Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About timps

  • Rank

  • Birthday December 21

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • From

Recent Profile Visitors

767 profile views
  1. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    Where would you get one of them from? The guild of international hitmen? The dark web? ahhhh.... Google... oh no they fund Bellingcat best scratch that one. How would you know they were any good, by them sending an extensive portfolio of successful hits to an anonymous client? Yep sure way of keeping it secret. No, you do as every country in the world does use your own guys, Mossad does the same thing, they were successful but identified in Dubai and what about polonium in sushi bar they got away with that one. As for being a massive failure Novichok was undetectable by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Central Analytical Database until sometime in 2016, the Russians were obviously caught by surprise on our capability and treating of it and detecting it. If the Skripal’s had gone inside and not come out they would have died and there would have been just a coroner’s inquest which would be just an unexplained death no need to hide from CCTV or the like… Well that was the plan …. Not the first time this there has been an unexplained death of a Russian on UK soil... Just this one was exposed because the Skripal’s went out again. Well there is my conspiracy theory on it, I might starting writing for the independent as it's as good as any I have read so far...😉
  2. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    I personally think the independent article is terrible, a lot of words that doesn’t say or prove anything. This is a classic piece of narrative over any fact. Pretty much all of the questions she asks have answers or are so irrelevant that its untrue. The statement “But no UK court would convict them of even attempted killing on the “evidence” that has so far been produced.” That is the case in every instance in the UK, we don’t have trial by media, the police never release all of the evidence before a trial to the media. All they release is the evidence they need to help identify persons of interest which is what they did. That in itself explains the majority of her questions of plot holes on available evidence. I agree with her on Bellingcat funding though and I quote “ That need not cast doubt on its findings.” So at least on that we agree. I also probably agree on the intelligence services giving Bellingcat a hand, every news agency in the world has a source. Think of Deep Throat and Watergate, does this mean Nixon really wasn’t a crook due to the push in the right direction from a source. Easiest way to sort this is put the 2 tourist and the 2 doppelgangers in a room on TV at the same time, using the logic in the independent article means because this hasn’t happened means they are guilty due to lack of credibility of not succumbing to the media circus.
  3. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    And yet again how does this membership prove he falsified evidence, not impartial? I have been on a few advisory panels in construction to give an opposing/independent view, it didn’t mean I agreed with the panels views or aims or that my advice was ever taken. You do realise you live in a NATO country so by your logic you are also not impartial and anti-Russian? Impartial and independent proof and percentage of all Bellingcat articles that are anti-Russian please? You see were I am going with this, you require proof to counter your view but none to support it. Yes I am ok with his fact finding, like I have said before facts are the same the narrative is not. If a left wing anti-monarchist media outlet said Princesses Diana was dead do I not believe them because of their agenda, is she still alive because they are not impartial? Now if the narrative is Prince Charles or the Queen ordered the hit then yes I require a bit more proof but the fact Diana is dead does not. Are you ok with the official story given of two gay Russian tourists going to look at a church, who are really rubbish at booking return flights and they have doppelgangers in the GRU? That’s my point really, the official Russian story did not add up, so people looked into it and found out why. If the Russians hadn’t tried to hysterically cover it up maybe I wouldn’t be so believing of Bellingcat but the stupid official Russian cover up spoke volumes. They had something to hide. Ahhhh I see completely made up by the BBC and debunked by you in seconds with no proof or fact checking on your part. You do realise they edit and film stories for dramatic effect there will be a lot more boring background research to that piece not caught on camera and the last bit will be staged for film.
  4. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    Not confused at all, I said “ As I said how does the above prove he is not impartial” I am just using your argument back at you, the burden of proof you require about his impartiality and the burden of proof needed for the tourists guilt are poles apart. You have no PROOF he is not impartial but accept that he is, however, you require a signed affidavit from Putin before you will accept the tourists guilt. To answer your question do I think he is impartial, no I don’t, do I think he has falsified and made up evidence to demonise genuine church loving Russian tourists at the behest of his NATO masters, no I don’t, do I have proof of either, no I don’t. As I said the media is never impartial on the narrative they all have a story to chase, however the evidence put in front of me is quite compelling regardless of agenda. Of course the facts are open to scrutiny and the BBC have done just that. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45801154?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c0j915myy8kt/russian-spy-poisoning&link_location=live-reporting-story The BBC has contacted two people who knew Dr Mishkin as a child in Loyga in the north of Russia, and they confirmed from photographs that he was the man seen in images released by police after the Salisbury attack. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45799037 BBC Russian tracked down the parents' marriage certificate: Yevgeny and Tatiana Mishkin were married in 1978 in Loyga. In fact BBC Russian discovered that in 2007, Mr Mishkin was registered as living at 12 Academic Lebedev Street in St Petersburg. According to Google Maps, the building is next to the Military Medical Academy, where most Russian military doctors do their training. I know this won’t convince you as the BBC get their money from the British government as well.
  5. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    As I said how does the above prove he is not impartial or is google trying to overthrow the Russian government as well? Bellingcat has gone into great detail what the money was for and the reasons why he accepted it and why he is still impartial, so yes his impartiality is still open to conjecture, whether you believe him or not is another matter. But the above link doesn’t prove it one way or the other. To take your logic I shouldn’t believe the he has accepted money as it was posted on a pro-Russian site, it is not impartial so it must be fake. The facts are he did regardless of where it is posted the narrative is does this mean he makes up stories and evidence to make the Russians look bad. I don’t doubt he has an agenda all news outlets do, you are not going to sell many papers or get many hits on a website for bland news, proving it was the Russians sells better than it wasn’t them. However, the facts do not change regardless of side only the narrative. The question is are those 2 people GRU agents? Let’s be honest getting 2 tourists that look identical to GRU agents are ridiculously long odds which Russia hasn’t proved is a lie yet. The narrative which is dependent on side of the argument you are on is did they go to kill or look at churches. Most normal people realise you don’t need a false passport to go and look at churches and as of yet I am not subscribing to the free Russian citizens from the oppressive NATO tyranny keeping them captive story.
  6. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    How does the link point that out ? the fella that posted it is clearly not impartial and have you done what he has suggested and checked it out or just taken what he has said as verbatim? he doesn’t show any proof at all on that page about Bellingcat impartiality. How are they relevant? You know this to be true because of what proof ? it has clearly been edited by a pro Russian at some point so the impartiality of that page is zero. My point was you don’t believe Bellingcat because they are not impartial in your eyes but you believe others when they are clearly not impartial as well, the only difference is their views suit your narrative. In my defence I did say “I have no idea on Bellingcat impartiality and it doesn't really matter if the two people are who they say they are,”… I stand by that, regardless of agenda or who paid for it, if the two Russians are who Bellingcat says they are then impartiality is irrelevant, they are on false passports and the Russians must have known that they weren’t who they said they were when they paraded them on tv. You refuse to see flaws or plot holes in your own argument, by your own words you would still will not believe the Russian tourist had anything to do with it even if it was proven to your standards that they were in fact members of the GRU. You would prefer to believe other explanations no matter how far fetched as more believable. No one here is ever going to convince you, you just think bellingcat has been really fortunate in finding two doppelgangers that work for the GRU that look just like two Russian tourists.
  7. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    Your first link is a piece by Marcel van den Berg which is a blog trying to discredit any Russian involvement MH17 plenty of conflict of interest there and no fact checking in what he says is true or who he even is. Your second is Wikispooks god knows who edited that or their agender. However, one of the citations on that page is Newsbud Breaking News: which states Turkey’s Coup Plotters are Members of NATO’s Rapid Deployable Corps… The third well its statement “NATO is the military alliance run by the Anglo-American power elite which illegally expanded militarily towards the Russian border since the early 1990s. Russia is being attacked economically by means of sanctions that are based on hypocritical reasons which ignore crucial facts of history.“ Says it all really, we are the evil west in bed with the Americans and NATO is to blame. It seems odd that you accept that what they say about Bellingcat without seeing any of their bias or if the facts they post are actually true yet you continually dismiss Bellingcat or any view of Russian involvement quite easily. I have no idea on Bellingcat impartiality and it doesn't really matter if the two people are who they say they are, but the three links you have posted are anti-NATO pro-Russian in the extreme and do not try to hide it. You can see bias one way but not the other that is what hurts your argument here.
  8. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    If you don’t trust the OPCW then yes you leave stating you don’t trust it therefore you no longer want to be a part of it, however trying to defend hacking it because you don’t believe in its findings makes it look far worse than ever leaving it. As for looking for a cover up what do you expect them to find, a memo? Dear all, Please find attached PDF file explaining how we are going to frame the Russians by getting several other countries involved who will gain nothing and still keep it quiet apart from this widely distributed pdf memo stored on our servers that the Russians will never hack. Regards the Evil West Or Hack to sabotage and discredit the report in any way, if you mess with the results it can discredit it enough. Regardless the only thing I need to know is the Russians try to hack it and that is not the normal behaviour of an innocent party regardless of their intentions or goals.
  9. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    OK let me rephrase with bold highlights 😉 The Hauge IS an independent body the Russians HAVE and STILL HAVE signed up to and IS the place you HAVE to send chemical weapons to be tested so the REST of the WORLD CAN act on the evidence found. The UK is only interested in convincing the rest of the world not Russia, the UK and Russian governments already know the truth and there is NOWHERE else available that would be acceptable to both parties. If the Russians did not think it was now impartial why haven't they just left the OPCW? Could it be a possibility that the truth will come out that is believable to other countries so they had something to try and cover up with a hack.
  10. timps

    Alleged Russian assassins on TV

    Unfortunately, where your rational falls down is the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at The Hague is meant to be an independent body which Russia singed up to. If you are accused of something you would expect an independent body to assess which is what has happened. If I was accused of a crime based on DNA yes I would want the evidence looked over by an independent body which is what has happened. If I am not given the samples your argument is the fact I try and hack the police national computer somehow proves my innocence as a guilty man would never do that. However, if what you are suggesting was to happened and I was given samples of DNA so I can test them myself then what if I come back with I’ve tested them myself and it’s not me gov, what then? Maybe an independent testing laboratory in a foreign country, maybe the Hauge, that we have both singed up too ? Just a thought. I don’t believe everything I read but then again I don’t disbelieve everything I read either.
  11. timps

    Shooting without sgc

    The section 11(6) exemption is issued by the Chief of police and it has recommended guidelines of issue, those guidelines of issue can vary from force to force. When you apply for an exemption you state that you will comply with those guidelines before the exemption is issued. It is similar to conditions on your certificate (although it is an offence to fail to comply with the certificate conditions) and is designed to help the correct working of the legislation or help with public safety. I am not too sure if there is a specific offence if you don’t follow the guidelines issued for the exemption or if it immediately invalidates the exemption issued but the ground will definitely loose its exemption at some point which is usually enough for them to toe the line. I know one such ground that did and one that was threatened with it if they didn’t tighten up on procedure. GMP and North Yorkshire stipulate being supervised, by an authorised person from the ground and not just a mate with a certificate and that you also have to sign a notice that you are not a prohibited person. https://northyorkshire.police.uk/what-we-do/licensing/firearms-licensing/section116-exemption-clay/ It is a possibility Humberside police / other forces do it differently to GMP and North Yorkshire however regardless of the exact wording of the firearms act most grounds do not want to risk losing their exemption should a gun go missing (their sole responsibility under the exemption) or there be any other problem.
  12. timps

    parking tickets

    Parking Eye do take people to court and they have 6 years in which to do so, the main problem is if you move house they can get a default judgment against you. It’s a known scam and a pain in the *** to redress. In 2017 they issued 1788453 tickets but only went to court 1080 times but they do pile on the pressure with scary letters however you could be one of the unlucky ones and end up in court. http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/ParkingEye.html Parking Eye tend more often that not to be POFA 2012 compliant meaning the registered keeper is liable regardless of admitting you were driving, however don’t admit to being the driver until you are sure its compliant. Try contacting PALS at the Hospital to get it cancelled that works in a lot of hospital cases. Get yourself over to https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163 and read the newbie section to help. I’ve sorted about £1000 worth of these out (non for me) and got them all quashed even at the letter before action stage from solicitors after repeated failed appeals and threat of court action. Whatever you do don’t ignore, they do go to court and it’s the luck of the draw whether that will be you or not, but put up a well-researched defence they tend to go away and try to pick on the people who ignore or shoot themselves it the foot.
  13. timps

    Tommy Robinson

    According to this link https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-arrest-muslims-filming-court-a7733156.html it was for contempt of court for filming. How true it is I don’t know but it is the same offence . The offence is still section 41 Criminal Justice Act 1925 however it can be charged as a criminal offence or can be dealt with by the court as a contempt in accordance with the summary procedure at Rule 48.5 of the Criminal Procedure. Rule 48.5 of the Criminal Procedure says ‘(iii) (where relevant) that the court has power to order the respondent’s immediate temporary detention, if in the court’s opinion that is required,’ The above means straight to jail no representation until the trial is over if the judge feels it is required, basically it is a power to stop anyone interfering with a trial. My guess this is what has happened, and jail is usually reserved for those that don’t eat humble pie and say sorry I wont do it again your honour.
  14. timps

    Tommy Robinson

    Its ok to take a picture or film of a person away from the court however it is an offence under the criminal Justice act 1925 to take a photo of someone in court. According to section 41 Prohibition on taking photographs, in court. “(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.” So filming anyone leaving court whilst a case is in progress is a big no no and will land anyone in hot water. Take a picture of them walking the streets when they haven't just left court the case is being held at and say this is them and you don’t fall foul of this law hence why your link is not in breach of the law he was arrested for.
  15. What you have to remember Home office guidance is not law and the police / courts can ignore it, the only thing that is relevant is the actual Firearms act. The problem we have is clause 27 for firearms or 28 for shotguns 28 Special provisions about shot gun certificates. [F11(1)Subject to subsection (1A) below, a shot gun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. It is such a broad brush it gives the chief officer of police the ability to refuse a grant or renewal based on whether he/she is satisfied or not which is completely subjective to the individual. Cases have gone to court on security issues and the above sections have been successfully used to win those cases for the police. All it takes is the chief of police to stand up in court and say he/she is not satisfied without a medical check and section 27 / 28 of the firearms act requires them not to grant or renew. Obviously the above is a very very oversimplification of the problem and no QC has any idea which way the judge would go on this. Judges are going to be very reluctant to give a blanket ban on a chief officer of police having a judgement call to ask for medical reports as they see fit. If this was an individual case for one shooter I would be more confident in it being successful. The issue is once a ruling is made we are stuck with the consequences which would mean every force would insist backed up with a court precedent. Changing the actual wording of the firearms act through political means would be the safest option with the least risk. Just my opinion on it for what it is worth.