believing 'cos a guy in a suit and tie told you so.     That is another argument of no value whatsoever.

[Cade]

The nerve agent probably did come from Russia and probably was ordered by the Kremlin.

But when it comes to a new Cold War and massive international diplomatic crises, "probably" isn't enough.

 

Mind how certain we were that Iraq had WMD?

 

The UK govt stating that the outcome was beyond doubt and was sure to be verified by the boffins, only to then go back on that claim and delete messages on social media makes the UK govt look totally inept.

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Cade

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Absorbing information and inferring things from events is not the same as blindly believing 'cos a guy in a suit and tie told you so.     That is another argument of no value whatsoever.

Maybe you should hold that first statement(Mirror) up to the UK government.

[ri Alban]

How's the Tory record in government been lately? Aye me neither.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

let's hope you don't ever get accused of murder.

The PF we have evidence Victoria murdered the victim, but we can't show the jury, but we know it was Victoria, honest.

ok 23 years.

Another really, really stupid and worthless line of argument.     This is not a criminal investigation,  referral to the PF and indictment to trial by jury for the country of Russia.    It's not a trial.     It's an international diplomatic issue.   

 

If they find a person in connection with the crime.. that person goes on trial.     Only an almighty idiot could fail to understand this.

[Victorian]

10 minutes ago, Cade said:

The nerve agent probably did come from Russia and probably was ordered by the Kremlin.

But when it comes to a new Cold War and massive international diplomatic crises, "probably" isn't enough.

 

Mind how certain we were that Iraq had WMD?

 

The UK govt stating that the outcome was beyond doubt and was sure to be verified by the boffins, only to then go back on that claim and delete messages on social media makes the UK govt look totally inept.

 

Probably is what you have said.    It isn't what the UK government and others have said.    You're right in that it is a diplomatic crisis.    But demonstable proof beyond reasonable doubt (like that of a criminal trial of a person or persons) is not required either.    Russia is not on trial and does not enjoy the legal safeguard of innocent until proved guilty.

[ri Alban]

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Another really, really stupid and worthless line of argument.     This is not a criminal investigation,  referral to the PF and indictment to trial by jury for the country of Russia.    It's not a trial.     It's an international diplomatic issue.   

 

If they find a person in connection with the crime.. that person goes on trial.     Only an almighty idiot could fail to understand this.

Your not worth it.

 

[ri Alban]

15 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Another really, really stupid and worthless line of argument.     This is not a criminal investigation,  referral to the PF and indictment to trial by jury for the country of Russia.    It's not a trial.     It's an international diplomatic issue.   

 

If they find a person in connection with the crime.. that person goes on trial.     Only an almighty idiot could fail to understand this.

Only an almighty balloon would believe a word that leaves the UK governments mouths.

Edited April 4, 2018 by ri Alban