There’s going to be a very interesting multi-agency conversation going on right now, about what happens next with the Skripals - especially the daughter, who’s a Russian citizen.
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
"Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"
But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
That’s a lot of knowledge of the situation.
Occam it is not. What Occam is, that said, I do not know.
If the delivery method was putting the nerve agent on the front door handle, it's not much of an assumption to think that the victim would be affected while entering their home and be affected there.
No I see that but given that Russia knows just as much about nerve agents as Dan whose article you linked to, my question remains why did they survive?
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
"Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"
But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
That’s a lot of knowledge of the situation.
Occam it is not. What Occam is, that said, I do not know.
If the delivery method was putting the nerve agent on the front door handle, it's not much of an assumption to think that the victim would be affected while entering their home and be affected there.
No I see that but given that Russia knows just as much about nerve agents as Dan whose article you linked to, my question remains why did they survive?
Because they were treated. If the only goal was to kill them, they would have used a simpler method. The Russians were too clever by half.
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
"Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"
But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
That’s a lot of knowledge of the situation.
Occam it is not. What Occam is, that said, I do not know.
If the delivery method was putting the nerve agent on the front door handle, it's not much of an assumption to think that the victim would be affected while entering their home and be affected there.
No I see that but given that Russia knows just as much about nerve agents as Dan whose article you linked to, my question remains why did they survive?
Because they were treated. If the only goal was to kill them, they would have used a simpler method. The Russians were too clever by half.
So they didn’t want them to die but expected them (the daughter) to die.
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
"Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"
But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
That’s a lot of knowledge of the situation.
Occam it is not. What Occam is, that said, I do not know.
If the delivery method was putting the nerve agent on the front door handle, it's not much of an assumption to think that the victim would be affected while entering their home and be affected there.
No I see that but given that Russia knows just as much about nerve agents as Dan whose article you linked to, my question remains why did they survive?
Because they were treated. If the only goal was to kill them, they would have used a simpler method. The Russians were too clever by half.
So they didn’t want them to die but expected them (the daughter) to die.
K.
I've no idea if the daughter was an intended target or not, but clearly the operation didn't go according to plan. Governments are more than capable of screwing up.
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
"Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"
But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
That’s a lot of knowledge of the situation.
Occam it is not. What Occam is, that said, I do not know.
If the delivery method was putting the nerve agent on the front door handle, it's not much of an assumption to think that the victim would be affected while entering their home and be affected there.
No I see that but given that Russia knows just as much about nerve agents as Dan whose article you linked to, my question remains why did they survive?
Because they were treated. If the only goal was to kill them, they would have used a simpler method. The Russians were too clever by half.
So they didn’t want them to die but expected them (the daughter) to die.
K.
I've no idea if the daughter was an intended target or not, but clearly the operation didn't go according to plan. Governments are more than capable of screwing up.
Indeed but it seems strange for them to have done so in this instance.
Maybe they’re losing their murdering by nerve agent touch.
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
"Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"
But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
That’s a lot of knowledge of the situation.
Occam it is not. What Occam is, that said, I do not know.
If the delivery method was putting the nerve agent on the front door handle, it's not much of an assumption to think that the victim would be affected while entering their home and be affected there.
No I see that but given that Russia knows just as much about nerve agents as Dan whose article you linked to, my question remains why did they survive?
Because they were treated. If the only goal was to kill them, they would have used a simpler method. The Russians were too clever by half.
So they didn’t want them to die but expected them (the daughter) to die.
K.
I've no idea if the daughter was an intended target or not, but clearly the operation didn't go according to plan. Governments are more than capable of screwing up.
Indeed but it seems strange for them to have done so in this instance.
Maybe they’re losing their murdering by nerve agent touch.
Mr. Topping, as others said nearer the time, the chemical weaponry isn't meant to be used this way, but deployed via a warhead. They might have been worried that over-egging the pudding, rather than using too little, might cause a huge number of deaths (one reason why it was a dumb weapon to use). As it was, it very nearly killed both of them.
Mr. Topping, as others said nearer the time, the chemical weaponry isn't meant to be used this way, but deployed via a warhead. They might have been worried that over-egging the pudding, rather than using too little, might cause a huge number of deaths (one reason why it was a dumb weapon to use). As it was, it very nearly killed both of them.
I wonder if Corbyistas would have still repeated the Russian line had that happened..
If it was Soviet era, maybe the stuff is past its use by date and lost its potency.
There's also the possibility that our white-hats have developed counter-measures against their black-hats tech. In other words, we knew the formulation, and developed methods to prevent death if it was used an detected in a timely manner.
Although I prefer incompetence in delivery: e.g. too long a period between deployment and 'infection', allowing the rain to wash it off, or the sun to degrade it.
I also wonder how much testing the Russians had done one 'human' subjects, and whether it isn't as effective as expected against humans. Perhaps one for Nick Palmer there.
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
"Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"
But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
That’s a lot of knowledge of the situation.
Occam it is not. What Occam is, that said, I do not know.
If the delivery method was putting the nerve agent on the front door handle, it's not much of an assumption to think that the victim would be affected while entering their home and be affected there.
No I see that but given that Russia knows just as much about nerve agents as Dan whose article you linked to, my question remains why did they survive?
On average people do, apparently:
”Every major nerve agent incident (Tokyo, Halabja, Ghouta, Khan Sheikhoun etc) has had more people injured than killed. The Tokyo incident killed 12 people, but there were nearly 70 with major exposure who survived and nearly a thousand with minor to moderate exposure.”
The trade off is efficacy vs newsworthiness (because a knife would have done the job but no one would have cared).
If it was Soviet era, maybe the stuff is past its use by date and lost its potency.
It seems to have multiple degrees of effect depending on ingestion/inhalation/injection etc. See the wiki article:
"Their effect on humans was demonstrated by the accidental exposure of Andrei Zheleznyakov, one of the scientists involved in their development, to the residue of an unspecified Novichok agent while working in a Moscow laboratory in May 1987. He was critically injured and took ten days to recover consciousness after the incident. He lost the ability to walk and was treated at a secret clinic in Leningrad for three months afterwards. The agent caused permanent harm, with effects that included "chronic weakness in his arms, a toxic hepatitis that gave rise to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, spells of severe depression, and an inability to read or concentrate that left him totally disabled and unable to work." He never recovered and died in July 1992 after five years of deteriorating health.[61]"
If it was Soviet era, maybe the stuff is past its use by date and lost its potency.
One of the interesting factors about this is that it may have been 'fresh' and manufactured recently, in which case the Russians have a lab somewhere capable of producing it. It'l be interesting to see what the OPCW say, and whether they request access to anywhere interesting.
If it was Soviet era, maybe the stuff is past its use by date and lost its potency.
There's also the possibility that our white-hats have developed counter-measures against their black-hats tech. In other words, we knew the formulation, and developed methods to prevent death if it was used an detected in a timely manner.
Although I prefer incompetence in delivery: e.g. too long a period between deployment and 'infection', allowing the rain to wash it off, or the sun to degrade it.
I also wonder how much testing the Russians had done one 'human' subjects, and whether it isn't as effective as expected against humans. Perhaps one for Nick Palmer there.
There’s certainly an awful lot of questions to answer, it could even be possible that once we had an actual sample of the substance we could work better on how to treat it ‘on the fly’.
It can’t be a co-incidence that this happened the day after the daughter arrived in town, I wonder what exactly was her role in all this, and even if she’s yet been ruled out as a suspect?
There’s definitely going to be books written on this in the future, a fascinating case which thankfully appears not to have killed anyone.
Martin killed his burglar with a gun he illegally owned and did so at a distance.
Osborn-Brooks killed at arms length, with a sharpened screwdriver that the robbers brought with them, after being pushed around in his kitchen and with a vulnerable wife in the house. I'd expect public attitudes to him to be far, far more sympathetic.
Right. Use force to defend your person - already legal. Use force to defend your property - different question.
Which question were people answering?
I also think there is a particular level of threat fron just being very old with a young man illegally in your house. I think the legal standard should be that you should be able to use up to whatever force is needed to incapacitate plausible threats to you.
Anybody should be able to legally carry and use a taser on any adult who a) looks twenty years younger than themselves and b) looks at them in a funny way.
If it was Soviet era, maybe the stuff is past its use by date and lost its potency.
There's also the possibility that our white-hats have developed counter-measures against their black-hats tech. In other words, we knew the formulation, and developed methods to prevent death if it was used an detected in a timely manner.
Although I prefer incompetence in delivery: e.g. too long a period between deployment and 'infection', allowing the rain to wash it off, or the sun to degrade it.
I also wonder how much testing the Russians had done one 'human' subjects, and whether it isn't as effective as expected against humans. Perhaps one for Nick Palmer there.
There’s certainly an awful lot of questions to answer, it could even be possible that once we had an actual sample of the substance we could work better on how to treat it ‘on the fly’.
It can’t be a co-incidence that this happened the day after the daughter arrived in town, I wonder what exactly was her role in all this, and even if she’s yet been ruled out as a suspect?
There’s definitely going to be books written on this in the future, a fascinating case which thankfully appears not to have killed anyone.
I do wonder if we've developed certain countermeasures against classes of weapon: in other words, if you think this has been used, treat it in this way. But if that's the case we may not know for many decades for the obvious reason, however many books are written.
That's not to say that the countermeasures render the chemicals ineffective; just that if patients get timely intervention we can treat them with a good survival chance (although long-term effects are a different matter).
What intrigues me most is my last paragraph: anti-vivisectionists have been saying that animals are not good analogues for humans. How much testing of these agents would the Russians have performed against humans, and how? A very glum aspect to consider.
This is probably the first Merseyside derby since October 2010 when Liverpool FC and the rest of the fanbase don't give a shite about.
Injuries and the fact we've got a QF second leg in the Champions League three days later means Klopp will be putting out a much changed team, so it might be worth putting your money on Everton to win.
However if the Liverpool reserves/kids take the lead/on course for victory then locals might start revolting and take it out on Big Sam.
You can get around 51/10 that Unibet are offering on a Bluenose getting sent off.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
I said: "from what I've heard". If the decision had gone the other way, I'd have been perfectly willing to wait for the case (given the media's inability to relate details of an event rationally and unsensationally).
The devil is always in the details, and the media do not always report details at all, yet alone accurately.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
It’s not 4% that have noticed it at all, it’s 4% that mentioned it first when asked what was in the news this week.
Indeed but it seems strange for them to have done so in this instance.
Maybe they’re losing their murdering by nerve agent touch.
It's not the first time the Russians have screwed up a poisoning.
Before Markov a man called Vladimir Kostov was attacked by the same means (ricin) and survived. Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived. Politkovskaya was poisoned years before she was shot. It took a couple of goes to get Litvinenko.
This "it can't have been the FSB, or they would be dead" is yet more Russian BS.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
It’s not 4% that have noticed it at all, it’s 4% that mentioned it first when asked what was in the news this week.
Even so, it’s an incredibly low number given that’s it’s been of one the main news stories quite recently - you hardly have to search your mind for it. If its only 4% for most noticed, the total of people who have noticed it to some lesser degree is unlikely to be a lot higher IMO. Looking at figures for other news stories from 2017, I expected this story to poll around the Trump and North Korea figures in terms of how noticed it was.
This is probably the first Merseyside derby since October 2010 when Liverpool FC and the rest of the fanbase don't give a shite about.
Injuries and the fact we've got a QF second leg in the Champions League three days later means Klopp will be putting out a much changed team, so it might be worth putting your money on Everton to win.
However if the Liverpool reserves/kids take the lead/on course for victory then locals might start revolting and take it out on Big Sam.
You can get around 51/10 that Unibet are offering on a Bluenose getting sent off.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
It’s not 4% that have noticed it at all, it’s 4% that mentioned it first when asked what was in the news this week.
And the 31% who mentioned the spy poisoning story as their primary may not have had the same take on it as Jeremy Corbyn...
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
It’s not 4% that have noticed it at all, it’s 4% that mentioned it first when asked what was in the news this week.
Even so, it’s an incredibly low number given that’s it’s been of one the main news stories quite recently - you hardly have to search your mind for it. If its only 4% for most noticed, the total of people who have noticed it to some lesser degree is unlikely to be a lot higher IMO. Looking at figures for other news stories from 2017, I expected this story to poll around the Trump and North Korea figures in terms of how noticed it was.
It’s was #3 story this week, behind only the Russian spy and the London murders. I agree that well over 4% will have noticed it, hopefully a lot more - although you and I posting on a politics blog notice this type of story for more than the average man or woman in the street.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
It’s not 4% that have noticed it at all, it’s 4% that mentioned it first when asked what was in the news this week.
And the 31% who mentioned the spy poisoning story as their primary may not have had the same take on it as Jeremy Corbyn...
I would have said the Chinese space station if asked the question, and that didn’t even make the top 10.
An interviewer should ask Corbyn who landed on the moon
a) the Americans? b) the Russians? c) Neither?
Pedant alert:
Since you did not capitalise 'moon', then c) could be a correct answer. The Americans were first to 'the Moon'. 'the moon' could refer to any body orbiting another body, in which case the Russians had the first artificial 'moon' with Sputnik.
In addition, if you did mean 'the Moon', then the first to 'impact' on the Moon were the Russians, with the unmanned probe Luna 2 in 1959, a feat the US did not reproduce for five years. The first lander was also Russian; Luna 9 in 1966.
It's easy to forget that the Russians were way ahead in the space race until mid-1966 ...
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
It’s not 4% that have noticed it at all, it’s 4% that mentioned it first when asked what was in the news this week.
Even so, it’s an incredibly low number given that’s it’s been of one the main news stories quite recently - you hardly have to search your mind for it. If its only 4% for most noticed, the total of people who have noticed it to some lesser degree is unlikely to be a lot higher IMO. Looking at figures for other news stories from 2017, I expected this story to poll around the Trump and North Korea figures in terms of how noticed it was.
It’s was #3 story this week, behind only the Russian spy and the London murders. I agree that well over 4% will have noticed it, hopefully a lot more - although you and I posting on a politics blog notice this type of story for more than the average man or woman in the street.
It could be that Labour isn't coming out well from any of those top three stories....
We need some polls! (When everyone is back from Easter....)
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
It’s not 4% that have noticed it at all, it’s 4% that mentioned it first when asked what was in the news this week.
And the 31% who mentioned the spy poisoning story as their primary may not have had the same take on it as Jeremy Corbyn...
We already know what the public’s take on the Russia situation is this though, so that’s not news. I doubt this week’s take would have shifted things much, in part because I doubt anyone really cares about what Porton Down found. That is something only people who follow politics closely are likely to care about.
EDIT: I don’t see the stories about murders in London damaging Sadiq Khan, either re your last post though. He’s pretty popular with those in London, as polling shows and seems to be a bit Teflon.
@Sandpit It’s the number #3 story this week but that 4% is significantly behind the percentages for both the Russia and London crime stories.
I know that re tweets, articles and that kind of thing the public at large are unlikely to notice. I was thinking of the coverage the story received on morning and evening news, as well as the newspapers. Although I’m beginning to think that newspapers aren’t that relevant anymore.
Indeed but it seems strange for them to have done so in this instance.
Maybe they’re losing their murdering by nerve agent touch.
It's not the first time the Russians have screwed up a poisoning.
Before Markov a man called Vladimir Kostov was attacked by the same means (ricin) and survived. Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived. Politkovskaya was poisoned years before she was shot. It took a couple of goes to get Litvinenko.
This "it can't have been the FSB, or they would be dead" is yet more Russian BS.
Quite. The simultaneous macho self-aggrandisement and protestations of innocence are fairly nauseating.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
The story has not led the mainstream media 24x7 like it has here and on Guido. There has not really been much news in it in the sense that Jeremy Corbyn has not launched his own krystallnacht; it just rumbles on; the government has kept its head down. And I'd want another poll asking if people even know what anti-semitism means because it might not be obvious what is this semitism that some are against.
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
The Russians don't kill people from spite, they do it to make a point. In the Salisbury case ... "No matter where you run, we will find you and punish you, even if your family are collateral damage."
Cui Bono? The Russians may have under-estimated the world reaction, but they made their point.
Let's face it, Jezza thinks Jihadi John should have been asked to go to the nearest police station so he could have a fair trial before we came to judgement.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
The story has not led the mainstream media 24x7 like it has here and on Guido. There has not really been much news in it in the sense that Jeremy Corbyn has not launched his own krystallnacht; it just rumbles on; the government has kept its head down. And I'd want another poll asking if people even know what anti-semitism means because it might not be obvious what is this semitism that some are against.
Corbyn's big problem is that he doesn't understand what anti-semitism means ...
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
A fair point. I'm really taking issue with this idea that the FSB is some sort of infallible killing machine, and that a victim surviving, or innocents becoming victims, somehow proves that it can't have been the FSB. That is nonsense. Sometimes state sponsored murders are downright crude, and at other times sophisticated, and they don't always work.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
The story has not led the mainstream media 24x7 like it has here and on Guido. There has not really been much news in it in the sense that Jeremy Corbyn has not launched his own krystallnacht; it just rumbles on; the government has kept its head down. And I'd want another poll asking if people even know what anti-semitism means because it might not be obvious what is this semitism that some are against.
If people don’t know what antisemitism means then I’m really concerned.
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
A fair point. I'm really taking issue with this idea that the FSB is some sort of infallible killing machine, and that a victim surviving, or innocents becoming victims, somehow proves that it can't have been the FSB. That is nonsense. Sometimes state sponsored murders are downright crude, and at other times sophisticated, and they don't always work.
The West did not respond when Russia invaded the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
The Russians don't kill people from spite, they do it to make a point. In the Salisbury case ... "No matter where you run, we will find you and punish you, even if your family are collateral damage."
Cui Bono? The Russians may have under-estimated the world reaction, but they made their point.
Let's face it, Jezza thinks Jihadi John should have been asked to go to the nearest police station so he could have a fair trial before we came to judgement.
No the real story according to the niece in Russia is 'they ate something wrong' and the UK have something to hide - and she expected a visa to come to the UK
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
A fair point. I'm really taking issue with this idea that the FSB is some sort of infallible killing machine, and that a victim surviving, or innocents becoming victims, somehow proves that it can't have been the FSB. That is nonsense. Sometimes state sponsored murders are downright crude, and at other times sophisticated, and they don't always work.
The West did not respond when Russia invaded the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
The story has not led the mainstream media 24x7 like it has here and on Guido. There has not really been much news in it in the sense that Jeremy Corbyn has not launched his own krystallnacht; it just rumbles on; the government has kept its head down. And I'd want another poll asking if people even know what anti-semitism means because it might not be obvious what is this semitism that some are against.
If people don’t know what antisemitism means then I’m really concerned.
It means Jezza spends Passover with a Jewish group
May goes shopping in Wales.
Therefore in PB Toryland Jezza is Anti Semitic May aint
Not very inventive, but then anything would do for the useful idiots - they'd swallow anything.
But how about 'They must have eaten foods containing loads of organophosphate pesticides.' Nonsense and full of holes, but at least then, you'd know they were trying.
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
The Russians don't kill people from spite, they do it to make a point. In the Salisbury case ... "No matter where you run, we will find you and punish you, even if your family are collateral damage."
Cui Bono? The Russians may have under-estimated the world reaction, but they made their point.
Let's face it, Jezza thinks Jihadi John should have been asked to go to the nearest police station so he could have a fair trial before we came to judgement.
No the real story according to the niece in Russia is 'they ate something wrong' and the UK have something to hide - and she expected a visa to come to the UK
We've all eaten a bad prawn...with Novichok in it....
The West did not respond when Russia invaded the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Two Russians get poisoned and the West responds.
What's changed?
I hope it's that we are no longer sticking our head in the sand. Any remaining notion that we can treat Putin as anything other than a threat should be gone. And talk of "resetting" relations whilst he is in power needs to be shelved.
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
A fair point. I'm really taking issue with this idea that the FSB is some sort of infallible killing machine, and that a victim surviving, or innocents becoming victims, somehow proves that it can't have been the FSB. That is nonsense. Sometimes state sponsored murders are downright crude, and at other times sophisticated, and they don't always work.
The West did not respond when Russia invaded the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Two Russians get poisoned and the West responds.
What's changed?
It is cumulative with the gas attacks in Syria, interference in the US elections and Brexit and Salisbury is the catalyst to say no more without consequences .
Report today is that Putin did not expect the response from the west and of course the US has hit his personal friends hard in the US today with freezing their assets and companies
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
I think the hospital said "critical condition" which is as bad as it gets without actually being dead, and I am inclined to trust hospitals, so I don't think it is a Borisism. I agree the inefficacy of the attack is bizarre, as I thought a teaspoonful of a decent chemical weapon in the right reservoir was meant to be able to wipe out most of London; it's like hearing that someone has nuked Birmingham and this has caused a few road closures and diversions. But I think the most elegant explanation is probably mere incompetence in preparing or administering the dose.
When used by hospital spokespeople, "critically ill" usually means in intensive care, "seriously ill" means admitted to a ward.
The Skripals would have needed intubation and artificial ventilation. Hence "critical".
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
The story has not led the mainstream media 24x7 like it has here and on Guido. There has not really been much news in it in the sense that Jeremy Corbyn has not launched his own krystallnacht; it just rumbles on; the government has kept its head down. And I'd want another poll asking if people even know what anti-semitism means because it might not be obvious what is this semitism that some are against.
Corbyn's big problem is that he doesn't understand what anti-semitism means ...
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
The Russians don't kill people from spite, they do it to make a point. In the Salisbury case ... "No matter where you run, we will find you and punish you, even if your family are collateral damage."
Cui Bono? The Russians may have under-estimated the world reaction, but they made their point.
Let's face it, Jezza thinks Jihadi John should have been asked to go to the nearest police station so he could have a fair trial before we came to judgement.
No the real story according to the niece in Russia is 'they ate something wrong' and the UK have something to hide - and she expected a visa to come to the UK
Blood samples with salmonella must have got contaminated with Nobichv at Porton Down.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
The story has not led the mainstream media 24x7 like it has here and on Guido. There has not really been much news in it in the sense that Jeremy Corbyn has not launched his own krystallnacht; it just rumbles on; the government has kept its head down. And I'd want another poll asking if people even know what anti-semitism means because it might not be obvious what is this semitism that some are against.
If people don’t know what antisemitism means then I’m really concerned.
I would suspect many do not know it's meaning quite innocently
It is an interesting point, when you consider the amount of intelligent and/or generally politically interested people that get mixed up now and again with the word anti-semitism what awareness does the general public have of what the word actually means?
The confusing part for those not paying attention might be the anti part, usually with things like discrimination you are supposed to be anti, so anti racist, anti sexist etc.
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
A fair point. I'm really taking issue with this idea that the FSB is some sort of infallible killing machine, and that a victim surviving, or innocents becoming victims, somehow proves that it can't have been the FSB. That is nonsense. Sometimes state sponsored murders are downright crude, and at other times sophisticated, and they don't always work.
The West did not respond when Russia invaded the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Two Russians get poisoned and the West responds.
What's changed?
It is cumulative with the gas attacks in Syria, interference in the US elections and Brexit and Salisbury is the catalyst to say no more without consequences .
Report today is that Putin did not expect the response from the west and of course the US has hit his personal friends hard in the US today with freezing their assets and companies
Yep, with everything else that was in the news about Russia, this incident pushed the West over the line in their dealings with Putin and friends. There will be more sanctions coming, and more financial controls on Russians in the West.
I still think the World Cup boycot might happen, if Russia tries anything else silly in the next couple of months it will certainly be on the table. Putin and FIFA, two birds, one stone.
It is an interesting point, when you consider the amount of intelligent and/or generally politically interested people that get mixed up now and again with the word anti-semitism what awareness does the general public have of what the word actually means?
The confusing part for those not paying attention might be the anti part, usually with things like discrimination you are supposed to be anti, so anti racist, anti sexist etc.
I really think the vast majority just get on with their lives and genuinely do not know the meaning.
However, that does not mean that they may perceive a wrong doing by some on the hard left and hard right
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
The story has not led the mainstream media 24x7 like it has here and on Guido. There has not really been much news in it in the sense that Jeremy Corbyn has not launched his own krystallnacht; it just rumbles on; the government has kept its head down. And I'd want another poll asking if people even know what anti-semitism means because it might not be obvious what is this semitism that some are against.
Corbyn's big problem is that he doesn't understand what anti-semitism means ...
How condescending.
Nah.
He either does not understand the meaning, or does not care. By saying the former I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt ...
It is an interesting point, when you consider the amount of intelligent and/or generally politically interested people that get mixed up now and again with the word anti-semitism what awareness does the general public have of what the word actually means?
The confusing part for those not paying attention might be the anti part, usually with things like discrimination you are supposed to be anti, so anti racist, anti sexist etc.
If the word had needed inventing more recently I suppose it would have been judophobia.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
It’s not 4% that have noticed it at all, it’s 4% that mentioned it first when asked what was in the news this week.
And the 31% who mentioned the spy poisoning story as their primary may not have had the same take on it as Jeremy Corbyn...
I would have said the Chinese space station if asked the question, and that didn’t even make the top 10.
I would have had the Chinese space station above the Corbyn story. In fact I wouldn't have mentioned the Corbyn story as news. My reaction to it was "the usual suspects" trying to smear Corbyn and I read no further. It made zero impression on me and faded rapidly from my memory.
Re CarlottaVance’s post from Populus: unbelievable that only 4% have noticed the anti-Semitism story, with all the publicity and coverage that it’s received in the last week or so. Similarly, not many noticed the spy-gate stories either. Corbyn really is very lucky - for whatever reason the public do not seem to be interested these kind of stories concerning Corbyn.
It’s not 4% that have noticed it at all, it’s 4% that mentioned it first when asked what was in the news this week.
And the 31% who mentioned the spy poisoning story as their primary may not have had the same take on it as Jeremy Corbyn...
I would have said the Chinese space station if asked the question, and that didn’t even make the top 10.
I would have had the Chinese space station above the Corbyn story. In fact I wouldn't have mentioned the Corbyn story as news. My reaction to it was "the usual suspects" trying to smear Corbyn and I read no further. It made zero impression on me and faded rapidly from my memory.
Obviously didn't fade that much since you remembered exactly what your reaction to it was.
Comments
K.
Maybe they’re losing their murdering by nerve agent touch.
Although I prefer incompetence in delivery: e.g. too long a period between deployment and 'infection', allowing the rain to wash it off, or the sun to degrade it.
I also wonder how much testing the Russians had done one 'human' subjects, and whether it isn't as effective as expected against humans. Perhaps one for Nick Palmer there.
”Every major nerve agent incident (Tokyo, Halabja, Ghouta, Khan Sheikhoun etc) has had more people injured than killed. The Tokyo incident killed 12 people, but there were nearly 70 with major exposure who survived and nearly a thousand with minor to moderate exposure.”
The trade off is efficacy vs newsworthiness (because a knife would have done the job but no one would have cared).
"Their effect on humans was demonstrated by the accidental exposure of Andrei Zheleznyakov, one of the scientists involved in their development, to the residue of an unspecified Novichok agent while working in a Moscow laboratory in May 1987. He was critically injured and took ten days to recover consciousness after the incident. He lost the ability to walk and was treated at a secret clinic in Leningrad for three months afterwards. The agent caused permanent harm, with effects that included "chronic weakness in his arms, a toxic hepatitis that gave rise to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, spells of severe depression, and an inability to read or concentrate that left him totally disabled and unable to work." He never recovered and died in July 1992 after five years of deteriorating health.[61]"
It can’t be a co-incidence that this happened the day after the daughter arrived in town, I wonder what exactly was her role in all this, and even if she’s yet been ruled out as a suspect?
There’s definitely going to be books written on this in the future, a fascinating case which thankfully appears not to have killed anyone.
That's not to say that the countermeasures render the chemicals ineffective; just that if patients get timely intervention we can treat them with a good survival chance (although long-term effects are a different matter).
What intrigues me most is my last paragraph: anti-vivisectionists have been saying that animals are not good analogues for humans. How much testing of these agents would the Russians have performed against humans, and how? A very glum aspect to consider.
This is probably the first Merseyside derby since October 2010 when Liverpool FC and the rest of the fanbase don't give a shite about.
Injuries and the fact we've got a QF second leg in the Champions League three days later means Klopp will be putting out a much changed team, so it might be worth putting your money on Everton to win.
However if the Liverpool reserves/kids take the lead/on course for victory then locals might start revolting and take it out on Big Sam.
You can get around 51/10 that Unibet are offering on a Bluenose getting sent off.
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/everton-v-liverpool/home-team-sending-off
Springtime for Hitler and all that....
But I don't think that was ever a possibility.
The devil is always in the details, and the media do not always report details at all, yet alone accurately.
Before Markov a man called Vladimir Kostov was attacked by the same means (ricin) and survived. Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived. Politkovskaya was poisoned years before she was shot. It took a couple of goes to get Litvinenko.
This "it can't have been the FSB, or they would be dead" is yet more Russian BS.
a) the Americans?
b) the Russians?
c) Neither?
... Why?
I agree that well over 4% will have noticed it, hopefully a lot more - although you and I posting on a politics blog notice this type of story for more than the average man or woman in the street.
Since you did not capitalise 'moon', then c) could be a correct answer. The Americans were first to 'the Moon'. 'the moon' could refer to any body orbiting another body, in which case the Russians had the first artificial 'moon' with Sputnik.
In addition, if you did mean 'the Moon', then the first to 'impact' on the Moon were the Russians, with the unmanned probe Luna 2 in 1959, a feat the US did not reproduce for five years. The first lander was also Russian; Luna 9 in 1966.
It's easy to forget that the Russians were way ahead in the space race until mid-1966 ...
We need some polls! (When everyone is back from Easter....)
EDIT: I don’t see the stories about murders in London damaging Sadiq Khan, either re your last post though. He’s pretty popular with those in London, as polling shows and seems to be a bit Teflon.
@Sandpit It’s the number #3 story this week but that 4% is significantly behind the percentages for both the Russia and London crime stories.
I know that re tweets, articles and that kind of thing the public at large are unlikely to notice. I was thinking of the coverage the story received on morning and evening news, as well as the newspapers. Although I’m beginning to think that newspapers aren’t that relevant anymore.
The simultaneous macho self-aggrandisement and protestations of innocence are fairly nauseating.
(Or start carrying something nastier than a screwdriver. Eeeek....)
"Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin but survived."
He was meant to survive, you don't use dioxins to kill someone. Acutely, it causes a condition called chloracne. On the face the skin gets lumpy and spotty - just the sort of thing to put off voters in a Presidential election. Nasty but not fatal.
The Russians don't kill people from spite, they do it to make a point. In the Salisbury case ... "No matter where you run, we will find you and punish you, even if your family are collateral damage."
Cui Bono? The Russians may have under-estimated the world reaction, but they made their point.
Let's face it, Jezza thinks Jihadi John should have been asked to go to the nearest police station so he could have a fair trial before we came to judgement.
Two Russians get poisoned and the West responds.
What's changed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis
May goes shopping in Wales.
Therefore in PB Toryland Jezza is Anti Semitic May aint
'they ate something wrong'
Not very inventive, but then anything would do for the useful idiots - they'd swallow anything.
But how about 'They must have eaten foods containing loads of organophosphate pesticides.' Nonsense and full of holes, but at least then, you'd know they were trying.
Report today is that Putin did not expect the response from the west and of course the US has hit his personal friends hard in the US today with freezing their assets and companies
Why not bring him back to PB?
The Skripals would have needed intubation and artificial ventilation. Hence "critical".
Blood samples with salmonella must have got contaminated with Nobichv at Porton Down.
The confusing part for those not paying attention might be the anti part, usually with things like discrimination you are supposed to be anti, so anti racist, anti sexist etc.
I still think the World Cup boycot might happen, if Russia tries anything else silly in the next couple of months it will certainly be on the table. Putin and FIFA, two birds, one stone.
However, that does not mean that they may perceive a wrong doing by some on the hard left and hard right
He either does not understand the meaning, or does not care. By saying the former I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt ...