The diplomats are out!!

[Hamster]

BJ lied on video, he cannot have been told what he said unless those who told him were in turn lying to him, why the lies ? 

[walshie]

Whether you agree the evidence is circumstantial or not, we've admitted we can't prove it was the Russians and frankly made ourselves look stupid. 

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Hamster said:

BJ lied on video, he cannot have been told what he said unless those who told him were in turn lying to him, why the lies ?

I rather think that people have certainly been 'rash' in what they have said;  that is typical Johnson, who often engages mouth before brain.  However, whilst the 'considered' view is that they cannot PROVE the nerve agent came from Russia, the evidence points that way - and the International Chemical Weapons lot are investigating.  It will be interesting to see what they conclude.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, walshie said:

frankly made ourselves look stupid.

Not at all!

We have evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) that points to the Russians.  In particular, Russia that threatened action against defectors on numerous occasions and has taken action in the past (Alexander Litvenenko) to assassinate those seen as defectors.  As far as I know - we have no evidence that points elsewhere than Russia in the Salisbury case. 

Many other countries (including most of the western world - Europe, USA, Australia etc.) who have seen and reviewed that evidence have accepted it and supported us. 

Certainly some (including our Foreign Secretary have said things that may have been wrong), but the overwhelming evidence points at Russia.  I have no doubt that more will come out in time, - and what that will reveal - no one knows, but I can see absolutely no reason for ourselves as 'a country' to 'look stupid' (but possibly certain individuals might, but that won't be the first time for Johnson).

[old man]

Sorry to have to say this but maybe reality needs checking here.

This seems to have turned into the sort of global farce some of us suspected?

Our posturing inconsequential little politicos have a pop at whoever/whatever/wherever situation they like without evidence, merely suspicion as long as it's somewhere a long way off? They consistently ignore situations at home that maybe they could solve?

I don't condone what was done and I don't care about Vlad as long as he stays away and keeps the gas and oil taps open?

As for the source of this compound I would bet my old cotton socks that when samples were first found they would have been replicated by everyone with facilities to do so? 

As for the situation of Vlads navy consisting of worn out old oil burners at least he has plenty and they still work as long as the bunkers are full of oil, no shortage there then?

Our ships maybe too sophisticated for our own good, one spiders web in the wiring and it all stops? Seems to be the situation that the Suez Canal don't really want our ships there due to breakdowns.

Our lot seem to suffer illusions of grandeur, we are no longer what we were in the global field, seemingly just inconsequential whingers that even Europe ignore.

[walshie]

5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Not at all!

We have evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) that points to the Russians.  In particular, Russia that threatened action against defectors on numerous occasions and has taken action in the past (Alexander Litvenenko) to assassinate those seen as defectors.  As far as I know - we have no evidence that points elsewhere than Russia in the Salisbury case. 

Many other countries (including most of the western world - Europe, USA, Australia etc.) who have seen and reviewed that evidence have accepted it and supported us. 

Certainly some (including our Foreign Secretary have said things that may have been wrong), but the overwhelming evidence points at Russia.  I have no doubt that more will come out in time, - and what that will reveal - no one knows, but I can see absolutely no reason for ourselves as 'a country' to 'look stupid' (but possibly certain individuals might, but that won't be the first time for Johnson).

We expelled diplomats and encouraged other countries to do the same because of something "The Russians did". This then changed to some Russia probably did.

Russia has quite rightly asked for proof of this and we can't prove it and I doubt we ever will. 

Would you personally want to be found guilty of something just because someone said it was more than likely you and others agreed with you? Or would you expect real hard proof?

BTW I'm in no way pro-Russia. I just think if you're going to accuse someone of something, you should be able to prove it. 

[old man]

13 minutes ago, walshie said:

We expelled diplomats and encouraged other countries to do the same because of something "The Russians did". This then changed to some Russia probably did.

Russia has quite rightly asked for proof of this and we can't prove it and I doubt we ever will. 

Would you personally want to be found guilty of something just because someone said it was more than likely you and others agreed with you? Or would you expect real hard proof?

BTW I'm in no way pro-Russia. I just think if you're going to accuse someone of something, you should be able to prove it. 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, walshie said:

Would you personally want to be found guilty of something just because someone said it was more than likely

I wouldn't want to be convicted of anything (especially anything I haven't done). 

However, if chemical warfare agents are used in the UK (and therefore risk other UK citizens/residents as well as any intended targets) - I would expect our government to take (very strong and immediate) action to (a) prevent recurrence, and (b) bring the perpetrators to justice.  The immediate action should be evidence based - and not wait for any conviction in a court.

In Alexander Litvinenko's case, we were unable to have a trial because although there were two named suspects, Russia declined to allow them to stand trial.

Justice is hard if not impossible to achieve when the defendant has (rightly or wrongly) another State's backing.

For the record, I'm not 'anti Russia', but on my interpretation of the evidence I have seen to date, it is almost certain they 'did' the Alexander Litvinenko murder, highly likely they did this attack in Salisbury and highly likely they have done other attacks elsewhere.

I do not wish to see them have a free hand to go around assassinating people all over the world without any attempt at justice.  I would never suggest that our government should try any similar action against any party in Russia (or elsewhere) in similar circumstances.

[walshie]

12 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I wouldn't want to be convicted of anything (especially anything I haven't done). 

However, if chemical warfare agents are used in the UK (and therefore risk other UK citizens/residents as well as any intended targets) - I would expect our government to take (very strong and immediate) action to (a) prevent recurrence, and (b) bring the perpetrators to justice.  The immediate action should be evidence based - and not wait for any conviction in a court.

In Alexander Litvinenko's case, we were unable to have a trial because although there were two named suspects, Russia declined to allow them to stand trial.

Justice is hard if not impossible to achieve when the defendant has (rightly or wrongly) another State's backing.

For the record, I'm not 'anti Russia', but on my interpretation of the evidence I have seen to date, it is almost certain they 'did' the Alexander Litvinenko murder, highly likely they did this attack in Salisbury and highly likely they have done other attacks elsewhere.

I do not wish to see them have a free hand to go around assassinating people all over the world without any attempt at justice.  I would never suggest that our government should try any similar action against any party in Russia (or elsewhere) in similar circumstances.

I don't wish to see them have a free hand to assassinate either. Trouble is "almost certain" and "highly likely" are only assumptions not proof of anything. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, walshie said:

Trouble is "almost certain" and "highly likely" are only assumptions not proof of anything.

They are (strongly) evidence based (assumptions).  I think that the action taken has been proportionate.  To use a chemical warfare agent on the UK streets is pretty serious. 

Expelling diplomats, closing consulates (as the main actions taken to date) is a long standing way of countries showing 'displeasure' to one another for serious matters.  I happen to think that Russia is guilty (based on the evidence) and to have done nothing would have been wrong.  IF they do PROVE Russia was responsible, then I expect stronger action would be taken, though I don't know what.  I doubt this will happen because I cannot see how (without Russia's co-operation) this could be done.  If any 'name' is identified, I have no doubt that they are safely back in Russia, and unless Russia allowed their extradition (not likely to happen), no trial could take place.  That was what happened in the Litvinenko case.

I have no doubt if there was a person/persons in the UK who we believed placed the agent, UK arrest would happen.  Said person/persons would be remanded in custody to await trial, but I don't believe they know exactly how the agent was 'placed' (possibly on the door, but by whom?).  I assume this is still being looked into but if nothing has been found by now, it must be getting harder to follow the trail.

What would you suggest is done at this stage?  Nothing?

[walshie]

18 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

What would you suggest is done at this stage?  Nothing?

I would suggest we prove something.

If it was someone in this country, they could well be awaiting trial, but I doubt we'd be able to convict them based on supposition.

I think not knowing who did it or how they did it is reason enough not to directly blame anyone. Does no-one else think it's an odd coincidence this happened so close to Porton Down? It would certainly be something I'd investigate.

[Newbie to this]

42 minutes ago, walshie said:

Does no-one else think it's an odd coincidence this happened so close to Porton Down?

Maybe it's because they live in Salisbury, which coincidentally is near Porton Down.

[panoma1]

This country has enough evidence to arrest and charge two Russians for the murder of Alexander Litveneko, the Russian state has frustrated due process and refused to allow them to be extradited to the UK, to answer these allegations, what conclusion are we to draw from that? The only one I can think of is that the Russian state is avoiding accountability for things that may come out in open court!......evidence and suspicion does not prove guilt until it is judged in court, Russia have demonstrated they are not prepared to let this happen.......so the World is left to draw their own conclusions............with the evidence available and on the balance of probabilities, the world has quite reasonably already done so!

[JohnfromUK]

52 minutes ago, walshie said:

I would suggest we prove something.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the authorities are doing their very best to do just that.

52 minutes ago, walshie said:

If it was someone in this country, they could well be awaiting trial, but I doubt we'd be able to convict them based on supposition.

It's evidence, not supposition - quite a lot of it - any chance of a conviction - if they could find someone in this country ......  would depend on pinning it on that person.  It's not possible until we see any evidence against a person to know if it would support a conviction or not.

 

52 minutes ago, walshie said:

Does no-one else think it's an odd coincidence this happened so close to Porton Down?

The victim lived in Salisbury.  He was attacked in his home town.  Porton Down is near Salisbury.  What is odd about that?

The idea that we should experience an attack with chemical warfare agents in the UK in a normal civilian street environment ........ and despite strong evidence ........ take no action is (in my view) totally wrong.  Protecting the UK and it's residents is the first duty of Government.

To take appropriate (as I believe it has been) diplomatic action seems the right course.

8 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Maybe it's because they live in Salisbury, which coincidentally is near Porton Down.

Exactly.  I wrote the above before I read your post.

Edited April 4, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[oowee]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I rather think that people have certainly been 'rash' in what they have said;  that is typical Johnson, who often engages mouth before brain.  However, whilst the 'considered' view is that they cannot PROVE the nerve agent came from Russia, the evidence points that way - and the International Chemical Weapons lot are investigating.  It will be interesting to see what they conclude.

We don't know that to be true. It may well be the case that they could prove the source but are not able to disclose how they can prove it. Give them time more evidence for public consumption is likely to be found.

[walshie]

The fact is we haven't proved anything. Debating won't change that unless something miraculously comes to light. There's a lot of things the government should protect us from, like the thousands of people on watch lists who seem to be free to plot against us, the public, , but for some reason they've made this a priority

I think we both know where we stand on this and for that reason I'm out. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by walshie

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

We don't know that to be true. It may well be the case that they could prove the source but are not able to disclose how they can prove it. Give them time more evidence for public consumption is likely to be found.

Agreed, though the Independent article suggests that Porton are saying it cannot be 'proved'.  They have also said that Russia is known to have developed and manufactured that type of agent.  I have also read that no one else is known to have developed that agent, but of course that is not 'proof'.

1 minute ago, walshie said:

I think we both know where we stand on this and for that reason I'm out.

Understood - I think we will not agree this one, but thanks for a good discussion anyway!

[panoma1]

Nothing can be proven until you get a defendant in court! So if you can't get a defendant in court, you can't prove anything!....that is the game Russia are playing!

It doesn't mean they didn't do it......but as it is they that are frustrating due process, it is reasonable to conclude they did!

 

[oowee]

Lets not confuse their role with that of an investigator. They were simply identifying the chemical it's for others to identify the source. I would not doubt that one of the scientists said to BJ that it was definitely from Russia but he should not have repeated the conversation. Sometimes we don't help ourselves. 

Russia call for joint investigation 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by oowee

[Bazooka Joe]

One thing that's bugging me about this especially after the Alexander Litvinenko case which was proved to be them.

If the they wanted Skripal dead, why didn't they do it in their own country.

All they had to do was hold the daughter, phone Skripal saying she was ill, when he arrived in Russia bump him off & that would have been the last you heard of him.

I've no doubt they have something to do with it one way or the other, but surely they would have known what a **** storm it would cause.

 

 

 

 

 

[figgy]

Knowing its from Russia and proving its from Russia is two different things.

 

You could watch me break something but proving i did it, now that's the hard part.

2 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

One thing that's bugging me about this especially after the Alexander Litvinenko case which was proved to be them.

If the they wanted Skripal dead, why didn't they do it in their own country.

All they had to do was hold the daughter, phone Skripal saying she was ill, when he arrived in Russia bump him off & that would have been the last you heard of him.

I've no doubt they have something to do with it one way or the other, but surely they would have known what a **** storm it would cause.

 

 

 

 

 

Sends a strong message that no matter what they will get you. If you were a turncoat or former spy you may think twice.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

This country has enough evidence to arrest and charge two Russians for the murder of Alexander Litveneko

I agree with this.

 

50 minutes ago, walshie said:

I would suggest we prove something.

 

Indeed, we have PROVED nothing, they are not even sure its a novichok, as no one really knows what a novichok is, the OPCW certainly didnt, because they didnt list it as banned.
Until 2016 when, from Wiki-
In 2016, Iranian chemists synthesised five Novichok agents for analysis and produced detailed mass spectral data which was added to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Central Analytical Database.^[12][13] Previously there had been no detailed descriptions of their spectral properties in open scientific literature.^[12][14]

Is that that same Novichok that can ONLY  be made in Russia ?

People keep saying probable cause, but thats not good enough.

 

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

BJ lied on video, he cannot have been told what he said unless those who told him were in turn lying to him, why the lies ? 

I wonder if its the same 'guy' who is now saying they cant prove it came from Russia, I see a head rolling here.

The 'Russia definitely did it' story is unravelling, I suspect the OPCW analysis will be vague and non committal to Russian blame, and the story will eventually be allowed to die out, leaving the 'implied assumption' it was Russia.
The diplos will be replaced and the board will be reset for next time, the only difference will be, you will probably find a rise in fuel prices- because Russia !

Like Russia 'fixed' the US elections ,Brexit and god knows what else 

[old man]

16 minutes ago, walshie said:

The fact is we haven't proved anything. Debating won't change that unless something miraculously comes to light. There's a lot of things the government should protect us from, like the thousands of people on watch lists who seem to be free to plot against us, the public, , but for some reason they've made this a priority

I think we both know where we stand on this and for that reason I'm out. 

I'm out of here too.

[poontang]

39 minutes ago, figgy said:

Knowing its from Russia and proving its from Russia is two different things.

 

You could watch me break something but proving i did it, now that's the hard part.

 

Indeed.

We're dealing with espionage/counter espionage, spy's and double agents here. It's James Bond stuff in the real world.

No major economy breaks off diplomatic relations or orders expulsions of foreign diplomats without real, hard evidence of wrongdoing. I'm not sure exactly what 'evidence' the general public expect the security services to put out in the news media, but it seems pretty clear that most civilised nations are happy to back the UK on the intelligence they've seen. Is anyone really suggesting MI6 and others should take out a full page ad in The Sun to explain in detail how they've come to the conclusions they have? If it was deemed that the nerve agent had been used by an Iranian, North Korean, Syrian, Palestinian or other pro-Russian state do you not think the UK government would have named them as opposed to Russia? And if, as some seem to suggest, that this is a 'false flag' operation then maybe they can explain exactly what the UK gains by souring relations with Russia? I guess at the end of the day we have to make a decision on who's most likely to be telling the truth, MI6, GCHQ and the Counter Terrorist Command or Putin and his SVR? I'm sure it won't take a full page ad in The Sun for most people to make up their minds.

Edited April 4, 2018 by poontang

[Rewulf]

11 minutes ago, poontang said:

Indeed.

We're dealing with espionage/counter espionage, spy's and double agents here. It's James Bond stuff in the real world.

No major economy breaks off diplomatic relations or orders expulsions of foreign diplomats without real, hard evidence of wrongdoing. I'm not sure exactly what 'evidence' the general public expect the security services to put out in the news media, but it seems pretty clear that most civilised nations are happy to back the UK on the intelligence they've seen. Is anyone really suggesting MI6 and others should take out a full page ad in The Sun to explain in detail how they've come to the conclusions they have? If it was deemed that the nerve agent had been used by an Iranian, North Korean, Syrian, Palestinian or other pro-Russian state do you not think the UK government would have named them as opposed to Russia? And if, as some seem to suggest, that this is a 'false flag' operation then maybe they can explain exactly what the UK gains by souring relations with Russia? I guess at the end of the day we have to make a decision on who's most likely to be telling the truth, MI6, GCHQ and the Counter Terrorist Command or Putin and his SVR? I'm sure it won't take a full page ad in The Sun for most people to make up their minds.

I admire your faith in our governments integrity 

Yes I know its RT but just try and see it from the other side.Please. 

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/423134-skripal-novichok-uk-russia/