Today's news about Boris and his mendacious comments should come as no surprise as he was very economical with the truth during the EU referendum campaign.
I find it strange how Jeremy Corbyn seems to always end up being vindicated.
The question now is if it wasn't Russia then who did plan the Salisbury nerve agent dispersal?
It was Russia - also OPCM voted 41 - 6 in UK favour.
Corbyn is coming under attack now for siding with Russia.
Boris is unreliable but the International coalition is holding and the EU endorses the UK
Was it 41-6?
What was this then?
Genuine question
An unnamed diplomatic source told the agency that the vote was lost by 15-6 with 17 OPCW member states abstaining. Russia gained support from China, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Algeria and Iran, Reuters said.
Lost from the Russian perspective. Gutting, I know.
Today's news about Boris and his mendacious comments should come as no surprise as he was very economical with the truth during the EU referendum campaign.
I find it strange how Jeremy Corbyn seems to always end up being vindicated.
The question now is if it wasn't Russia then who did plan the Salisbury nerve agent dispersal?
It was Russia - also OPCM voted 41 - 6 in UK favour.
Corbyn is coming under attack now for siding with Russia.
Boris is unreliable but the International coalition is holding and the EU endorses the UK
Was it 41-6?
What was this then?
Genuine question
An unnamed diplomatic source told the agency that the vote was lost by 15-6 with 17 OPCW member states abstaining. Russia gained support from China, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Algeria and Iran, Reuters said.
I have just read that BJO on the Guardian site. It does seem to conflict with the previous report and Parkistan is not on that list.
Maybe they had two votes but it seems David Cameron's comment about tweets rings true every day
I think it's possible that whoever poisoned the Skripals was acting without the authority of Putin or the Russian government. An example of this is Malaysian Airlines flight 17 that was shot down by accident by Russian associates in the Ukraine. The Russian Government decided it was better to deny everything and blame Ukraine for the atrocity. That is preferable to Russian authorities' agenda than to admit they lack control or are incompetent.
The difference is that putting anti-aircraft missiles into the hands of people on the ground in Donbass was Russian policy, albeit with tragic, unforeseen consequences.
A better comparison is with the assassination of Boris Nemtsov which was a deliberate act carried out without the authority of the Kremlin. That provoked a real political crisis and power vacuum in Moscow. The reaction to the Skripal case has been nothing like that.
Today's news about Boris and his mendacious comments should come as no surprise as he was very economical with the truth during the EU referendum campaign.
I find it strange how Jeremy Corbyn seems to always end up being vindicated.
The question now is if it wasn't Russia then who did plan the Salisbury nerve agent dispersal?
It was Russia - also OPCM voted 41 - 6 in UK favour.
Corbyn is coming under attack now for siding with Russia.
Boris is unreliable but the International coalition is holding and the EU endorses the UK
Was it 41-6?
What was this then?
Genuine question
An unnamed diplomatic source told the agency that the vote was lost by 15-6 with 17 OPCW member states abstaining. Russia gained support from China, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Algeria and Iran, Reuters said.
Lost from the Russian perspective. Gutting, I know.
But just assume for a moment that the Russian State is not responsible. Immediately after the attack they wouldn't know who was responsible. They would vehemently reject the accusation and ask for evidence and samples.
There I disagree. They would be considerably more likely, faced with such a calamity of a murder they were blamed for but innocent of, to suggest a fully joint investigation to find the perpetrators. Joint forensic teams, joint investigation units, joint access to sites and laboratories and records - and a joint report at the end of it.
The reason I say that is because if this *isn't* the Russian state, then it is somebody who has access to their technology and hostile intent towards its citizens and security services. It would be very much in their interests to find out who such a person was as they would be a menace to national security.
In practice however they have more or less admitted it and are basically trolling now. Why they think that makes them look clever or strong I don't know.
I think it's possible that whoever poisoned the Skripals was acting without the authority of Putin or the Russian government. An example of this is Malaysian Airlines flight 17 that was shot down by accident by Russian associates in the Ukraine. The Russian Government decided it was better to deny everything and blame Ukraine for the atrocity. That is preferable to Russian authorities' agenda than to admit they lack control or are incompetent.
Yes, I think MH17 was an accident by Russian 'associates', which the Russian government then covered up. Interestingly, the way they tried to do that was by spreading a series of ludicrous and incompatible stories and explanations. They're doing the same now, and the same idiots are lapping it up.
But we should also remember Litvinenko. They've done it before; therefore it's reasonable to use that as part of the evidence that they've done it again, especially after the then-government's limp-wristed reaction to that murder.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
But just assume for a moment that the Russian State is not responsible. Immediately after the attack they wouldn't know who was responsible. They would vehemently reject the accusation and ask for evidence and samples.
There I disagree. They would be considerably more likely, faced with such a calamity of a murder they were blamed for but innocent of, to suggest a fully joint investigation to find the perpetrators. Joint forensic teams, joint investigation units, joint access to sites and laboratories and records - and a joint report at the end of it.
The reason I say that is because if this *isn't* the Russian state, then it is somebody who has access to their technology and hostile intent towards its citizens and security services. It would be very much in their interests to find out who such a person was as they would be a menace to national security.
In practice however they have more or less admitted it and are basically trolling now. Why they think that makes them look clever or strong I don't know.
I think it's possible that whoever poisoned the Skripals was acting without the authority of Putin or the Russian government. An example of this is Malaysian Airlines flight 17 that was shot down by accident by Russian associates in the Ukraine. The Russian Government decided it was better to deny everything and blame Ukraine for the atrocity. That is preferable to Russian authorities' agenda than to admit they lack control or are incompetent.
Yes, I think MH17 was an accident by Russian 'associates', which the Russian government then covered up. Interestingly, the way they tried to do that was by spreading a series of ludicrous and incompatible stories and explanations. They're doing the same now, and the same idiots are lapping it up.
But we should also remember Litvinenko. They've done it before; therefore it's reasonable to use that as part of the evidence that they've done it again, especially after the then-government's limp-wristed reaction to that murder.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Freelance but sponsored by the Russian state? Who else has motive to go after a Russian ex-spy?
The difference is that putting anti-aircraft missiles into the hands of people on the ground in Donbass was Russian policy, albeit with tragic, unforeseen consequences.
A better comparison is with the assassination of Boris Nemtsov which was a deliberate act carried out without the authority of the Kremlin. That provoked a real political crisis and power vacuum in Moscow. The reaction to the Skripal case has been nothing like that.
Precisely - if it had been some non-Kremlin group throwing this stuff around, the Kremlin would have gone berserk, and rightly so, because for all they knew it might have been an attack on the Moscow underground next. That is why there is no room for reasonable doubt even without access to the intelligence info.
Today's news about Boris and his mendacious comments should come as no surprise as he was very economical with the truth during the EU referendum campaign.
I find it strange how Jeremy Corbyn seems to always end up being vindicated.
The question now is if it wasn't Russia then who did plan the Salisbury nerve agent dispersal?
Corbyn is coming under attack... from Boris... for siding with Russia.
The difference is that putting anti-aircraft missiles into the hands of people on the ground in Donbass was Russian policy, albeit with tragic, unforeseen consequences.
It's quite widely believed that the missile launcher was crewed by Russians; and it was immediately withdrawn back to Russia. So even saying it was supplied to rebels is a bit of Russian spin, I'm not accusing you of that, I'm merely stating that the "not fired by Russians" isn't a fact.
The difference is that putting anti-aircraft missiles into the hands of people on the ground in Donbass was Russian policy, albeit with tragic, unforeseen consequences.
A better comparison is with the assassination of Boris Nemtsov which was a deliberate act carried out without the authority of the Kremlin. That provoked a real political crisis and power vacuum in Moscow. The reaction to the Skripal case has been nothing like that.
Precisely - if it had been some non-Kremlin group throwing this stuff around, the Kremlin would have gone berserk, and rightly so, because for all they knew it might have been an attack on the Moscow underground next. That is why there is no room for reasonable doubt even without access to the intelligence info.
Have we responded to them kicking out double the number of diplomats that we did? We need to go after their money.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
Today's news about Boris and his mendacious comments should come as no surprise as he was very economical with the truth during the EU referendum campaign.
I find it strange how Jeremy Corbyn seems to always end up being vindicated.
The question now is if it wasn't Russia then who did plan the Salisbury nerve agent dispersal?
Corbyn is coming under attack... from Boris... for siding with Russia.
Boris still called it right!
He does not do detail and was careless over the tweet. But attack is the best form of defence and watching the broadcast media tonight it does look like the sting has been drawn
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
On the whole I agree, but the more likely freelance scenario is a rival oligarch seeking to piss on Putin's chips. And as for getting hold of the stuff, you'd go to the lab which manufactures it and offer someone with access to it all the roubles he could eat. Russia is not famous for the incorruptibility of its state sector.
Today's news about Boris and his mendacious comments should come as no surprise as he was very economical with the truth during the EU referendum campaign.
I find it strange how Jeremy Corbyn seems to always end up being vindicated.
The question now is if it wasn't Russia then who did plan the Salisbury nerve agent dispersal?
Corbyn is coming under attack... from Boris... for siding with Russia.
Boris still called it right!
Yes he did. But lots of people for a slightly bizarre range of reasons want to pretend otherwise. Curious.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
On the whole I agree, but the more likely freelance scenario is a rival oligarch seeking to piss on Putin's chips. And as for getting hold of the stuff, you'd go to the lab which manufactures it and offer someone with access to it all the roubles he could eat. Russia is not famous for the incorruptibility of its state sector.
Why would a freelance attempt use novichok? Showing up Putins impotence like that would only make sense if it was the first step in a plot to overthrow Putin.
The difference is that putting anti-aircraft missiles into the hands of people on the ground in Donbass was Russian policy, albeit with tragic, unforeseen consequences.
It's quite widely believed that the missile launcher was crewed by Russians; and it was immediately withdrawn back to Russia. So even saying it was supplied to rebels is a bit of Russian spin, I'm not accusing you of that, I'm merely stating that the "not fired by Russians" isn't a fact.
I was careful to say "people on the ground" without specifying which people.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
"This is what happens to traitors to the motherland" doesn't necessarily involve the direct orders of Vladimir Putin and the Russian government, although I agree it's most likely they did order the assassination. Russia is a very chaotic state where there are lots of gangsters at play.
Today's news about Boris and his mendacious comments should come as no surprise as he was very economical with the truth during the EU referendum campaign.
I find it strange how Jeremy Corbyn seems to always end up being vindicated.
The question now is if it wasn't Russia then who did plan the Salisbury nerve agent dispersal?
Corbyn is coming under attack... from Boris... for siding with Russia.
Boris still called it right!
Yes he did. But lots of people for a slightly bizarre range of reasons want to pretend otherwise. Curious.
The reasons for casting doubt on Putin are curious, and manifold.
Complete bollocks though, and not worth playing politics about. The only real debate should be how far we wish to escalate our response, and how much we can afford to do so.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
"This is what happens to traitors to the motherland" doesn't necessarily involve the direct orders of Vladimir Putin and the Russian government, although I agree it's most likely they did order the assassination. Russia is a very chaotic state where there are lots of gangsters at play.
Yes, but they'd have to be gangsters with access to novochok and the knowledge how to deploy it without killing themselves. Knives, guns or bombs are much more likely if that was the case.
There is a chance that it might have been a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!” moment, but I doubt it. The consequences of wronging Putin are too great. The order would have come from the top, or the top would have given permission for such techniques to be used in certain cases.
Wait for independent report from OPCW then act if necessary.
As suggested by Jezza
So after a chemical agent was used, the UK has to sit and twiddle its thumbs while waiting months for an independent report? That’s one way to run things...
In any case, hasn’t the OPCW just voted in the UK’s favour?
WMD we would have been far better twiddling our thumbs dont you agree?
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
On the whole I agree, but the more likely freelance scenario is a rival oligarch seeking to piss on Putin's chips. And as for getting hold of the stuff, you'd go to the lab which manufactures it and offer someone with access to it all the roubles he could eat. Russia is not famous for the incorruptibility of its state sector.
Why would a freelance attempt use novichok? Showing up Putins impotence like that would only make sense if it was the first step in a plot to overthrow Putin.
The reasons for casting doubt on Putin are curious, and manifold.
Complete bollocks though, and not worth playing politics about. The only real debate should be how far we wish to escalate our response, and how much we can afford to do so.
We escalate our response to the level determined is necessary to ensure the Russian state feels it is not in their interest to facilitate a recurrence. We cannot afford not to respond in full measure.
Wait for independent report from OPCW then act if necessary.
As suggested by Jezza
So after a chemical agent was used, the UK has to sit and twiddle its thumbs while waiting months for an independent report? That’s one way to run things...
In any case, hasn’t the OPCW just voted in the UK’s favour?
WMD we would have been far better twiddling our thumbs dont you agree?
A very different situation. If you hadn't noticed, we've been attacked.
Today's news about Boris and his mendacious comments should come as no surprise as he was very economical with the truth during the EU referendum campaign.
I find it strange how Jeremy Corbyn seems to always end up being vindicated.
The question now is if it wasn't Russia then who did plan the Salisbury nerve agent dispersal?
It was Russia - also OPCM voted 41 - 6 in UK favour.
Corbyn is coming under attack now for siding with Russia.
Boris is unreliable but the International coalition is holding and the EU endorses the UK
Was it 41-6?
What was this then?
Genuine question
An unnamed diplomatic source told the agency that the vote was lost by 15-6 with 17 OPCW member states abstaining. Russia gained support from China, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Algeria and Iran, Reuters said.
Lost from the Russian perspective. Gutting, I know.
"Lost"
LOL.....
Lost on what?
15 voted against Russia being allowed to be involved in the investigation?
6 thought they should?
17 sat on the fence?
Full Time whistle is not even close?
OPCW report nowhere near finished yet but the 15 Angry Men want to kick off
Today's news about Boris and his mendacious comments should come as no surprise as he was very economical with the truth during the EU referendum campaign.
I find it strange how Jeremy Corbyn seems to always end up being vindicated.
The question now is if it wasn't Russia then who did plan the Salisbury nerve agent dispersal?
It was Russia - also OPCM voted 41 - 6 in UK favour.
Corbyn is coming under attack now for siding with Russia.
Boris is unreliable but the International coalition is holding and the EU endorses the UK
Was it 41-6?
What was this then?
Genuine question
An unnamed diplomatic source told the agency that the vote was lost by 15-6 with 17 OPCW member states abstaining. Russia gained support from China, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Algeria and Iran, Reuters said.
Lost from the Russian perspective. Gutting, I know.
"Lost"
LOL.....
Lost on what?
15 voted against Russia being allowed to be involved in the investigation?
6 thought they should?
17 sat on the fence?
Full Time whistle is not even close?
OPCW report nowhere near finished yet but the 15 Angry Men want to kick off
Get the Nuke button primed Boris
Wait, weren't you saying there should be an independent investigation? Why should Russia be involved if it is supposed to be independent? Also their past form with MH17 doesn't inspire confidence.
I'm quite interested in this, because at work recently someone donated their golliwogs collection, and we were torn about whether to put them out for sale or not.
Wait for independent report from OPCW then act if necessary.
As suggested by Jezza
So after a chemical agent was used, the UK has to sit and twiddle its thumbs while waiting months for an independent report? That’s one way to run things...
In any case, hasn’t the OPCW just voted in the UK’s favour?
WMD we would have been far better twiddling our thumbs dont you agree?
A very different situation. If you hadn't noticed, we've been attacked.
I'm quite interested in this, because at work recently someone donated their golliwogs collection, and we were torn about whether to put them out for sale or not.
As a non-lawyer, is it the CPS prosecuting in this case?
If so, yet more evidence that the agencies of law and order have their priorities utterly wrong.
The reasons for casting doubt on Putin are curious, and manifold.
Complete bollocks though, and not worth playing politics about. The only real debate should be how far we wish to escalate our response, and how much we can afford to do so.
We escalate our response to the level determined is necessary to ensure the Russian state feels it is not in their interest to facilitate a recurrence. We cannot afford not to respond in full measure.
Probably the best means of that would be a degree of skullduggery. A few unfortunate, yet deniable incidents close to Putin.
Wait for independent report from OPCW then act if necessary.
As suggested by Jezza
So after a chemical agent was used, the UK has to sit and twiddle its thumbs while waiting months for an independent report? That’s one way to run things...
In any case, hasn’t the OPCW just voted in the UK’s favour?
WMD we would have been far better twiddling our thumbs dont you agree?
A very different situation. If you hadn't noticed, we've been attacked.
By whom and who is this we?
UN next to look at the case.
Well, 'we' in this case is the country, and more directly the good people of Salisbury.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
On the whole I agree, but the more likely freelance scenario is a rival oligarch seeking to piss on Putin's chips. And as for getting hold of the stuff, you'd go to the lab which manufactures it and offer someone with access to it all the roubles he could eat. Russia is not famous for the incorruptibility of its state sector.
Although I think it most likely was a direct order from Putin, the alternative probability is a power struggle at a level below Putin that involves the security services, in my estimation. I don't believe Putin has the total control of events that he likes to project and outsiders assume to be the case.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
On the whole I agree, but the more likely freelance scenario is a rival oligarch seeking to piss on Putin's chips. And as for getting hold of the stuff, you'd go to the lab which manufactures it and offer someone with access to it all the roubles he could eat. Russia is not famous for the incorruptibility of its state sector.
Although I think it most likely was a direct order from Putin, the alternative probability is a power struggle at a level below Putin that involves the security services, in my estimation. I don't believe Putin has the total control of events that he likes to project and outsiders assume to be the case.
Speak to any Russia expert and they will tell you Putin is the most powerful he has ever been. That's why he could get rid of term limits in a way he couldn't ten years ago.
Creating a diplomatic incident without Putin's permission is also a fast route to being killed in Russia.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
On the whole I agree, but the more likely freelance scenario is a rival oligarch seeking to piss on Putin's chips. And as for getting hold of the stuff, you'd go to the lab which manufactures it and offer someone with access to it all the roubles he could eat. Russia is not famous for the incorruptibility of its state sector.
Although I think it most likely was a direct order from Putin, the alternative probability is a power struggle at a level below Putin that involves the security services, in my estimation. I don't believe Putin has the total control of events that he likes to project and outsiders assume to be the case.
I think the most interesting question is why Skripal and why now?
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
On the whole I agree, but the more likely freelance scenario is a rival oligarch seeking to piss on Putin's chips. And as for getting hold of the stuff, you'd go to the lab which manufactures it and offer someone with access to it all the roubles he could eat. Russia is not famous for the incorruptibility of its state sector.
Although I think it most likely was a direct order from Putin, the alternative probability is a power struggle at a level below Putin that involves the security services, in my estimation. I don't believe Putin has the total control of events that he likes to project and outsiders assume to be the case.
I think the most interesting question is why Skripal and why now?
It sounds like plenty of Russian connected figures have been killed in the last few years. They probably just got round to Skripal. The use of a signature weapon to do it is probably because Trump is in the White House and they thought they could fracture NATO.
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
On the whole I agree, but the more likely freelance scenario is a rival oligarch seeking to piss on Putin's chips. And as for getting hold of the stuff, you'd go to the lab which manufactures it and offer someone with access to it all the roubles he could eat. Russia is not famous for the incorruptibility of its state sector.
Although I think it most likely was a direct order from Putin, the alternative probability is a power struggle at a level below Putin that involves the security services, in my estimation. I don't believe Putin has the total control of events that he likes to project and outsiders assume to be the case.
I think the most interesting question is why Skripal and why now?
Also, why the UK?
In this case, he'd attacked the UK before and got clean away with it. That made us a suitable target, when other countries might have responded more harshly (as it happens, he miscalculated on that, and our response was much firmer than it had been with Litvinenko).
As for why Skirpal? Perhaps there was a reason - I doubt it was anything he knew after all this time. So perhaps he was being an annoyance, or perhaps it was just a random name off a list of people in the UK. When sending a message, the target might not matter much.
(There's also a chance that his daughter was involved with something, but I doubt that).
The reasons for casting doubt on Putin are curious, and manifold.
Complete bollocks though, and not worth playing politics about. The only real debate should be how far we wish to escalate our response, and how much we can afford to do so.
We escalate our response to the level determined is necessary to ensure the Russian state feels it is not in their interest to facilitate a recurrence. We cannot afford not to respond in full measure.
Correct, although "full measure" is an inconvenience rather than a punishment. It's a case of don't do it, if you don't want the complaints.
This is the Lord of Reason, and this you need to consider.
There is nothing in all years of Cold War remotely equivalent to the crime committed by Putins regime in Salisbury in 2018. Mortimer posted at 5.03 “How would you have preferred we respond to an attack on our soil?”
Here’s your Answer: Why are we still sending our team to bolster Putins fraudulently won World Cup? Because the government is too weak to face down the furore of suggesting a boycott, that’s why.
Remember, back in the day when British governments had balls? There is more reason for us to politically boycott this World Cup than the Olympics of 1980. The Thatcher government wasn’t so cowardly as this one, they called for a boycott on the matter of principle regardless what spin doctors or focus groups would caution. You don’t boycott only in the safety of numbers as the ridiculous suggestion from Kinnock. You pull us out this World Cup, you calmly state why. If other nations choose to follow that is up to them.
A government minister stated today Putin could have poisoned half of Salisbury. If truth matches that rhetoric Why are we still in Putin’s World Cup? It makes no sense. Increasingly The governments rhetoric isn’t being backed up with enough action. That is the massive misstep and historically naff decision that will be remembered, to not boycott Putins footballfest , much much naffer than Corbyn response because at least Corbyn was consistent and predictable to the surrender monkey politics he’s been wedded to his entire life. Surely we expect more balls from this government?
The reasons for casting doubt on Putin are curious, and manifold.
Complete bollocks though, and not worth playing politics about. The only real debate should be how far we wish to escalate our response, and how much we can afford to do so.
We escalate our response to the level determined is necessary to ensure the Russian state feels it is not in their interest to facilitate a recurrence. We cannot afford not to respond in full measure.
Probably the best means of that would be a degree of skullduggery. A few unfortunate, yet deniable incidents close to Putin.
Ideally, a few billions go walkabout, with it looking like one oligarch has stiffed another. Paranoia and distrust in Moscow, GCHQ funded for the next decade....result.
The reasons for casting doubt on Putin are curious, and manifold.
Complete bollocks though, and not worth playing politics about. The only real debate should be how far we wish to escalate our response, and how much we can afford to do so.
We escalate our response to the level determined is necessary to ensure the Russian state feels it is not in their interest to facilitate a recurrence. We cannot afford not to respond in full measure.
Probably the best means of that would be a degree of skullduggery. A few unfortunate, yet deniable incidents close to Putin.
Ideally, a few billions go walkabout, with it looking like one oligarch has stiffed another. Paranoia and distrust in Moscow, GCHQ funded for the next decade....result.
I was thinking that a power failure in Moscow on the night of the opening match of the World Cup would be a good one, but I like your suggestion.
Wait for independent report from OPCW then act if necessary.
As suggested by Jezza
So after a chemical agent was used, the UK has to sit and twiddle its thumbs while waiting months for an independent report? That’s one way to run things...
In any case, hasn’t the OPCW just voted in the UK’s favour?
WMD we would have been far better twiddling our thumbs dont you agree?
A very different situation. If you hadn't noticed, we've been attacked.
By whom and who is this we?
UN next to look at the case.
"Who is this we" is just silly; the attempted murder of anyone in this country is an attack on (to put it a bit archaically) the Queen's peace, meaning us. How impressed would you have been if the response of the Tunisian authorities to the Sousse atrocity had been moderated in any way by considerations of the nationality of the victims?
I have no doubt the attempted murders were carried out by the Russian security services or people connected with them. There is a possibility of it being freelance. There is a lot of that semi endorsed extra judicial killing going on. Famously the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The number of potential suspects for that murder would fill several Agatha Christie novels.
Politkovskaya was shot, a very 'conventional' murder with deniability. This, as with Litvinenko, was a very unconventional assassination. If polonium and chemical weapons like Novochok are on the loose in Russia beyond their control, the Russians would be sending very different signals.
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
On the whole I agree, but the more likely freelance scenario is a rival oligarch seeking to piss on Putin's chips. And as for getting hold of the stuff, you'd go to the lab which manufactures it and offer someone with access to it all the roubles he could eat. Russia is not famous for the incorruptibility of its state sector.
Although I think it most likely was a direct order from Putin, the alternative probability is a power struggle at a level below Putin that involves the security services, in my estimation. I don't believe Putin has the total control of events that he likes to project and outsiders assume to be the case.
Speak to any Russia expert and they will tell you Putin is the most powerful he has ever been. That's why he could get rid of term limits in a way he couldn't ten years ago.
Creating a diplomatic incident without Putin's permission is also a fast route to being killed in Russia.
This is a article suggesting the Skripal poisoning is the work of security services out of control. I am not particularly pushing the theory but it is plausible and there is a body of informed commentary suggesting Putin's control is weakening, and not in a good way.
I'm quite interested in this, because at work recently someone donated their golliwogs collection, and we were torn about whether to put them out for sale or not.
This is the Lord of Reason, and this you need to consider.
There is nothing in all years of Cold War remotely equivalent to the crime committed by Putins regime in Salisbury in 2018. Mortimer posted at 5.03 “How would you have preferred we respond to an attack on our soil?”
Here’s your Answer: Why are we still sending our team to bolster Putins fraudulently won World Cup? Because the government is too weak to face down the furore of suggesting a boycott, that’s why.
Remember, back in the day when British governments had balls? There is more reason for us to politically boycott this World Cup than the Olympics of 1980. The Thatcher government wasn’t so cowardly as this one, they called for a boycott on the matter of principle regardless what spin doctors or focus groups would caution. You don’t boycott only in the safety of numbers as the ridiculous suggestion from Kinnock. You pull us out this World Cup, you calmly state why. If other nations choose to follow that is up to them.
A government minister stated today Putin could have poisoned half of Salisbury. If truth matches that rhetoric Why are we still in Putin’s World Cup? It makes no sense. Increasingly The governments rhetoric isn’t being backed up with enough action. That is the massive misstep and historically naff decision that will be remembered, to not boycott Putins footballfest , much much naffer than Corbyn response because at least Corbyn was consistent and predictable to the surrender monkey politics he’s been wedded to his entire life. Surely we expect more balls from this government?
I for one welcome our new overlord, but in 1980 we were riding on the coattails of the US and Canada and our participation was relatively lukewarm - the govt "supported" the boycott but left it to individual athletes to decide whether to go. we have done a cracking job of consensus building, we shouldn't endanger it by going out on a limb over a boycott which no one else joins in on, and Big Football is a hell of a lot better organised and powerful than Big Amateur Athletics ever was. We need to pick our battles. If you think i am advocating a policy of enlightened cowardice you are absolutely right.
There was a quarter final between Chelsea and Barcelona in 2000 (I think) when Chelsea went 3-0 in the first half of the first leg at the Bridge. Barca got one back in the second half and there was a sense of inevitability that Barca would go on to win.
Not saying it's going to happen, but the tie is not over.
The reasons for casting doubt on Putin are curious, and manifold.
Complete bollocks though, and not worth playing politics about. The only real debate should be how far we wish to escalate our response, and how much we can afford to do so.
We escalate our response to the level determined is necessary to ensure the Russian state feels it is not in their interest to facilitate a recurrence. We cannot afford not to respond in full measure.
Probably the best means of that would be a degree of skullduggery. A few unfortunate, yet deniable incidents close to Putin.
Ideally, a few billions go walkabout, with it looking like one oligarch has stiffed another. Paranoia and distrust in Moscow, GCHQ funded for the next decade....result.
I was thinking that a power failure in Moscow on the night of the opening match of the World Cup would be a good one, but I like your suggestion.
I'm thinking the guys who gave us stuxnet could inject some code to bugger up the Moscow traffic lights during the final, while our lads make off with all the gold in the vaults of the CBR.
This is the Lord of Reason, and this you need to consider.
There is nothing in all years of Cold War remotely equivalent to the crime committed by Putins regime in Salisbury in 2018. Mortimer posted at 5.03 “How would you have preferred we respond to an attack on our soil?”
Here’s your Answer: Why are we still sending our team to bolster Putins fraudulently won World Cup? Because the government is too weak to face down the furore of suggesting a boycott, that’s why.
Remember, back in the day when British governments had balls? There is more reason for us to politically boycott this World Cup than the Olympics of 1980. The Thatcher government wasn’t so cowardly as this one, they called for a boycott on the matter of principle regardless what spin doctors or focus groups would caution. You don’t boycott only in the safety of numbers as the ridiculous suggestion from Kinnock. You pull us out this World Cup, you calmly state why. If other nations choose to follow that is up to them.
A government minister stated today Putin could have poisoned half of Salisbury. If truth matches that rhetoric Why are we still in Putin’s World Cup? It makes no sense. Increasingly The governments rhetoric isn’t being backed up with enough action. That is the massive misstep and historically naff decision that will be remembered, to not boycott Putins footballfest , much much naffer than Corbyn response because at least Corbyn was consistent and predictable to the surrender monkey politics he’s been wedded to his entire life. Surely we expect more balls from this government?
I for one welcome our new overlord, but in 1980 we were riding on the coattails of the US and Canada and our participation was relatively lukewarm - the govt "supported" the boycott but left it to individual athletes to decide whether to go. we have done a cracking job of consensus building, we shouldn't endanger it by going out on a limb over a boycott which no one else joins in on, and Big Football is a hell of a lot better organised and powerful than Big Amateur Athletics ever was. We need to pick our battles. If you think i am advocating a policy of enlightened cowardice you are absolutely right.
An excellent post. I am hardly a footie fan, and whilst I would love to see Russia and FIFA embarrassed by a boycott, us doing it by ourselves would be rather silly.
I do wonder, however, how safe our fans will be over there.
There was a quarter final between Chelsea and Barcelona in 2000 (I think) when Chelsea went 3-0 in the first half of the first leg at the Bridge. Barca got one back in the second half and there was a sense of inevitability that Barca would go on to win.
Not saying it's going to happen, but the tie is not over.
City giving the ball away with very poor passing. They look lost unless something remarkable happens at half time. They don't look like scoring.
There was a quarter final between Chelsea and Barcelona in 2000 (I think) when Chelsea went 3-0 in the first half of the first leg at the Bridge. Barca got one back in the second half and there was a sense of inevitability that Barca would go on to win.
Not saying it's going to happen, but the tie is not over.
I was there. We were delirious. Watched thre second leg while on holiday in Prague - we got absolutely battered but nearly snuck it before losing 5-1aet.
There was a quarter final between Chelsea and Barcelona in 2000 (I think) when Chelsea went 3-0 in the first half of the first leg at the Bridge. Barca got one back in the second half and there was a sense of inevitability that Barca would go on to win.
Not saying it's going to happen, but the tie is not over.
City giving the ball away with very poor passing. They look lost unless something remarkable happens at half time. They don't look like scoring.
City are being outclassed - looks as if City will be playing their reserves v Utd on Saturday
None that I know of but comments on this thread are suggesting dirty tricks aimed at the world cup or stealing billions of pounds of (probably dirty) money without due process.
There was a quarter final between Chelsea and Barcelona in 2000 (I think) when Chelsea went 3-0 in the first half of the first leg at the Bridge. Barca got one back in the second half and there was a sense of inevitability that Barca would go on to win.
Not saying it's going to happen, but the tie is not over.
City giving the ball away with very poor passing. They look lost unless something remarkable happens at half time. They don't look like scoring.
City are being outclassed - looks as if City will be playing their reserves v Utd on Saturday
I can't see Liverpool pressing so well for the full 90, but rampant since the first goal.
None that I know of but comments on this thread are suggesting dirty tricks aimed at the world cup or stealing billions of pounds of (probably dirty) money without due process.
Embarrassing if we get caught, but we'll say it was Mossad.
None that I know of but comments on this thread are suggesting dirty tricks aimed at the world cup or stealing billions of pounds of (probably dirty) money without due process.
Embarrassing if we get caught, but we'll say it was Mossad.
If we get caught, we deny it. Sauce for the goose!
Demonstrating some offensive cyberwarfare capability to Putin would be just the ticket.
The reasons for casting doubt on Putin are curious, and manifold.
Complete bollocks though, and not worth playing politics about. The only real debate should be how far we wish to escalate our response, and how much we can afford to do so.
We escalate our response to the level determined is necessary to ensure the Russian state feels it is not in their interest to facilitate a recurrence. We cannot afford not to respond in full measure.
Probably the best means of that would be a degree of skullduggery. A few unfortunate, yet deniable incidents close to Putin.
Ideally, a few billions go walkabout, with it looking like one oligarch has stiffed another. Paranoia and distrust in Moscow, GCHQ funded for the next decade....result.
I was thinking that a power failure in Moscow on the night of the opening match of the World Cup would be a good one, but I like your suggestion.
My fantasy option would be to steal some of Putin's remaining Novichok stocks, proceed to use it to eliminate those involved in planning and executing the Salisbury attack, all while leaving evidence pointing to it being Putin covering his tracks.
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
This is the Lord of Reason, and this you need to consider.
There is nothing in all years of Cold War remotely equivalent to the crime committed by Putins regime in Salisbury in 2018. Mortimer posted at 5.03 “How would you have preferred we respond to an attack on our soil?”
Here’s your Answer: Why are we still sending our team to bolster Putins fraudulently won World Cup? Because the government is too weak to face down the furore of suggesting a boycott, that’s why.
Remember, back in the day when British governments had balls? There is more reason for us to politically boycott this World Cup than the Olympics of 1980. The Thatcher government wasn’t so cowardly as this one, they called for a boycott on the matter of principle regardless what spin doctors or focus groups would caution. You don’t boycott only in the safety of numbers as the ridiculous suggestion from Kinnock. You pull us out this World Cup, you calmly state why. If other nations choose to follow that is up to them.
A government minister stated today Putin could have poisoned half of Salisbury. If truth matches that rhetoric Why are we still in Putin’s World Cup? It makes no sense. Increasingly The governments rhetoric isn’t being backed up with enough action. That is the massive misstep and historically naff decision that will be remembered, to not boycott Putins footballfest , much much naffer than Corbyn response because at least Corbyn was consistent and predictable to the surrender monkey politics he’s been wedded to his entire life. Surely we expect more balls from this government?
That's harsh: we're going to boycott the knockout states.
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
I wonder, is your social circle representative of the country as a whole?
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
It's because he can do no wrong in the eyes of his followers.
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
I wonder, is your social circle representative of the country as a whole?
I doubt it, as nobody's is. But I have learned that the Board of Deputies of British Jews isn't particularly representative of Jewish opinion either. They could certainly learn a thing or two about combatting anti-Semitism from the Jewdas guys. I quite fancy learning Yiddish now.
(Running Yiddish clases is one of the things Jewdas does.)
"The Facebook data of up to 87 million people – 37 million more than previously reported – may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica, the company has revealed.
This larger figure was buried in the penultimate paragraph of a blogpost by the company’s chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer, published on Wednesday, which also provided updates on the changes Facebook was making to better protect user information."
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
It's because he can do no wrong in the eyes of his followers.
Partisans are found all over the political spectrum. Corbyn's enthusiasts are no more or less tedious than any others.
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
I wonder, is your social circle representative of the country as a whole?
I doubt it, as nobody's is. But I have learned that the Board of Deputies of British Jews isn't particularly representative of Jewish opinion either. They could certainly learn a thing or two about combatting anti-Semitism from the Jewdas guys. I quite fancy learning Yiddish now.
(Running Yiddish clases is one of the things Jewdas does.)
As I’m sure that Jewdas’ views aren’t representative of Jewish opinion either.
I love the comment from @tyson on the previous thread about wealthy liberals supporting Corbyn being willing to pay more tax for a fairer society.
Would they be the same wealthy liberals who were outraged at the prospect of being asked to use the wealth tied up in their houses to pay for their own care in old age? So outraged in fact that they voted for the party which promised them that they could keep their wealth.
I suspect you'd find that these were largely different people. My Conservative friends tell me that their version of the death tax which they'd derided in a previous election lost them a lot of regular Tory voters - not to Labour but to abstention. Wealthy liberals generally vote Labour anyway (and in my experience are further left on average than working-class Labour voters and more up for tax rises).
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
Unspoofable.
Yes the media ending up having to some how try to convince people that attending a Jewish celebration was somehow anti-semitic was pretty unspoofable.
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
I wonder, is your social circle representative of the country as a whole?
I doubt it, as nobody's is. But I have learned that the Board of Deputies of British Jews isn't particularly representative of Jewish opinion either. They could certainly learn a thing or two about combatting anti-Semitism from the Jewdas guys. I quite fancy learning Yiddish now.
(Running Yiddish clases is one of the things Jewdas does.)
As I’m sure that Jewdas’ views aren’t representative of Jewish opinion either.
I am sure they are not. But I like living in a democracy that tolerates a diversity of views. Much more fun than one where there are 'mainstream' ones, and others are considered illegitimate.
It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
I don't think he's bright at all, but his more vocal opponents seem to be remarkably thick, to have such a strong hand and yet overplay it repeatedly with over-the-top attacks. If you are going to directly accuse someone of being a Czech spy, or personally anti-semitic, etc. etc. then it's really important that the accusation is not demonstrably false. Competent politicians deliver these smears via constant off-the-record briefings, not all-out attack, for a reason.
It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
I don't think he's bright at all, but his more vocal opponents seem to be remarkably thick, to have such a strong hand and yet overplay it repeatedly with over-the-top attacks. If you are going to directly accuse someone of being a Czech spy, or personally anti-semitic, etc. etc. then it's really important that the accusation is not demonstrably false. Competent politicians deliver these smears via constant off-the-record briefings, not all-out attack, for a reason.
I honestly don't think anything is going to top "Corbyn is antisemitic because he spent Passover with Jews" for a long time. The Daily Mash would've dismissed such an idea for a spoof.
I was lucky enough once to read the Special Branch file about Markov - terrifyingly brutal and yet less reckless than Salisbury - it was at least aimed directly, and only at one person.
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
Corbyn always looks good to his supporters. And Jews who enjoy taking the piss out of other Jews, while proclaiming their love for the Dear Leader, will give him a good reception.
I was lucky enough once to read the Special Branch file about Markov - terrifyingly brutal and yet less reckless than Salisbury - it was at least aimed directly, and only at one person.
I'm thinking the guys who gave us stuxnet could inject some code to bugger up the Moscow traffic lights during the final, while our lads make off with all the gold in the vaults of the CBR.
Just been looking around my various social media hangouts. Corbyn has come out of this whole antisemitism thing looking really good, largely thanks to attending that Jewdas event. It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
Corbyn always looks good to his supporters. And Jews who enjoy taking the piss out of other Jews, while proclaiming their love for the Dear Leader, will give him a good reception.
No doubt Corbyn does always look good to his supporters, and always bad to his detractors. Both are missing a trick. He's much more interesting than either a hero or a villain. Don't think I'm a fan of his by the way. Were I a member of the Labour Party I wouldn't have voted for him.
It might have been a lucky break that he just happened to get invited to a really ideal event by the perfect group to upset the media's preferred narrative. But he seems to have that kind of luck surprisingly often. Maybe he's not just brighter than he appears, but a great deal brighter.
I don't think he's bright at all, but his more vocal opponents seem to be remarkably thick, to have such a strong hand and yet overplay it repeatedly with over-the-top attacks. If you are going to directly accuse someone of being a Czech spy, or personally anti-semitic, etc. etc. then it's really important that the accusation is not demonstrably false. Competent politicians deliver these smears via constant off-the-record briefings, not all-out attack, for a reason.
I honestly don't think anything is going to top "Corbyn is antisemitic because he spent Passover with Jews" for a long time. The Daily Mash would've dismissed such an idea for a spoof.
There does seem to be a herd mentality among our Conservative friends on here. They don’t know when to stop. Irritating, overused one-liners like ‘unspoofable’ backfire daily.
I was lucky enough once to read the Special Branch file about Markov - terrifyingly brutal and yet less reckless than Salisbury - it was at least aimed directly, and only at one person.
Comments
Maybe they had two votes but it seems David Cameron's comment about tweets rings true every day
A better comparison is with the assassination of Boris Nemtsov which was a deliberate act carried out without the authority of the Kremlin. That provoked a real political crisis and power vacuum in Moscow. The reaction to the Skripal case has been nothing like that.
LOL.....
I do not see any PL side at that level against class of that level. City maybe but doubt they will beat any of the other likely semi finalists
Any individual or small group wanting to carry favour with Putin by assassinating a troublesome fellow would pick someone inside Russia, and a more conventional death. This was a state-sponsored murder with a big flashing signboard above it: "This is what happens to traitors to the motherland."
For one thing, how would 'freelancers' get access to this chemical?
Complete bollocks though, and not worth playing politics about. The only real debate should be how far we wish to escalate our response, and how much we can afford to do so.
There is a chance that it might have been a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!” moment, but I doubt it. The consequences of wronging Putin are too great. The order would have come from the top, or the top would have given permission for such techniques to be used in certain cases.
15 voted against Russia being allowed to be involved in the investigation?
6 thought they should?
17 sat on the fence?
Full Time whistle is not even close?
OPCW report nowhere near finished yet but the 15 Angry Men want to kick off
Get the Nuke button primed Boris
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43645636
I'm quite interested in this, because at work recently someone donated their golliwogs collection, and we were torn about whether to put them out for sale or not.
15 Exclude Russia from investigation
6 Include Russia in investigation
17 abstentions
The Sun
Tom Newton Dunn
Russia loses vote at the OPCW for joint UK-Russia investigation into #Salisbury attack by 32 to 6.
By that logic a headline as ludicrous as Britain in minority would be equally correct (15- 23)
That in a nutshell is why we need the full independently verified report IMO
UN next to look at the case.
If so, yet more evidence that the agencies of law and order have their priorities utterly wrong.
Unless they don't count in your mind?
Creating a diplomatic incident without Putin's permission is also a fast route to being killed in Russia.
In this case, he'd attacked the UK before and got clean away with it. That made us a suitable target, when other countries might have responded more harshly (as it happens, he miscalculated on that, and our response was much firmer than it had been with Litvinenko).
As for why Skirpal? Perhaps there was a reason - I doubt it was anything he knew after all this time. So perhaps he was being an annoyance, or perhaps it was just a random name off a list of people in the UK. When sending a message, the target might not matter much.
(There's also a chance that his daughter was involved with something, but I doubt that).
There is nothing in all years of Cold War remotely equivalent to the crime committed by Putins regime in Salisbury in 2018.
Mortimer posted at 5.03
“How would you have preferred we respond to an attack on our soil?”
Here’s your Answer: Why are we still sending our team to bolster Putins fraudulently won World Cup?
Because the government is too weak to face down the furore of suggesting a boycott, that’s why.
Remember, back in the day when British governments had balls? There is more reason for us to politically boycott this World Cup than the Olympics of 1980. The Thatcher government wasn’t so cowardly as this one, they called for a boycott on the matter of principle regardless what spin doctors or focus groups would caution. You don’t boycott only in the safety of numbers as the ridiculous suggestion from Kinnock. You pull us out this World Cup, you calmly state why. If other nations choose to follow that is up to them.
A government minister stated today Putin could have poisoned half of Salisbury. If truth matches that rhetoric Why are we still in Putin’s World Cup? It makes no sense. Increasingly The governments rhetoric isn’t being backed up with enough action. That is the massive misstep and historically naff decision that will be remembered, to not boycott Putins footballfest , much much naffer than Corbyn response because at least Corbyn was consistent and predictable to the surrender monkey politics he’s been wedded to his entire life. Surely we expect more balls from this government?
http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-lost-control-russia-assassins-840598
Not saying it's going to happen, but the tie is not over.
I do wonder, however, how safe our fans will be over there.
The Fields of Athenry and a rousing Oh Jeremy Corbyn in the 2nd half still to come!!
Demonstrating some offensive cyberwarfare capability to Putin would be just the ticket.
...which we would.
(Running Yiddish clases is one of the things Jewdas does.)
This larger figure was buried in the penultimate paragraph of a blogpost by the company’s chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer, published on Wednesday, which also provided updates on the changes Facebook was making to better protect user information."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/04/facebook-cambridge-analytica-user-data-latest-more-than-thought