More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
That's a good one TSE. The difference is that the historical goings on with Finchley Road are documented in numerous companies house documents. Salisbury rests on the say so of the government. So this comes down to an issue of trust. The government is the last entity that I would trust to tell the truth thank you.
Police in Italy say they have broken up a "psycho sect" that enslaved members by forcing them to adhere to a strict macrobiotic diet and cut off contact with the outside world.
As a means of control it immediately put me in mind of one of Yahtzee Croshaw's analogies listing methods of torture, one of forcing people to watch televised snooker until they've lost the ability to reason.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Let us know when you have moved on from hunchman to somewhat-better-informed-argumentsman......
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He has shown how his loyalty is with Russia and is anti the west. Not a good day for him
Talking of conspiracy theories, why was it always two lads from somewhere like the midlands who had the chance to win the speedboat on bully.. and never ones from the south coast!
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
Yep. Gonna be a lot of eggs on faces at some point down the line after this ridiculous display on here. Especially the delusional Big G.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
That's a good one TSE. The difference is that the historical goings on with Finchley Road are documented in numerous companies house documents. Salisbury rests on the say so of the government. So this comes down to an issue of trust. The government is the last entity that I would trust to tell the truth thank you.
So all things being equal, trusting neither the word of our government nor, presumably, the word of the Russian government, what are we supposed to do given we will never see the evidence for ourselves? Take no view whatsoever because all of them are a bunch of liars?
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and lots of others. Corbyn was wrong about them all.
Remember when there were two groups fighting apartheid in South Africa. The ANC with their "one person, one vote" slogan and the APLA with their "one settler, one bullet" slogan?
In the run up to the final battle in Berlin, 1945, it was said that optimists among the population began to learn English, while pessimists started to practise their Russian.
Larry Kudlow??? I know more (quite a lot more) about economics than he does.
I wasn't aware he was an economist. Though that is no bar on being a good economic advisor, in fact it might be an advantage given how poorly economists have performed over the last decade.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
Yep. Gonna be a lot of eggs on faces at some point down the line after this ridiculous display on here. Especially the delusional Big G.
I am in the vast majority on this so the only way you can attack is to suggest I am delusional. Shame when you are so blinkered
Talking of conspiracy theories, why was it always two lads from somewhere like the midlands who had the chance to win the speedboat on bully.. and never ones from the south coast!
It was produced by Central in their Midlands studio.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
The burden of proof rests with those making the allegations, ie the UK government. So far they've provided none to me that I'm satisfied with. So as much as I despise Mr Corbyn, I am with him in his assessment of the situation today.
I think you may find the vast majority in this Country will back the PM
Doubtless true. I'm not one of them. Many times in history where the majority have been wrong. People shouldn't be afraid to hold minority viewpoints provided they have coherent arguments backing them up.
It's ridiculous that we've built Russia up into such an enemy, with so many seemingly wanting to go back to the darkest days of the Cold War in the early 1960's at the time of the Bay of Pigs scandal. Throughout history, its suited governments to have an enemy on which they can play the blame game.
If it was the Russian state that did it why ? Surely if they did do it, they are clever enough not to be implicated.Also what was the retired double agent involved with these past few years .In his forced retirement in Salisbury.It has to be more complex , than we will ever be told.
If you kill a traitor (as Putin would see him) you don't want to make it seem like an accident. You want to show other would-be traitors what fate awaits them.
Yes that makes sense .It certainly makes everyone aware.
The message here is very simple. Putin is saying "look, I can commit a chemical attack on one of the "big guns" of the Nato treaty signatories, in flagrant violation of international law. I can act with impunity on their soil and they will do nothing, and other Nato treaty nations will do nothing to support them. So when I invade you, Latvia [insert other Eastern European country as appropriate], you can expect precisely no support. They are too weak to defend their own borders - do you really think they will be able to defend you?"
Indeed. My only criticism is that the response has been so mild. If HMG is convinced (and it seems to be), that a chemical attack by a foreign power took place on UK soil, then that calls for rather more than chucking out 23 spies, surely?
It is a case for breaking of diplomatic relations at a minimum is it not?
And if it isn't what would constitute a severe enough chemical attack to withdraw Ambassadors?
Talking of conspiracy theories, why was it always two lads from somewhere like the midlands who had the chance to win the speedboat on bully.. and never ones from the south coast!
It was produced by Central in their Midlands studio.
Keep out of the Black and in the Red You get Putin in this game for two near dead.
Talking of conspiracy theories, why was it always two lads from somewhere like the midlands who had the chance to win the speedboat on bully.. and never ones from the south coast!
It was produced by Central in their Midlands studio.
Bowen used to tell a very funny but rather un-pc story about one episode where it all went wrong and nobody wanted to throw for the final prize.
I can't imagine Corbyn is going to like the papers tonight.....
The cult won’t care....Where as trump being Russia friendly, well that makes him a disgrace etc etc etc
The cult will use it as justification that the press need to be controlled.
What's all this crap about 'the cult'?
It's strange how this Salisbury attack has brought out a rabid streak in some PB right-wingers.
Is it wrong to question, to consider all the possible alternatives? I think the Russian state did this but I cannot be 100% certain and I do believe there are other potential plausible theories. Does that make me a member of 'the cult'?
It is salutary to think back to 2003. Anyone claiming that they didn't think it was nailed on that Saddam had wmds, is to be regarded with suspicion.
Having said that, I think it is nailed on that this was Russia. In 2003 I was saying that, ok, hes got em, but there is no excuse for not following due process. If Russia had responded in an adult manner and suggested some form of investigation without all the twattish sarcasm, I would be saying much the same. As it is, fuck em; if there is any injustice here they have brought it on themselves.
I think, in fairness, that we did not expect a PM to so blatantly lie and fabricate. I, for one, was very inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because I couldn't believe that a PM would behave like that. I assumed that he had evidence that he could not disclose.
Likewise
It was why I was so angry with Blair and Campbell when we found out what they had done. They really should have gone to jail for it, both of them. @Hunchman's contributions tonight are a simple example of the sort of damage that was done by the lack of trust that they engendered.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
The burden of proof rests with those making the allegations, ie the UK government. So far they've provided none to me that I'm satisfied with. So as much as I despise Mr Corbyn, I am with him in his assessment of the situation today.
I think you may find the vast majority in this Country will back the PM
Doubtless true. I'm not one of them. Many times in history where the majority have been wrong. People shouldn't be afraid to hold minority viewpoints provided they have coherent arguments backing them up.
It's ridiculous that we've built Russia up into such an enemy, with so many seemingly wanting to go back to the darkest days of the Cold War in the early 1960's at the time of the Bay of Pigs scandal. Throughout history, its suited governments to have an enemy on which they can play the blame game.
Good to see a fair answer. But Russia is the one attacking and interfering in other Countries. And I well remember the fear I had at the time of the bay of pigs
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
The burden of proof rests with those making the allegations, ie the UK government. So far they've provided none to me that I'm satisfied with.
What would satisfy you to that extent, given that they cannot give random citizens access to highly confidential materials to assess the matter for themselves? Do you actually believe a nerve agent was used? The very method of attack is clearly critical to narrowing down the list of potential suspects, and immediately made Russia more plausible as a suspect (negligently or through hostile action).
In any case, surely if we are talking burdens of proof at this stage it is analagous to having sufficient evidence to suspect, and seeking additional information through questioning. Why would you be demanding the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt this early on?
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He has shown how his loyalty is with Russia and is anti the west. Not a good day for him
No he hasnt he has argued robust dialogue rather than silly sanctions is the right way forward.
It will not be a good day for May if Russia escalates as it will IMO. To coin a phrase it holds all the cards.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He's a human man, big john, he's been right on some things and wrong about plenty of others, neither are in themselves proof he is right or wrong about this thing. Each situation must be judged on its individual merits.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
That's a good one TSE. The difference is that the historical goings on with Finchley Road are documented in numerous companies house documents. Salisbury rests on the say so of the government. So this comes down to an issue of trust. The government is the last entity that I would trust to tell the truth thank you.
So all things being equal, trusting neither the word of our government nor, presumably, the word of the Russian government, what are we supposed to do given we will never see the evidence for ourselves? Take no view whatsoever because all of them are a bunch of liars?
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
For once, people on here need to show some empathy with the position of the Russian government. Why would Putin and Lavrov risk such a major diplomatic incident by carrying out the attack in the run up to the election on Sunday? Also why would they choose to do it in Salisbury, when they know the UK government site for analysis of poisonous materials is just 7 miles away - surely they'd wait until the Skripal's were somewhere further away. I think the following article is rather good:
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He has shown how his loyalty is with Russia and is anti the west. Not a good day for him
No he hasnt he has argued robust dialogue rather than silly sanctions is the right way forward.
It will not be a good day for May if Russia escalates as it will IMO. To coin a phrase it holds all the cards.
What robust dialogue can be suggested when we state we believe Russia may be responsible and they respond with sarcastic jibes and denials? What exactly are we to talk about?
"Don't do this terrible thing again" "We didn't do it this time" "We think you did" "Well we didn't"
What, precisely, is there to talk about when there is a fundamental lack of basic understanding of the facts in order to hold a discussion? It'd be like putting an ultra-eu fanatic in a room with an ultra-Brexit fanatic and expecting constructive dialogue.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
That's a good one TSE. The difference is that the historical goings on with Finchley Road are documented in numerous companies house documents. Salisbury rests on the say so of the government. So this comes down to an issue of trust. The government is the last entity that I would trust to tell the truth thank you.
So all things being equal, trusting neither the word of our government nor, presumably, the word of the Russian government, what are we supposed to do given we will never see the evidence for ourselves? Take no view whatsoever because all of them are a bunch of liars?
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
For once, people on here need to show some empathy with the position of the Russian government. Why would Putin and Lavrov risk such a major diplomatic incident by carrying out the attack in the run up to the election on Sunday? Also why would they choose to do it in Salisbury, when they know the UK government site for analysis of poisonous materials is just 7 miles away - surely they'd wait until the Skripal's were somewhere further away. I think the following article is rather good:
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He's a human man, big john, he's been right on some things and wrong about plenty of others, neither are in themselves proof he is right or wrong about this thing. Each situation must be judged on its individual merits.
Just making the point that a HOC concensus doesn't mean it was right. I stand by my examples of Iraq Libya PFI.
Which of those 3 where there was a HOC agreement by the vast majority of MPs turned out well?
I'm a bit surprised we didn't see an immediate response from Russia to expel some UK diplomats this afternoon. Could they be waiting to see who lines up with us?
I can't imagine Corbyn is going to like the papers tonight.....
The cult won’t care....Where as trump being Russia friendly, well that makes him a disgrace etc etc etc
The cult will use it as justification that the press need to be controlled.
What's all this crap about 'the cult'?
It's strange how this Salisbury attack has brought out a rabid streak in some PB right-wingers.
Is it wrong to question, to consider all the possible alternatives? I think the Russian state did this but I cannot be 100% certain and I do believe there are other potential plausible theories. Does that make me a member of 'the cult'?
It is salutary to think back to 2003. Anyone claiming that they didn't think it was nailed on that Saddam had wmds, is to be regarded with suspicion.
Having said that, I think it is nailed on that this was Russia. In 2003 I was saying that, ok, hes got em, but there is no excuse for not following due process. If Russia had responded in an adult manner and suggested some form of investigation without all the twattish sarcasm, I would be saying much the same. As it is, fuck em; if there is any injustice here they have brought it on themselves.
I think, in fairness, that we did not expect a PM to so blatantly lie and fabricate. I, for one, was very inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because I couldn't believe that a PM would behave like that. I assumed that he had evidence that he could not disclose.
Likewise
It was why I was so angry with Blair and Campbell when we found out what they had done. They really should have gone to jail for it, both of them. @Hunchman's contributions tonight are a simple example of the sort of damage that was done by the lack of trust that they engendered.
It's not just Blair and Campbell, successive governments have told us things that have turned out to be untrue. Right now, there is still a majority that unquestioningly trust the government on matters like this. That majority is falling all the while though. And it'll be the global sovereign debt crisis that will be the final nail in the coffin for trust in the government.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He's a human man, big john, he's been right on some things and wrong about plenty of others, neither are in themselves proof he is right or wrong about this thing. Each situation must be judged on its individual merits.
Just making the point that a HOC concensus doesn't mean it was right. I stand by my examples of Iraq Libya PFI.
Which of those 3 where there was a HOC agreement by the vast majority of MPs turned out well?
I didn't say they did. It is true a HOC consensus does not mean a position is the right one, but nor does taking a contrary position to a consensus prove anything, and personally on its merits I find Corbyn's response less than helpful, since calling for robust dialogue is meaningless when the Russians would state there is nothing to talk about. The actual effect of the minimal measures we can take on our suspicions of their involvement are definitely a subject of considerable debate, but while as much as anyone I prefer talking to fighting or arguing, it is plain common sense that you cannot always simply ask for more talking, especially when the other side does not accept what you want to talk about.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
That's a good one TSE. The difference is that the historical goings on with Finchley Road are documented in numerous companies house documents. Salisbury rests on the say so of the government. So this comes down to an issue of trust. The government is the last entity that I would trust to tell the truth thank you.
So all things being equal, trusting neither the word of our government nor, presumably, the word of the Russian government, what are we supposed to do given we will never see the evidence for ourselves? Take no view whatsoever because all of them are a bunch of liars?
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
For once, people on here need to show some empathy with the position of the Russian government. Why would Putin and Lavrov risk such a major diplomatic incident by carrying out the attack in the run up to the election on Sunday? Also why would they choose to do it in Salisbury, when they know the UK government site for analysis of poisonous materials is just 7 miles away - surely they'd wait until the Skripal's were somewhere further away. I think the following article is rather good:
I can't imagine Corbyn is going to like the papers tonight.....
The cult won’t care....Where as trump being Russia friendly, well that makes him a disgrace etc etc etc
The cult will use it as justification that the press need to be controlled.
What's all this crap about 'the cult'?
It's strange how this Salisbury attack has brought out a rabid streak in some PB right-wingers.
Is it wrong to question, to consider all the possible alternatives? I think the Russian state did this but I cannot be 100% certain and I do believe there are other potential plausible theories. Does that make me a member of 'the cult'?
It is salutary ... a PM to so blatantly lie and fabricate. I, for one, was very inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because I couldn't believe that a PM would behave like that. I assumed that he had evidence that he could not disclose.
Likewise
It was why I was so angry with Blair and Campbell when we found out what they had done. They really should have gone to jail for it, both of them. @Hunchman's contributions tonight are a simple example of the sort of damage that was done by the lack of trust that they engendered.
The damage Blair did to British democracy is incalculable. That Messianic insanity.
We would still be peripheral members of the EU (or at least members of a reformed Single Market and CU) without him. Iraq wouldn't have happened. UK politicians and certainly prime ministers would be trusted with fundamental issues of state.
There is a reason he is one of the most disliked political figures in recent British history, on Left and Right. I wonder how he sleeps at night. Likewise Alistair Campbell. I suspect they go to bed tortured by conscience, though they talk a good game during working hours. Inside, they are ravaged by guilt, I reckon. You can occasionally glimpse it during their interviews.
Well follow the money on Windrush Ventures, UI Energy et al, and Blair should be behind bars where he belongs, let alone being brought before the Hague for war crimes on Iraq.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
That's a good one TSE. The difference is that the historical goings on with Finchley Road are documented in numerous companies house documents. Salisbury rests on the say so of the government. So this comes down to an issue of trust. The government is the last entity that I would trust to tell the truth thank you.
So all things being equal, trusting neither the word of our government nor, presumably, the word of the Russian government, what are we supposed to do given we will never see the evidence for ourselves? Take no view whatsoever because all of them are a bunch of liars?
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
For once, people on here need to show some empathy with the position of the Russian government. Why would Putin and Lavrov risk such a major diplomatic incident by carrying out the attack in the run up to the election on Sunday? Also why would they choose to do it in Salisbury, when they know the UK government site for analysis of poisonous materials is just 7 miles away - surely they'd wait until the Skripal's were somewhere further away. I think the following article is rather good:
As much as I think Corbyn's attempt at presenting as the 'reasonable' one was misguided in this instance, I think we can all agree the papers will likely over egg their reaction.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He's a human man, big john, he's been right on some things and wrong about plenty of others, neither are in themselves proof he is right or wrong about this thing. Each situation must be judged on its individual merits.
Just making the point that a HOC concensus doesn't mean it was right. I stand by my examples of Iraq Libya PFI.
Which of those 3 where there was a HOC agreement by the vast majority of MPs turned out well?
I didn't say they did. It is true a HOC consensus does not mean a position is the right one, but nor does taking a contrary position to a consensus prove anything, and personally on its merits I find Corbyn's response less than helpful, since calling for robust dialogue is meaningless when the Russians would state there is nothing to talk about. The actual effect of the minimal measures we can take on our suspicions of their involvement are definitely a subject of considerable debate, but while as much as anyone I prefer talking to fighting or arguing, it is plain common sense that you cannot always simply ask for more talking, especially when the other side does not accept what you want to talk about.
The Kremlin is unlikely to be shitting themselves at Mays sanctions though. I just dont see the point.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
That's a good one TSE. The difference is that the historical goings on with Finchley Road are documented in numerous companies house documents. Salisbury rests on the say so of the government. So this comes down to an issue of trust. The government is the last entity that I would trust to tell the truth thank you.
So all things being equal, trusting neither the word of our government nor, presumably, the word of the Russian government, what are we supposed to do given we will never see the evidence for ourselves? Take no view whatsoever because all of them are a bunch of liars?
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
For once, people on here need to show some empathy with the position of the Russian government. Why would Putin and Lavrov risk such a major diplomatic incident by carrying out the attack in the run up to the election on Sunday? Also why would they choose to do it in Salisbury, when they know the UK government site for analysis of poisonous materials is just 7 miles away - surely they'd wait until the Skripal's were somewhere further away. I think the following article is rather good:
You mean, if they had poisoned them in Gretna Green they'd have got clean away with it because Porton Down couldn't afford the taxi fare? Just listen to yourself.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He's a human man, big john, he's been right on some things and wrong about plenty of others, neither are in themselves proof he is right or wrong about this thing. Each situation must be judged on its individual merits.
Just making the point that a HOC concensus doesn't mean it was right. I stand by my examples of Iraq Libya PFI.
Which of those 3 where there was a HOC agreement by the vast majority of MPs turned out well?
I didn't say they did. It is true a HOC consensus does not mean a position is the right one, but nor does taking a contrary position to a consensus prove anything, and personally on its merits I find Corbyn's response less than helpful, since calling for robust dialogue is meaningless when the Russians would state there is nothing to talk about. The actual effect of the minimal measures we can take on our suspicions of their involvement are definitely a subject of considerable debate, but while as much as anyone I prefer talking to fighting or arguing, it is plain common sense that you cannot always simply ask for more talking, especially when the other side does not accept what you want to talk about.
The Kremlin is unlikely to be shitting themselves at Mays sanctions though. I just dont see the point.
Anyway goodnight
Good night BJO - PB will be here tomorrow for another relaxing half hour !!!
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evieed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He's a human man, big john, he's been right on some things and wrong about plenty of others, neither are in themselves proof he is right or wrong about this thing. Each situation must be judged on its individual merits.
Just making the point that a HOC concensus doesn't mean it was right. I stand by my examples of Iraq Libya PFI.
Which of those 3 where there was a HOC agreement by the vast majority of MPs turned out well?
I didn't say they did. It is true a HOC consensus does not mean a position is the right one, but nor does taking a contrary position to a consensus prove anything, and personally on its merits I find Corbyn's response less than helpful, since calling for robust dialogue is meaningless when the Russians would state there is nothing to talk about. The actual effect of the minimal measures we can take on our suspicions of their involvement are definitely a subject of considerable debate, but while as much as anyone I prefer talking to fighting or arguing, it is plain common sense that you cannot always simply ask for more talking, especially when the other side does not accept what you want to talk about.
The Kremlin is unlikely to be shitting themselves at Mays sanctions though. I just dont see the point.
Anyway goodnight
No, they probably are not. But asking to have a meeting where we call them big meanies and they tell us they've done nothing is not more statesmanlike, it is slightly more pathetic than at least expressing outrage, given what our government believes has happened, even if expressing the outrage is about as far as it gets.
Maybe the attack was carried out by lizard people?
Quite silly - there's going to be a big lizard people event, I mean royal wedding, in the coming months, no reason they would want to get people on edge.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
That's a good one TSE. The difference is that the historical goings on with Finchley Road are documented in numerous companies house documents. Salisbury rests on the say so of the government. So this comes down to an issue of trust. The government is the last entity that I would trust to tell the truth thank you.
So all things being equal, trusting neither the word of our government nor, presumably, the word of the Russian government, what are we supposed to do given we will never see the evidence for ourselves? Take no view whatsoever because all of them are a bunch of liars?
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
For once, people on here need to show some empathy with the position of the Russian government. Why would Putin and Lavrov risk such a major diplomatic incident by carrying out the attack in the run up to the election on Sunday? Also why would they choose to do it in Salisbury, when they know the UK government site for analysis of poisonous materials is just 7 miles away - surely they'd wait until the Skripal's were somewhere further away. I think the following article is rather good:
You mean, if they had poisoned them in Gretna Green they'd have got clean away with it because Porton Down couldn't afford the taxi fare? Just listen to yourself.
I seriously don't get the 'it's close to porton down, why would the russians attack them there with this' argument. That argument suggests it was not the russians, ok fine, in which case why would anyone else attack us with it being so close to porton down, in which case presumably it must be a UK set up. In which case why does it matter if it is close to porton down or not, since in a set up surely we didn't actually use the real agent, just have it take place somewhere else, the guy must have travelled about occasionally, and have the boffins show up and claim it was a nerve agent.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
The burden of proof rests with those making the allegations, ie the UK government. So far they've provided none to me that I'm satisfied with.
What would satisfy you to that extent, given that they cannot give random citizens access to highly confidential materials to assess the matter for themselves? Do you actually believe a nerve agent was used? The very method of attack is clearly critical to narrowing down the list of potential suspects, and immediately made Russia more plausible as a suspect (negligently or through hostile action).
In any case, surely if we are talking burdens of proof at this stage it is analagous to having sufficient evidence to suspect, and seeking additional information through questioning. Why would you be demanding the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt this early on?
Independent poisonous materials experts from an independent 3rd country, that were approved in advance by both Russia and the UK if possible.
My complete lack of trust in the UK government is a product of many things going back in time - involvement of MP's in the fraud, theft and money laundering out of you know where historically, the continuing lies on man made climate change, the historical legacy of the Iraq war and WMD, Dr David Kelly, historical child abuse, numerous botched public inquiries including the Waterhouse / Jillings / Cullen / Chilcot reports to name but a few..........the list goes on and on.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
The burden of proof rests with those making the allegations, ie the UK government. So far they've provided none to me that I'm satisfied with.
What would satisfy you to that extent, given that they cannot give random citizens access to highly confidential materials to assess the matter for themselves? Do you actually believe a nerve agent was used? The very method of attack is clearly critical to narrowing down the list of potential suspects, and immediately made Russia more plausible as a suspect (negligently or through hostile action).
In any case, surely if we are talking burdens of proof at this stage it is analagous to having sufficient evidence to suspect, and seeking additional information through questioning. Why would you be demanding the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt this early on?
Independent poisonous materials experts from an independent 3rd country, that were approved in advance by both Russia and the UK if possible.
Except it was not known right away what the cause was, and presumably therefore we had our regular police force working the crime scenes and collecting samples of things, therefore by the time it was clear what sort of agent was used, anybody external would not have collected the materials themselves and therefore could not say if the samples were genuine, since they were not there.
I can't imagine Corbyn is going to like the papers tonight.....
The cult won’t care....Where as trump being Russia friendly, well that makes him a disgrace etc etc etc
The cult will use it as justification that the press need to be controlled.
What's all this crap about 'the cult'?
It's strange how this Salisbury attack has brought out a rabid streak in some PB right-wingers.
Is it wrong to question, to consider all the possible alternatives? I think the Russian state did this but I cannot be 100% certain and I do believe there are other potential plausible theories. Does that make me a member of 'the cult'?
It is salutary to think back to 2003. Anyone brought it on themselves.
I think, in fairness, that we did not expect a PM to so blatantly lie and fabricate. I, for one, was very inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because I couldn't believe that a PM would behave like that. I assumed that he had evidence that he could not disclose.
Likewise
It was why I was so angry with Blair and Campbell when we found out what they had done. They really should have gone to jail for it, both of them. @Hunchman's contributions tonight are a simple example of the sort of damage that was done by the lack of trust that they engendered.
The damage Blair did to British democracy is incalculable. That Messianic insanity.
We would still be peripheral members of the EU (or at least members of a reformed Single Market and CU) without him. Iraq wouldn't have happened. UK politicians and certainly prime ministers would be trusted with fundamental issues of state.
There is a reason he is one of the most disliked political figures in recent British history, on Left and Right. I wonder how he sleeps at night. Likewise Alistair Campbell. I suspect they go to bed tortured by conscience, though they talk a good game during working hours. Inside, they are ravaged by guilt, I reckon. You can occasionally glimpse it during their interviews.
+1
And I still can’t really believe this actually happened:
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian
:
they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
: government. So this comes down to an issue of trust. The government is the last entity that I would trust to tell the truth thank you.
So all things being equal, trusting neither the word of our government nor, presumably, the word of the Russian government, what are we supposed to do given we will never see the evidence for ourselves? Take no view whatsoever because all of them are a bunch of liars?
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
For once, people on here need to show some empathy with the position of the Russian government. Why would Putin and Lavrov risk such a major diplomatic incident by carrying out the attack in the run up to the election on Sunday? Also why would they choose to do it in Salisbury, when they know the UK government site for analysis of poisonous materials is just 7 miles away - surely they'd wait until the Skripal's were somewhere further away. I think the following article is rather good:
For exactly the reaction he would get and enhance his popularity in Russia
Got to agree with you there Big_G.
I asked a Russian friend at work what he thought. He said he would find out what Russian TV (as shown in Russia) was saying - he reckoned that would be the best answer.
Apparently they are selling the line that 1) It wasn't poor us 2) the guy was a traitor 3) being a traitor you should expect death, so it was basically suicide.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
The burden of proof rests with those making the allegations, ie the UK government. So far they've provided none to me that I'm satisfied with.
In any case, surely if we are talking burdens of proof at this stage it is analagous to having sufficient evidence to suspect, and seeking additional information through questioning. Why would you be demanding the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt this early on?
Independent poisonous materials experts from an independent 3rd country, that were approved in advance by both Russia and the UK if possible.
Except it was not known right away what the cause was, and presumably therefore we had our regular police force working the crime scenes and collecting samples of things, therefore by the time it was clear what sort of agent was used, anybody external would not have collected the materials themselves and therefore could not say if the samples were genuine, since they were not there.
Good point, so why did the UK government not wish to share the sample, as requested by the Russian government? If there was nothing to hide, then they would have been willing to share? Would the Russians on analysing the sample have been able to point out inconsistencies between it and the Novichok that they have historically produced?
The Deputy British Ambassador at the UN in his address confirmed that the UK are giving the OPCW in the Hague full access to Salisbury and other sites and information for them to provide independent verification of the nerve agent used and it's likely source
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
I know a few people who have worked for the government, they told me they were planning the false flag attack to take place on Finchley Road, but they realised you were watching them, so they switched it to Salisbury.
That's.
So all things being equal, trusting neither the word of our government nor, presumably, the word of the Russian government, what are we supposed to do given we will never see the evidence for ourselves? Take no view whatsoever because all of them are a bunch of liars?
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
For once, people on here need to show some empathy with the position of the Russian government. Why would Putin and Lavrov risk such a major diplomatic incident by carrying out the attack in the run up to the election on Sunday? Also why would they choose to do it in Salisbury, when they know the UK government site for analysis of poisonous materials is just 7 miles away - surely they'd wait until the Skripal's were somewhere further away. I think the following article is rather good:
You mean, if they had poisoned them in Gretna Green they'd have got clean away with it because Porton Down couldn't afford the taxi fare? Just listen to yourself.
No I'm not saying that, but it would have been a lot more inconvenient to the experts based at Porton Down to go somewhere much further away at immediate notice.
The Deputy British Ambassador at the UN in his address confirmed that the UK are giving the OPCW in the Hague full access to Salisbury and other sites and information for them to provide independent verification of the nerve agent used and it's likely source
OK lets not prejudge anything, and await the results.
The Deputy British Ambassador at the UN in his address confirmed that the UK are giving the OPCW in the Hague full access to Salisbury and other sites and information for them to provide independent verification of the nerve agent used and it's likely source
OK lets not prejudge anything, and await the results.
Very well. And if that source suggests the Russians, and the Russians continue to deny?
1. Those who seem to think of the attempted killing in Salisbury had anything to do with Russian domestic political concerns are way off the mark. This is global geopolitics and gangster state stuff at work. This idea about Russian domestic politics is born of a Western political bubble outlook which thinks everything is framed with PR optics. Domestic political considerations will have had no bearing on the decision to attack.
2. People still knocking on about doubts should bear in mind that the Novichok range and their later versions have not been recorded as having turned up in other states active CBW arsenals. That reduces the possible options somewhat. Mis-interpretation of the weapon is possible but unlikely. Unless you want to take the view that the British government is outright lying.
3. No one should be surprised by Corbyn's reaction. The guy fundamentally hates the country he is in and has a problem with liberal democracy.
4. This is the first time, in at least the last 6 to 8 years that any Western government has actually openly said 'fuck this, we are calling you out' and backed it up. It is, however, only a start, the UK should make it a multi year mission to strangle the current Russian regime and its dodge associates as much as it possibly can. Passivity doesn't work.
5. Again, someone needs to track Skripal's daughter's movements and associations to help them, right down to the passenger list on her plane journeys. I'll be damned if there isn't something of interest there.
The Deputy British Ambassador at the UN in his address confirmed that the UK are giving the OPCW in the Hague full access to Salisbury and other sites and information for them to provide independent verification of the nerve agent used and it's likely source
OK lets not prejudge anything, and await the results.
Very well. And if that source suggests the Russians, and the Russians continue to deny?
As I said, lets not prejudge anything. We'll come to that bridge if we have to.
The Deputy British Ambassador at the UN in his address confirmed that the UK are giving the OPCW in the Hague full access to Salisbury and other sites and information for them to provide independent verification of the nerve agent used and it's likely source
OK lets not prejudge anything, and await the results.
Tonight Trump has fully endorsed the UK and blamed Putin ad Russia, as has the UN, NATO and the EU.
1. Those who seem to think of the attempted killing in Salisbury had anything to do with Russian domestic political concerns are way off the mark. This is global geopolitics and gangster state stuff at work. This idea about Russian domestic politics is born of a Western political bubble outlook which thinks everything is framed with PR optics. Domestic political considerations will have had no bearing on the decision to attack.
2. People still knocking on about doubts should bear in mind that the Novichok range and their later versions have not been recorded as having turned up in other states active CBW arsenals. That reduces the possible options somewhat. Mis-interpretation of the weapon is possible but unlikely. Unless you want to take the view that the British government is outright lying.
3. No one should be surprised by Corbyn's reaction. The guy fundamentally hates the country he is in and has a problem with liberal democracy.
4. This is the first time, in at least the last 6 to 8 years that any Western government has actually openly said 'fuck this, we are calling you out' and backed it up. It is, however, only a start, the UK should make it a multi year mission to strangle the current Russian regime and its dodge associates as much as it possibly can. Passivity doesn't work.
5. Again, someone needs to track Skripal's daughter's movements and associations to help them, right down to the passenger list on her plane journeys. I'll be damned if there isn't something of interest there.
No I'm not saying that, but it would have been a lot more inconvenient to the experts based at Porton Down to go somewhere much further away at immediate notice.
If only the United Kingdom had an affordable network of trains, planes and automobiles that enabled one to move from one place to another...
1. Those who seem to think of the attempted killing in Salisbury had anything to do with Russian domestic political concerns are way off the mark. This is global geopolitics and gangster state stuff at work. This idea about Russian domestic politics is born of a Western political bubble outlook which thinks everything is framed with PR optics. Domestic political considerations will have had no bearing on the decision to attack.
2. People still knocking on about doubts should bear in mind that the Novichok range and their later versions have not been recorded as having turned up in other states active CBW arsenals. That reduces the possible options somewhat. Mis-interpretation of the weapon is possible but unlikely. Unless you want to take the view that the British government is outright lying.
3. No one should be surprised by Corbyn's reaction. The guy fundamentally hates the country he is in and has a problem with liberal democracy.
4. This is the first time, in at least the last 6 to 8 years that any Western government has actually openly said 'fuck this, we are calling you out' and backed it up. It is, however, only a start, the UK should make it a multi year mission to strangle the current Russian regime and its dodge associates as much as it possibly can. Passivity doesn't work.
5. Again, someone needs to track Skripal's daughter's movements and associations to help them, right down to the passenger list on her plane journeys. I'll be damned if there isn't something of interest there.
No I'm not saying that, but it would have been a lot more inconvenient to the experts based at Porton Down to go somewhere much further away at immediate notice.
If only the United Kingdom had an affordable network of trains, planes and automobiles that enabled one to move from one place to another...
I hope you saw the PS at the bottom of this thread.
No I'm not saying that, but it would have been a lot more inconvenient to the experts based at Porton Down to go somewhere much further away at immediate notice.
If only the United Kingdom had an affordable network of trains, planes and automobiles that enabled one to move from one place to another...
I hope you saw the PS at the bottom of this thread.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and lots of others. Corbyn was wrong about them all.
Remember when there were two groups fighting apartheid in South Africa. The ANC with their "one person, one vote" slogan and the APLA with their "one settler, one bullet" slogan?
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down. d.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
The burden of proof rests with those making the allegations, ie the UK government. So far they've provided none to me that I'm satisfied with.
In any case, surely if we are talking burdens of proof at this stage it is analagous to having sufficient evidence to suspect, and seeking additional information through questioning. Why would you be demanding the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt this early on?
Independent poisonous materials experts from an independent 3rd country, that were approved in advance by both Russia and the UK if possible.
Except it was not known right away what the cause was, and presumably therefore we had our regular police force working the crime scenes and collecting samples of things, therefore by the time it was clear what sort of agent was used, anybody external would not have collected the materials themselves and therefore could not say if the samples were genuine, since they were not there.
Good point, so why did the UK government not wish to share the sample, as requested by the Russian government? If there was nothing to hide, then they would have been willing to share? Would the Russians on analysing the sample have been able to point out inconsistencies between it and the Novichok that they have historically produced....
Not credibly, given they have never declared any of the Novichok agents to international bodies - and indeed they were reportedly developed to circumvent the Chemival Weapons Convention. For the authors of an assassination attempt to request immediate access to the evidence of their botched handiwork, as if by right, is remarkable arrogance. Perhaps they want the data to refine their next attack ?
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and lots of others. Corbyn was wrong about them all.
Remember when there were two groups fighting apartheid in South Africa. The ANC with their "one person, one vote" slogan and the APLA with their "one settler, one bullet" slogan?
Coming back to the Russia issue in Parliament here, is this matter going to lead to a Spring of Discontent against Corbyn...now that the GE near win is almost 9 months ago and TM appears dug in, are we likely to see the sort of rumblings against Corbyn that marked the first 18 months.
I have always thought that Corbyn's performance was not as amazing as some would say in the GE and is this the chance to have a look at potential succession?
If Corbyn had been PM when this attack happened, I don’t have any confidence that (a) we’d have been told about it; and (b) that he’d have authorised the security / intelligence / emergency services to take all the steps they’ve had to take to investigate the matter fully and to protect the public.
Why? His spokesman has said he does not trust our intelligence services and his shadow Home Secretary (and also his Shadow Chancellor I think) have in the past called for the intelligence services to be disbanded. Nothing in Corbyn’s career suggests that he understands that the primary duty of the state is to protect its citizens nor that he understands what that means in practical terms. His view is to assume that everyone is basically nice and well-intentioned and/or misunderstood (everyone apart from America and Israel of course) and that a bit of chat is all that’s needed to stop anything nasty being done to us.
So burying any bad news, refusing to investigate thoroughly, turning a blind eye - even if that means putting British citizens at risk - are I think the likely default instincts of a Corbyn government. And there will be plenty of people for whom this quiet life strategy will be attractive, even if it is a moral disaster and long-term strategically dangerous.
His view that the disaster of Iraq reinforces his belief that the intelligence services cannot be trusted is utterly disingenuous. The problem was the way that politicians misused such intelligence there was, over-egged it, put pressure on the services to say more than they could, to use poor sources etc - in short, it was politicians believing what they wanted to be true which was the issue (and the calamity for trust in our government).
Corbyn is guilty of exactly the same failing now. He does not want to believe that Russia is behind this so he ignores the evidence there is. He comes out with opinion first and distorts or ignores inconvenient facts. In this he is an ultra Blairite not the brave loner or contrarian sticking up for unpopular truths he - and his supporters - like to think he is.
Meanwhile the government has done a U-turn on the plan to scrap 1p and 2p coins.
'Nothing has (small) changed! Nothing has (small) changed!'
I am sure that will show Putin we have a resolute and firm government that won't be swayed from the right course because of 24 hours of negative news coverage.
Coming back to the Russia issue in Parliament here, is this matter going to lead to a Spring of Discontent against Corbyn...now that the GE near win is almost 9 months ago and TM appears dug in, are we likely to see the sort of rumblings against Corbyn that marked the first 18 months.
I have always thought that Corbyn's performance was not as amazing as some would say in the GE and is this the chance to have a look at potential succession?
Labour moderates have little support in the party and have repeatedly shown that they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
I really fear for a Britain under a Corbyn government, isolated from the EU, from the US, weak, and run by people who admire the likes of Putin, Assad etc.
Coming back to the Russia issue in Parliament here, is this matter going to lead to a Spring of Discontent against Corbyn...now that the GE near win is almost 9 months ago and TM appears dug in, are we likely to see the sort of rumblings against Corbyn that marked the first 18 months.
I have always thought that Corbyn's performance was not as amazing as some would say in the GE and is this the chance to have a look at potential succession?
Labour moderates have little support in the party and have repeatedly shown that they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
I really fear for a Britain under a Corbyn government, isolated from the EU, from the US, weak, and run by people who admire the likes of Putin, Assad etc.
Given the number of times McDonnell has clashed with the leader's office in recent weeks, I think the potential succession planning is already underway - at least in his mind.
Coming back to the Russia issue in Parliament here, is this matter going to lead to a Spring of Discontent against Corbyn...now that the GE near win is almost 9 months ago and TM appears dug in, are we likely to see the sort of rumblings against Corbyn that marked the first 18 months.
I have always thought that Corbyn's performance was not as amazing as some would say in the GE and is this the chance to have a look at potential succession?
Labour moderates have little support in the party and have repeatedly shown that they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
I really fear for a Britain under a Corbyn government, isolated from the EU, from the US, weak, and run by people who admire the likes of Putin, Assad etc.
Given the number of times McDonnell has clashed with the leader's office in recent weeks, I think the potential succession planning is already underway - at least in his mind.
I don’t think McDonnell would be an improvement on Corbyn. But, yes, you may be right.
Coming back to the Russia issue in Parliament here, is this matter going to lead to a Spring of Discontent against Corbyn...now that the GE near win is almost 9 months ago and TM appears dug in, are we likely to see the sort of rumblings against Corbyn that marked the first 18 months.
I have always thought that Corbyn's performance was not as amazing as some would say in the GE and is this the chance to have a look at potential succession?
Labour moderates have little support in the party and have repeatedly shown that they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
I really fear for a Britain under a Corbyn government, isolated from the EU, from the US, weak, and run by people who admire the likes of Putin, Assad etc.
Given the number of times McDonnell has clashed with the leader's office in recent weeks, I think the potential succession planning is already underway - at least in his mind.
I don’t think McDonnell would be an improvement on Corbyn. But, yes, you may be right.
He would be far worse. But he wants the job and sees a way to get it. He is beyond deplorable in so many ways.
I'm not sure there is a huge divide between McDonnell and Corbyn, whilst they will disagree on things, such as some things to do with this maybe, they are very close and the whole idea behind McDonnell being the Chancellor was that you would have a very united team in the top 2 positions.
McDonnell plotting to get rid of Corbyn is probably as likely (so not at all) as Chris Williamson doing similarly.
I don't think it is quite to the extent people might believe but if I had to label the two of them then McDonnell would probably be the more pragmatic one and Corbyn the more idealistic one.
I'm not sure there is a huge divide between McDonnell and Corbyn, whilst they will disagree on things, such as some things to do with this maybe, they are very close and the whole idea behind McDonnell being the Chancellor was that you would have a very united team in the top 2 positions.
McDonnell plotting to get rid of Corbyn is probably as likely (so not at all) as Chris Williamson doing similarly.
I don't think it is quite to the extent people might believe but if I had to label the two of them then McDonnell would probably be the more pragmatic one and Corbyn the more idealistic one.
McDonnell is the more capable politician - which is what makes him more of a threat to this country. He refusal to repudiate the language of violence is deeply disturbing. But he is able to portray himself as a considered and thoughtful type - again very dangerous.
Corbyn hasn't been able to have an original thought in more than 30 years. He isn't idealistic, he is stuck in a way of thinking that is pretty close to deluded. He is consistent - but consistently wrong. Those on here who have claimed that he is some sort of prescient foreign policy genius are wearing very very rose-tinted glasses (or beer goggles)
No man who claims friendship with Chavez, Hamas and Hezbollah has any claim on having any insight into the real world of foreign policy in the modern world.
People have projected all sorts onto Corbyn. He will always come up short - no matter how low you set the bar. He has no ability to judge political tone. He has not been able to tackle the anti-semitism and misogyny that is so prevalent in his support base. He refuses to see that it is there at all. His refusal to put the safety and security of UK residents at the top of his agenda today is beyond unacceptable. It goes beyond appeasement.
He isn't some safe fluffy lefty with odd taste in footwear. He is a blinkered old man who is unfit for any office.
Will the Labour benches rise up and remove him? Not a chance. To their massive shame.
But today has shown his real colours in a modern context. Nothing to do with his close links to the IRA. Nothing to do with his lauding of corrupt and violent Latin American regimes. And everything to do with his refusal to condemn the use of a chemical weapon on UK soil. People won't forget that.
Add in the mix the appalling statements by Milne on Corbyn's behalf and you have a toxic pairing at the head of a once proud and important political party.
The anger on the Labour benches is real - but unless they grow balls, they are seeing the death of their party. All because of the treachery of one man.
Well I'd pretty much disagree with most of that but just to take the final point most of the anger seems to be from a pretty small group almost all in the progress wing of the party. They are probably less representative of the party than the many other MPs.
Also said group has pretty much worked tirelessly to stop Corbyn since he was first elected, I'm not sure what else they could do, aside from resign from the party, which quite frankly I would welcome in the case of a few of them but that really wouldn't achieve anything you want. If they stood for election as independents or for another party they would probably lose, in the case of some of the safer seats Labour would probably hold them with ease.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
Our MPs were remarkably together across the parties in the HOC regarding Iraq, Libya, PFI and lots of other matters (apart from Corbyn).
Corbyn was right about all of them.
He's a human man, big john, he's been right on some things and wrong about plenty of others, neither are in themselves proof he is right or wrong about this thing. Each situation must be judged on its individual merits.
Every pb poster needs to print this out and pin it next to their computer.
France undermined Theresa May’s attempts to build a consensus for punitive action against Russia last night by accusing her of punishing the regime prematurely.
President Macron’s spokesman derided Mrs May’s decision to act against Moscow after the Salisbury poisonings as “fantasy politics”. Shortly after the prime minister announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats and the suspension of bilateral talks, Benjamin Griveaux told a news conference in Paris: “Once the elements are proven then the time will come for decisions to be made.” He said that the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia was a “serious act” on a strategic ally but France would await evidence of Russian involvement before taking a position.
Or....radical thought...we don't try and send 50% of the 18 year olds to uni.
The report suggests capping numbers.
The percentage of Britons going on to higher education is pretty similar to other developed countries. Where we perhaps differ is that many of the courses are of poor educational value. The current funding system rather perversely subsidises the worst courses the most. Everyone gets funded, but graduates in Sofa Studies from Scumbag University never have to pay anything back. The level of student debt is the new Sub Prime market, but these dodgy loans are backed by the government, not banks. It is obviously going to end in tears and needs addressing sooner rather than later.
Or....radical thought...we don't try and send 50% of the 18 year olds to uni.
The report suggests capping numbers.
The percentage of Britons going on to higher education is pretty similar to other developed countries. Where we perhaps differ is that many of the courses are of poor educational value. The current funding system rather perversely subsidises the worst courses the most. Everyone gets funded, but graduates in Sofa Studies from Scumbag University never have to pay anything back. The level of student debt is the new Sub Prime market, but these dodgy loans are backed by the government, not banks. It is obviously going to end in tears and needs addressing sooner rather than later.
Another big difference in the UK compared to elsewhere is this thought that you have to go full time and you have to move far away from home.
This reduces somebodies opportunity to earn while they study, while vastly increasing living costs (and student accommodation is another rip-off factor, and rarely talked about, that has increased dramatically in recent years).
Or....radical thought...we don't try and send 50% of the 18 year olds to uni.
The report suggests capping numbers.
The percentage of Britons going on to higher education is pretty similar to other developed countries. Where we perhaps differ is that many of the courses are of poor educational value. The current funding system rather perversely subsidises the worst courses the most. Everyone gets funded, but graduates in Sofa Studies from Scumbag University never have to pay anything back. The level of student debt is the new Sub Prime market, but these dodgy loans are backed by the government, not banks. It is obviously going to end in tears and needs addressing sooner rather than later.
Don’t know that it will end in tears like the Sub Prime market- seems more likely that the tax payer will just continue to get a bad deal until someone fixes the system.
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of who dunnit, but given what I know about many members of this government having followed the money trails they have been involved in, they are some of the very last people that I would trust. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
The burden of proof rests with those making the allegations, ie the UK government. So far they've provided none to me that I'm satisfied with. So as much as I despise Mr Corbyn, I am with him in his assessment of the situation today.
I think you may find the vast majority in this Country will back the PM
Doubtless true. I'm not one of them. Many times in history where the majority have been wrong. People shouldn't be afraid to hold minority viewpoints provided they have coherent arguments backing them up.
It's ridiculous that we've built Russia up into such an enemy, with so many seemingly wanting to go back to the darkest days of the Cold War in the early 1960's at the time of the Bay of Pigs scandal. Throughout history, its suited governments to have an enemy on which they can play the blame game.
At the risk of engaging with your arguments...
Regardless of individual situations where you can argue that our interests might align with Russia, they gave repeated shown they are willing to flout the conventions that have kept the peace in Europe and beyond for almost 75 years.
Invasion of sovereign states (Georgia) Annexation of territory (Crimea) Formenting dissent in neighbour (Ukraine) Being uncaring about civilian casualties (Syria) State sponsored murder in third party countries (U.K., 2006) Willingness to use, or at least turn a blind eye to, use of chemical and/radioactive weapons Disregard for international deals (U.K. 2018)
Quite simply they have adopted a 19C unredemptive imperialist approach. For anyone who supports the post war settlement that makes them an enemy
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down. d.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
The burden of proof rests with those making the allegations, ie the UK government. So far they've provided none to me that I'm satisfied with.
In any case, surely if we are talking burdens of proof at this stage it is analagous to having sufficient evidence to suspect, and seeking additional information through questioning. Why would you be demanding the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt this early on?
Independent poisonous materials experts from an independent 3rd country, that were approved in advance by both Russia and the UK if possible.
Except it was not known right away what the cause was, and presumably therefore we had our regular police force working the crime scenes and collecting samples of things, therefore by the time it was clear what sort of agent was used, anybody external would not have collected the materials themselves and therefore could not say if the samples were genuine, since they were not there.
Good point, so why did the UK government not wish to share the sample, as requested by the Russian government? If there was nothing to hide, then they would have been willing to share? Would the Russians on analysing the sample have been able to point out inconsistencies between it and the Novichok that they have historically produced....
Not credibly, given they have never declared any of the Novichok agents to international bodies - and indeed they were reportedly developed to circumvent the Chemival Weapons Convention. For the authors of an assassination attempt to request immediate access to the evidence of their botched handiwork, as if by right, is remarkable arrogance. Perhaps they want the data to refine their next attack ?
O/T @Nigelb think it was you who was particularly interested in Alzheimer’s. My buddy, who owns the company I keep raving about, is testifying to Congress on Wednesday about his work and plans
More rabid Russian xenophobia on here tonight. Our government has offered no proof that Russia did it. Why did they fail to comply with the Russian response of handing over the substance concerned? The timing of the Salisbury incident bothers me in the run up to the Russian election. And Salisbury seems very convenient for the UK government being the major population centre nearest to Porton Down.
Of course I hav. There are far too many people jumping to conclusions, when there is no firm evidence to allege that Russian government backed agents carried out the misdeed.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
that I'm satisfied with. So as much as I despise Mr Corbyn, I am with him in his assessment of the situation today.
I think you may find the vast majority in this Country will back the PM
Doubtless true. I'm not one of them. Many times in history where the majority have been wrong. People shouldn't be afraid to hold minority viewpoints provided they have coherent arguments backing them up.
It's ridiculous that we've built Russia up into such an enemy, with so many seemingly wanting to go back to the darkest days of the Cold War in the early 1960's at the time of the Bay of Pigs scandal. Throughout history, its suited governments to have an enemy on which they can play the blame game.
At the risk of engaging with your arguments...
Regardless of individual situations where you can argue that our interests might align with Russia, they gave repeated shown they are willing to flout the conventions that have kept the peace in Europe and beyond for almost 75 years.
Invasion of sovereign states (Georgia) Annexation of territory (Crimea) Formenting dissent in neighbour (Ukraine) Being uncaring about civilian casualties (Syria) State sponsored murder in third party countries (U.K., 2006) Willingness to use, or at least turn a blind eye to, use of chemical and/radioactive weapons Disregard for international deals (U.K. 2018)
Quite simply they have adopted a 19C unredemptive imperialist approach. For anyone who supports the post war settlement that makes them an enemy
Absolutely right. We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.
Absolutely right. We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.
I regret to say that the government response will not deter the Russian state. If this is "robust" then I dread to think what a weak response would look like.
Our nation will continue to be attacked by Russia until we grow a pair.
Not the view held by our MPs (apart from Corbyn) who were remarkably together across the parties today in the HOC, nor tonight in a statement from Donald Tusk or from the UN ex USSR
that I'm satisfied with. So as much as I despise Mr Corbyn, I am with him in his assessment of the situation today.
I think you may find the vast majority in this Country will back the PM
Doubtless true. I'm not one of them. Many times in history where the majority have been wrong. People shouldn't be afraid to hold minority viewpoints provided they have coherent arguments backing them up.
It's ridiculous that we've built Russia up into such an enemy, with so many seemingly wanting to go back to the darkest days of the Cold War in the early 1960's at the time of the Bay of Pigs scandal. Throughout history, its suited governments to have an enemy on which they can play the blame game.
At the risk of engaging with your arguments...
Regardless of individual situations where you can argue that our interests might align with Russia, they gave repeated shown they are willing to flout the conventions that have kept the peace in Europe and beyond for almost 75 years.
Invasion of sovereign states (Georgia) Annexation of territory (Crimea) Formenting dissent in neighbour (Ukraine) Being uncaring about civilian casualties (Syria) State sponsored murder in third party countries (U.K., 2006) Willingness to use, or at least turn a blind eye to, use of chemical and/radioactive weapons Disregard for international deals (U.K. 2018)
Quite simply they have adopted a 19C unredemptive imperialist approach. For anyone who supports the post war settlement that makes them an enemy
Absolutely right. We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.
Indeed, we don’t want to start a war but we have to react to an extreme provocation or else they will just keep poking.
Just catching up on yesterday in Parliament, with the one obvious exception pretty much unanimity for the government’s actions, and a huge amount of international backing from them too. Obviously a lot of work gone on behind the scenes in the past few days. Some of the harshest responses will be convert or investigatory in nature and weren’t announced yesterday.
Absolutely right. We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.
I regret to say that the government response will not deter the Russian state. If this is "robust" then I dread to think what a weak response would look like.
Our nation will continue to be attacked by Russia until we grow a pair.
Are you suggesting that Mrs May requires gender reassignment surgery?
Absolutely right. We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.
I regret to say that the government response will not deter the Russian state. If this is "robust" then I dread to think what a weak response would look like.
Our nation will continue to be attacked by Russia until we grow a pair.
I agree, if this is all we are doing.
However, this may just be a first stage, and things may also being done that the Great British Public cannot be told about.
Absolutely right. We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.
I regret to say that the government response will not deter the Russian state. If this is "robust" then I dread to think what a weak response would look like.
Our nation will continue to be attacked by Russia until we grow a pair.
Are you suggesting that Mrs May requires gender reassignment surgery?
Perhaps as PB's most eminent physician you might care to oblige?
Comments
In which case how can you condemn the accusations at Russia as xenophobia, since you have no reason to know if they are justified or not, and justification would be critical to such an accusation.
Guess which one Corbyn backed?
It's ridiculous that we've built Russia up into such an enemy, with so many seemingly wanting to go back to the darkest days of the Cold War in the early 1960's at the time of the Bay of Pigs scandal. Throughout history, its suited governments to have an enemy on which they can play the blame game.
It is a case for breaking of diplomatic relations at a minimum is it not?
And if it isn't what would constitute a severe enough chemical attack to withdraw Ambassadors?
You get Putin in this game for two near dead.
In any case, surely if we are talking burdens of proof at this stage it is analagous to having sufficient evidence to suspect, and seeking additional information through questioning. Why would you be demanding the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt this early on?
It will not be a good day for May if Russia escalates as it will IMO. To coin a phrase it holds all the cards.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/unlikely-that-vladimir-putin-behind-skripal-poisoning-1.3425736
"Don't do this terrible thing again"
"We didn't do it this time"
"We think you did"
"Well we didn't"
What, precisely, is there to talk about when there is a fundamental lack of basic understanding of the facts in order to hold a discussion? It'd be like putting an ultra-eu fanatic in a room with an ultra-Brexit fanatic and expecting constructive dialogue.
'Nothing has (small) changed! Nothing has (small) changed!'
Which of those 3 where there was a HOC agreement by the vast majority of MPs turned out well?
Anyway goodnight
My complete lack of trust in the UK government is a product of many things going back in time - involvement of MP's in the fraud, theft and money laundering out of you know where historically, the continuing lies on man made climate change, the historical legacy of the Iraq war and WMD, Dr David Kelly, historical child abuse, numerous botched public inquiries including the Waterhouse / Jillings / Cullen / Chilcot reports to name but a few..........the list goes on and on.
FPT, I did the Bentham Line back in June, and very nice it is!
And I still can’t really believe this actually happened:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2006/may/23/labour.uk
Apparently they are selling the line that 1) It wasn't poor us 2) the guy was a traitor 3) being a traitor you should expect death, so it was basically suicide.
Many questions and very few answers!
Donald Trump ??????
Which I think answers you question.
The Deputy British Ambassador at the UN in his address confirmed that the UK are giving the OPCW in the Hague full access to Salisbury and other sites and information for them to provide independent verification of the nerve agent used and it's likely source
2. People still knocking on about doubts should bear in mind that the Novichok range and their later versions have not been recorded as having turned up in other states active CBW arsenals. That reduces the possible options somewhat. Mis-interpretation of the weapon is possible but unlikely. Unless you want to take the view that the British government is outright lying.
3. No one should be surprised by Corbyn's reaction. The guy fundamentally hates the country he is in and has a problem with liberal democracy.
4. This is the first time, in at least the last 6 to 8 years that any Western government has actually openly said 'fuck this, we are calling you out' and backed it up. It is, however, only a start, the UK should make it a multi year mission to strangle the current Russian regime and its dodge associates as much as it possibly can. Passivity doesn't work.
5. Again, someone needs to track Skripal's daughter's movements and associations to help them, right down to the passenger list on her plane journeys. I'll be damned if there isn't something of interest there.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/03/13/moving-the-dial-how-britain-swung-last-year/
For the authors of an assassination attempt to request immediate access to the evidence of their botched handiwork, as if by right, is remarkable arrogance. Perhaps they want the data to refine their next attack ?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11403728/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-campaign-to-end-apartheid.html
I have always thought that Corbyn's performance was not as amazing as some would say in the GE and is this the chance to have a look at potential succession?
Why? His spokesman has said he does not trust our intelligence services and his shadow Home Secretary (and also his Shadow Chancellor I think) have in the past called for the intelligence services to be disbanded. Nothing in Corbyn’s career suggests that he understands that the primary duty of the state is to protect its citizens nor that he understands what that means in practical terms. His view is to assume that everyone is basically nice and well-intentioned and/or misunderstood (everyone apart from America and Israel of course) and that a bit of chat is all that’s needed to stop anything nasty being done to us.
So burying any bad news, refusing to investigate thoroughly, turning a blind eye - even if that means putting British citizens at risk - are I think the likely default instincts of a Corbyn government. And there will be plenty of people for whom this quiet life strategy will be attractive, even if it is a moral disaster and long-term strategically dangerous.
His view that the disaster of Iraq reinforces his belief that the intelligence services cannot be trusted is utterly disingenuous. The problem was the way that politicians misused such intelligence there was, over-egged it, put pressure on the services to say more than they could, to use poor sources etc - in short, it was politicians believing what they wanted to be true which was the issue (and the calamity for trust in our government).
Corbyn is guilty of exactly the same failing now. He does not want to believe that Russia is behind this so he ignores the evidence there is. He comes out with opinion first and distorts or ignores inconvenient facts. In this he is an ultra Blairite not the brave loner or contrarian sticking up for unpopular truths he - and his supporters - like to think he is.
It's so May government - and its only March.
I really fear for a Britain under a Corbyn government, isolated from the EU, from the US, weak, and run by people who admire the likes of Putin, Assad etc.
McDonnell plotting to get rid of Corbyn is probably as likely (so not at all) as Chris Williamson doing similarly.
I don't think it is quite to the extent people might believe but if I had to label the two of them then McDonnell would probably be the more pragmatic one and Corbyn the more idealistic one.
Corbyn hasn't been able to have an original thought in more than 30 years. He isn't idealistic, he is stuck in a way of thinking that is pretty close to deluded. He is consistent - but consistently wrong. Those on here who have claimed that he is some sort of prescient foreign policy genius are wearing very very rose-tinted glasses (or beer goggles)
No man who claims friendship with Chavez, Hamas and Hezbollah has any claim on having any insight into the real world of foreign policy in the modern world.
People have projected all sorts onto Corbyn. He will always come up short - no matter how low you set the bar. He has no ability to judge political tone. He has not been able to tackle the anti-semitism and misogyny that is so prevalent in his support base. He refuses to see that it is there at all. His refusal to put the safety and security of UK residents at the top of his agenda today is beyond unacceptable. It goes beyond appeasement.
He isn't some safe fluffy lefty with odd taste in footwear. He is a blinkered old man who is unfit for any office.
Will the Labour benches rise up and remove him? Not a chance. To their massive shame.
But today has shown his real colours in a modern context. Nothing to do with his close links to the IRA. Nothing to do with his lauding of corrupt and violent Latin American regimes. And everything to do with his refusal to condemn the use of a chemical weapon on UK soil. People won't forget that.
Add in the mix the appalling statements by Milne on Corbyn's behalf and you have a toxic pairing at the head of a once proud and important political party.
The anger on the Labour benches is real - but unless they grow balls, they are seeing the death of their party. All because of the treachery of one man.
Also said group has pretty much worked tirelessly to stop Corbyn since he was first elected, I'm not sure what else they could do, aside from resign from the party, which quite frankly I would welcome in the case of a few of them but that really wouldn't achieve anything you want. If they stood for election as independents or for another party they would probably lose, in the case of some of the safer seats Labour would probably hold them with ease.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43399089
Or....radical thought...we don't try and send 50% of the 18 year olds to uni.
President Macron’s spokesman derided Mrs May’s decision to act against Moscow after the Salisbury poisonings as “fantasy politics”. Shortly after the prime minister announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats and the suspension of bilateral talks, Benjamin Griveaux told a news conference in Paris: “Once the elements are proven then the time will come for decisions to be made.” He said that the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia was a “serious act” on a strategic ally but France would await evidence of Russian involvement before taking a position.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/france-defies-may-over-russia-37b27qd2s
The percentage of Britons going on to higher education is pretty similar to other developed countries. Where we perhaps differ is that many of the courses are of poor educational value. The current funding system rather perversely subsidises the worst courses the most. Everyone gets funded, but graduates in Sofa Studies from Scumbag University never have to pay anything back. The level of student debt is the new Sub Prime market, but these dodgy loans are backed by the government, not banks. It is obviously going to end in tears and needs addressing sooner rather than later.
This reduces somebodies opportunity to earn while they study, while vastly increasing living costs (and student accommodation is another rip-off factor, and rarely talked about, that has increased dramatically in recent years).
Regardless of individual situations where you can argue that our interests might align with Russia, they gave repeated shown they are willing to flout the conventions that have kept the peace in Europe and beyond for almost 75 years.
Invasion of sovereign states (Georgia)
Annexation of territory (Crimea)
Formenting dissent in neighbour (Ukraine)
Being uncaring about civilian casualties (Syria)
State sponsored murder in third party countries (U.K., 2006)
Willingness to use, or at least turn a blind eye to, use of chemical and/radioactive weapons
Disregard for international deals (U.K. 2018)
Quite simply they have adopted a 19C unredemptive imperialist approach. For anyone who supports the post war settlement that makes them an enemy
We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.
Our nation will continue to be attacked by Russia until we grow a pair.
Just catching up on yesterday in Parliament, with the one obvious exception pretty much unanimity for the government’s actions, and a huge amount of international backing from them too. Obviously a lot of work gone on behind the scenes in the past few days. Some of the harshest responses will be convert or investigatory in nature and weren’t announced yesterday.
However, this may just be a first stage, and things may also being done that the Great British Public cannot be told about.