All things Labour Party

[Batman]

Latest Labour hypocrisy. Attacking Tories for bringing in ID checks to prevent voter fraud. However, it’s been pointed out that you have to show photo ID to attend some Labour Party meetings and they also legislated for ID checks to vote in Northern Ireland.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Labour's moto in certain parts of London...

 

"vote early, vote often"

[shurlock]

Labour's moto in certain parts of London...

 

"vote early, vote often"

 

Camden Lock, Brett?

[Batman]

Jezza playing a blinder over his commie mates. Will this latest stance make him claw back towards the tories on the polls?

 

We all know the answer

[whelk]

Jezza playing a blinder over his commie mates. Will this latest stance make him claw back towards the tories on the polls?

 

We all know the answer

 

Colossal pr1ck not fit to govern.

[Jonnyboy]

Colossal pr1ck not fit to govern.

 

Tbf I don't think Batman has put himself forward

[Sheaf Saint]

Jezza playing a blinder over his commie mates. Will this latest stance make him claw back towards the tories on the polls?

 

We all know the answer

 

His latest stance? Are you referring to the fact that he wants to see some actual evidence before jumping to any conclusions that will have potentially very serious repercussions for world peace? Oh yes, shame on him indeed. I can see exactly why the tabloid press are once again using their front pages to try and portray him as a traitorous Russian sympathiser, while completely ignoring the recent revelations that the Tories have, between them, accepted over £3m of donations from Russia in recent years.

 

Oh, and just a little history lesson for you - Russia haven't been "commies" for nearly 3 decades. But if it suits your agenda to continue to portray them in that way then you carry on.

[Batman]

Member of his shadow cabinet are saying Russia is behind this.

 

In jezza we trust

[Sheaf Saint]

Member of his shadow cabinet are saying Russia is behind this.

 

In jezza we trust

 

But the police investigation hasn't yet finished, so nobody actually knows for certain yet do they.

 

I accept that, in all probability, it was Russia that carried it out. But I would much rather our foreign policy was not conducted in such a gung-ho way as it has been. Have you seen Gavin Williamson's speech where he said Russia should "shut up and go away"? Jeez it's embarrassing. Especially given that he recently met with the wife of a former Russian minister in exchange for a large donation to the Tory party coffers. Seems to me like the Tories are trying to deflect attention from their own involvement with Russia by accusing Corbyn of exactly the same thing they themselves are guilty of, and getting their media attack dogs to run another pathetic, baseless smear campaign to protect them.

 

What Corbyn has suggested is that we take a calm and measured approach, wait for conclusive evidence, and follow the rule of international law before making any decisions about our future foreign policy. And if/when this proves that Russia are responsible, then the action he is advocating is actually much stronger than May's half-hearted attempt to make it look like she is doing something by expelling a few diplomats.

[Batman]

But the police investigation hasn't yet finished, so nobody actually knows for certain yet do they.

 

I accept that, in all probability, it was Russia that carried it out. But I would much rather our foreign policy was not conducted in such a gung-ho way as it has been. Have you seen Gavin Williamson's speech where he said Russia should "shut up and go away"? Jeez it's embarrassing. Especially given that he recently met with the wife of a former Russian minister in exchange for a large donation to the Tory party coffers. Seems to me like the Tories are trying to deflect attention from their own involvement with Russia by accusing Corbyn of exactly the same thing they themselves are guilty of, and getting their media attack dogs to run another pathetic, baseless smear campaign to protect them.

 

What Corbyn has suggested is that we take a calm and measured approach, wait for conclusive evidence, and follow the rule of international law before making any decisions about our future foreign policy. And if/when this proves that Russia are responsible, then the action he is advocating is actually much stronger than May's half-hearted attempt to make it look like she is doing something by expelling a few diplomats.

 

Are suggesting that what the PM is doing is not following international law?

 

Also, tell me what you would want jezza to do that would not be half hearted?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

But the police investigation hasn't yet finished, so nobody actually knows for certain yet do they.

 

I accept that, in all probability, it was Russia that carried it out. But I would much rather our foreign policy was not conducted in such a gung-ho way as it has been. Have you seen Gavin Williamson's speech where he said Russia should "shut up and go away"? Jeez it's embarrassing. Especially given that he recently met with the wife of a former Russian minister in exchange for a large donation to the Tory party coffers. Seems to me like the Tories are trying to deflect attention from their own involvement with Russia by accusing Corbyn of exactly the same thing they themselves are guilty of, and getting their media attack dogs to run another pathetic, baseless smear campaign to protect them.

 

What Corbyn has suggested is that we take a calm and measured approach, wait for conclusive evidence, and follow the rule of international law before making any decisions about our future foreign policy. And if/when this proves that Russia are responsible, then the action he is advocating is actually much stronger than May's half-hearted attempt to make it look like she is doing something by expelling a few diplomats.

 

The problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't know how to play the game.

 

He's that bloke at work who's been there 30 years, knows his area inside and out, but was never bothered about building relationships within the company. He's virtually anonymous to anyone outside his department.

 

Then, after a real downturn for the department, the boss was sacked. The remaining employees, knowing that he had been there 30 years and he knew his area really well and that he doesn't play the political game, all thought he'd be best to take over. However, in his first few cross-company meetings, he started proposing that we go back to using work practices from the 70's. He then promoted the office secretary to be Assistant Manager (not Assistant to the Manager) because he slept with her in the 70', when they were both up and coming at the company.

 

Internally and externally he started being viewed as dangerous to the harmony of the Department and Company, however as he'd been there so long, and he hadn't actually done anything wrong (apart from coming across as a man from a bygone era), they couldn't sack him, and they couldn't make him redundant because the role was needed. The problem is though, he just always says the wrong thing - he has no off switch, and when put in front of other companies, especially clients, it's embarrassing. They're waiting for the next Internal Audit to be able to get rid of him, but are just trying to ensure he does nothing wrong to further put the Department at risk.

[Sheaf Saint]

Are suggesting that what the PM is doing is not following international law?

 

Well yes, because she isn't.

 

Russia has made a request under the terms of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), to which the UK is a signatory, to obtain a sample of the nerve agent that was used in Salisbury so that it can be analysed. So far, May has refused this request. Why? What possible reason can she have to NOT follow the protocols laid down in the OPCW treaty that we signed up to, and then ignore international procedures and obligations?

 

Also, tell me what you would want jezza to do that would not be half hearted?

 

What I want is for our government to follow the correct procedures and take appropriate action only once proof of guilt has been confirmed, as Corbyn has advocated.

 

Is that really too much to ask?

[Batman]

Mr Johnson said the UK’s response means Russia’s intelligence capabilities in the country had been “basically eviscerated” for decades.

 

He confirmed the UK will submit a sample of the nerve agent to the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for it to carry out its own tests.

[Sheaf Saint]

The problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't know how to play the game.

 

He's that bloke at work who's been there 30 years, knows his area inside and out, but was never bothered about building relationships within the company. He's virtually anonymous to anyone outside his department.

 

Then, after a real downturn for the department, the boss was sacked. The remaining employees, knowing that he had been there 30 years and he knew his area really well and that he doesn't play the political game, all thought he'd be best to take over. However, in his first few cross-company meetings, he started proposing that we go back to using work practices from the 70's. He then promoted the office secretary to be Assistant Manager (not Assistant to the Manager) because he slept with her in the 70', when they were both up and coming at the company.

 

Internally and externally he started being viewed as dangerous to the harmony of the Department and Company, however as he'd been there so long, and he hadn't actually done anything wrong (apart from coming across as a man from a bygone era), they couldn't sack him, and they couldn't make him redundant because the role was needed. The problem is though, he just always says the wrong thing - he has no off switch, and when put in front of other companies, especially clients, it's embarrassing. They're waiting for the next Internal Audit to be able to get rid of him, but are just trying to ensure he does nothing wrong to further put the Department at risk.

 

Yeah there's probably a lot of truth in this. As I have said on repeated occasions, I'm not a huge supporter of him, certainly not in the JC4PM messiah-worship mould anyway. I like him well enough, and I think he carries himself with far more dignity than anybody in the Tory party could ever hope to emulate, but I recognise his flaws and limitations.

 

But I can't see anything wrong with what he said yesterday. It was a calm, diplomatic, statesmanlike response to a potentially very volatile situation, and everything he said seemed perfectly reasonable. He said...

 

"the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of evidence and our response must be decisive and proportionate".

 

"We have a duty to speak out against the abuse of human rights by Putin's government and its support, both at home and abroad... ...we must do more to address the dangers posed by the Russian state's relationship with unofficial mafia-like groups and corrupt oligarchs".

 

"We need to expose the flows of ill-gotten cash between the Russian state and billionaires who became stupendously rich by looting their country and subsequently using London to protect their wealth".

 

I'm absolutely at a loss to work out how the tabloid press have somehow managed to twist all of that in such a way as to make out he is a traitorous Russian sympathiser, when it is the Tory government who have been accepting huge donations from Russia. Their viscious front-page attack on him is literally the opposite of reality in this case.

 

If Corbyn is as awful and terrible as people who oppose him like to make out, then why do the right-wing media continually need to make sh!t up to attack him with? If he really was as bad as they say he is then that wouldn't be necessary would it.

[Sheaf Saint]

Mr Johnson said the UK’s response means Russia’s intelligence capabilities in the country had been “basically eviscerated” for decades.

 

He confirmed the UK will submit a sample of the nerve agent to the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for it to carry out its own tests.

 

Only after Corbyn called for it in parliament. So they obviously agree with him and think his idea was a good one.

 

So we are all in agreement with him now then, yeah?

 

Once again - a massive storm over what turns out to be nothing. A pointless sideshow orchestrated by the govt and their media chums to distract everybody from just how f*cking terrible they are at doing their jobs.

[Batman]

Storm over nothing? Murder in the UK using nerve agent?

 

Better tell jezzas shadow cabinet that it is something and nothing.

 

Part and parcel of living in the UK I guess.

[Sheaf Saint]

Storm over nothing? Murder in the UK using nerve agent?

 

Better tell jezzas shadow cabinet that it is something and nothing.

 

Part and parcel of living in the UK I guess.

 

You know damn well I'm not talking about the murder itself. I'm talking about the mock outrage at Corbyn's alleged, but clearly untrue, failure to condemn Russia, which for some baffling reason seems to be more newsworthy to some people and organisations than the actual murder.

 

If Theresa May had made exactly the same statement, word for word, as JC did yesterday, would she be facing the same level of criticism for it? Of course not. The mainstream media would be congratulating her for such a calm and diplomatic response to a tricky situation. Are they now going to be running full front page headlines about our defence secretary publicly stating that Russia should "go away and shut up" like a spoilt child in a playground argument? I wouldn't put money on it.

 

I know he has his faults, but FFS if you're going to attack him then do it for genuine reasons. This constant desire from some parts to attack him on the basis of complete untruths is pathetic, and it's getting very tiresome.

[Batman]

You know damn well I'm not talking about the murder itself. I'm talking about the mock outrage at Corbyn's alleged, but clearly untrue, failure to condemn Russia, which for some baffling reason seems to be more newsworthy to some people and organisations than the actual murder.

 

If Theresa May had made exactly the same statement, word for word, as JC did yesterday, would she be facing the same level of criticism for it? Of course not. The mainstream media would be congratulating her for such a calm and diplomatic response to a tricky situation. Are they now going to be running full front page headlines about our defence secretary publicly stating that Russia should "go away and shut up" like a spoilt child in a playground argument? I wouldn't put money on it.

 

I know he has his faults, but FFS if you're going to attack him then do it for genuine reasons. This constant desire from some parts to attack him on the basis of complete untruths is pathetic, and it's getting very tiresome.

 

Across the political spectrum. His stance had at best been frowned up and in general, panned. Now he is saying it is Russia behind it.

 

Get ready for more free stuff being promised in the coming weeks (despite him never ever going to be PM)

Edited 15 March, 2018 by Batman

[badgerx16]

Are they now going to be running full front page headlines about our defence secretary publicly stating that Russia should "go away and shut up" like a spoilt child in a playground argument?

 

.

Bet they don't repay the money the Tories have received in Russian 'donations'.

[Jonnyboy]

Across the political spectrum. His stance had at best been frowned up and in general, panned. Now he is saying it is Russia behind it.

 

Get ready for more free stuff being promised in the coming weeks (despite him never ever going to be PM)

 

Frowned upon by who you gullible tit.

[Jonnyboy]

The problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't know how to play the game.

 

He's that bloke at work who's been there 30 years, knows his area inside and out, but was never bothered about building relationships within the company. He's virtually anonymous to anyone outside his department.

 

Then, after a real downturn for the department, the boss was sacked. The remaining employees, knowing that he had been there 30 years and he knew his area really well and that he doesn't play the political game, all thought he'd be best to take over. However, in his first few cross-company meetings, he started proposing that we go back to using work practices from the 70's. He then promoted the office secretary to be Assistant Manager (not Assistant to the Manager) because he slept with her in the 70', when they were both up and coming at the company.

 

Internally and externally he started being viewed as dangerous to the harmony of the Department and Company, however as he'd been there so long, and he hadn't actually done anything wrong (apart from coming across as a man from a bygone era), they couldn't sack him, and they couldn't make him redundant because the role was needed. The problem is though, he just always says the wrong thing - he has no off switch, and when put in front of other companies, especially clients, it's embarrassing. They're waiting for the next Internal Audit to be able to get rid of him, but are just trying to ensure he does nothing wrong to further put the Department at risk.

 

There's analogies and then there's total bullsh*t.

[aintforever]

It would be interesting to see what evidence there actually is. All we have been told is that it is Novichok which is the same type as developed by Russia. How easily can it be created? Could it easily be copied?

 

It is all a bit suspicious, an obvious Kremlin target, attacked with an obvious Russian chemical weapon - a stones through from the UK centre of chemical weapons.

 

Corbyn is absolutely correct in that any actions should be based on facts.

Edited 15 March, 2018 by aintforever

[Lord Duckhunter]

Funny how even Wee Krankie's foot soldiers and the mad Welsh bats lot were basically lining up behind the Govt and criticising Russia . Corbyn was isolated in the commons, with just a few soppy lefties thinking he acted properly . As a privy councillor he'll be fully aware of evidence not in the public arena. Russia left its finger prints all over this, but that's exactly what they wanted. How's Corbyn's performance this week going to play with floating voters?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sheaf Saint]

Funny how even Wee Krankie's foot soldiers and the mad Welsh bats lot were basically lining up behind the Govt and criticising Russia . Corbyn was isolated in the commons, with just a few soppy lefties thinking he acted properly . As a privy councillor he'll be fully aware of evidence not in the public arena. Russia left its finger prints all over this, but that's exactly what they wanted. How's Corbyn's performance this week going to play with floating voters?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Do you not consider remaining calm and waiting for conclusive evidence before rushing into a course of action which might spark WW3 to be acting properly then?

[hypochondriac]

Do you not consider remaining calm and waiting for conclusive evidence before rushing into a course of action which might spark WW3 to be acting properly then?

Spark WW3? Don't be so dramatic.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Do you not consider remaining calm and waiting for conclusive evidence before rushing into a course of action which might spark WW3 to be acting properly then?

 

The public clearly disagree with Corbyn.

 

Poll on sky tonight over who is doing a good job regarding Russia;

 

May-61% think so.

Steptoe-18% think so.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[whelk]

It would be interesting to see what evidence there actually is. All we have been told is that it is Novichok which is the same type as developed by Russia. How easily can it be created? Could it easily be copied?

 

It is all a bit suspicious, an obvious Kremlin target, attacked with an obvious Russian chemical weapon - a stones through from the UK centre of chemical weapons.

 

Corbyn is absolutely correct in that any actions should be based on facts.

 

Fck me. Yeah we’ve only got expenses to cover 10miles lads so don’t go too far to do it.

[whelk]

Funny how even Wee Krankie's foot soldiers and the mad Welsh bats lot were basically lining up behind the Govt and criticising Russia . Corbyn was isolated in the commons, with just a few soppy lefties thinking he acted properly . As a privy councillor he'll be fully aware of evidence not in the public arena. Russia left its finger prints all over this, but that's exactly what they wanted. How's Corbyn's performance this week going to play with floating voters?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

To be fair he doesn’t make the obvious play and could even say he’s principled, Could’ve easily chosen to go for floating voter in roundly condemning.

[Sheaf Saint]

The public clearly disagree with Corbyn.

 

Poll on sky tonight over who is doing a good job regarding Russia;

 

May-61% think so.

Steptoe-18% think so.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Really? You reckon that's a balanced, unbiased and truly representative poll do you? From SKY? A news organisation owned by the same tax-dodging billionaire whose newspapers were caught hacking the phones of dead teenagers and who constantly prints untruth after untruth about anyone who disagrees with their political opinions? Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.

 

You only need to read the linked headlines on that article to see how ridiculously biased the reporting is on there. Jeesus, I would put more faith in the result of a poll printed in the f*cking Beano than that.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

There's analogies and then there's total bullsh*t.

 

It's fine if you don't agree - but you're not seeing it from the outside (assuming you're a Corbyn supporter).

[Batman]

Seems a fair summery

 

[Sheaf Saint]

Seems a fair summery

 

 

Oh yes, I'm sure a tweet from a notoriously anti-Corbyn Mail on Sunday columnist, supported by that well known advocate of political balance Julia Hartley Brewer (essentially just Katie Hopkins with a thesaurus), can be described as a fair "summery" (sic).

 

Anyway, the things he claims are required in this tweet - ascertaining concrete proof, providing a more robust response and reducing tensions - are exactly what JC is advocating. It's a case of attacking the messenger and not the message. If the foreign secretary was saying exactly the same things as Corbyn has then everyone would be agreeing with him. Only that's not possible, because our foreign secretary is an entitled, childish oaf who is incapable of speaking that much sense.

 

Seriously - if you agree with Dan Hodges that we need to reduce tensions, then why are you getting your knickers more in a twist about the leader of the opposition saying let's make sure we have all the facts before responding accordingly than you are about the appalling misjudgement of our defence secretary secretary by essentially sticking his fingers up and blowing a raspberry at Russia?

[aintforever]

Fck me. Yeah we’ve only got expenses to cover 10miles lads so don’t go too far to do it.

 

I'm not suggesting people from Porton Down did it, just that it's a bit odd that Europes first chemical weapons attack since WW2 happened on the doorstep of the UK's chemical defence experimental establishment.

 

On the face of it the most likely perpetrator is obviously the Russian government but just because it's the same agent as developed by Russia 20 years ago is not proof in itself the the state was behind it. Corbyn is 100% right in saying that we shouldn't rush ahead of the evidence.

[John B]

I'm not suggesting people from Porton Down did it, just that it's a bit odd that Europes first chemical weapons attack since WW2 happened on the doorstep of the UK's chemical defence experimental establishment.

 

On the face of it the most likely perpetrator is obviously the Russian government but just because it's the same agent as developed by Russia 20 years ago is not proof in itself the the state was behind it. Corbyn is 100% right in saying that we shouldn't rush ahead of the evidence.

 

I find this interesting

 

UK's claims questioned: doubts voiced about source of Salisbury novichok

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/15/uks-claims-questioned-doubts-emerge-about-source-of-salisburys-novichok

[moonraker]

The usual suspects are jumping on the bandwagon again. Take a Daily Mail, Express, Sun headline and try to turn it into a cohesive intellectual argument. I have no love for Corbyn but nothing he has said can be justly construed as being anything other than the response of a responsible politician, as opposed to knee jerk lynch mob mentality of the aforementioned publications and the haste with which the mob rally to the call.

It is highly likely that an agent of Russia is responsible for this awful crime, and that a robust response is required. The British way is to first gather evidence and test it in the public domain in this instance the behaviour of the press and mob is very un-British, ironic really when their oft claimed defence for distasteful articles is the protection of British values.

So to the lynch mob please shut up and go away if you have nothing constructive to offer.

[Guided Missile]

Facts for Steptoe to consider:

• The compound identified at multiple locations is an organophosphate that was synthesised by the Russian state, stocks of which were supposed to have been destroyed under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), signed by Russia and which came in to force 20 years ago.
  
• No criminal organisation would have used such a method to assassinate a victim, nor have a motive to do so.
  
• No terrorist organisation would have used such a method to assassinate a victim, nor have a motive to do so. Even if they had, they would have claimed responsibility by now.
  

The fantasy that an organisation other than the Russian state would have synthesised or obtained stocks of the compound to murder a former Russian agent in Salisbury, is laughable. The timing, method and target make it certain that this is a Russian state sponsored act of terrorism, intended to demonstrate Putin's strength prior to his "election".

 

Strength and a robust and coordinated response is the only thing that Russia will respect, not Steptoe's approach of giving Putin and his cronies the advantage of due process. Trump has demonstrated how to deal with tin pot dictators. Sanction the sh!t out of them and if that fails, send in the military.

 

Is it no surprise that Steptoe managed only 2 "A" levels and those were E grades. What a tool.

[aintforever]

Facts for Steptoe to consider:

• The compound identified at multiple locations is an organophosphate that was synthesised by the Russian state, stocks of which were supposed to have been destroyed under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), signed by Russia and which came in to force 20 years ago.
  
• No criminal organisation would have used such a method to assassinate a victim, nor have a motive to do so.
  
• No terrorist organisation would have used such a method to assassinate a victim, nor have a motive to do so. Even if they had, they would have claimed responsibility by now.
  

The fantasy that an organisation other than the Russian state would have synthesised or obtained stocks of the compound to murder a former Russian agent in Salisbury, is laughable. The timing, method and target make it certain that this is a Russian state sponsored act of terrorism, intended to demonstrate Putin's strength prior to his "election".

 

Strength and a robust and coordinated response is the only thing that Russia will respect, not Steptoe's approach of giving Putin and his cronies the advantage of due process. Trump has demonstrated how to deal with tin pot dictators. Sanction the sh!t out of them and if that fails, send in the military.

 

Is it no surprise that Steptoe managed only 2 "A" levels and those were E grades. What a tool.

 

To be fair, none of those 'facts' rule out another government, secret service or criminal gang carrying it out to make it look like the Russians.

 

Agree that the most likely scenario is Putin sending out a message though.

[Batman]

To be fair, none of those 'facts' rule out another government, secret service or criminal gang carrying it out to make it look like the Russians.

 

Agree that the most likely scenario is Putin sending out a message though.

 

It was the Russians. Weapons grade chemical weapons just can't be created in someone's kitchen

[aintforever]

It was the Russians. Weapons grade chemical weapons just can't be created in someone's kitchen

 

To be fair Novichok has been around for decades so I doubt it would be impossible for another government to replicate it. Also it is certainly possible that some of it, or the knowledge to create it got into the wrong hands after the break up of the Soviet Union.

 

Russia is the obvious culprit but you wouldn't make a very good detective with such a simplistic approach, the facts that are out at the moment make Russia the prime suspect, not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Obviously new evidence will come to light but given the fact that our security services thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the barely had a working tank I think it is wise to be sceptical.

[Seaford Saint]

I read that the UK has both this chemical and its antidote at Porton Down, a mere 10 miles away from Salisbury. My money is on our secret services having done this. As Craig Murray said the notion of our secret services good and Russia's bad is questionable. Russia has the world cup coming up and the last thing they want is to give anyone an excuse to not attend. It is not as if the secret service are bumping off one of our own, is it? I also read something along the lines that there are far less obvious ways to assassinate someone than the use of this substance. Corbyn is right to ask for some proof......if it is the Russians then we have something akin to a cell amongst us, that's a great concern to me.

[Verbal]

My money is on our secret services having done this.

 

I'll take that bet. How much are you proposing?

 

And Craig 'false flag 'straw man' Murray? Christ, some people are gullible.

[Seaford Saint]

I'll take that bet. How much are you proposing?

 

And Craig 'false flag 'straw man' Murray? Christ, some people are gullible.

 

Who do you use as a source? The Telegraph?, the Mail? I try to get a multiplicity of views on events such as this....I had deep suspicions about the WMD pretext for going to war. I was right to be suspicious. I have similar suspicions with this interpretation of events around this attack. I have a friend who attacks any alternative messenger I quote him but never refers to the content of the message, sounds a bit like you.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/929085/Russian-spy-poisoned-attack-latest-Vladimir-Putin-Sergei-Skripal-nerve-agent

 

Does Annie Machon get similar short shrift from you as well?

[buctootim]

Nobody here actually knows what the evidence is for Russian guilt so its a moot point anyway. Taken in isolation does it sound absolutely conclusive Russia did it deliberately? no, maybe only a 70% probability. But its not an isolated incident. Its part of a very long pattern of Russia being aggressive and disruptive. Against that background their culpability is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In any event what is clear is that Russia didn't declare Novichok to the convention on chemical weapons, lied about making it and - if it wasn't them who used it - failed to keep it secure. Which makes them guilty as charged imo.

[Guided Missile]

As Craig Murray said the notion of our secret services good and Russia's bad is questionable.

Craig Murray is a drunken loser, who cheated on his wife with a belly dancer, got fired by the FO and despite being born in Norfolk, is still campaigning for Scottish nationalism. Not a person whose judgement I would trust.

 

Oh and did I say he is a total c*nt.

[Sheaf Saint]

In any event what is clear is that Russia didn't declare Novichok to the convention on chemical weapons, lied about making it and - if it wasn't them who used it - failed to keep it secure. Which makes them guilty as charged imo.

 

But it's still very important that we are able to make the distinction before deciding on appropriate action. There is a big difference in severity of offence between aggressively carrying out an assassination on British soil and 'allowing' it to happen through negligence, and our response needs to reflect that. Hence why it is absolutely right to suggest waiting until the investigation is complete before jumping to a potentially unreasonable response.

[Seaford Saint]

Craig Murray is a drunken loser, who cheated on his wife with a belly dancer, got fired by the FO and despite being born in Norfolk, is still campaigning for Scottish nationalism. Not a person whose judgement I would trust.

 

Oh and did I say he is a total c*nt.

 

An interesting post Guided Missile, well thought out.

[buctootim]

But it's still very important that we are able to make the distinction before deciding on appropriate action. There is a big difference in severity of offence between aggressively carrying out an assassination on British soil and 'allowing' it to happen through negligence, and our response needs to reflect that. Hence why it is absolutely right to suggest waiting until the investigation is complete before jumping to a potentially unreasonable response.

 

Again, if it were an incident in isolation you'd be right imo. As part of a continuum of invading Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, killing 200 Russian journalists since 2000, suppressing and killing political opposition, killing Litvinenko and maybe up to 15 other Russian exiles in the UK its a totally different matter.

 

There was a good article in the Kiev Post a couple of days ago, circumstantially connecting Russia with chemical weapons in Syria. Again not conclusive in itself, but taking all the parts together, yes absolutely.

https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/uk-expells-23-russian-diplomats-spy-poisoning-russia-blames-ukraine-instead.html

[Verbal]

Who do you use as a source? The Telegraph?, the Mail? I try to get a multiplicity of views on events such as this....I had deep suspicions about the WMD pretext for going to war. I was right to be suspicious. I have similar suspicions with this interpretation of events around this attack. I have a friend who attacks any alternative messenger I quote him but never refers to the content of the message, sounds a bit like you.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/929085/Russian-spy-poisoned-attack-latest-Vladimir-Putin-Sergei-Skripal-nerve-agent

 

Does Annie Machon get similar short shrift from you as well?

 

It's sadly part of the Orwellian bull**** deployed by conspiracy theorists that they pretend that by citing other conspiracy theorists they are somehow above the 'sheeple'. Give it up, it'll damage your health.

 

If you think I get my news authoritatively from the Mail and Telegraph then you must be new to this place. Murray, however, is not an 'alternative' news source. Here he is getting his clock cleaned by an actual chemist. If you're serious about 'alternatives' I suggest you read this carefully, because the 'alternative' in this case is an actual chemist, who knows slightly more than your average 'alternative' Joe.

 

Why am I supposed to have a view about Annie Machon. I don't even know who she is.

 

So let's stick to the topic. Here's my tempting offer on the bet. I'll bet you £500 you're wrong about the poisoning being carried by by our own intelligence services. If I'm right you only have to pay me £250. What could be fairer? And what could be a better test of a conspiracy loon's convictions?

[Verbal]

Link to the chemist...

 

https://twitter.com/deadlyvices/status/974171484787822592

[whelk]

Problem is now the truth doesn’t matter.

Bin Laden denied 9/11. Think nowadays more would be swallowing that up. You can find far more info on Twitter than what these bloody security services know,

[Seaford Saint]

You sent me a link to a chemist....not THE chemist....you have have not caught on to the fact that neither of us will never KNOW who did it....the Russians will continually deny involvement and the UK will insist it was them, so our bet cannot be completed.

 

New scientist article was interesting

 

What are Novichok nerve agents and did Russia do it? By Alice Klein

 

The poison used to target ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury was a Novichok nerve agent, UK prime minister Theresa May revealed yesterday.

 

The chemical was identified by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, May told the House of Commons.

 

Novichok nerve agents – also known as the “N-series” – were secretly developed by the former Soviet Union beginning in the 1970s. They followed the “G-series” of nerve agents made by Germany in the 1930s and the “V-series” made by the UK in the 1950s. Novichok means “newbie” in Russian.

 

The small amount that we know about these agents is based on reports from Russian chemist Vil Mirzayanov, who exposed the development programme in 1991.

 

Novichoks work in the same way as other nerve agents, which disrupt nerve signals to the muscles by inhibiting an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase. The gaps between nerve cells become flooded with acetylcholine, causing continuous contraction of the muscles. Symptoms include convulsions and difficulty breathing.

 

According to Mirzayanov, some Novichoks can be eight times as deadly as VX, the V-series agent that was used to kill North Korean exile Kim Jong-nam last year. Just 10 milligrams of VX on the skin can be lethal.

 

There are no previous reports of Novichoks being used in battle or assassinations. However, Andrei Zheleznyakov, a Russian scientist involved in their development, reportedly died not long after being exposed to a small amount that leaked out of a rubber tube in the lab.

 

The most potent members of the N-series are reportedly Novichok-5 and 7. We know these are chemicals that contain carbon and phosphorus like the G-series – which includes sarin, tabun, soman, and cyclosarin, and the V-series – which includes VX, VR, VE, VG and VM. However, their exact structures are a mystery.

 

According to Mirzayanov, both are binary agents, meaning they are made from two precursor chemicals that are mixed together just before use. These precursors could be made at pesticide or fertiliser manufacturers without arousing suspicion, he says.

 

The use of a Novichok in the attack on the Skripals makes it highly likely that Russia was involved, because no one else knows how to make them, says John Lamb at Birmingham City University, UK. “The Novichok family was specifically created by Russia to be unknown in the West and as such it’ll be one of their most tightly guarded secrets,” he says.

 

But why would Russia employ such an incriminating nerve agent? “It could have been a demonstration of capability,” says Lamb. After allegedly poisoning ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium-210 in 2006 without serious consequences, they may simply have felt that they could get away it, he says. Novichok precursor chemicals are also safer to transport and handle than ready-made nerve agents, he says. However, Russia has denied any involvement.

 

Identifying the Novichok agent would have been a painstaking process, says Martin Boland at Charles Darwin University in Australia.

 

If someone shows signs of nerve agent poisoning, the first thing to do is to check for decreased acetylcholinesterase activity. This reveals if a nerve agent has bound to the enzyme.

 

Next, the specific nerve agent must be identified. A telltale sign of poisoning with sarin, for example, is unnaturally high blood levels of fluoride, which is used to make the nerve agent.

 

Because no standard test exists for Novichoks, defence officials may have taken fluid from the Skripals’ spinal cords, isolated the acetylcholinesterase enzyme, and analysed the structure of the nerve agent attached, says Boland. Western intelligence agencies probably have knowledge of the exact Novichok structures, allowing them to detect a match, he says.

 

The Skripals are probably receiving the same treatment that is given for other types of nerve agent exposure, says Boland. This includes atropine to block the effects of acetylcholine, pralidoxime to restore acetylcholinesterase activity, diazepam to stop convulsions, and ventilation to assist breathing.

 

Their survival so far suggests the Novichok poison was designed to be slow-acting or to be absorbed through the skin, because this route of administrations takes longer to cause symptoms than inhalable nerve agents like sarin, says Lamb.

 

Parts of Salisbury – where the attack took place – are still cordoned off, and Public Health England has advised anyone who was close by to wash their clothes. This precaution is necessary because we don’t know how long Novichoks persist in the environment, says Boland.