Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 869 comments are related to the topic:
Can anyone make any sense of this "spy poisoning"
Can anyone make any sense of this "spy poisoning"
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 869
|
By:
They have no right unless she consents and she hasn't.
|
|
By:
Who consents? May or the Russian lady?
|
|
By:
The daughter.
|
|
By:
British scientists at the Porton Down defence research laboratory have not established that the nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal was made in Russia, it has emerged. They haven't said it wasn't either. The EU and the US have both seen the evidence and 'concluded', like the UK, that Russia is the likely source of the nerve agent. Quite a succinct point there Acca. So the Lab hasn't established anything, one way or tother. |
|
By:
the statement from porton down is pretty meaningless and doesn't really add anything. scientists don't deal in certainties
|
|
By:
pundits,mp,s lining the airwaves saying theres plenty of intelligence out there to say it was a Russian attack,as they blamed the ruskies within days,hours it must be obvious,all singing and dancing evidence,but then they all go on to say it may never be solved,proved,so the evidence cant be that compelling,dont expect any journo,s to ask the obvious question that if the evidence is that compelling why wont it ever be solved,proved, there must be a trail,flight records,passengers etc,etc
|
|
By:
for porton down to come out and volunteer this information making the uk government look like they might have jumped the gun and handing putin a pr coup a million times bigger than corbyn got criticised for, makes me think the inspectors reporting this week might be casting some doubt on the uk,s version of events and treason and boris are getting the excuses in early,can anyone really believe that porton downs statement was released without treasons and boris,s blessing
|
|
By:
porton down did not say it came from Russia, they are not saying it came from Russia, they will not say it came from Russia
That is not their job what is difficult to understand about that? |
|
By:
so why bring the inspectors in,who,ll only no ,learn what porton down no
|
|
By:
that I would assume is to get independent verification from a source outside porton down, so what?
|
|
By:
Yer, because independent verification that it's N series would add extra weight to the "only plausible" argument - nice calm and efficient Dutchman confirming it's a Novichok will make the heavy odds-on price drop further - plus it means UK Govt can tick international protocol off their list.
What the Porton Down comments have left me assuming is that neither they nor the OPCW are going to give the world conclusive "this stuff was made by Putin in his drawing room" proof that the Russian State was behind it. And I'm now What I'm asking myself: did they actually say the would (provide this conclusive proof)? Did TM/BJ say "Porton Down are going to dust this toxic shoit for fingerprints then we'll have it all sewn up." I'm happy to stand corrected, but I don't think they did - my desire to have some tangible evidence caused me expect it to come from the Novichok side of things. But it just takes you back to thinking, if Porton Down/OPCW aren't going to give us Agatha Christie fanatics what we desire, who is (presumably UK Govt) and when? If OPCW can't go further than the line in the sand PD drew the other day, will Govt play their hand then? |
|
By:
We don't have to prove anything
|
|
By:
We act on the best information we have, Russia is a criminal state and an enemy of Britain
We act on the evidence we have and in that knowledge |
|
By:
What you have to realise is that Britain needs nothing from Russia, gains nothing from having anything to do with Russia spends billions of pounds every year to secure itself from Russia countries like Russia
It should remember this simple fact in anything it does in relation to Russia |
|
By:
If Russia or any single Russian diplomat or politician or person from Russia was never to be allowed onto British soil ever again, good, it would not matter in any way to Britain
|
|
By:
If you're going to make accusations about a person or country, of course you're going to have to prove..totally ridiculous statement.
We do need Russia, did last month when the gas ran out. Personally I don't believe this event actually happened..still no hospital photos and who took the photo of the couple in the restaurant and why? |
|
By:
A country does not have to prove anything against another country
now as regards gas or oil whatever, that's business If they wish to sell it that's up to them, and us. We don't have to speak to them, or have anything to do with them and vice versa |
|
By:
No you're correct lfc, a country doesn't have to prove anything, just say it's so and have carte Blanche to do whatever you want..
Weapons of mass distraction in Iraq springs to mind |
|
By:
i am not advocating going to war with Russia so what that has to do with anything i don't know
i am saying stop every Russian person from setting foot in Britain until this matter is resolved, they are too much trouble and dangerous Now last time i looked we did not have to prove anything to do that, and as far as i know we don't need to prove that Russia has wmds either |
|
By:
And if by some remote possibility Russia and Putin are not behind this thyen they can start by sending over to Britain the 2 suspects in the Litvinenko case to stand trial
Then we might consider to look again |
|
By:
lfc1971 • April 4, 2018 9:38 AM BST
A country does not have to prove anything against another country But it would be politically advantageous - both domestically and internationally - if they did release more evidence, even if it was more circumstantial evidence. What benefit would there be to *not* doing so? |
|
By:
the argument now seems to be,the poison could have been peanut butter and the uk government has ctv,names,flight plans, etc,etc to prove the Russians did it,3 weeks ago the argument went only Russia can and did make this agent so its down to them,
still not heard or understand why if we have conclusive evidence it was the rushkies why the crime ,or prove of the crime will ever be solved |
|
By:
I don't know tbh 1st time.
One answer could be that they're holding back further evidence/intel because going public with it now would compromise the investigation/catching The Artful Dodger. |
|
By:
"One answer could be that they're holding back further evidence"
Could be, because Johnson gave a categorical assurance Porton Down had told him it came from Russia, so do May and Boris have any supporting evidence at all ? This is what Boris had said before, “People from Porton Down, they were absolutely categorical. I asked the guy myself I said ‘are you sure?’ and he said there’s no doubt.” So big contrast between what Boris said over a week ago and what P D said yesterday ! |
|
By:
Does what Boris said in that interview mean much in the grand scheme of things, though?
TM/Government statements were so carefully worded at the time - "no other plausible explanation", "of a kind by" etc. would they really have been so careful with that wording had they had categorical assurance from Porton Down that the source was Russian? |
|
By:
It does seem they are starting to back track a little though doesn't it. they're deleting tweets that claimed it was made in Russia. If they have lied to us about this then May and Johnson should be forced to resign, stuck on the next plane out of here and never allowed to appear on British TV again. We know Russia had nothing to do with this and those pathetic bunch of treacherous rats have put this country at risk by accusing them of something without even presenting a shred of evidence to back up their claims. Id force them to resign just for jumping the gun on it.
|
|
By:
mrs may didn't resign over looking the queen in the eye and lying that she,d reached a deal with the dup,she probably thinks she can lie to everyone and anyone after that
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
may and boris will now have to make public any evidence they think makes putin bang to rights,
so far the only evidence is the fact that putin didn't give the answer the uk wanted after giving Russia 20 hrs notice,rather clever really because it was a question he coundt answer to the uk,s satisfaction, the uk government have given putin exactly what they accused corbyn off a million times over |
|
By:
She doesn't even have a majority and that's the joke. its funny because none of the media are reporting on this very fact, she's a joke and should have resigned the morning after the election. this is an absolute disgrace and if shes not removed after this then its the publics job to force her out, along with that other clown Boris Johnson.
|
|
By:
Surely anyone with any sense or integrity would check and double check such an important statement ? And who was this member of staff who spoke to Boris, yet they only had the results yesterday (??!) But he said over a week ago he had categorical assurance it came from Russia. How did Boris manage to find it out so quickly ?
The evidence didn't convince Corbyn, and he was not playing the game on insufficient evidence, and he called it correctly. IF Boris is wrong and didn't have any real PROOF, just look at the ramifications for world stability, and 100s of Russian diplomats worldwide have been sent packing, and this could escalate into possible worldwide conflict with Russia...... I really don't know with Boris, his whole career is based on making it up as he goes along. But you cant go accusing a foreign power like this ! |
|
By:
this is escalating by the minute you,d think may and boris would be heading to the nearest tv station to show the world more proof,the fact their deleting old wrong tweets instead,doesnt look good does it, maybe boris is to busy looking for a Russian needle in a uk haystack,
 |
|
By:
SontaranStratagem 04 Apr 18 13:46
It does seem they are starting to back track a little though doesn't it. they're deleting tweets that claimed it was made in Russia. Have you got a link to the Tweets that were deleted? Who are "they"? It's one thing to have Boris lying/being idiotic/incompetent in an interview (tho could, in theory, but another if there's been a pattern of Ministers and/or Govt Offices deleting tweets explicitly - "categorically" - saying it was Russia, contrary to the offish announcement from TM. |
|
By:
^ Sorry, ignore that. I found the story.
|
|
By:
My view is 'the c0ck up theory'. Whether Russia/Putin or some other. And it went badly wrong. Really hamf!sted without any idea of the contamination/outcome etc.
Whoever has done this could either be sat back feeling smug at the chaos they have created or totally embarrassed at the fk up. I wouldn't put it past russia/putin not wanting to say anything because they had lost control of the nerve agent. Someone else in russia (apart from the regular authorities) may have got hold of some? But how the ... does one find out? |
|
By:
We have a lying Foreign Sec and an inept PM. At least Corbyn didn't jump in with all guns blazing.
|
|
By:
Who told lies and what was said?
|
|
By:
and precisely what are we going to do when this all settles down again!? Decry russia as a pariah state? Keep up the so called 'cold war' etc. I see our great eu ally Germany has the right idea - open up a new gas pipeline with them. That sure learnt 'em. ho ho
|
|
By:
Why do we have to do anything, ban them from Britain and ignore them
|
|
By:
trade and profit dear boy - but I am not sure how good the quality their oil is. Some gas, but germany are after that. The germans aren't stupid when it comes to doing business with anyone when it suits them. So they are in there in a flash ho ho
Actually the deal has been discussed for some time. So lets cut our nose off etc. |