Poisoned Russian spy.

[Victorian]

Just now, ri Alban said:

Your not worth it.

 

In other words,   you have no argument to counter what I said.

 

Tell you what... if we see Russia being escorted under a blanket into the back door of the Old Bailey while a baying mob hurls abuse at it,  then we can discuss comparisons to a trial.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

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

Where did you buy that shovel?

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Where did you buy that shovel?

 

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Where did you buy that shovel?

Boris gave me it from the £350m a week team GB saved from brexit.

 

 

You know nothing, I know nothing, you believe your government, I don't believe your government.

[jake]

23 minutes ago, Victorian said:

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.

Ok there is truth in that .

Although article 11 of the UN human rights act regards innocence till proven.

 

Not sure how that transpires to nation states.

Regardless whether the UK believe it or not I think the sign of a healthy country is to at least question those in power about this sort of thing.

 

 

Come on.

Not any msm outlet posing difficult questions.

 

On the back of those claiming the take over of US government with not an ounce of evidence.

 

 

Feck that.

 

Just because Russia is shit and all that

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

Ok there is truth in that .

Although article 11 of the UN human rights act regards innocence till proven.

 

Not sure how that transpires to nation states.

Regardless whether the UK believe it or not I think the sign of a healthy country is to at least question those in power about this sort of thing.

 

 

Come on.

Not any msm outlet posing difficult questions.

 

On the back of those claiming the take over of US government with not an ounce of evidence.

 

 

Feck that.

 

Just because Russia is shit and all that

 

Speak truth to power.    Yeah why not?

 

But implied reluctance to pose 'difficult questions' does not necessarily prove there is something uncomfortable to discover by way of difficult questioning.     It could just as easily indicate there is nothing uncomfortable to discover.   

[jake]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Speak truth to power.    Yeah why not?

 

But implied reluctance to pose 'difficult questions' does not necessarily prove there is something uncomfortable to discover by way of difficult questioning.     It could just as easily indicate there is nothing uncomfortable to discover.   

Bstard

Hard to argue wi that.

Be back later though.

 

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, jake said:

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

 

But there's a problem with this. A big one.

 

When Syria used chemical weapons in 2013, were we supposed to send samples to Assad so he could say "fair cop guv, caught red-handed, come and bomb the shit out of us"?

 

As Russia is conducting low level warfare against the UK, would you expect Putin and Lavrov to acknowledge responsibility if we had cast-iron, incontrovertible proof? Of course they wouldn't.

 

That's international relations for you. With a great deal of diplomacy simply warfare fought through other means.

Edited April 4, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[jake]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

But there's a problem with this. A big one.

 

When Syria used chemical weapons in 2013, were we supposed to send samples to Assad so he could say "fair cop guv, caught red-handed, come and bomb the shit out of us"?

 

As Russia is conducting low level warfare against the UK, would you expect Putin and Lavrov to acknowledge responsibility if we had cast-iron, incontrovertible proof? Of course they wouldn't.

 

That's international relations for you. With a great deal of diplomacy simply warfare fought through other means.

Syria.

Deary fekin me.

Are you seriois

[felix]

22 minutes ago, Victorian said:

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.

 

Russia is on trial for a flagrant breach (as Theresa May put it) of The Chemical Weapons Convention (1992).

They do enjoy legal safeguards and have rights under the CWC - however they've already been found guilty, so what the heck.  

 

The breach of international law is the core of the argument, originally sparking the diplomatic expulsions.

It's essentially what this thread's all about,  so surprised you missed it tbh.

 

 

[Victorian]

6 minutes ago, felix said:

 

Russia is on trial for a flagrant breach (as Theresa May put it) of The Chemical Weapons Convention (1992).

They do enjoy legal safeguards and have rights under the CWC - however they've already been found guilty, so what the heck.  

 

The breach of international law is the core of the argument, originally sparking the diplomatic expulsions.

It's essentially what this thread's all about,  so surprised you missed it tbh.

 

 

 

Great.. but Russia is not on trial.     

 

Where is this trial?    Where is the indictment?    Who's the prosecutor?    Who's defence agent?    Who's the judge?    What evidence is being entered?    Who are the witnesses being called?

 

Eh nah.    There's no trial being heard.

[XB52]

4 hours ago, Victorian said:

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.

We're these the same agencies that proved that Iraq had WMD??

[AlphonseCapone]

On 4/3/2018 at 14:12, Boris said:

 

Prove it.  Where have I said that I "hate Britain"?

 

Quite defamatory GW.  

 

At least you're paying your taxes to the British state Boris, helping to keep it running, unlike the unhappy wanderer. 

 

Loves Hearts and the UK yet barely visits either. 

[scott herbertson]

1 hour ago, felix said:

 

Russia is on trial for a flagrant breach (as Theresa May put it) of The Chemical Weapons Convention (1992).

They do enjoy legal safeguards and have rights under the CWC - however they've already been found guilty, so what the heck.  

 

The breach of international law is the core of the argument, originally sparking the diplomatic expulsions.

It's essentially what this thread's all about,  so surprised you missed it tbh.

 

 

 

As far as I understand it Russia has fully complied (and it’s been verified) with the destruction of all of its chemical weapons. The USA has only destroyed 91% and China still has a way to go. What is this trial you talk of?

[JamboX2]

2 hours 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.

 

 

I'm no fan of May but it seems this is an issue with Bojo and not the operation of government as a whole. By all accounts Porton Down, FCO and the PM's office have been cautious. As have officials at the MoD. The correct tone sought here was seen in May's statement to Parliament:

 

"weapons-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia"

 

That is diplomatic. It notes the likely source but is not accusatory.

 

Bojo (and wee Gav at the MoD) have overstepped the mark in their comments. Those in bold being the two I'd point to from Bojo. He's overstepped again. Effectively misrepresented the government. Needs to go. He's a liability of epic proportions. Sack him. And appoint Hammond to the FCO again whom failing Rudd. 

 

For so many reasons we cannot screwup our foreign relations during Trump's presidency and Brexit. Yet that buffoon will.

[Space Mackerel]

Imagine half the posters on here being involved in a High Court jury or such like, they would be taking their coffee breaks and lunch on their own. Absolute and utter mental cases to base a decision on not a shred of evidence. 

[jake]

18 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Imagine half the posters on here being involved in a High Court jury or such like, they would be taking their coffee breaks and lunch on their own. Absolute and utter mental cases to base a decision on not a shred of evidence. 

Now now play fair.

?

[Captain Sausage]

So Porton Down confirmed the nerve agent type, as is their job. 

 

The British government seems pretty comfortable pointing the finger of blame at Russia, indicating that they have corroborating intelligence which confirms Russian involvement. They have shared this evidence with other governments who have sided with the UK over Russia. 

 

Added to this is the murky cloud that hangs over Russia who in the recent past have:

illegally invaded a neighboring country.

shot down a passenger plane. (Not sure if this one was ever confirmed...)

interfered in the UK Brexit and US presidential elections.

actively supported a regime who used chemical weapons on their own people.

continue to have an abhorrent human rights record with very little transparency. 

 

I agree with the doubters when they state that there is no proof available to the ordinary person. Unlike them, I’m comfortable putting my faith in the consensus of governments across Europe and North America who are blaming Russia for this. 

 

That is my personal choice, and I understand why people would disagree with it. However, to me, logic dictates that Russia sanctioned this. It’s, in my mind, the only logical set of events. 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, houstonjambo said:

So Porton Down confirmed the nerve agent type, as is their job. 

 

The British government seems pretty comfortable pointing the finger of blame at Russia, indicating that they have corroborating intelligence which confirms Russian involvement. They have shared this evidence with other governments who have sided with the UK over Russia. 

 

Added to this is the murky cloud that hangs over Russia who in the recent past have:

illegally invaded a neighboring country.

shot down a passenger plane. (Not sure if this one was ever confirmed...)

interfered in the UK Brexit and US presidential elections.

actively supported a regime who used chemical weapons on their own people.

continue to have an abhorrent human rights record with very little transparency. 

 

I agree with the doubters when they state that there is no proof available to the ordinary person. Unlike them, I’m comfortable putting my faith in the consensus of governments across Europe and North America who are blaming Russia for this. 

 

That is my personal choice, and I understand why people would disagree with it. However, to me, logic dictates that Russia sanctioned this. It’s, in my mind, the only logical set of events. 

Tell me what America would have done if Russia put Nukes in Mexico or Cuba?

What about Team GB weapons being used to kill in Yemen. Hospital bombings by GB/US(Mistakes apparently). And Sadam gassing his own people didn't seem to be a problem when US/GB armed him to fight Iran. I'm sure there's more hypocrisy other than Dossiers on WMD and Dr Kelly. Oh not forgetting GB interference in Indyref and Scottish elections and devolution hijacking of powers.

Yes I'm sure there's more...

[felix]

14 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Great.. but Russia is not on trial.     

 

Where is this trial?    Where is the indictment?    Who's the prosecutor?    Who's defence agent?    Who's the judge?    What evidence is being entered?    Who are the witnesses being called?

 

Eh nah.    There's no trial being heard.

 Doesn't quite work like a Sheriff Court .

[felix]

14 hours ago, scott herbertson said:

 

As far as I understand it Russia has fully complied (and it’s been verified) with the destruction of all of its chemical weapons. The USA has only destroyed 91% and China still has a way to go. What is this trial you talk of?

Russia, according to Theresa May - has breached the Chemical Weapons Convention - which is why the evidence gathering and counter claims are in progress. 

If there's a case to be made - evidence goes before the UN General Assembly and Security Council - who then decide on more severe measures, if appropriate.

 

 

[Victorian]

17 minutes ago, felix said:

 Doesn't quite work like a Sheriff Court .

It wasn't me saying they were on trial.  It has been various other people.    

 

 

[scott herbertson]

1 hour ago, felix said:

Russia, according to Theresa May - has breached the Chemical Weapons Convention - which is why the evidence gathering and counter claims are in progress. 

If there's a case to be made - evidence goes before the UN General Assembly and Security Council - who then decide on more severe measures, if appropriate.

 

 

 

 

Thats fine - if we have evidence to prove that then-its quite right we should pursue that through the U.N.

 

In my opinion we should have gone down that route straight away and exclusively rather than expelling diplomats and sabre rattling.

Edited April 5, 2018 by scott herbertson

[shaun.lawson]

Beyond a joke from the Boris Broadcasting Corporation.

 

https://videopress.com/v/JZAjR3jn

[felix]

5 hours ago, Victorian said:

It wasn't me saying they were on trial.  It has been various other people.    

 

..but you're looking for a jury; Atticus Finch and Judge Judy

Like your evidence -  the trial that's unfolding's invisible to you.

A trial doesn't need a judge and a courtroom.

Even a complete moron  knows that.

[Victorian]

Just now, felix said:

..but you're looking for a jury; Atticus Finch and Judge Judy

Like your evidence -  the trial that's unfolding's invisible to you.

A trial doesn't need a judge and a courtroom.

Even a complete moron  knows that.

Great.   But Russia still isn't "on trial".    It is simply being named as the source of the act,  of at least the weapon.   Blamed.    No trial.    I'm not sure you know what trial means.   

[felix]

5 hours ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Thats fine - if we have evidence to prove that then-its quite right we should pursue that through the U.N.

 

In my opinion we should have gone down that route straight away and exclusively rather than expelling diplomats and sabre rattling.

Completely agree..although the seriousness of the incident merited the 24 hr ultimatum ;  but after subsequent Russian radio silence,  the government probably felt they had to do something "robust".

[felix]

Just now, Victorian said:

Great.   But Russia still isn't "on trial".    It is simply being named as the source of the act,  of at least the weapon.   Blamed.    No trial.    I'm not sure you know what trial means.   

You mean the coming together of parties to a dispute to present information (in the form of evidence) in a tribunal or setting with the authority to adjudicate ?

For example the UN .

[Victorian]

Just now, felix said:

You mean the coming together of parties to a dispute to present information (in the form of evidence) in a tribunal or setting with the authority to adjudicate ?

For example the UN .

No.    The UK is quite clearly naming Russia as being to blame.   That's it.     Whatever happens at the UN is neither here nor there.      

[felix]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

No.    The UK is quite clearly naming Russia as being to blame.   That's it.     Whatever happens at the UN is neither here nor there.      

 

If the UN Security Council believe the evidence  already presented - they've got the power to sanction military action .

That's neither here nor there........ 

[Victorian]

9 minutes ago, felix said:

 

If the UN Security Council believe the evidence  already presented - they've got the power to sanction military action .

That's neither here nor there........ 

Are you sure? 

 

[Victorian]

 

[Cade]

Russia is murdering us all with chemical weapons, something must be done!

 

 

[Ibrahim Tall]

1 hour ago, felix said:

 

If the UN Security Council believe the evidence  already presented - they've got the power to sanction military action .

That's neither here nor there........ 

 

Given Russia has a veto I’d say that’s that’s fairly unlikely..

 

 

[Mikey1874]

Not sure if anyone else watched the Russian and British speeches at the Security Council. These two seem closely related somehow. 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

Hullo, I’m a nerve agent expert, my names Gary, gies a joab 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Space Mackerel

[Space Mackerel]

22 hours ago, jake said:

Now now play fair.

?

 

So these 2 people according to the MSM narrative, touched a door handle laced with a fast acting nerve agent, 10 times more potent than VX, went for a drink, then a meal and then were found slumped on a park bench? And no Police officers were affected by going in and out said same door in the investigation? 

 

Youve got to be absolutely bat shit mental to believe that. 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

29 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Not sure if anyone else watched the Russian and British speeches at the Security Council. These two seem closely related somehow. 

 

 

 

Sky and the BBC are implicit together in forming the narrative. It’s how the big world Western news media works. They both have ex and obviously current Murdoch stooges at the top of the tree in both organisations. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

9 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

So these 2 people according to the MSM narrative, touched a door handle laced with a fast acting nerve agent, 10 times more potent than VX, went for a drink, then a meal and then were found slumped on a park bench? And no Police officers were affected by going in and out said same door in the investigation? 

 

Youve got to be absolutely bat shit mental to believe that. 

 

 

Surely the police would be wearing gloves.

[Victorian]

Still keen to hear Felix's plan to get the UN Security Council to pass a motion to use military action against Russia.   

 

[manaliveits105]

Don’t let truth get in the way of batshit crazy weirdos 

31 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Surely the police would be wearing gloves.

 

[Mikey1874]

I watched the Security Council speeches live yesterday evening. Russian ambassador then the British. Familar ramble by the Russian then strong, short statement by Briton. 

 

I see (for example) BBC has gone with the continuation of 'Russia threatens Britain' narrative certainly in their headline. Curious why they wouldn't just restate and defend British position when the British representative spoke well. Typical media negative angle I suppose to attract readers. 

[Space Mackerel]

5 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Surely the police would be wearing gloves.

 

4 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Don’t let truth get in the way of batshit crazy weirdos 

 

 

You can be sure the authorities entered that property wearing full protective clothing. This is a highly toxic agent so we are told, not a wee snotter left on a handle by a bairn.

 

How come it took so long for the pair of them to "die," so much so, one has made a full recovery? 

 

How come this highly trained FSB/KGB professional assassin has failed miserably at his job? 

[felix]

4 hours ago, Victorian said:

Still keen to hear Felix's plan to get the UN Security Council to pass a motion to use military action against Russia.   

 

 

Apologies - it's the UN General Assembly that could directly sanction military action in this case - not the Security Council.

Point's still the same - whatever's happening at the UN is very much "here or there"

[Geoff the Mince]

52 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

 

You can be sure the authorities entered that property wearing full protective clothing. This is a highly toxic agent so we are told, not a wee snotter left on a handle by a bairn.

 

How come it took so long for the pair of them to "die," so much so, one has made a full recovery? 

 

How come this highly trained FSB/KGB professional assassin has failed miserably at his job? 

How do you know anything about this ? 

 

What "knowledge" do you have ? 

 

Infowars and 9/11 Truthers don't count .

 

Are you an ex FSB agent ? Or maybe MI5 

[manaliveits105]

1 hour ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

 

You can be sure the authorities entered that property wearing full protective clothing. This is a highly toxic agent so we are told, not a wee snotter left on a handle by a bairn.

 

How come it took so long for the pair of them to "die," so much so, one has made a full recovery? 

 

How come this highly trained FSB/KGB professional assassin has failed miserably at his job? 

He /she got 2 hamsters  and a catsky 

[Cade]

Seems Papa is also recovering.

As assassinations go, it's not been the best one, has it?

 

Seems that inner city gangs have caused more deaths on Britain's streets than Russian nerve gas assassins.

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Surely the police would be wearing gloves.

Maybe the intended victims were wearing gloves and the best trained, most experienced assassins overlooked that possibility.

All part of a cunning plan, we were told earlier in the thread, involving planting  the nerve gas on the door handle on a Sunday because there are no parcel deliveries on a Sunday.

Since day one the story has had more holes in it than Rab C Nesbitt's vest.

[Victorian]

2 hours ago, felix said:

 

Apologies - it's the UN General Assembly that could directly sanction military action in this case - not the Security Council.

Point's still the same - whatever's happening at the UN is very much "here or there"

More Lol.    You're on about r.377 to overrule the security council.   But this still cannot be enforced without the security council.     It's an advisory instrument in effect.

 

Nah.  Russia still wont be going to war with itself.

 

 

[westbow]

Victoria Skripak

Vincenzo Pentangeli (godfather 2)

[felix]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

More Lol.    You're on about r.377 to overrule the security council.   But this still cannot be enforced without the security council.     It's an advisory instrument in effect.

 

Nah.  Russia still wont be going to war with itself.

 

 

It all starts with sanctions...

....and 377 can be invoked without security council (has been twice) to legitimise military action against the interests of one (or two) of the permanent members.

Wont come to that; but whatever the UN decide (if anything) won't be "here or there".