Just thought that the forum was lacking a bit in controversy at the moment. TM. would have us believe that we do not produce the nerve agent which caused the poisoning in Salisbury, that we have never produced it, do not know how to, have never seen it before - yet are able to instantly identify it and where it comes from. Does she think we all came from a banana boat ? Apparently we are prepared to point the finger of accusation, together with an ultimatum, based on the assumption that a nerve agent first developed 40 years ago is still only obtainable from the country which invented it - a country which no longer exists (ie. the USSR) and in which many of these supplies were in non Russian Soviet republics which were more open to the Americans after they became independent. Based on no real evidence we have also put pressure on other countries to also point the finger at Russia. Not only that, but a criminal case which needs impartial research has now become a political issue - in which inspectors are being pressured into producing results which the government wants to hear. Based on the rantings of people like TM. and Bojo, who, apparently, have evidence (which they are not able to tell us) that Russia is guilty, the British media is marching to the same tune. Those few doubters - those who say 'wait until we know for certain', or, make the rather obvious observation that people (and governments) are innocent until proven guilty are howled down - as Corbyn was. Corbyn has stood head and shoulders above the rest of Westminster on this one.
Agreed... reminds me of the WOMD argument and the Iraq war etc etc Mind you ....... who else would have done this??? Interesting machinations too in the US where Trump says one thing and 60 diplomats still get the pish
We Joe Public are not likely to be told what evidence exists, or doesn't at present. The two who are still in hospital probably don't know much about it either if the agent that led to their condition was put into the car. But we don't know if that happened or not. We do know that Putin has threatened the lives of people that he feels have been disloyal to Russia which is totally unacceptable. Jail them yes, kill them no. To say that we have put pressure on other countries without having any evidence is pushing the belief a bit far. I cannot see more than 20 countries agreeing to take action without knowing some details. May shared the intelligence that she had with Merkel and Macron, and the two of them apparently convinced others in the EU to believe there was substance in the claims. Corbyn completely misjudged the situation in my opinion. His let's sit down and have a chat over tea and biscuits just seemed totally out of touch with the mood in Westminster. My immediate reaction was he has shot himself in the foot, and his current difficulties over antisemitism in the party seem to say that he really is a maverick rather than a mainstream party leader.
If May had shared the intelligence she had with Macron and Merkel but not with the leader of the opposition then this was out of order Frenchie. Corbyn reacted according to the information which had been given over in parliament, and it was a measured reaction. To make high level accusations and set ultimatums and demand that the prejudged prove their innocence is premature, to say the least. This was, and I believe still is, based only on circumstantial evidence. The question which is not raised is why Putin would order such a thing, and why using a material which points the finger directly at Moscow - as if to say publicly 'We still have chemical weapons' - it does not add up. Britain has built it's case around the origins of the nerve agent Novichok. That this can only come from Russia. We are talking about something which was produced 40 years ago - the main testing site was in Uzbekistan. After the breakup of the USSR the Russians did not have access to this site, but the Americans did - they dismantled it. It is a binary product, meaning it can be produced in any chemical laboratory anywhere, if you have the recipe. Britain needs more evidence than this, and the fact that the victim was Russian, before creating such a diplomatic crisis with direct accusations. If May has evidence which nobody else knows about, then she should produce it, or be ready with a face saving apology. Why has the Russian offer of help in identifying the substance been turned down ? Why were no samples sent there when they apparently know so much more about it than we do ? Why did Britain have to be pressurized into allowing international experts to examine it ?
It's pretty impressive that a country that apparently has zero influence across the world since June 2016 has managed to engineer the biggest expulsion of Russian diplomats in history. To do it, apparently, without a scintilla of evidence is truly masterful. I don't know whether we had the evidence or not but I do know the others didn't just do it to make Britain feel happy.
I wouldn't build anything on that Dan. A fair few countries believed the Iraq WMD myth as well. Apparently that was also on reliable evidence.
Of course - but when France and Germany support us under current circumstances - Christ even Ireland - then I do start to wonder.
Do you really think that any government would share this sort of information with the general public cologne? We place, often misplaced, our belief that our Parliament will act on our behalf. We do not know just how much information Corbyn had been given, but my reading of his performance was one of trying to be different, and it back fired in spectacular fashion. He is a member of the Privy Council, and would have more information than you or I, but he used it very badly. You cannot have people being murdered or poisoned and expect politicians to be all woolly and accommodating.
Frenchie, it is not the job of politicians to be pronouncing people as guilty, it is the job of judges. Britain would be better placing its reliance on the police finding out exactly who did the crime (unless it was suicide or accident), letting a judge pronounce him guilty, and then you may have a thread to Putin (or not). Until then you have nothing.
What we do have is regime that has history. What do you do? Sit back and say we will do nothing until we have had a cosy chat? The police will try and find the person who did it, but it depends very much on if that person is still in the country. Slip in and then out, and how is the person going to be brought in front of a judge? The information that has been shared has been enough to convince other nations around the world, so I think it must be strong enough to see the actions that we have.
Yes, Frenchie, Russia has a history - most of it is written by us ! Apparently Litvinenko was also killed by the Russian state - there is not a shread of evidence to support this, but our politicians say that this is so and that is enough. What we do know is that there are thousands of Russian billionaires in England, parking their money - and where there are rich Russians there is the Russian mafia. Rich Russians nearly always have a past they wish to hide, and ex spies would know a great deal about such things. Isn't this just as likely as an involvement of the Russian state ? But this avenue will probably not be followed if you can blame Russia from a distance, without them having any access to the evidence on the spot. Russia only has to sneeze and the World looks for demons. We see this time and time again - we threaten sport's boycotts because of their treatment of homosexuals (although they only brought in laws regarding propagation of it with minors which had been circulating in the internet). Actually they are more liberal on this than India is - and where is the criticism of India ? We threaten them over Crimea, having more or less surrounded them with NATO bases (contrary to promises made to Gorbachov) - and the Crimea was, apparently, an illegal occupation. Even though the majority in Crimea had voted to leave the Ukraine and there would have been bloodshed without the Russian occupation. If we can blame the Russians for something then we will. If (and it is a big if) May has anything more than supposition to go on then she should present it to the Russians in the form of evidence or withdraw gracefully (if she knows the meaning of the last word). The police can do their work a lot better without this being a political issue, with political pressures.
You amaze me cologne. Just where would the Russian mafia as you describe them get their hands on such a nerve agent? They would hardly pop down to Boots and ask for some. The rich Russians appear to be using London for money laundering, but the UK government is set on a course that welcomes them into the country. As you know by now I am very critical of this government for many reasons, including double standards, but reading the French press over the past few days I would be far more inclined to trust the western governments who believe that the evidence that they have seen points to the Russian state being heavily involved. Present the evidence we have to the Russians. Back to the tea and biscuits for a cosy chat. Bit like Chamberlain with his policy of appeasement in 1938, and we know how that failed.
It amazes me how often we are on the same page! Like you I rarely praise or support this Government but on this issue will not fault it right now. And let's be honest, Britain and France most certainly do not always see eye to eye where Russia is concerned - which reassures me all the more.
If the government is proved to be wrong at a later date, then their credibility will be lost all around the world. I doubt that they would have embarked on this course unless they were pretty sure they were on firm ground.
Too close in its vagueness to the September Dossier for me to think we have real grounds. That convinced a lot of people too. This man was a nasty character who was disliked by many people. It is quite possible this act was committed by a Russian - but Russia? It doesn’t smell right, this. Just as likely to be CIA, IMHO. It’s a dirty game, manipulation of the masses.
One programme I looked at talked about factions within the Russian Hierarchy..... having said that if it comes from Russia the state has a responsibility......
What a load of old tosh as usual. Lacking in controversy, so you come up with all the usual massive generalisations and throw away comments disguised as facts. Just as with Litvinenko, there was no smoking gun to start with, but the Police will investigate and determine if there are suspects to be questioned. But as with Litvinenko, if those suspects live in Russia, then I am sure the Russians will refuse to allow them to be questioned. Again in this you are wrong, they have suspects and they know where the radioactive material came from – you just do not walk down to Boots and pick this stuff up. Comrade Corbyn has been shown up this week to be exactly what he is, he hates the British Establishment so much that he will side with anyone, no matter how objectionable, if he thought he could get an advantage. That is why he and the rest of the Marxists and Trots in the Labour party hate Jews – because of their over representation in the British Establishment, they are another group to be trod over. Everything else you come up such as there being 1,000’s of Russian billionaires in London, to America’s involvement in the Russia nerve agent program is just nonsense – you should stay off of those conspiracy websites and focus on your carrots.
Referring to your last sentence, I suggest you either avoid personal insults or attempts to belittle people on your few visits here. Either that or don't bother at all.
There is so much I disagree with here, w_y. The Labour Party, and certainly Jeremy Corbyn, do not hate jews, that is myth put about because JC thought it was better to enter dialogue with extremists on both sides of the Middle East, than to unquestioningly support Israel’s treatment of Palestinians - the policy followed thus far by the US (but reported by our biased media as JC colluding with Palestinians ). Many, many members of the Labour Party are jewish, but they can differentiate between Israel and Jewish people (like most other members of the Labour Party, and those other people who don’t automatically believe what they are spoonfed by our media). I was speaking to a friend of mine at the weekend, she’s 84, and a jewish member of the Labour Party, and she was saying how appalled she was by Israel, particularly how they behave in ways similar to how Nazis behaved. She is a fan of JC, too, and obviously knows this supposed Labour anti-semitism is hogwash. I don’t like the idea of yours that jewish people being “over-represented” (eugh, I really don’t like that term, are they necessarily “representing” or do they just happen to be jewish?) is a bad thing. I don’t care what religion people are, and I don’t feel they do either. How would that phrase sound if we said black people were “over-represented” in some body? It’s gross. This idea of us being refused permission to speak to whomever we wish is skewed too. Go back to the 1980s, imagine the Soviet regime says agents acting for the British government had murdered people overseas (which we did, btw, in droves, more so than any regime worldwide, including KGB and CIA). Would you have expected Thatcher to give up whoever the Soviets named to be questioned by their agents? It would never have happened. I’m not saying the Russian government didn’t do this, but I’ll be damned if I automatically believe this unevidenced, jingoistic crap that Boris Johnson particularly, and Theresa May are coming out with. Even the all-hallowed BBC is trotting out the government line (cf how our media used to mock Pravda). It’s nice to have you back again, w_y, but please avoid the belittling of other posters as in your final words. It doesn’t suit you.
There is what seems to be an orchestrated media campaign against JC... funny how it has surfaced in such a 'co-ordinated' way at this time. The guy has never said anything anti-Semitic.
